See other formats

Full text of "Palace and mosque at Ukhaidir : a study in early Mohanmadan architecture"

§00 
SO) 

jo 










Presented to the 
library of the 

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 

by 



NORAH DE PENCIER 




Presented to the 
ubrary of the 

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 

h 



NORAH DE PENCIER 



PALACE AND MOSQUE 
AT UKHAIDIR 



OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK 
TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY 

HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A. 

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY 



PALACE AND MOSQUE 

AT 

UKHAIDIR 

A STUDY IN 

EARLY MOHAMMADAN ARCHITECTURE 

BY 
GERTRUDE LOWTHIAN BELL 



OXFORD 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 

1914 




a/ 



11164^1 



TO MY FRIEND 

DR. WALTHER ANDRAE 

IN GRATEFUL RECOLLECTION OF HAPPY AND PROFITABLE 

DAYS SPENT IN THE FIRST CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA 

WHICH HAS BEEN REVEALED BY HIS 

LABOUR AND RECREATED BY 

HIS LEARNING 



PREFACE 

I have attempted in this book to bring together the materials, so far as they 
are known, which bear upon the earliest phases of Mohammadan architecture, 
to consider the circumstances under which it arose and the roots from which 
it sprang. No development of civilization, or of the arts which serve and adorn 
civilization, has burst full-fledged from the forehead of the god ; and architecture, 
which is the first and most permanent of the arts, reflects with singular fidelity 
the history of its creators. Not only does their culture stand revealed in the 
crumbling walls which sheltered them and in the monuments raised for perpetual 
remembrance over their bones, but the links which bound them to that which had 
gone before are therein confessed, as well as their own contribution to the 
achievements of their predecessors, to mechanical skilfulness, to utility, and 
to beauty. It is the nature and the extent of this contribution which is of vital 
importance to the student, and it is this which lends to architecture its keenest 
significance. What, then, was the contribution of the first builders of Islam ? 

It must be confessed that the question admits of no very striking rejoinder. 
The Mohammadan invaders were essentially nomadic ; their dwelling was the 
black tent, their grave the desert sands. The inhabitants of the rare oases of 
western and central Arabia were content, as they are to-day, with a rude archi- 
tecture of sun-dried brick and palm-trunks, unadorned by any intricate device 
of the imagination, and unsuited to any but the simplest needs. Even the great 
national shrine at Mekkah, the sacred house of the Ka'bah, was innocent of sub- 
sidiary constructions. It is true that on the northern trade-route the rock-cut 
tombs of Madain Salih and of Petra bear witness to a higher order of artistic 
impulse, but it was an impulse which borrowed its power from without, from 
Hellenized Egypt and from Hellenized Syria. If there were an indigenous Arabian 
architecture worthy of the name, it can only have existed in the southern limits 
of the peninsula, where as yet exploration has been too imperfect to afford data 
for argument, nor is there evidence to show that in the seventh century of our 
era it can have played a part in the development of the northern tribes. Upon 
the northern frontiers the influence of the Byzantine and of the Sasanian empires 
would seem to have been predominant, and when the invaders established 
themselves in provinces which had been ruled from Constantinople or from 
Ctesiphon, they employed Greek and Persian artificers to fulfil their newly 
developed requirements and to satisfy their newly developed taste for architec- 
tural magnificence. The palaces of the conquerors were planned, constructed, 
and adorned by those whom they had conquered ; their learning and their 
civilization were borrowed from them ; even the ritual of their faith was shaped 



viii PREFACE 

by contact with older forms of worship. No more significant example of the 
debt which Islam owes to alien races can be cited than that which is afforded by 
the history of the mosque. Out of the mud-built courtyard of the Arab house, 
the open space for domestic and tribal assembly, Greek and Persian builders 
created an architectural type which governed the whole Mohammadan world. 
And the only contribution of the masters for whom they worked was the demand 
for just such large and open spaces, easily accessible, oriented in a certain 
manner, and partially shaded from the rays of the sun. 

It is therefore scarcely possible to say that a specifically Mohammadan art 
existed during the first century after the Flight, though its germs were latent 
in the welding together of Hellenized with un-Hellenized, or barely Hellenized, 
regions under a single hand. The architecture of the first century gives evidence 
of the formative character of this process of compression ; before the third 
century had ended it may be said to have been completed. If the monuments 
of the first century are still a faithful reflection of earlier and foreign creations, 
they hold the promise of further and more definitely characterized growth. 
But in an age and in lands where change was slow-footed, older conceptions 
continued to hold the field long after the political conditions under which they 
had arisen had vanished or had been baptized with other names. As we now 
know, the Mesopotamian palace builders of the ninth century of our era were 
guided by schemes which their Sasanian forerunners had inherited from remoter 
times ; while the mosque builders had advanced little beyond the plan laid down 
in the camp-cities of the conquest. But the interchange of workmen between 
East and West was continuous, the intercourse unbroken ; and from that inter- 
course, coupled with the needs of the age and the prejudices of the Faith, the 
arts of Islam were born. 

In the present study my eyes have been turned chiefly, and necessarily, back- 
wards. I have not been so much concerned with the offspring as with the 
parentage of the buildings which I have passed under review. Of these buildings 
the most important is the great palace of Ukhaidir on the eastern side of the 
Syrian desert. I have given, also, the first plans and photographs of three 
small ruins in its vicinity, Qsair, Mudjdah, and Atshan. If they do not belong 
to the same period as the palace, they cannot be far removed from it in date. 
The problems presented by Ukhaidir led me back to Sasanian architecture, and 
I publish here new plans and photographs of two vast constructions at Qasr-i- 
Shirin. I have, further, taken this occasion to publish the plans of two mosques, 
the one at Diyarbekr, the other at Mayafarqin, both of which belong to a later 
period. The first of these has been known to us only through a sketch made by 
Texier, which I found to be inaccurate in many significant points, as it is also 
incomplete. The second has not previously been studied. 

The palace of Ukhaidir was practically unknown until the winter of 1908-9, 
although it had been seen by European travellers as early as the seventeenth 



PREFACE ix 

century. Delia Valle passed by it in June 1625 on his way from Basrah to 
Aleppo, and described it as ' a great ancient fabric, perfectly square, with thirteen 
pilasters or round columns on each side without, and other compartments of 
arches ; within which were many chambers, with a court of no great bigness and 
uncovered. The Arabians call this fabric Casr Chaider. I could not conjecture 
whether it had been a palace or temple or castle ; but I incline to believe it 
a palace rather than anything else.' 1 Pedro Teixeira's account is doubtful. 
He says : 2 ' At eleven in the morning we came to a dry channel which in winter 
they say has much water, and I thought it likely by the nature of its situation 
and capaciousness. Over it, on a rising ground, is still an ancient square fort, 
with twelve bastions, three on each side, made of burnt brick and lime, strong 
and well built. Without it, at about sixty paces distance, is a small Alcoran, 
or Tower, ten cubits high, tho' it appears to have been higher, of the same 
structure, all decay' d with age ; yet it appears to be a royal fabrick by its good- 
ness and the place it stands in, where it could not be raised without mighty cost 
and much labour, and difficulty. It was done by an Arabian king, grandfather 
to Xeque Mahamed Eben Raxet, whom I said before I was carried to see, to 
secure the caravans going that way before the Turks possess'd themselves of 
Bagdat and Bazora. The Arabs call it Alcayzar or Kayzar, which signifies a 
palace or Cesar's House, for so they call all that belong to kings and princes. 
This they reckon the half-way from Bazora to Mexat Aly, whither we were 
going. We found some small wells in this channel, the water of them clear 
and fresh, but of an intolerable ill scent, yet necessity prevail'd.' The only 
item in this description which connects Teixeira's palace with Ukhaidir is the 
name. Teixeira reached Meshhed 'Ali (Nedjef) six days after he had passed by 
Alcayzar and he gives the situation of the palace as half-way between Basrah and 
Nedjef, whereas Ukhaidir lies to the north-west of Nedjef. There is no ' Alcoran ', 
i.e. minaret, at Ukhaidir, neither could the building be described, even by the 
least careful observer, as a square fort with three bastions on each side. I am 
therefore inclined to suppose that there is another ruin called Ukhaidir further to 
the south. We need not linger over the derivation which he assigns to the name. 
Scarcely more correct as to architectural features is Tavernier's allusion 
to Ukhaidir. There can, however, be no doubt that it is to Ukhaidir that he 
refers, by reason of the geographical position of his ' grand Palais '. Coming 
from Aleppo, he turned off at 'Anah into the desert and after some twenty days 
of journeying he observes : 3 ' Cinq jours apr£s que nous eumes quitte ces deux 
families Arabes, nous decouvrimes un grand Palais tout de brique cuite au feu ; 
et il y a de l'apparence que le pays a este - autrefois sem£, et que les 
fourneaux ou on a cuit cette brique ont este' chauffez avec du chaume : 

* Travels into East India and Arabia Deserta, 3 Les Six Voyages, t. i, liv. 2, ch. 3, p. 136, 
London, 1665, p. 263. Paris, 1681. 

* Travels from India to Italy by Land, London, 
1 710. 

ism b 



x PREFACE 

car a quinze ou vingt lieues a la ronde il n'y a pas une brossaille ni un brin de 
bois. Chaque brique est d'un demi-pied en quarre et epaisse de six pouces. 
II y a dans ce Palais trois grandes cours, et dans chacune de beaux bastimens 
avec deux rangs d'arcades qui sont l'un sur l'autre. Quoy que ce grand Palais 
soit encore entier, il est toutefois inhabite, et les Arabes fort ignorans de l'anti- 
quite ne me sceurent apprendre pour qui il a este basti, ny d'autres singularitez 
dont je m'informay, et dont j'aurois bien voulu qu'ils m'eussent instruit. Devant 
la porte de ce Palais il y a un etang accompagne d'un canal qui est a sec. 
Le fond du canal est de brique, de mesme que la voftte qui est a fleur de terre, et 
les Arabes croyent que c'a este un conduit par lequel on faisoit passer l'eau de 
l'Euphrate. Pour moy je ne scaurois qu'en juger, et ne puis comprendre comme 
on pouvoit faire venir de l'eau de si loin, l'Euphrate estant eloigne de ce lieu-la 
de plus de vingt lieues. De ce Palais nous tirames au nord est et apres une 
marche de quatre jours nous arrivames a un merchant bourg, autrefois nomme 
Cufa et a present Meched-Ali.' * 

The least inaccurate description of Ukhaidir is furnished by an anonymous 
Englishman, quoted by Niebuhr. 2 ' Ich habe ', says he, ' in dem Tagebuch eines 
Englanders, der von Haleb nach Basra gereiset war, gefunden, dass er 44 Stunden 
nach Osten von Het eine ganz verlassene Stadt in der Wiiste angetroffen habe, 
wovon die Mauer 50 Fuss hoch und 40 Fuss dick war. Jede der vier Seiten hatte 
700 Fuss, und in der Mauer waren Thiirme. In dieser Stadt, oder grossem Castell, 
findet man noch ein kleines Castell. Von eben dieser verlassenen Stadt horte ich 
nachher, dass sie von den Arabern el Khader genannt werde und um 10 bis 12 
Stunden von Meshed Ali entfernt sei. Sie ist ohne Zweifel gleichfalls wegen 
Mangel an Wasser verlassen worden : und da man hier gar keine Stadte oder 
Dorfer in der Nahe findet, so ist dies wohl die Ursache, dass man davon nicht alle 
brauchbare Steine weggebracht hat, wie von Kufa und Basra, wo fast nichts 
mehr ubrig ist.' In the same volume (p. 236) Niebuhr gives the route from Basrah 
to Aleppo through the desert and mentions therein Ukhaidir under the name 
of el Chader, remarking that it is the castle to which the Englishman referred. 
This Englishman I conjecture to have been Mr. Carmichael, whose route is shown 
in a map published by Ives, 3 and there called ' the common route of the caravans 
from Aleppo to Bassora over the great desert of Arabia, as described in a journal 
kept by Mr. Carmichael in the year 1751 '. Ukhaidir appears upon it as ' Alkader, 
the ruins of a most magnificent building ' . 

Major John Taylor saw it in June 1790 and dismissed it with short shrift. 4 
He too was following the desert road from Aleppo to Basrah. On leaving 
Shethatha he says : ' The camels being loaded at half past 6 this morning, we 
set forward over a barren flat desert. We crossed the bed of a river and at 

1 M. Saladin quotes Tavernier's words in 3 Journey from India to Persia, London, 1773. 
L' Architecture Musulmane, p. 327. * Travels from England to India, vol. i, 

2 Reisebeschreibung, vol. ii, p, 225, note. p. 243, London, 1779. 



PREFACE xi 

II a.m. we passed to our left the ruins of a small square fort, distant about half 
a mile, which the Arabs call Ula Kayder.' 

Ritter 1 gives a summary of all these notices by early travellers, including 
that of Teixeira, which he accepts unquestioned, in spite of the fact that Teixeira's 
palace lies, according to his own account, at least seven days' journey to the 
south of the site of Ukhaidir. 

M. Massignon was, however, the first to make any record of Ukhaidir. His 
preliminary notes, together with a plan and some photographs, were published 
in the Bulletin de I'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres of March 1909, 
and in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts of April 1909. The next visitor to the palace 
was myself. I left Aleppo in February 1909 and reached Ukhaidir on March 25, 
travelling by the east bank of the Euphrates and across the desert from Hit 
via Kubaisah and Shethatha. I had no knowledge of M. Massignon's journey, 
neither did the Arabs, who were at that time inhabiting the place, give me any 
information concerning him. I did not hear of his discovery until I reached 
Constantinople in the following July. M. Massignon followed up his observations 
with the first volume of his Mission enMisopotamie (published in 1910), which 
was concerned chiefly with Ukhaidir. I, in the meantime, had published a paper 
on the vaulting system of the palace in the Journal of Hellenic Studies for 
1910 (p. 69), and I gave a more detailed account of the building in the following 
year (Amurath to Amurath, p. 140). I returned to the site in March 1911, in 
order to correct my plans and to take measurements for elevations and sections. 
Going thence to Babylon, I found that some of the members of the Deutsche 
Orient-Gesellschaft who were engaged upon the excavations there had been to 
Ukhaidir during the two years of my absence and were preparing a book 
upon it. They were so kind as to show me their drawings while I was at 
Babylon, and I had the advantage of discussing with them my conjectures and 
difficulties, and the satisfaction of finding that we were in agreement on all 
important points. Their book appeared in 1912 (Dr. Reuther, Ocheidir, published 
by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft), and is referred to frequently in this volume. 
For their generosity in allowing me to use some of their architectural drawings, 
I tender my grateful thanks, together with my respectful admiration for their 
masterly production. 

I feel, indeed, that I must apologize for venturing to offer a second version of 
the features of a building which has been excellently described and portrayed 
already. But my excuse must be that my work, which was almost completed 
when the German volume came out, covers not only the ground traversed by 
my learned friends in Babylon, but also ground which they had neither leisure 
nor opportunity to explore ; and, further, that I believe the time has come for 
a comparative study of the data collected by myself and others, such as is 
contained in this book. 

1 Erdkunde, vol. xi, pp. 956, 1039. 
b 2 



arii PREFACE 

I must also thank M. Dieulafoy, M. de Morgan, Professor Strzygowski, 
Professor Sarre, Dr. Herzfeld, Professor Briinnow, Professor Haverfield, 
M. Velazquez Bosco, the Director of the Imperial Museums in Berlin, the 
Council of the K. Akademie of Vienna, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, 
and Messrs. Holman, Macmillan, Gebhardt and Bruckmann, for permitting me 
to reproduce plans, drawings, and photographs prepared or published by them. 
I have in every case acknowledged my indebtedness in the text of this book. 
Dr. Moritz and Professor Littmann have been so kind as to give me their views 
on the graffito in the palace, and their suggestions as to its deciphering. Finally 
I should like to thank the Clarendon Press for the care which has been expended 
upon the publication of my work, and Sir Charles Lyall for the help which he 
has given me in revising the proofs. 

With this I must take leave of a field of study which formed for four years my 

principal occupation, as well as my chief delight. A subject so enchanting and 

so suggestive as the palace of Ukhaidir is not likely to present itself more than 

once in a lifetime, and as I bring this page to a close I call to mind the amazement 

with which I first gazed upon its formidable walls ; the romance of my first 

sojourn within its precincts ; the pleasure, undiminished by familiarity, of my 

return ; and the regret with which I sent back across the sun-drenched plain 

a last greeting to its distant presence. The unknown prince at whose bidding 

its solitary magnificence rose out of the desert, the unknown lords who dwelt in 

its courts, cannot at the time of its full splendour have gloried and rejoiced 

in their handiwork and their inheritance more than I who have known it only in 

decay ; and, in the spirit, I part from it now with as much unwillingness as that 

which I experienced when I withdrew, further and further, from its actual 

protection. 

GERTRUDE LOWTHIAN BELL. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. UKHAIDIR ..... i 

II. QSAIR, MUDJDAH, AND 'ATSHAN . .38 

III. QASR-I-SHiRtN 44 

IV. GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE . 55 
V. THE FACADE ..... 122 

VI. THE MOSQUE . .145 

VII. THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR. . . .161 

SUBJECT INDEX. . . ... 169 

INDEX OF NAMES 173 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURES IN THE TEXT 

FIG. PAGE 

i. Ukhaidir, north wall of palace, showing original SCHEME . II 

2. Ukhaidir, arch construction . . . . 12 

3. Ukhaidir, arch construction . . . 15 

4. Ukhaidik, south side of court b . . . 31 

5. ZlNDJIRLI . . . . . .6l 

6. Pasargadae ...... 62 

7. Persepolis, Apadana of Xerxes . . . -63 

8. Persepolis, palace of Darius .... 64 

9. Parthian palace at Niffer . . . .66 

10. Hatra palace . .... 67 

11. Relief from Quyundjik . . • -77 

12. Modern Tarmah houses .... 83 

13. BalkuwAra . . . . . -85 

14. Scheme of Pompeiian house • . . 87 

15. Priene, house 33 . • • . .88 

16. Priene, house 24 . • . • • 88 
17- Palace at Pergamon . • • • .89 

18. Small palace at Hatra . • . • 91 

19. Ctesiphon . ■ • • -95 

20. Karkh . . • . • . .95 

21. Roman fort at Housesteads • • . -99 

22. Odhruh ...... 100 

23. Ledjdjun • . • .101 

24. Da'djaniyveh ..... 102 

25. Bshair ...... 104 

26. Qastal ...... 105 



xvi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIG. PAGE 

27. Lagash ...... 107 

28. TlJBAH . . . • . . . II3 

29. Kharaneh • • .114 

30. Petra, the storied tomb • • . .129 

31. Hatra, facade of palace reconstructed . . 1 38 

32. Mosque at Raqqah . • • .154 

33. Mosque of Abu Dulaf . . • • . 155 

34. Assyrian fortress . . • • . 157 

35. Ukhaidir, graffito in room 44 • • • -163 



MAPS 



1. Syria and Mesopotamia 

2. Ukhaidir, map of site 



at end 



PLATES {at end) 

1. Ukhaidir, ground-plan. 

2. Ukhaidir, ground-plan of interior buildings. 

3. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, first floor of palace. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, second floor of palace. 

4. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, Section a-b. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, Section c-d. 

5. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, Section e-f. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, Section g-h. Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, 

The Hammam. Fig. 4. Qsair. 

6. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir from north-east. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, central court, from south. 

7. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south-east angle of palace yard. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, north-east corner. 

8. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south-west corner. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, detail of tower chamber. 

Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, decoration on north wall. 

9. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south gate, interior. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, south gate, exterior. 

10. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, chemin de ronde of east wall, looking north. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, north 

facade, showing loopholes of chemin de ronde. 

11. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, north facade. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, north gate. 

12. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, room 1, looking north. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 88, south-west end 

of vault. 

13. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, room 4, north-east portion of dome. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 4, south- 

west portion of dome. 

14. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, great hall, looking south. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, vault of great hall, 

looking south. 

15. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, great hall, west side. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, great hall, door of south-west 

stair. 

16. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, great hall, looking north. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, vault of south-west stair 

out of great hall. 

17. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, corridor 5, looking west. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, north end of corridor 20. 

18. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south wall of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, mihrab. 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xvii 

19. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, east side of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, east side of mosque, north end. 

20. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south-east angle of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of 

mosque. 

21. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, door of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, north end of gallery 108. 

22. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, north-east angle of court a. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, corridors 28 and 102 

from corridor 100. 

23. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, court h, north side, and north wall of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, 

second story, rooms 119, 120, and 121, from east. 

24. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, second story, rooms to south and east of court. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, 

second story, showing doors of 132, 137, and 117. 

25. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, gallery 134. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, squinch in north-west angle of 

gallery 134. 

26. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, north-west angle of central court. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, east door and 

south-east end of central court. 

27. Ukhaidir, central court, east side of north facade. 

28. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south-east angle of central court. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, fluted semi- 

dome, south-east angle of central court. 

29. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, room 29 and south side of central court. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, south 

side of central court, showing door of room 31. Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, south side of 
central court, door into room 42. 

30. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, vault of room 31. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 31, showing decoration in 

top of vault. 

31. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south wall, east end, of room 32. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 40 from 

room 30. Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of passage 36. 

32. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, room 33, north-west column. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, groin in north- 

east angle of corridor 28. 

33. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, court b, north-west angle. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, court b, eastern half 

of north facade. Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, court c, north-west angle. Fig. 4. Ukhaidir, 
court c, eastern half of north facade. 

34. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south door of room 44. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, south doors of room 45. 

35. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south side of court b. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of court h. 

Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, west end of No. 78. 

36. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, door between rooms 44 and 45 from room 44. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, 

court c, south door of room 55. 

37. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, door from court c into palace yard. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, south-west 

corner of court e. Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, south side of court h. 

38. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, from south-east corner of chemin de ronde. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, from 

east gate. 

39. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of court g. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, east annex, north-east 

end. Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, east annex, from north. 

40. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, remains of stair. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 140. 

41. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, room 141, north-west corner of groin. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, east annex, 

from south. 

42. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, east annex from south, showing door of room 141. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, 

north annex, showing rooL Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, north annex, detail of roof. 

43. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, north annex, from north gate. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, from north. 

44. Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, north annex, from west. Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, from north-west. 



xviii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

45. Fig. 1. Qsair, interior, showing apse. Fig. 2. Qsair, detail of apse. Fig. 3. Qsair, 

exterior from south. 

46. Fig. 1. Mudjdah. Fig. 2. 'Atshan. 

47. Fig. 1. Mudjdah. Fig. 2. Mudjdah. Fig. 3. Mudjdah, detail of lower niches. 

48. Fig. 1. Tauq, minaret. Fig. 2. 'Atshan, from north-east. 

49. Fig. 1. 'Atshan, north gate, exterior. Fig. 2. 'Atshan, north gate, interior. 

50. Fig. 1. 'Atshan, rooms 2, 3, and 5, from north. Fig. 2. 'Atshan, rooms 5 and 8, from 

north. 

51. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, corridor 103, east side. Fig. 2. 'Atshan, west door of 

room 6, from west. 

52. Fig. 1. 'Atshan, room 8, from west. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, vault of room 71. 

53. Qasr-i-Shirin, palace of Khusrau, upper level. 

54. Qasr-i-Shirin, palace of Khusrau, lower level. 

55. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, east end of hall 3. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, west end of 

hall 3. 

56. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, vaulted ramp in corridor 12. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, 

court m, south antechamber, showing door leading into corridor 42. 

57. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, south-west corner of court m, showing corridor 42. Fig. 2. 

Palace of Khusrau, east side of courts o and q. 

58. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, west side of courts q and s. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, 

south-west corner of court s. 

59. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, vault of room 73. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, corridor 43, 

looking west. 

60. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, court v, looking west. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, 

gateway between courts u and v, west arch. 

61. Palace of Khusrau, gateway between courts u and v, south-east angle of room 82. 

62. Palace of Khusrau, court w, with rooms 97 and 98. 

63. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, eastern double ramp. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, north 

buildings. 

64. Qasr-i-Shirin, Chehar Qapu. 

65. Fig. 1. Chehar Qapu, interior of east gate. Fig. 2. Chehar Qapu, niche in room 8. 

Fig. 3. Chehar Qapu, squinch in room 6. 

66. Fig. 1. Chehar Qapu, niche in room 6. Fig. 2. Chehar Qapu, squinch in room 14. 

67. Chehar Qapu, court d and hall 54, from east. 

68. Fig. 1. Chehar Qapu, vault of room 31. Fig. 2. Chehar Qapu, squinch in room 39. 

69. Fig. 1. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, south-east corner. Fig. 2. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, 

squinch in south-west corner. 

70. Fig. 1. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, exterior of south door. Fig. 2. Chehar Qapu, hall 

54, interior of south door. 

71. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, from south. 

72. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, from west. 

73. Fig. 1. Qasr-i-Shirin, Qal'a-i-Khusrau. Fig. 2. Firuzabad. 

74. Fig. 1. Sarvistan, small domed chamber. Fig. 2. Hatra, oversailing vault in main 

palace. 

75. Fig. 1. Kerkuk, Mar Tahmasgerd. Fig. 2. Hatra, vaulted passage in so-called 

temple. 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xix 

76. Sarvistan. 

77. Sargon's Palace at Khorsabad. 

78. Fig. 1. Gate at Khorsabad. Fig. 2. Dumair. 

79. Fig. 1. Kharaneh. Fig. 2. Kharaneh, gateway. 

80. Fig. 1. Kharaneh, interior of court. Fig. 2. Kharaneh, interior of audience hall. 

81. Mshatta. 

82. Fig. 1. Petra, Corinthian tomb. Fig. 2. Petra, al-Dair. 

83. Ctesiphon. 

84. Fig. 1. Doorway of mosque, Hasan Kaif. Fig. 2. Gateway of mosque, Harran. 

Fig. 3. Mayafarqin, north facade of mosque. 

85. Ukhaidir, reconstructed north facade of central court. 

86. Fig. 1. Parthian decoration, Assur. Fig. 2. Sasanian silver dish (Hermitage, 

St. Petersburg, No. 2969). 

87. Details of decoration from Medinat al-Zahra. 

88. Fig. 1. Djebel Sindjar, khan. Fig. 2. Hasan Kaif, mosque. 

89. Fig. 1. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Tulun. Fig. 2. Mosque of Abu Dulaf. 

90. Diyarbekr, Ulu Djami'. 

91. Fig. 1. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Tulun. Fig. 2. Samarra, mosque. 

92. Mosque of Salah al-Din, Mayafarqin. 

93. Fig. 1. Diyarbekr, mosque, fragment of old wall. Fig. 2. Mayafarqin, mosque. 



CHAPTER I 

UKHAIDIR 

The fortified palace of Ukhaidir stands in the desert about three hours' 
journey to the south-east of the oasis of Shethatha and some seven hours' south- 
west of Kerbela. Its exact site has been fixed by Sir William Willcocks's survey 
and it is upon his map that mine is based (Map i). Ukhaidir is not far from 
the south-west end of the low ground which Sir William Willcocks has called 
the Habbaniyyeh depression. The southern part of this depression covers an 
area of 146 square kilometres at a level of 46 metres above the Persian Gulf ; x 
at its lower end it still contains a lake of brackish water, the lake of Abu Dibs, 
the water-level of which is 19 metres above the Persian Gulf. The northern 
part is occupied by the Habbaniyyeh Lake. That the whole area was once filled 
with escape water from the Euphrates is shown by the fact that it is covered 
at a level of 25 metres above the Persian Gulf by a thick belt of Euphrates shells ; 
at this level it extends over an area of 1,200 square kilometres. The oases of 
Rahhaliyyeh and Shethatha are situated upon the edge of this ancient reservoir. 
Between Shethatha and Ukhaidir a shallow valley, the Wadi al-Ubaid, makes its 
way up from the south-west to the lake of Abu Dibs. I have been told that 
after heavy winter rain a stream has been known to flow down the ghadir, the 
water-course, which winds through the sand and stones of the valley bed. 
Whether this be true or no, a well of good sweet water exists in the Wadi al-Ubaid, 
fed, in all probability, by a spring, like the famous water of Muhaiwir in the 
Wadi Hauran, or the wells of 'Asileh in the Wadi Burdan. At no other point in 
the immediate vicinity of Ukhaidir is fresh water to be obtained ; whether you 
dig within the palace walls, or without, the water, if water there be, is brackish 
and unfit to drink. To the north of the Wadi al-Ubaid the ground opposite 
Ukhaidir, sloping gradually down to the Habbaniyyeh depression, is inter- 
sected by gulleys, narrow and steep, cutting through hillocks of gypsum, and 
among these hillocks is the small ruin which the Arabs call Qsair. Here, I take 
it, the gypsum was obtained for the mortar which binds the masonry of the 
palace, and its good qualities are attested by the excellent preservation of wall 
and vault until this day. I have not visited the quarries, but the Arabs told me 
that the stone had been brought from a distance of about an hour to the south 
of Ukhaidir, where there are traces of working ' taht al-ard ', below the ground — 
not in a hill-side. Near the quarries there is said to be a well of good but not 

1 The height above sea-level is Sir W. Will- observations on the Persian Gulf. Sir W. Will- 

cocks's reduced level, arrived at by his own cocks. The Irrigation of Mesopotamia, p. 15, Plate 2. 

uso B 



2 UKHAIDIR 

abundant water ; Shakhariz is the name of the well. It is built of stone. Behind 
it, some three hours' journey from Ukhaidir, there is a low line of hills, the 
Djebel Daba'. From the castle walls the long levels of the desert spread out 
invitingly to the hills, and I would gladly have gone thither, but I had not time 
to spare during either of my visits. Ukhaidir does not reckon security among 
its many charms. The plentiful sweet water of the well in the Wadi al-Ubaid 
makes it a trysting-place for raiding parties, and after four or five days' sojourn 
it is best to be gone, lest the news that a foreigner is lodged within the palace 
walls should run too temptingly among the tribes. In 1911, the date of my last 
visit, I came to Ukhaidir from Shethatha, having ridden straight across the desert 
from Ramadi, skirting the Habbaniyyeh Lake and the east side of the Habbaniy- 
yeh depression. When I left I did not follow the usual way, by Abu Dibs to 
Kerbela, but rode almost due east, to the foot of a cliff of sand and rock, which 
is the western limit of a flat desert plateau that stretches eastward to the Hin- 
diyyeh. An abrupt rise of this nature is called in colloquial Arabic a tar. 1 
From Ukhaidir the ground dropped gradually. After two hours' riding (about 
six miles) we reached the khabra of Wizikh. A khabra is a hollow bottom 
where rain water lies and stagnates till it evaporates. The khabra of Wizikh, 
which was dry and sandy, appeared to stretch along the foot of the tar, north- 
ward to Abu Dibs, and also southwards. My Arab guide, a sheikh of the 
Zaqarit, which is a sub- tribe of the Shammar, informed me that there were 
wells of brackish water in the khabra further to the south, the Biyar Slam. 
The khabra was about a fifth of a mile wide. At the further side we rode up 
the sandy gulleys of the tar and in ten minutes reached a well, the Bir Sbai'i, 
the water of which was brackish but drinkable. From here to the Hindiyyeh 
there is no water of any kind. Another ten minutes brought us to the summit 
of the tar, whence we could see Ukhaidir on the one hand and the tower of 
Mudjdah on the other. The bearings here were as follows : Ukhaidir (south- 
east angle of the castle) 300 , Mudjdah 97 , central point of the Djebel Daba' 
244 . Mudjdah is a solitary tower without any provision for the storage of 
water, or any ruins round it. I think it can have served no other purpose than 
that of a landmark on the line of the caravan track, which must have passed this 
way from the great city of Kufah to the oasis of Shethatha, or 'Ain al-Tamr, 
to give it its earlier name. From the top of the tar to the modern Kerbela- 
Nedjef road the desert is absolutely flat and featureless, and we ourselves came 
near to losing our way across it. The existence of a former caravan track 
across this waste is assured by the ruined khan of 'Atshan, half-way between 
Mudjdah and the modern Khan Hamad. 

Such are the characteristics of the country round Ukhaidir. The tar, 

1 Professor Musil, early in 1912, visited Proceedings of the K. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien, 

Ukhaidir and continued his journey south, No. 1, 1913, p. 10. 

parallel with the tar which he names tar al-Seihed. 



UKHAIDIR 3 

standing over the low ground of the khabra, bounds the view to the east ; to 
the north-east, across the Wadi al-Ubaid, the gypsum hillocks lead down to the 
Habbaniyyeh depression ; to the north-west a few shallow desert wadis cross 
the path to Shethatha ; to south and west stretches the immense expanse of 
the Syrian desert, broken only by the small group of the Djebel Daba'. It is, 
however, by no means certain that in the seventh and eighth centuries, that is 
to say, at the period during which it is probable that the palace was built, the 
local conditions were the same as they are at present. It is indeed likely that the 
Habbaniyyeh depression contained at that time more water than it does now, 
that the lake of Abu Dibs stretched across a considerable part of it, and that 
its margin approached nearer to Ukhaidir. The scrub and reed round the edge 
of the lake would have given cover for water fowl, for boar and other wild 
animals, and the lords of Ukhaidir, when they went out to the chase, would 
have had an ample supply of game. Moreover the oasis of Shethatha was 
certainly a more important place then than it is at present, for all its 160,000 
palm-trees. 1 There can be no doubt that it occupies the site of 'Ain al-Tamr, 
famous in the days of the Persian kings 2 — that same oasis which Khalid ibn al- 
Walid took and sacked in the year a.h. 12. It is my belief that the Moham- 
madan invasion did not diminish its importance, and in proof I would adduce 
the evidence afforded by the khan of 'Atshan and the landmark tower of Mudjdah, 
showing that from Kufah to 'Ain al-Tamr there must have been a direct 
caravan road across the desert. Muqaddasi, writing in the year a.d. 985, 
describes 'Ain al-Tamr as a little castle; 3 Yaqut, who mentions the name 
Shefatha as part of 'Ain al-Tamr, praises its dry dates above those of other 
towns, 4 and to this day they maintain that honourable pre-eminence. Ukhaidir, 
then, with the marshy haunts of game a mile or two from its gates, and a much- 
frequented oasis three hours to the north, presented in the eighth century 
advantages which it no longer enjoys now that the waters have retreated to the 
confines of the modern Abu Dibs, and the traffic of Shethatha has shrunk to 
an occasional small caravan of merchant and citizen passing along the Kerbela 
track, or the visit of a ragged crew of Beduin date-buyers. Yet it is difficult 
to conjure up any picture but that of isolation when, after a weary struggle 
through sand or marsh, according to the season, the gaunt walls and towers 

1 When I was there in March 191 1 many of days. When I passed I saw each abandoned 

the palm-trees had been killed, and the rest camping ground of the Bani Hasan marked by 

severely damaged by the snow which had fallen a ring of dead animals, donkeys, sheep, and goats, 

in January and February. In the memory of which had perished in the unwonted cold. 
no living man had snow fallen in Shethatha, and * Ibn al-Athlr, ed. Tornberg, vol. ix, p. 423, 

the inhabitants, when they woke to find the ground ' Shefatha w'al 'ain.' Shethatha is a colloquial 

covered with white, were at a loss to know what corruption for Shefatha, and the official maps 

the strange substance could be. Some took it to still spell it in the latter fashion. 
be flour. Snow fell as far south as Nedjef, and s Ed. de Goeje, p. 117. 

in the desert round 'Atshan, between Ukhaidir 4 Ed. Wiistenfeld, vol. iii, p. 759. 

and the Kerbela-Nedjef road, it lay for some 

B 2 



4 UKHAIDIR 

of the palace rear themselves out of the solitudes of the desert — in all that 
barren waste sole vestige of mortal energy, of the fleeting splendour of mankind. 
(Plate 6, Fig. i). 

The palace consists of a quadrangular area bounded by a wall which measures 
163-60 metres from east to west, and 175-80 metres from north to south (Map 2). 
It is almost exactly oriented. The wall is provided with round towers, pro- 
jecting 2-70 metres from its face, and with a gate in the centre of each side. 
At the north-west angle, at a distance of 13-25 metres from the palace wall, 
a building consisting of fifteen vaulted rooms runs out due north. It has 
a length of 81-20 metres and a width of 11-45 metres. To the west of the 
six southerly chambers lies a rectangular court, 35-20 metres from north to 
south and 25-80 metres from east to west, with round towers like those of the 
main palace, projecting 2 75 metres. North-east of the palace there is a small 
irregularly-shaped building, known to the Arabs as the Hammam, the bath. 
Its greatest length is 12-90 metres and its greatest width, including the rect- 
angular buttresses, 8-65 metres. With the exception of the Hammam, these 
edifices have been enclosed by a second stone wall, but this wall cannot have 
been a considerable structure, for at the only point where its width can be 
determined, north of the palace, it is but 1 metre thick. Its present aspect is 
that of a low mound of sand, and in places even this mound is by no means 
clearly to be traced. Owing to the very fragmentary character of the northern 
line of the outer wall, it is not possible to fix the position of the north gate, 
though there can be little doubt that a gate existed opposite the north gate of 
the palace, at a distance of about seventy paces from it. South of the Hammam 
the wall is easier to make out. It runs parallel to the east wall of the palace, 
and is broken by a gateway opposite the eastern palace gate. At intervals 
large heaps of stones seem to indicate the presence of towers. Two hundred and 
thirty paces to the south of the palace, this outer towered wall turns to the 
west and runs parallel to the south wall of the palace. Traces of a gate can 
be seen opposite the south gate of the palace. From the south-west angle of 
the palace wall a second low sandy mound runs down to join the outer wall, 
and immediately to the west of this division wall there had been another gate 
in the outer wall, which then ran on westward for two hundred paces. The west 
wall is not exactly parallel to the palace ; it was broken by a gate opposite the 
west gate of the palace. The north-west angle of the outer wall is very nearly 
obliterated. It turns off eastward almost at right angles and joins an inner 
dividing wall which comes up from a point about twenty paces west of the 
north-west tower of the palace, and seems to have been connected with that 
tower by a cross- wall. At the point of junction between this dividing wall 
and the outer wall, a mound runs out north-west for a great distance into the 
desert. I did not follow it, but from the top of the palace its course can be 
traced for more than a mile. The northern outer wall then turns slightly to 



UKHAIDIR 5 

the south of east and passes close to the south-east corner of the detached 
northern building, beyond which point it is almost obliterated. Between the 
Hammam and the north-east angle of the outer wall there are some low sandy 
mounds wherein the Arabs say that they have dug and found brackish water. 

When I first visited Ukhaidir in March 1909 it was occupied by Arabs from 
Djof in Nedjd who were anxious to establish themselves there permanently. 
To this end they wished to receive official recognition from the Government, 
and they proposed to earn a livelihood by supplying Baghdad with camels 
bought from the tribes of the Syrian and Arabian deserts. When I returned 
in 191 1 they were gone, and Sheikh Sukhail, of the Zaqarit, who was camped under 
the walls, could give me no account of their departure, except that it had taken 
place some months previously. Possibly they found Ukhaidir an unsatisfactory 
centre for commercial enterprise, and there can be no question but that their 
project would have been ill looked upon by the Beduin, who regard the sweet 
waters of the Wadi al-Ubaid as their peculiar property. Whatever may have 
driven them forth, the Djofiyin had left no memorial of their residence save heaps 
of filth and refuse in the halls and courts of the palace, new stonework round the 
well in the Wadi al-Ubaid, a meagre plantation of half- withered palm-shoots close 
by it, and evidences of an equally unsuccessful attempt to establish a few 
palm-trees within the palace walls near the west gate, where there is a small 
deep well of brackish water. And we, finding Ukhaidir untenanted, took 
possession of it and pitched our tents in the central court. 

The towered wall of the palace encloses a yard and a quadrangular block of 
building which covers an area measuring 111-40 metres from north to south and 
6850 metres from east to west (Plate 1). On three sides of this block, rounded 
towers project 1-75 metres from the face of the wall, while the north side is con- 
nected with the main wall. The northern part of the building is three stories 
high, the upper story being on a level with the chemin de ronde which runs 
round the main wall. The rest of the building, 7395 metres from north to 
south, is one story high. The palace yard runs round three sides of the building. 
To the west and south it is unoccupied by any structure ; north of the west 
gate lies a well of brackish water, and it was there that the Djofiyin had planted 
their palm-shoots. This well I believe to be modern ; it bears no mark of 
antiquity. To the east, north of the east gate, the yard is blocked by an edifice, 
a single story high, the chambers of which are numbered on the plan 140-152. 
It is a later addition, as will be seen, to the original scheme of the palace. 

The main wall consists of a core of masonry 2 60 metres thick, rising about 
10 metres above the present level of the ground (section e-f, Plate 5, Fig. 1). 
It is difficult to get absolutely accurate measurements of height as the surface- 
level varies slightly according to the depth of ruin strewn over it. Blind arcades 
on the interior and on the exterior carry the chemin de ronde. On the interior, 
pilasters 1 metre deep are united by arches very slightly pointed (Plate 7, 



6 UKHAIDIR 

Fig. i). The pilasters are without capital or impost, the arches springing directly 
from them. The arches rise to a height of 8-50 metres, and their span averages 
on the east wall a little under 3-85 metres, while the width of the pilasters aver- 
ages 1-55 metres. The arches are composed of two rings of stone voussoirs, the 
inner ring laid vertically ; i. e. with the broadside showing, the outer ring laid 
horizontally, with the narrow end showing. Dr. Reuther notices that in some 
instances the horizontal outer ring is lacking. The walls and pilasters, like all 
the walls of Ukhaidir, are built of thin irregular slabs of stone, very roughly 
coursed, with a binding course laid through them at intervals. In or above the 
binding courses are holes for wooden beams. There are four such holes in each 
pilaster and one in the spandrel between the arches. In the back wall of each 
arcade there are three holes up the centre, and two level with the springing of 
the arch. Similar holes for beams occur in all the walls of Ukhaidir. At a height 
of 1-50 metres above the level of the arches, the wall is set back -40 metre and 
broken by windows, n-8o metres above the ground, and i-8o metres above the 
floor of the chemin de ronde. As the authors of Oche'idir have observed, these 
windows cannot have served any purpose of defence, since they are so high 
above the floor. There was thus no means of attacking from the wall a foe 
who had penetrated into the palace yard. Between each pair of windows, 
shallow pilasters, corresponding to the pilasters below, are carried up to the top 
of the wall. There are holes for beams between the window arches on wall and 
pilaster, and also directly above, along the top of the wall. On the exterior 
there is again a blind arcade 1 metre deep, consisting of two round arches between 
each tower (Plate 7, Fig. 2). The towers have a projection of 275 metres beyond 
the face of the arcade. The exterior arches bear no relation to the arches of the 
interior arcade. Two arches, with an average span of 3-85 metres, separated by a 
pilaster 160 metres wide, stand between each of the piers, 4- 10 metres wide, against 
which the three-quarter round towers are placed. There are five of these towers 
between gateway and angle tower. They have a diameter of 3-30 metres, whereas 
the angle towers have a diameter of 5-10 metres. The holes for beams appear as 
on the inner side of the wall, but they do not correspond with the interior holes. 
As in the interior arcade, the outer arches are slightly pointed and spring directly 
from the pilasters. The top of the exterior arches is -30 metre above the level 
of the floor of the chemin de ronde. The chemin de ronde does not occupy the 
whole width of the core of the wall (Plate 3, Fig. 2). The passage is 1-90 metres 
wide. On the inner side, the wall is 1 metre thick and broken by the above- 
mentioned windows looking into the yard ; on the outer side there is a series of 
recesses covered by ovoid arches. Each recess, 1-45 metres wide and -40 metre 
deep, contains either a loophole window or a door. The loopholes, of which 
there are four between each tower, open on to the exterior of the palace and 
command a wide view of the desert. They are -65 metre wide on the inside and 
narrow outwards to -20 metre. On the inside they are covered by a lintel with 



UKHAIDIR 7 

an arched niche above it, on the outside they have a triangular head with a 
single upright stone placed within it, supporting the side stones of the triangle, 
and a small inverted triangular aperture above (Plate 8, Fig. 3 and Plate 10, 
Fig. 2). Each window recess is machicolated, there being an interval of -20 
metre between the outer edge of the floor of the recess (which corresponds with 
the outer face of the core of the wall) and the inner side of the arches of the 
exterior arcade. Through this gap an enemy standing at the foot of the wall 
could be attacked. Every fifth recess contains a door, 75 metre wide, which 
gave access to a small round chamber hollowed out of the thickness of the 
tower. In the whole circuit of the wall not one of these tower chambers is intact, 
but enough remains to determine their construction (Plate 8, Fig. 2). Each 
chamber was covered by an ovoid dome, in the masonry of which there are 
traces of flat ribs. There was a loophole in the walls on either side, from which 
the defenders could cover the curtain wall between tower and tower, and it is 
reasonable to suppose that there must have been a third loophole fronting the 
desert. The loopholes were constructed in the manner already described. It 
seems probable that the towers exceeded the curtain walls in height ; many of 
the towers show fragments of masonry higher than the present summit of the 
walls. The angle towers rose a story above the chemin de ronde and contained 
a second round chamber above the chamber on the level of the chemin de 
ronde. Traces of this second chamber remain in the north-east and in the 
south-west towers (Plate 8, Fig. 1) . A stair was placed in each of the four angles 
of the castle yard (Plate 7, Fig. 1). The stairs, which were vaulted in a manner 
which will be described later (below p. 16), wound twice round the newel post 
before they reached the gallery of the chemin de ronde, and thereafter rose one 
story higher in order to reach the summit of the wall, and the upper chamber 
of the angle towers. It is probable that the summit of the wall was given a cre- 
nellated parapet in order to protect those who walked along it. Nor was it 
only from the angles of the yard that the chemin de ronde could be approached. 
It was accessible from the top story of the palace and also by means of stairs 
which were situated on either side of the east, south and west gates. None of 
these gates are well preserved and in no case have the stairs escaped ruin, but the 
mark of the stair can be seen clearly on the inner face of the wall (Plate 9, Fig. 1). 
The three gateways are all alike (section g-h, Plate 5, Fig. 2). They are flanked 
on the exterior by segments of towers (Plate 9, Fig. 2). The outer archway, 
which contained the door, has in every case been blocked up by the Beduin ; 
it is therefore impossible to tell its exact depth, though its width, 2- 10 metres, 
can be determined. I omitted to note the portcullis of which the authors of 
Ocheidir found traces outside the door. 1 An inner arched niche, 1-45 metres long 
by 2-50 metres wide, is visible from the interior, together with a portion of the 

1 Ocheidir, p. 12. 



8 UKHAIDIR 

chamber into which it led. This chamber was 6-30 metres long by 3-10 metres 
wide, and was covered by a pointed barrel vault oversailing the face of the walls. 
Over the doorway on the inside, there is an arched niche which communicated 
with the arch of the outer gate by a rectangular funnel. It is impossible to 
imagine what can have been the purpose of this funnel, which connected the 
bottom of the niche with the top of the arch, unless it were meant to receive 
the bolt of the door, but I do not think that even this explanation will hold. 
The authors of Ochei'dir observed a similar communication between every niche 
placed over a doorway and the arch below it. The construction is made clear 
in their admirable drawing (Ochei'dir, Fig. 19). They offer no conclusion as to its 
purpose, but since it occurs in archways which show no sign of having contained 
a door, the idea that it was meant to provide space for a bolt cannot be main- 
tained. The inner wall of the gate-house, which has in every case fallen, proj ected 
into the palace yard 3-50 metres from the face of the inner pilasters of the 
enclosing wall. Besides the vaulted passage or chamber in the centre, it comprised 
the above-mentioned staircases. I detected traces of a door between the gate- 
room and the staircase on either side. The stair wound once round the rect- 
angular newel post and reached a chamber on the first floor, above the 
gate-room. The doors of communication between the stair and this chamber 
are not preserved. The chamber is unusually low, 3-30 metres from the floor to 
the top of the vault. It is provided with a large window, 2-50 metres high, in 
the outer wall, opening on to the desert. The stair turned once more round the 
newel post and led into the chemin de ronde, with which the upper chamber 
of the gate-house communicated by doorways. The vaulting construction of 
the south gateway, which is the best preserved (Plate 9, Fig. 1), shows that the 
vault of the upper story must have cut across the vaults of the passage, from 
which it was separated by transverse arches. A big window in the outer wall 
opens down to the floor of the chamber and the learned authors of Ochei'dir 
place here, no doubt correctly, a hourd projecting from the wall over the doorway 
below. There are small rectangular domed chambers in the towers on either side 
of the gate, the domes being set over the angles of the square on horizontal 
brackets. The gate-house was probably carried up, like the angle towers, a 
story higher, and the stairs must have communicated with the upper story, 
to judge by the evidence afforded by the south gate-house. On the north 
facade, and there only, the summit of the wall was given a decoration consisting 
of a row of arched niches carried by small engaged columns (Plate 8, Fig. 3). 
The authors of Ochei'dir describe these arches as horse-shoed ; they seemed to me 
to be merely slightly stilted and adorned with a double fillet. Below the niches 
runs a band of lozenges. Between each niche is set a larger engaged column, 
and these columns appear to have been carried up higher than the arches and 
in all probability bore an architrave, thus forming a rectangular frame to each 
niche, but the exact nature of the decoration here is uncertain, since the wall 



UKHAIDIR 9 

has broken away. The chemin de ronde was covered by a pointed stone vault, 
most of which has fallen in (Plate 10, Fig. i). Like all the vaults of Ukhaidir 
it oversails the face of the wall. The lower part is built of horizontal courses, 
while in the upper part the stone slabs are laid in vertical rings so as to dispense 
with centering, and this is the construction in all the vaults of the palace. At 
the springing of the vault a wooden beam crossed the passage from wall to wall. 
The holes for these beams are visible, and in some places a splintered fragment 
of wood projects from the masonry. At the angles of the passage the vaults 
from either side come together in a simple diagonal section, i.e. there was no 
intersection of the vaults. 

The principal entrance of the palace is the north gate (Plate n, Fig. i). 
Before the door there is an artificial platform thirty-two paces from north to 
south by eighty-seven paces from east to west. The door is placed in a rect- 
angular tower, 15-70 metres wide, which projects 5-10 metres from the face of 
the wall, 2-40 metres from the face of the towers. Between the west side of the 
gate-tower and the first of the western round towers is stretched a vault 2-50 
metres in depth (Plate 11, Fig. 2). Upon this vault rests a small platform, 
immediately below the loopholes of the chemin de ronde, at the level of the 
second story. On the east side of the gate-tower there are traces of a similar 
vault, but this must have fallen at a period when the palace was still inhabited, 
since the place which it occupied upon the wall has been carefully plastered over. 
The pointed arch over the north door is a later reconstruction. The door leads 
into a narrow room, No. 1, 595 metres by 3 metres, from which there is access 
to rooms 2 and 3. These rooms are irregular in shape, unlighted, and built 
over vaults which are now filled with debris. The authors of Ochei'dir suggest 
that they may have gone down to the water-level. I doubt it. The water-level 
in the palace yard is considerably deeper than these vaults are likely to have been, 
and the water there is too brackish to drink. It is more likely that these sub- 
terranean chambers were dungeons. The vault over room 1 is not continuous. 
It is composed of a series of seven transverse arches, -65 metre wide, separated 
by spaces -20 metre wide (Plate 12, Fig. 1). These apertures enabled the 
occupants of room 88, on the first floor, to pour boiling liquids on any foe who 
had passed through the door. Room 1 is bounded to the south by an arched 
doorway, oversailing the wall, "as is the case with all wide arched openings at 
Ukhaidir, beyond which lies the smaller chamber No. 4, 4-15 metres long by 310 
wide. A transverse arch cuts off 105 metres of this space, leaving a square of 
3-10 metres to be covered by a fluted dome (Plate 13, Fig. i). 1 The remaining 
three sides of the chamber are broken by pointed archways which give access to 

1 Dr. Reuther gives the square as 285 metres. between the north gate and the door of the great 

In my first account of the palace I had described hall. My second measurements gave a square of 

this dome as oval in plan, but, as I felt very 3.10 metres to the dome. The difference between 

doubtful on this point, on my second visit I took us is, however, too small to be of much impor- 

particular care to re-examine the whole tract tance. 

im C 



io UKHAIDIR 

the great hall (No. 7), and to the passages Nos. 5 and 6. The fluted circle of the 
dome is set upon a fillet which has a projection of about 1 centimetre from the 
face of the wall below (Plate 13, Fig. 2) . The circle is accommodated to the square 
by a course of stones forming at each corner a flat triangular bracket, rounded 
upon the inner side. The upper part of the dome is much ruined. The curve 
must have been ovoid and it is probable that an aperture was left at the summit, 
since the dome, if closed, would have projected considerably above the floor 
level of room 88. The hole in the upper floor, like the slits in the roof of room 1, 
would have served for purposes of attack when the enemy had forced an 
entrance. 

The authors of Ochei'dir have pointed out that the original scheme of the 
castle did not include the present north door, nor yet the massive enclosing 
wall with its towers and gates. As it was first planned, the north door stood well 
within the existing entrance, between two segments of towers. A part of these 
towers is visible in rooms 2 and 3. But when the walls had been raised about 
2-8o metres from the ground, the plan was altered and the outer wall and north 
door added to it. The north palace wall, with its round towers and gateway, was 
then incorporated in the larger outer wall. A glance at Dr. Reuther's plan will 
show how this was effected (Fig. 1). Although the alteration took place while 
building was in progress and does not denote a later period of construction, it 
is yet of importance, as I shall have occasion to show later. 

On the first floor the gate-tower is occupied by three vaulted chambers, 
88, 89, and 90. The central room, 88, is 4-50 metres wide and therefore wider 
by 1-50 metres than the passage room, 1, below it. Consequently the slits 
between the transverse arches of 1 do not take up the whole width of 88, but 
leave a passage along the wall on either side. The chamber is low, measuring only 
3-55 metres to the top of the vault. The vault oversails the wall ; the lower part 
is composed of stones laid horizontally, the upper part of stones laid in vertical 
rings, with an inclination backwards against the north wall. At the southern 
end a space between the vertical rings and the south wall is filled in with hori- 
zontal courses (Plate 12, Fig. 2). The arches of the side doors break into the 
vault. In the north wall there is a large window, the upper part of which has 
fallen away, though some of the lower part remains. It is slightly recessed on 
the exterior (Plate 11, Fig. 2), and Dr. Reuther gives the explanation of this 
recess. It contained the groove of the portcullis, which has been obliterated 
below owing to the rebuilding of the north door at a later period. In the south 
wall of room 88 there are three arched windows opening into the great hall. The 
central window is the largest ; in all three the arch is surmounted by a shallow 
arched niche. The narrow vaulted rooms 89 and 90 are approached by round- 
arched doorways and lighted only by very small windows high up in the north 
wall. In room 89 there is a staircase leading up to the second floor. Rooms 89 
and 90 open into long corridors corresponding in width with the corridors 5 and 6. 




« 



a 

u 

a 

>, 

.a 



O 

B 
o 

u 

to 



4> 

J3 



.3 

■s 

o 

to 

a 



o 



J3 
"3 

o 





1-1 

to 



12 



UKHAIDIR 



The great hall, to the south of room 4, is the largest chamber in the palace. 
It is 1550 metres long by 7 metres wide, but its width is increased on either 
side by arched recesses 1-40 metres deep and from 2- 20 metres to 2-30 metres 
wide (Plate 14, Fig. 1). These recesses, five on either side, are separated from 
one another by squat engaged columns set against piers which are -8o metre deep. 
The columns carry rectangular impost-capitals from which spring the shallow 
slightly pointed semi-domes, or calottes, which cover the recesses. The capitals 
are very roughly constructed of small stones. There are traces of a shallow 
abacus, while a cavetto moulded in plaster seems to have been interposed between 
capital and shaft. At the corners a triangular stone adjusted the circle of the 
column to the square of the abacus, and the whole was no doubt covered with 




Fig. 2. Arch construction. (From Ocheidir, by kind permission of Dr. Reuther.) 

plaster. The abacus projection runs back along the walls of the niche and 
above it the calotte springs from another small projection (Plate 15, Figs. 1 and 2). 
The calottes are bracketed over the angles, the construction being the same as 
that described in the dome of room 4. All the niches of Ukhaidir are treated 
in like fashion. The method employed in constructing the archi volts is 
admirably described by Dr. Reuther. 1 The face of the arch is formed by a perma- 
nent centering composed of gypsum and reeds. The vaulting takes place, not 
above the centering but between the two centering arches, the vault being built 
in vertical rings (Fig. 2). When the arches are of wide span an outer ring of 
horizontal voussoirs is added to the inner arch. This system is common in 
Mesopotamia to the present day, and is found frequently at Ukhaidir. In the 
great hall there are holes for wooden beams below the abacus of the capitals and 
in the spandrels of the arches. The northern recess on the east side is open 
and gives access to a ramp which leads to the first floor. The second, third, and 

Ocheidir, p. 3. 



UKHAIDIR 13 

fifth recesses contain low doors covered by a segmental arch. On the west side 
similar doors are set in the first, third, fourth, and fifth recesses, the last named 
giving access to a stair (Plate 15, Fig. 2). The calotte archivolts at their highest 
point are 350 metres above the present level of the floor. The wall is carried up 
for another 1-25 metres, where there is a double outset from its face. Above this 
outset the stone vault runs up perpendicularly for about -8o metre and the 
remainder of the vault is of brick (Plate 14, Fig. 2). For a height of about 
1 50 metres the brick tiles are laid horizontally, but when the curve of the 
vault increases the bricks are set upright in vertical rings. The vault thus 
formed is built without centering ; it has a slightly pointed, ovoid shape and is 
much stilted. The north wall remains intact and its scheme of decoration is 
instructive (Plate 16, Fig. 1). The arched door, 350 metres high, is set back 
within a niche 1 metre deep. About 90 metre above the arch of the door stands a 
very shallow calotte covering the niche. The face of the calotte is recessed, which 
enhances its decorative value by giving it a double outline. As Dr. Reuther has 
observed, 1 the calotte is not ' the segment of a pointed dome, but its curve in 
horizontal section springs sharply back from the face of the archivolt and 
flattens rapidly behind. Thereby the effect of the shadow is strongly felt at the 
edge, and the calotte seems to be deeper and more markedly vaulted than it 
is in reality '. At the base of the calotte there is a small niche which has been 
broken through owing to the partial ruin of the dome behind it. 2 In the wall on 
either side of the calotte there is a shallow arched niche. The arch is carried on 
pairs of engaged columns and is enclosed in a rectangular label. Above the 
calotte are the three windows of the first floor room, 88, covered by segmental 
arches. The windows are framed by engaged columns which carry stilted round- 
arched calottes. The south wall of the great hall is partly ruined. The doorway 
seems to have been of the same proportions as the door in the north wall, but it 
was not set back within a niche. The small decorative niches reappear on either 
side, and there were probably three windows opening into room 10 1 in the upper 
story, indeed on the west side the window jamb can still be seen. Even with 
these windows the great hall must have been most insufficiently lighted, since 
neither its doors nor its windows open directly on to the exterior of the building. 
To the south lay the small rectangular chamber, No. 27, which was probably, 
as Dr. Reuther suggests, covered by a dome similar to the dome of No. 4. It 
opens to east and west into the vaulted corridor 28, and on the south into the 
central court. 

Holes for wooden beams can be seen on the north wall of the great hall, two 
on either side of the portal niche, one on either side of the shallow decorative 
niches, and one on either side of the group of windows. On the south wall 
they have been somewhat differently disposed, one on either side of the door 

1 Ocheidir, p. 21. from the bottom of the niche to the top of the 

1 Dr. Reuther observes here the funnel leading arch which had been described in the outer gates. 



i 4 UKHAIDIR 

at the level of the arch, one almost immediately above, higher than the top of 
the arch, and three higher up still, following the curve of the vault (Plate 14, 
Fig. 2). 

The masses of masonry on either side of the vault are lightened by the tubes 
which are characteristic of the vaulting system of Ukhaidir (section a-b, Plate 4, 
Fig. 1). One of these tubes pierces the wall on either side, partly above the 
calottes of the recesses. On the east side the opening of this tube can be seen 
high up in the wall of the corridor 28 ; on the west side the tube is not visible 
owing to the interposition of a stair behind the corridor, but there can be no 
doubt that it exists. Again towards the top of the vault there is another pair 
of tubes. The western of these two can be seen through a breach in the wall 
of the stair which leads from room 89 to the second floor 5 I infer its eastern 
counterpart. The vault of the great hall is buttressed by the vaults of the 
chambers of the ground floor and of the first floor which lie at right angles to it. 

The wings of the three-storied block, of which the great hall forms the 
centre, are bounded to the north by the two vaulted corridors 5 and 6 
(Plate 17, Fig. 1), the western corridor, 5, being 34 metres long, and the eastern, 
6, 34- 90 metres long. The vaults are constructed in the usual fashion, over- 
sailing the wall and built of thin slabs of stone, laid vertically in concentric, 
slightly pointed rings. The corridors lead into the palace yard. The door 
of the west corridor is much ruined. The door of the east corridor is set in a 
niche surmounted by a shallow calotte, of which the archivolt is slightly pointed. 
Below the calotte, between it and the arch of the door, is a second small arched 
niche, connected by the usual funnel with the top of the door arch. The calotte 
is outlined by a singular decoration composed of a crenellated motive. 1 The 
crenellated motive is common in the ornament of Ukhaidir and elsewhere, but 
I am not acquainted with any other example of its application to the archivolt. 

To the south of the east corridor runs a vaulted ramp, a sloping passage 
from the great hall to the first floor. To the south of the ramp lie two groups 
of three vaulted chambers. In the inner group, Nos. 12, 13, and 14, the rooms 
are 7 metres long with an average width of 3-50 metres. They are separated 
from each other by walls 1 metre thick, and communicate with each other by 
doors covered by ovoid arches set back from the jambs. Each room possesses 
a door into the great hall, but since the position of these doors is determined 
by that of the recesses in the hall, which do not correspond with the rooms 
behind them, the doors are never in the centre of the rooms, and in one case, 
No. 13, the side wall is narrowed to allow space for the door. The wall which 
separates the rooms from the recesses of the great hall is 1-50 metres thick. 
A door at the east end of each room leads into the corresponding room of the 

1 The decoration as well as the funnel had the correctness of his observation on one of my 

escaped my notice, but when Dr. Reuther called own photographs, 

my attention to the former I was able to verify 



UKHAIDIR 15 

second group. In this group the rooms 15, 16, and 17, while they have the 
same width as those of the first group, are considerably shorter, measuring only 
480 metres. They communicate with each other and with the vaulted passage, 
20. Room 17 has further a door in the north wall, which leads into the small 
vaulted room, No. 18, and this in turn is connected with a still smaller room, 
No. 19. Nos. 18 and 19 lie under the ramp, and No. 19 is in consequence 
extremely low. None of the chambers above described are provided with win- 
dows ; what light they possess filters in through the doors. Nos. 12, 13, and 14 
are therefore exceedingly dark, and must have been darker still when the south 
wall of the great hall was intact. Nos. 18 and 19 are totally unillumined, and 
for this reason, and on account of the inconvenience of their low vaults, it may 
be presumed that they were not used for dwelling purposes. 




Fig. 3. Arch construction. (From Ocheidir, by kind permission of Dr. Reuther.) 

The arches of the doorways in these rooms, and in all other small doorways 
in the palace, are constructed in a manner different from that which has been 
detailed above. Again I borrow the description from Dr. Reuther. A wooden 
centering has been placed upon the jambs ; over this centering was laid a band 
of gypsum mortar and small stones, irregularly bedded, which, when it hardened, 
formed an inner arch of concrete (Fig. 3). When the span was narrow no other 
arch was considered necessary. When it was wider an outer arch of voussoirs 
laid horizontally encompassed the inner concrete arch. Not infrequently, 
besides the wooden centering, a permanent centering of mortar and reed was 
placed on either face of the concrete arch. When the wooden centering was 
removed the concrete arch remained, set back from the jambs, whereas in all 
the wide archways, such as those of room 4, the arch follows the principle of 
the vault and oversails the wall. 

The passage, No. 20, which is 12-25 metres long by 2-80 metres wide, com- 
municates by a door at its northern end with the small unlighted room, No. 21. 
The construction here is of interest (Plate 17, Fig. 2). The passage is finished 
by a shallow pointed calotte, standing out from the face of the wall and spanning 
the angles in the usual fashion with a horizontal masonry bracket. Below it, 



i6 UKHAIDIR 

but not in the centre of the passage, is the small doorway, which is covered by 
a masonry lintel. The passage opens on to court A through an arcade of two 
pointed arches. The arches spring from engaged columns and from a squat 
masonry column placed between them. The rough capital and engaged capitals, 
from which the stucco has disappeared, are constructed in the same way as the 
engaged capitals in the great hall. On the opposite side of the court there 
was once a similar arcade of two arches which has now fallen ; indeed, the 
arcade of No. 20 is the only free-standing arcade which remains intact in the 
whole palace, with the exception of those in rooms 33 and 40. Court a, 1070 
metres by 625 metres, communicates with corridor 6 by a vaulted passage, 
1-90 metres wide and 4-25 metres high, leading to an arched doorway 160 metres 
wide and 2-55 metres high. East of this passage lies a vaulted room, No. 26, 
the door of which stands in the ruined cloister, No. 25. Room 26 is lighted by 
two small windows in the south wall, opening on to the court, and by a window- 
slit in the east wall, opening on to the palace yard. To the south of court A 
lie three chambers, Nos. 22, 23, and 24, which have a width varying from 4-05 
metres to 385 metres and a length of 5 metres. They communicate with each 
other and with the court, added to which No. 22 possesses a third door leading 
into No. 20, and No. 24 a third door leading into No. 25. For the door leading 
from No. 24 into court a space has been provided by removing a section of the 
dividing wall between Nos. 23 and 24. 

The arrangement of the west wing of the three-storied block is dissimilar 
from that of the east wing. Three chambers, 8, 9, and 10, lie to the west of 
the great hall. They have an average width of 3 70 metres, but in length 
they are only 5 75 metres. They are lighted by small windows high up in the 
west wall. They communicate with one another by doors covered with ovoid 
arches set back from the jambs, and with the great hall by small doors in the 
recesses. The vaults are pointed and oversail the walls. South of No. 10, 
a stair leads up from the southernmost doorway in the great hall to the first 
floor. The vault over this stair, of which I give a photograph (Plate 16, Fig. 2), 
will serve to illustrate the construction of all vaults at Ukhaidir over an inclined 
plane. They are built in horizontal sections, which form inverted steps ; an 
unbroken rising vault is not to be found in the palace. To the east of this 
group of rooms with its stair is the cloistered court which I suggested, after 
my first visit, might be a mosque. 1 The suggestion has been borne out by the 
discovery of an arched niche in the south wall, which I believe to be the mihrab. 2 

1 Journal of the Hellenic Society, vol. xxx, he had discovered the niche at the point which 

1910, p. 77. I had indicated and that he felt no hesitation as 

* In the spring of 1910, I asked M. Viollet, to its being in fact the mihrab. When I was at 

who was then on his way to Mesopotamia, to clear Ukhaidir in 191 1, I uncovered the niche still 

away the ruins from the middle of the south wall further and photographed it carefully. Two of 

and ascertain whether there were any sign of these photographs I sent to Dr. Wetzel for publi- 

a mihrab. Upon his return he informed me that cation in the German work, and they are there 



UKHAIDIR 17 

The mosque (since I may now give it this title without hesitation) is approached 
by two doorways from the west corridor, 5. These doorways lead into an 
open rectangular court, the sahn, 10-30 metres from north to south by 16 metres 
from east to west. To east, south, and west of the court ran porticoes, or riwaqs, 
to use their Arabic name, which have now fallen (Plate 18, Fig. 1). The engaged 
columns on the north side and the south-east angle pier are, however, standing, 
and they determine the width of the riwaqs. The southern riwaq was the 
widest (405 metres), and this is the portion of the mosque which is known as the 
haram. The east and west riwaqs are alike 3 metres wide. The arcades, which 
separate the riwaqs from the sahn, occupy a space 1 metre thick. On the west 
side the arcade is entirely ruined, but on the east side part of the arches at 
either end are still to be seen (Plate 19, Figs. 1 and 2). From these fragments 
it is apparent that there must have been three arches on the east and west 
sides, while approximately similar proportions would allow five arches on the 
south side. (The span of the south arches must have been about -30 metre 
less than the span of the east and west arches.) The north end of the east and 
west vaults rested against the north wall, the south end against a transverse 
arch, in order to avoid intersection with the vault of the haram. The east 
vault, which is best preserved, is a slightly pointed ovoid and oversails the east 
wall. Below the spring of the vault can be seen the windows of rooms 8 and 9 ; 
the window of room 10 opens into the haram. Immediately above the springing 
of the vault there are three holes for cross beams, the decay of which has entailed 
the ruin of the vault. The fallen masses of masonry columns and vault form 
heaps of debris on all three sides of the court. At the eastern end of the haram 
there is a low door, almost blocked by ruin heaps, which gives access to a narrow 
blind passage situated under the stair. The vault of the haram has received 
an elaborate decoration in stucco. It was divided into sections by nine trans- 
verse arches, 1 metre wide. They cannot have had any correspondence with 
the columns and arches of the arcade, nor was this necessary, for they sprang 
from above the line of the vault and therefore from above the summit of the 
arches of the arcade. The transverse arches were decorated with lozenges 
(wards as they would be called in modern Arabic) having a zigzag outline 
(Plate 18, Fig. 1). In the centre of each lozenge there was a round hole, or 
rosette, recessed back in concentric circles. Between the transverse arches 

reproduced, Ocheidir, Figs. 22 and 23. Professor borrowed from the Christian cult and that it was 

Briinnow has suggested that since prayer niches not adopted until the beginning of the second 

with flanking colonnettes were known to the century of Islam. (See Lammens, Ziad ibn Abihi, 

Nabataeans, the Mohammadan niche, with its Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. iv, 1911, p. 246 

non- Arabic name, was certainly derived from pre- (94), note 1, and Becker, ' Zur Geschichte des 

Mohammadan usage. ('ZurneuestenEntwicklung islamischen Kultus,' Der Islam, vol. iii, 1912, 

der Meschetta-Frage,' Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, p. 392.) I continue, therefore, to regard the niche 

August 1912, p. 129.) This view is not likely to at Ukhaidir as a clear proof that the building was 

find acceptance. It is expressly stated that the originally intended for a mosque, 
mihrab was a feature of the mosque which was 
1580 D 



,8 UKHAID1R 

the vault was worked in parallel bars of stucco, the one oversailing the other. 
The bars begin at a distance of about -8o metre above the spring of the vault. 
It is evident that this vault must have been constructed over a light centering, 
and Dr. Reuther is of opinion that the singular ridged decoration was suggested 
by the impression left by the centering boards upon the plaster. 1 The top of the 
vault was probably treated as in room 31, where a decoration similar to that 
of the haram is more fully preserved. Holes for cross-beams break the fourth 
and fifth stucco ridge between each transverse arch. Between the terminal 
transverse arches and the wall at either end of the haram there is a space i-6o 
metres long. It is divided into two quarter-domes by a transverse arch which 
springs from the back wall, at right angles to the transverse arches of the vault. 
This arch is decorated in exactly the same manner as the others and must have 
joined the first transverse arch at either end, at the summit of the vault. The 
quarter-domes are covered with stucco ornament. At the east end (Plate 20, 
Fig. 1) a fluted squinch occupies the two angles ; on either side of it are two 
shallow calottes. Three concentrically recessed rosettes are set above each 
of the calottes, and there is a like motive in the apex of the calotte. Above the 
squinch and calottes there is a band of four isolated crenellations, the same 
motive which appears on the archivolt over the doors of corridors 5 and 6. 
Above the crenellations are vestiges of a decorated band, and above the band 
the apex of the quarter-dome is fluted. At the west end there is a slight varia- 
tion in the proportions and in the motives of the lower register of the quarter- 
domes (Plate 20, Fig. 2). The squinch, instead of being fluted, is decorated 
with three concentric bands, sunk one within the other. At its base lies one 
of the usual concentric rosettes. The same rosette is placed on either side 
of each calotte and within the calotte, the rosette above the calotte being 
omitted. The crenellated motive of the east end is repeated at the west end, 
but the band between the crenellations and the flutes of the quarter-domes is 
omitted. 

The mihrab niche is not placed exactly in the centre of the south wall, but 
a few centimetres to the east (Plate 18, Fig. 2). If there was any stucco orna- 
ment upon it, it was all carried away by the fall of the vault. The semi-dome 
which covers it is set over the rectangular niche on horizontal brackets of 
masonry, like all other semi-domes and calottes in the palace. The archivolt 
is constructed of a double ring of voussoirs, the inner ring laid vertically, the 
outer horizontally. There is no reason to doubt that the mihrab is contem- 
porary with the wall. The plaster which remains upon the interior of the semi- 
dome shows no sign of decoration. Below the semi-dome the face of the walls 
of the niche is much injured by the heavy masses of fallen masonry. 

The angle pier which took the corner arches of the haram and the east arcade 

1 Ochei'dir, p. 24. 



UKHAIDIR 19 

shows, on the sides facing the arcades, returns in the shape of engaged columns. 
A third return is rectangular and corresponds with a return on the east wall, 
the two carrying the transverse arch which terminates the eastern vault. In 
the fragment of this vault which is standing the principles of construction can 
be discerned unusually well (Plate 19). The vault is built of thin slabs of 
stone, laid in rings, with a marked inclination against the northern head wall. 
At the southern end these rings fan out so as to meet the transverse arch. 

One more detail remains to be noticed. The two doors from the west 
corridor, 5, stand in recesses 1 metre deep. The recesses are covered by a 
calotte, and round the archivolt is placed a stucco decoration consisting of seven 
cusps (Plate 21, Fig. 1). 

The first floor of the north gate tower has already been described. The 
east door of room 90 communicates with the vaulted and unlighted room, 93. 
A thin dividing wall separates room 93 from room 94 (there is a small aperture 
like a window in this wall). Beyond another thin dividing wall lies room 95, 
with a window at its eastern end looking into the palace yard. These three 
rooms, 93, 94, and 95, occupy the space above the east corridor, 6. Room 107 
is on a lower level ; it is approached from 93 by a doorway with steps and is 
wholly unlighted. The group of rooms Nos. 103, 104, and 105 are on the same 
level as 107. They are 14- 75 metres long and correspond in width with the 
rooms below them. At their western end they are provided with a masonry 
divan, 1-20 metres wide and raised 55 metre above the level of the floor. The 
meaning of this divan is apparent in the section (section a-b, Plate 4, Fig. 1) ; 
it was needed in order to lift the floor of the three rooms above the vaulted 
tube which lies parallel to the vault of the great hall. The height of these 
rooms from the floor to the top of the vault is 4- 20 metres. They communicate 
with each other and with the vaulted passage 108, and room 103 possesses 
further a door in the south wall leading into room 102. The latter returns 
to the level of rooms 93, 94, and 95, and consequently steps are placed in the 
doorway of 103. 

At the north end of the passage 108 there is a door sunk below the level 
of the floor and covered by an arch oversailing the jambs (Plate 21, Fig. 2). 
It communicates with the ramp which comes up from the great hall. East of 
this door there are the remains of an engaged column, and it is obvious that the 
passage must have been flanked here by an open arcade (Plate 3, Fig. 1). Steps 
in the doorway at its southern end lead up to room 106, which is on the same 
level as 102. South of court A lie three rooms, 109, no, and in. They are 
not as deep as the rooms below them on the ground floor (4- 40 metres as against 
5 metres) since space has to be provided for a narrow ledge above court a. 
On to this ledge the north doors of the three rooms open. On the north side 
of court A the ramp, after passing the doorway of 108, is continued upwards 
(its windows can be seen in the wall of the court (Plate 22, Fig. 1) ) . A wide 

d 2 



2o UKHAIDIR 

doorway opens on to a stair, which will be described later, coming up from 
the palace yard. The ramp is then carried on along the east side of court A, 
and finally opens on to the roof of in and of the narrow passage to the east 
side of it. The last portion of the ramp is ruined, but traces of the vault which 
supported its floor can be seen in the east wall of court A, together with the 
spring of the vault with which it was roofed. Between the ramp and the 
vault of 25 there appears to have been a vaulted passage, very low at its northern 
end, and lighted by a rectangular window which overlooks the palace yard. 
It opened at the southern end, through a narrow vaulted way, on to the roof 
of No. 47. 

The outer stair from the yard is a later addition (Plate 40, Fig. 1). The round 
tower at the northern end of the wall has been cut away to receive it, and it was 
supported further by four rectangular piers, two on either side of the tower, 
which were built up against the wall. These piers were not bonded into the 
wall, and the northernmost has entirely fallen away, but it can still be traced 
on the face of the masonry. The communication with the first floor was effected, 
as has been mentioned, by means of a door at the north-east angle of the ramp. 

Room 106 occupies the vaulted space at the west end of 47 and has a door 
to the south opening on to the roof of 45. To the west a door leads into corridor 
102, which lies above the eastern wing of corridor 28 (Plate 22, Fig. 2). It has 
a door to the south opening on to the roof, and is lighted by narrow windows 
in the south wall. West of 102 was the small room, 101, now ruined, and beyond 
it rooms 100 and 99 above the west wing of corridor 28. The height of these 
rooms on the first floor is only 3-55 metres to the top of the vault. No. 100 
communicates by a door and steps with the stair leading up from the south- 
west corner of the great hall, and so with the first floor chambers of the west 
wing. These can be approached also from the west door of room 89, which 
opens into the passage room No. 92. In the south wall of 92 there is first 
a door and steps which lead down to No. 96, secondly a door giving access to 
the roof of the east riwaq of the mosque, and further west a narrow window 
which overlooks the sahn. There are two similar windows in the south wall 
of 91 and a door on to the roof of the west riwaq of the mosque. (The windows 
and the door of the west riwaq can be seen in Plate 23, Fig. I.) At the western 
end of 91 a window opens on to the palace yard. Rooms 96, 97, and 98 lie above 
8, 9, and 10. They are lighted by narrow windows in the west wall, which can 
be seen in Plate 19, Fig. 1. They communicate with each other by doors covered 
by ovoid arches set back from the jambs and breaking into the curve of the vault, 
and each has access through an arched opening in the east wall to a small 
room -85 metre wide, lying at a higher level. The northernmost of these three 
small rooms lies under the stair leading from No. 89 to the second floor, and its 
vault slopes down at the northern end in order to leave space for the stair. 
No. 98 opens by a door on to the staircase from the great hall. At the west end 



UKHAIDIR 



21 



of the staircase there is a door leading out on to the roof of the haram, and above 
it is placed a window. Both door and window can be seen in Plate 19, Fig. 1. 
Opposite to this door and window there is a large opening in the west wall of 
the great hall, doubtless in order to secure a little additional light in that dark 
edifice. 

The stair and the ramp from the great hall were therefore the sole means 
of approaching the first floor until the outer stair from the yard was added. 
The second floor could be approached in a circuitous manner by the upper part 
of the ramp and over the roof of rooms in, no, and 109, or more directly by 
the stair leading out of room 89. But this stair could only be reached either by 
the ramp and through rooms 105, 107, 93, 90, 88, and 89, or by the stair out of the 
great hall and through rooms 98, 97, 96, 92, and 89. The second floor could 
also be reached from the yard, by the stairs in the north-east and north-west 
angles and thence along the chemin de ronde. 

The rooms on the second floor do not correspond regularly with those of the 
floors below (Plate 3, Fig. 2). The second floor of the gate-tower is much ruined. 
It is possible that, as the authors of Ocheidir suggest, it was originally divided 
into three chambers lying north and south. Parts of the south wall remain, 
and there is clear evidence of a door jamb near its eastern end. On the east 
side the doorways leading into 117 and into the chemin de ronde are standing, 
together with the south jamb of a doorway which undoubtedly gave access to 
the roof of the vault between the gate-tower and the first round tower. The 
door into the corresponding balcony on the west side is gone, the door of the 
western wing of the chemin de ronde is much ruined, but the door into No. 116 
is still perfect. Neither of these walls, to east and to west, shows any trace 
of a vault; the vault, if vault there were, covering the gate-tower chambers 
must therefore have sprung much higher than the vaults of the adjoining 
chambers. 1 

To the west of 116 is a small room, 115, with a door into the chemin de ronde 
and a door into the open court, 114. A window in the south wall of this court 
overlooks the sahn of the mosque (Plate 23, Fig. 1). Still further west is a vaulted 
room, 113, presumably with a window looking out into the yard, but the west 
wall is much ruined. On the opposite side of the gate-tower, No. 117 opens into 
a small rectangular area, 118, where there is no sign of a roof ; to the east of 
it lies an open space embracing the roofs of Nos. 94 and 95 together with a part 



1 There seems to me to be an error in the 
reconstruction of the north facade given in 
Ocheidir, 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 1 1 , 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. 



22 UKHAIDIR 

of 93. Here, too, there is no trace of a vault in the north wall, nor of any party 
walls. The series of rooms on either side of the gate-tower, occupying the area 
over the corridors on the ground floor and of the corresponding rooms on the first 
floor, are designated by Dr. Reuther casemates because they were connected 
with the chemin de ronde and probably played some part in the defence of the 
palace. In all of them the vaults, which oversail the walls in the usual fashion, 
are slightly flattened at the top. 

A door in the south wall of No. 117 leads into an open court, 1695 metres 
from east to west by 12-60 metres from north to south. It does not lie in the 
centre of the three-storied block, but extends considerably to the east of the 
central axis. The stair from the first floor reaches the second floor at the north- 
west angle of this court. The door into 119 opens awkwardly over the stair. 
On the east, south, and west sides of the court stand groups of three chambers, 
the central chamber opening into the court by a wide archway springing from 
engaged columns, the side chambers by doors covered by ovoid arches set back 
from the jambs (Plate 23, Fig. 2) ; and here we have an architectural group 
which dominates all the courts upon the ground floor of the palace that are 
yet to be described. The central chamber with its wide archway is the liwan 
or reception-room, 1 the side chambers are, in one form or another, its invariable 
or almost invariable complement. I shall henceforward speak of the whole as 
a liwan group. As Dr. Reuther has pointed out, the occupants of an oriental 
room seat themselves upon cushions or diwans against the wall, the diwan, 
cushion or carpet, which is placed against the back wall, being the place of 
honour. In order not to break up the company, the side doors of every room 
are situated as far as possible from the back wall, and it will be noticed that 
this rule holds good in every living-room of the palace. At Ukhaidir (though 
this is not always the case) in every liwan group the rooms communicate with 
each other. It is common in oriental houses to build liwans facing different 
points of the compass so as to secure a comfortable shade at different hours 
of the day, and warmth or coolness at different seasons of the year. The liwan 
group, if such it were, over the gate-tower would have served the purpose of 
a winter reception-room, for it faced south ; the group facing north would 
be used in summer. 

In the liwan group on the west side of the court the rooms are 5- 95 metres 
long with an average width of 4 metres. The vaults here are all standing, and 
the rooms are considerably higher than those on the first floor, measuring 5- 25 
metres to the top of the vault. (It is difficult to get exact measurements for the 
height of the rooms on the ground floor owing to irregularities in the level of 
the ground, but I think that a height of 5 metres to the top of the vault is not 
far wrong.) Between the parallel barrel vaults are masonry tubes, which are 

1 Aiwan is the Persian form, very commonly in Arabic by the incorporation of the article 

used in the Shahnamah. It has become liwan al-Aiwan. (Note by Sir Charles Lyall.) 



UKHAIDIR 23 

visible upon the facade in the form of small openings like windows between the 
arches of the central and of the side rooms. To the south of No. 121 there is 
a small open court, 123, which is approached by a narrow passage from the main 
court. A door from it leads into No. 122, which is completely ruined. On the 
north side of the court, 123, there was a stair which gave access to the flat 
roof of Nos. 121, 120, and 119. On the north side of 119 a fragment of wall rises 
above the level of the roof ; it was probably connected with the high vault of 
the gate-house chambers. In the liwan group on the south side of the court, 
the rooms, 124, 125, and 126, are 7 metres long, but their exact width is difficult 
to determine since the party walls have fallen (Plate 24, Fig. 1). It must, how- 
ever, have averaged about 4 metres like the width of the rooms on the west side. 
On the east side of the court a vaulted passage runs parallel to 137 ; the door 
into the court is standing and its arch oversails the jambs, whereas the arches of 
all the other doors are set back (Plate 24): Above the door there is a narrow 
window. A liwan group follows to the south of the passage (Plate 24, Figs. 1 
and 2). The rooms are 7- 45 metres long ; their width varies, as far as I could 
ascertain in their ruined condition. According to my estimates No. 132 is 
2- 85 metres wide, No. 131 is 3- 95 metres wide, and No. 130 is 4 metres wide. 
Still further south there is a small open court, No. 127, corresponding to 
No. 123. A door in the south wall opens on to a narrow parapet or balcony 
which crowns the facade of the first floor. To the east lies an irregular chamber, 
128, which is totally ruined. 

The passage, 137, leads into a gallery, No. 134, which was finished on the east 
side by an open arcade (Plate 25, Fig. 1). Traces of an engaged column remain 
at the north end of the arcade, and the vault was constructed with transverse 
arches in the same manner as the vaults round the sahn of the mosque. There 
was, however, no stucco decoration in this upper gallery. At the angles stood 
quarter-domes over unadorned squinch arches (Plate 25, Fig. 2). The gallery 
opens at its south-eastern end on to the roof of No. 109. To the south of the 
gallery there are two narrow chambers, one with a door into the gallery, the 
other with a door on to the roof of 109. They are almost completely ruined. 
Dr. Reuther places in them a stair leading by a double flight on to the roof. 

The main part of the palace, one story high, lies to the south of the three- 
storied block. Except for a group of rooms in the east side of the yard, which 
is a later addition, it is symmetrically arranged round a central court. It falls 
into three divisions : two courts, B and c, with their living-rooms on the east 
side ; two exactly similar courts, G and H, on the west side ; a central court 
with a group of chambers to the south of it, and further south a small court, 
E, with rooms on three sides of it, and a subsidiary court, D, further east. The 
long vaulted corridor, 28, which runs from east to west between the great hall 
and the central court, turns at right angles and runs from north to south between 
the central court with its chambers and the side wings. It is then carried round 



24 UKHAIDIR 

to the south of the chambers dependent on the central court, and runs from east 
to west between them and court E with its chambers. 

The central court is 32- 70 metres from north to south and 27 metres from 
east to west. It is surrounded to east, north, and west by a blind arcade which 
forms part, on the north side, of the facade of the three-storied block (Plate 6, 
Fig. 2). The arcade is 1 metre deep. Engaged half-columns set against rect- 
angular piers carry shallow calottes, the archivolt of which is slightly horse- 
shoed (Plate 26, Fig. 1). The intercolumniation varies from 235 to 255 metres. 
All the details were of stucco, which has now broken away. The columns, piers, 
and walls are of stone masonry ; the capitals, calottes, and archivolts, together 
with the wall above them, are of brick. The capitals, which are much damaged, 
are cubes formed of three courses of bricks ; the calottes are of brick laid in 
horizontal courses and carried over the angles of the niches by horizontal 
brackets ; the horse-shoed archivolts are composed of an inner ring of brick 
tiles laid horizontally, and an outer ring laid vertically. Of the outer ring 
only fragments remain. In one case (the calotte immediately to the south of the 
east door) the tiles are laid in rings, and the curve of the archivolt is not horse- 
shoed (Plate 26, Fig. 2). The corresponding calotte on the west side has fallen. 
In the centre of each calotte, and impinging upon the stonework below, there 
is an oblong window which lights corridor 28. On the north side of the court 
only two of the niches and calottes remain intact to the east of the central door, 
and only one to the west of the central door. In the centre the whole face of 
the wall has fallen, carrying with it parts of the corridors on the first floor and 
part of the south wall of the great hall. The small chamber, 27, which was 
probably covered with a dome, is entirely ruined, together with room 101 
above it. It is therefore impossible to determine the exact form of the door- 
way which led from 27 into the central court, but there is no reason to suppose 
that it differed materially from the door on the east side of the court. The 
nature of the horizontal decorations which govern the facade preclude all 
idea of a large central door. The blind arcade of the first floor is not so high 
as the arcade below it (Plates 27 and 85). Instead of the half-columns and piers 
of the ground floor, the archivolts of the first floor spring from a cluster of 
four small engaged columns which must have been finished in stucco. Nothing 
remains of the capitals. In the spandrels are placed oblong windows lighting 
the upper corridors, 100 and 102. On the face of the pointed arches of the 
arcade it is still possible to trace a scolloped ornament in plaster, like that 
which exists over the doors of the mosque. Within the large arches there is 
a system of small blind arched niches flanked by slender engaged colonnettes 
of which little trace remains. There are five of these niches within each of the 
large niches, two below and three above, the central niche in the group of three 
being the largest. There is a slight error here in Dr. Reuther's reconstruction, 
an error to which he himself called my attention. He has placed only one small 



UKHAIDIR 25 

niche in the upper register instead of three. The side niches can be seen in 
Plate 27. He suggests that in the middle of the facade one or more of these 
small niches must have contained windows in order to give additional light to 
room 101, since it was from room 101 that most of the light in the great hall 
was derived. Beyond the arcading on either side of the facade the wall was 
finished by a solid pier, the surface of which was broken by three projecting 
horizontal bars. The cornices are not preserved, but, as I shall show later, they 
cannot have been very important. The decoration of the facade ends on the 
level of the second floor and forms a narrow balcony a little over 1 metre wide 
which runs along the face of the building. The wall of the second floor is recessed 
a few centimetres to give additional width to this balcony. On to it open 
the doors of Nos. 123 and 127. These doors are not placed symmetrically with 
respect to the facade ; the west door is nearer the centre than is the east door. 
The plain wall is carried up to the top of the door arches ; above that level 
there is a band of shallow arched niches which appear to have been divided 
from one another by engaged columns, probably carrying an architrave, like 
the niches on the summit of the outer north wall of the palace. 

To return to the central court. On the east side there is a doorway in the 
third intercolumniation from the south end (Plate 26, Fig. 2). It leads into 
corridor 28. The arch of this door is set back from the jambs, but the upper 
part is ruined. The corresponding door on the west side has disappeared, 
together with most of the south-west end of the wall. On the east side the 
arcading is not carried into the angle of the court. The southernmost archivolt 
ends against a quarter-column, beyond which space is provided for the entrance 
of a stair which leads down to a vaulted chamber below the level of the ground 
(Plate 28, Fig. 1). Above this entrance there is a fluted semi-dome finished 
by a fillet (Plate 28, Fig. 2). The semi-dome is set horizontally over the angles 
of the niche in the accustomed manner. The actual entrance to the stair is 
covered not by an arch but by a masonry lintel (compare the door between 
20 and 21). 

The south side of the court is also arcaded, but not in the same fashion. 
The arcades are much shallower (40 metre deep) and they are differently 
grouped. In the centre of the south wall there was a wide archway (4- 20 metres 
wide) leading into room 29. This arch rose above the level of the arcade on 
either side of it and the chambers behind it were higher than the adjoining 
chambers (Plate 29, Fig. 1). On either side of the entrance there is an unusually 
large engaged column ; beyond these columns there is a flat pier and an engaged 
quarter-column, followed by a niche 80 metre wide covered by a shallow 
calotte (Plate 29, Fig. 2). Three more recesses, measuring in width 195 metres, 
2- 10 metres, and 2- 50 metres, and separated from each other by engaged columns 
of about 70 metre diameter, occupy the remainder of the facade. In no case 
is the capital preserved, but it is noticeable that all the columns swell outwards 

1680 e 



26 UKHAIDIR 

towards the top. The archivolts are ovoid, not horse-shoed. The first niche on 
either side of the small niches contains a door leading on the west side into 
No. 31 and on the east side into No. 42. The third big niche on the east side 
contains another and a smaller door which gives access to a stair leading to the 
roof (Plate 28, Fig. 1). The doors of Nos. 31 and 42 offer good examples of arch 
construction (Plate 29, Fig. 3). The arch is set back from the jambs and formed 
of an inner ring of concrete and an outer ring of stone voussoirs laid horizontally. 
The calottes covering the niches are of brick, but unlike the calottes on the other 
three sides of the court, the bricks are set horizontally and vertically and used 
in half and quarter lengths so as to form intricate designs which Dr. Reuther 
compares very aptly to the Hazarbaf motives so common in oriental woodwork 
(Plate 29, Fig. 2). 

South of the central court lies a group of rooms of a ceremonial character. 
In the centre of this group is the liwan No. 29, 6 x 1070 metres. It was covered 
by a barrel vault of brick, which has now fallen in. The vault oversailed the 
wall and its point of springing is 4- 30 metres above the level of the ground, 
instead of the 3- 40 metres above ground-level at which the vaults spring in 
the adjoining chambers to east and west. It is therefore clear that the vault 
of 29 must considerably have overtopped the other vaults, and as I shall show 
later, it is usual to find the ceremonial liwan higher and more important than the 
remaining chambers of the group. I have followed Dr. Reuther in giving it 
a rectangular frame upon the facade of the court (section e-f, Plate 5, Fig. 1). 
Two large doors, 1-50 metres wide and 3- 64 high to the top of the arch, open on 
either side of the liwan, on the east into rooms 41 and 42, and on the west into 
rooms 31 and 32, which lie at right angles to the liwan. At the south end a similar 
door leads into No. 30, a chamber 6 metres square, which has been covered by 
a barrel vault of brick running north and south, and doubtless the same height as 
the vault of the liwan. Doors of the same character, with ovoid arches set back 
from the jambs, are placed in the middle of the east, south, and west walls of 
No. 30. The fact that the high vaults of Nos. 29 and 30 were not sufficiently 
buttressed by the lower vaults on either side accounts for their fall. 

Rooms 31 and 32 are distinguished by a plaster decoration more elaborate 
than any which is to be found elsewhere in the palace, with the sole exception 
of the mosque. The vault of No. 31 resembles the vault of the haram, and like 
the haram vault it must have been built over a centering. It is divided into 
two compartments by three transverse arches, one spanning the centre of the 
chamber, the other two placed respectively against the east and west walls 
(Plate 30, Fig. 1). These transverse arches, which are 95 metre wide, spring from 
a double outset at a height of 2-80 metres from the ground. The vault between 
the arches springs at a point -25 metre higher. It is composed, like the haram 
vault, of narrow oversailing ridges worked in stucco. Along the top of the vault 
are placed between each pair of transverse arches four square stucco motives, 



UKHAIDIR 2 ; 

some of which remain intact. They differ slightly from each other, but all are 
variants of the same theme (Plate 30, Fig. 2). The first from the east end consists 
of four squares within one another, like a Chinese box, each sunk behind the 
other. In the centre there is a circular rosette, doubly recessed. In the second 
a single recessed square contains a saucer-shaped motive, the surface of the saucer 
being covered with rings of small plaster excrescences. In the third the usual 
recessed square is filled with a triply sunk diamond, with a recessed rosette in 
the centre. In the fourth the recessed square frame is filled with a recessed 
diamond, within the diamond is a recessed square, within the square a second 
recessed diamond, in the centre of which is a rosette. In the western compart- 
ment two of the motives consist of squares sunk within one another, a third 
of a doubly sunk square containing a triply sunk rosette, while the fourth is 
obliterated. Finally high up in the east and west walls under the vault is placed 
a small niche whereof the arch springs from engaged colonnettes. 

No. 31 is connected with No. 32 by a door opposite to the door in the central 
court. The construction of the roof in No. 32 is different from any other example 
of roofing in the palace. It is divided into three compartments by four heavy 
transverse arches which spring at a height of 2-85 metres from the floor, level and 
are set forward twice from the face of the wall (Plate 31, Fig. 1). Between the 
arches small barrel vaults are stretched across the chamber from north to south. 
In the eastern compartment the north and south head walls are carried up to 
the height of the vault. Immediately below the spring of the vault there is a 
sunk band in the head walls decorated with three recessed circles or rosettes. 
In the central and western compartment the vault terminates against a semi- 
dome, set over the angles in one case horizontally, in the other (the western 
compartment) by means of small recessed squinches (compare the west end of 
the haram) . Below the semi-domes there are a couple of narrow fillets, and below 
the sunk band of the eastern compartment a single wide fillet. Below these, at 
the same level in all the compartments, the head wall is decorated with pairs of 
arched niches, the arches being supported by engaged colonnettes. The colon- 
nettes have no bases ; a narrow impost serves them as capital. The face of the 
arches is decorated in two of the compartments by fillets and in the third (the 
western) by a zigzag motive. Within each niche there is a spear-shaped 
ornament sunk in the wall. In the spandrel between the arches there lies 
a recessed rosette. At a height of -35 metre above the springing point of the 
transverse arches the head wall is set very slightly forward, in imitation of 
the outset of an oversailing vault. The arches of the doors rise higher than the 
level of this outset, which is lifted in a rectangular label over them. The 
barrel vaults between the transverse arches are variously treated. The eastern 
vault is divided into sections by three short transverse arches, each of which 
is decorated by a square sunk motive. The central vault has the same 
number of short transverse arches, but these are undecorated. The western 

e 2 



28 UKHAIDIR 

vault is provided with a transverse arch against the semi-dome at either end, 
while the remainder of its length is decorated with stucco ridges. A pair 
of niches, smaller than those upon the side walls, is placed in the east and in 
the west wall under the transverse arches, but the spear-shaped ornament 
and the recessed rosette of the side niches is omitted. 

Rooms 31 and 32 are 10-05 metres from east to west and 4-90 metres from 
north to south. Room 41, lying opposite to room 32, has an equal length and 
the same system of doors, but no decoration. Room 42, which corresponds with 
room 31, is only 7-25 metres from east to west, since space had to be allowed 
for the two stairs leading out of the central court, one to the roof and one to the 
underground chamber. In the south-east corner of No. 42 there is a small door 
giving access to a narrow passage behind the block of masonry which contains 
the upper stair. It turns at right angles into a short passage lying above the 
lower stair. The vaulted underground chamber corresponds in length and width 
with No. 42 (section e-f, Plate 5, Fig. 1). It is lighted by three small windows 
which are splayed upwards to the ground-level — one of these can be seen in 
Fig. 3 of Plate 29. The room was filled with debris, so that I cannot be certain 
of its height. In the west wall there is an arched niche or taqchah. In the intense 
heat of southern Mesopotamia it is customary to provide all houses with under- 
ground chambers, wherein the inhabitants spend the greater part of their day 
in summer. They are known as serdabs. To the authors of Ochei'dir I am 
indebted for an interesting observation with regard to the vault of No. 41. 1 
It was built in sections over a movable centering which has left its mark upon 
the concrete of which the vault was formed. 

Rooms 32 and 41 communicated by doors in the south wall with the columned 
chambers 33 and 40 (Plate 31, Fig. 2), which are exactly alike in every respect, 
except that No. 40 is connected by a door with the room to the south, No. 39, 
whereas there is no south door in No. 32. Both 33 and 40 have doors, covered 
with ovoid arches set back from the jambs, leading into the corridor 28, and 
both are divided into three aisles by two arcades of three arches carried on 
two masonry columns. The aisles run north and south. The innermost aisle 
in either case forms part of the vaulted corridor, 36, which runs round three 
sides of No. 30. This aisle is only 2-50 metres wide, as compared with the 
2-85 metres of the other two aisles. All the aisles are roofed with barrel vaults. 
Though the columns are of stone masonry, the capitals, together with the arches 
and walls they carry, and the segmental vaults, are of brick. The columns 
are separated from one another from north to south by a distance of 2-50 metres, 
but the distance between each column and the wall behind it is only -90 metre ; 
hence the wide central arches rise almost to the spring of the vault, whereas 
the side arches are from their narrow span necessarily much lower (Plate 32, 

1 Ocheidir, p. 5. 



UKHAIDIR 29 

Fig. 1). The curve of all the arches is a pointed ovoid, and the narrow arches are 
considerably stilted. These last are built of concentric rings of small brick 
tiles, the inner band laid vertically, the outer horizontally. The large arches 
are composed of two concentric rings of voussoirs, both laid vertically, the 
inner ring being of large tiles used in their full size, the outer ring of half of the 
same tiles. The capitals are better preserved than any in the palace, and from 
one of the capitals of No. 33 in particular, an excellent idea of the form of the 
impost-capital commonly used at Ukhaidir can be obtained. (It is the capital 
seen in Plate 32, Fig. 1.) The cube of the capital is adapted to the circle of the 
column by placing an angle of brick under each corner. The capital is composed 
of a shallow ovolo in moulded plaster surmounted by an abacus which consists 
of a single course of bricks and carries an impost formed of three courses of 
brick. Within the arches the impost slightly oversails the abacus. 

On the south side of corridor 36 the vault has fallen, together with the columns 
between the engaged piers which must have supported the arcade (Plate 31, 
Fig. 3) . The spring of the arches can be seen against the piers. From the frag- 
ments that exist, the barrel vaults do not seem to have intersected one another 
but to have met diagonally at the angles. At the east and west ends of No. 36 
a door opens into rooms 39 and 34. No. 34 communicates with a parallel 
chamber, No. 35, which opens independently upon the narrow open court, f, 
between 36 and the corridor 28. The eastern side of this court was much 
ruined. In the south-east corner was a stair which led up to the roof. To the 
north, and partly under the stair, lies a small room, 38, communicating with 
another narrow room, 37, which was not entirely vaulted over. That it was 
intended to contain a fire is clear from the fact that the vault is pierced by two 
terra-cotta pipes, the one 29 centimetres in diameter, the other 12 centimetres, 
which must have served as chimneys. Similar pipes occur elsewhere and will 
be mentioned later. 

The long corridor, 28, which lies to east and west of the central court and its 
group of chambers, turns at right angles and encloses the whole central block. 
The corridor is covered by a semicircular stone vault, oversailing the walls ; 
at four points, however, it is left unroofed in order to admit light and air. These 
openings are flanked by transverse arches, springing a few centimetres lower 
than the spring of the vault. The angles of the corridor are roofed with groined 
vaults, and groined vaults occur in two places, towards the middle of each of 
the long sides of the corridor. Moreover, a small extension of the east arm 
of the corridor, No. 61, is also roofed with a groin. This last is the example 
given by Dr. Reuther on Plate 13 of Ocheidir ; it is the only groin in the palace 
which is built of brick. Where the groins do not rest on the head wall, they are 
laid against transverse arches, springing from a point lower than the springing 
of the vault. The lower parts of the groin are built of stones laid horizontally 
and forming a bracket from which spring the intersecting vaults (Plate 32, 



3 o UKHA1DIR 

Fig. 2). The vaults are also built of thin slabs of stone, cut in the shape of 
bricks, and laid with a slight inclination backwards against the head wall or 
the transverse arch. This construction demanded little or no centering. In the 
north-east angle of the corridor there is a small door in the east wall which 
gave access to a stair or passage running under the wall. It was so much blocked 
by ruins that I could not penetrate into it. 

From the corridor a door opens into each of the five courts, B and c on the 
east side, forming the eastern wing of the palace, H and G on the west side, 
forming the western wing, and e to the south. The courts have no direct com- 
munication with each other. The chambers on the north and south sides of 
these courts are all arranged in liwan groups, but there are differences in detail 
between courts b and H on the one hand, and courts c and G on the other, while 
the position and size of court E has led to further modifications. Court B 
(Plate 33, Figs. 1 and 2) measures 15-20 metres from north to south, and 17-60 
metres from east to west, but on the west side -40 metre is occupied by a shallow 
blind arcade, and on the east side 3 metres was taken up by an arcaded passage 
which is now ruined. The blind arcade is composed of five arches carried by 
engaged piers which have an average width of -70 metre. The arches are round 
and spring directly from the piers without the interposition of impost or capital. 
In the central of the five inter columniations is placed the door from the corridor. 
To the north and to the south of the court lies a liwan group of three vaulted 
chambers. The liwan opens on to the court through an archway 2- 60 metres 
wide flanked by engaged columns and piers (Plate 34, Fig. 1). The side chambers 
communicate by means of arched doorways with small antechambers, which in 
turn open into the court through arched doorways 2-05 metres wide, flanked by 
engaged columns (Plate 34, Fig. 2. The mass of brickwork which partly blocks 
the doorway is a later addition). The antechambers are roofed with barrel 
vaults running east and west, which are separated from the outer end of the 
liwan vault by transverse arches ; thus the vault of the liwan is enabled to run 
through to the wall of the court (Plate 35, Fig. 1). Structurally, the antechambers 
are therefore distinct from the outer end of the liwan ; practically the ante- 
chambers and the outer end of the liwan form a kind of narthex, the outer end 
of the liwan being part of the narthex and not an integral part of the reception- 
room. This fact is accentuated by the position of the side doors in the liwan. 
The sitting space along the walls ends with these doors, and for practical purposes 
the liwan is no longer than the side chambers. The capitals of the engaged 
columns are rectangular impost blocks of stone masonry. Between the parallel 
barrel vaults there is the usual system of tubes (Fig. 4). The tubes running north 
and south are carried over the transverse arches of the antechambers, and 
their openings appear on the facade of the liwan groups. Where the facade has 
fallen, as, for example, on the south side of court B, the construction can be 
clearly traced, and it is also possible to observe that tubes ran from east to 



UKHA1DIR 



3i 



west between the wall of the facade and the barrel vaults of the antechambers, 
as well as on the inner side of the same barrel vaults. Perhaps these tubes were 
connected with a tube running north and south parallel with the vault of the 
corridor. The vaults are ovoid and are constructed of a single course of stones 
laid vertically supporting a mass of stone and concrete. In all the interior doors 
the arches are set back from the jambs (Plate 36, Fig. 1) and constructed in the 
manner described on p. 15. Upon the plaster of the west wall of No. 44, south 
of the door leading into No. 45, there is a graffito inscription in Arabic (see 
below, p. 161). * 




Fig. 4. South side of court b. (From Ocheidir, by kind permission of Dr. Reuther.). 

East of the liwan group on the north side of court B there is a stair, and still 
further east a narrow passage within the outer wall. A small door in the north- 
east corner of the side chamber, 46, gives access to an unlighted blind passage 
under the stair. The stair runs up to a landing-place which is connected by a 
low doorway with a small chamber situated above the eastern passage. Another 
door leads into a gangway hollowed out of the thickness of the outer wall, and 
from this gangway a door leads into a tiny circular room in the outer towers. 
I did not determine whether the gangway in the wall runs on interruptedly from 
court to court. On the whole, as Dr. Reuther has observed, this would seem 
to be improbable since the strict isolation of the courts is in all other respects 
preserved. Almost exactly above the entrance to the stair (an awkward piece 

1 It appears in one of M. Massignon's photographs ; Mission en Misopotamie , Plate xx. 



32 UKHAIDIR 

of construction) sprang the first arch of the arcade which flanked the court from 
north to south. In every court this arcade has fallen, but on the south side 
of court H a portion of the first arch remains, together with the vault behind it 
(Plate 35, Fig. 2). I cleared away the ruins at the south end of this arcade and 
found the remains of the first column at a distance of 2 40 metres from the 
south wall. The arcade must therefore have been composed of four columns 
carrying five arches, corresponding with the blind arcade on the opposite wall. 
The massive stone vaulting of Ukhaidir was not suited to free standing arcades, 
and, as has been noticed in the mosque, when the wooden cross-beams perished, 
their collapse was inevitable. 

To return to court b. The passage already mentioned, running parallel 
with the outer wall, leads into an oblong room, 47, 3-55 metres wide, which lies 
from east to west across the back of the liwan group and the stair. This room 
is vaulted at either end but is left open near the centre (Plate 35, Fig. 3). The 
same oblong room is found behind the southern liwan group of court b, and behind 
each of the liwan groups in courts c, G, and h. In every case the vault next 
to the outer wall is pierced by a pair of terra-cotta pipes similar to the pipes 
described in No. 37. It is probable, as I shall show later (p. 82) that these rooms 
were intended for kitchens. On the south side of court B there is no stair ; above 
the vault of the passage which leads into the oblong room, 51, there is a blind 
corridor accessible from No. 50 by a door placed in the east wall, some 2 metres 
from the ground. This door must have been approached by a wooden ladder 
or steps, but I climbed up into it over a heap of ruins. On the west side the ante- 
chamber of No. 49 is provided with a door into corridor 28. Immediately to 
the south of this door a wall, broken by a doorway, has been built across the 
corridor. This wall is a later addition ; it is not bonded into the walls of the 
corridor, and it does not occur in the corresponding west arm. 

Court c differs from court B in the absence of antechambers to the liwan 
groups (Plate 33, Figs. 3 and 4). The liwan opens into the court through a wide 
pointed arch carried on engaged columns ; the side chambers are provided with 
doorways into the court, covered by ovoid arches set back from the jambs 
(Plate 36, Fig. 2), and the facade thus formed corresponds exactly with the 
facades of the court on the top floor of the three-storied block. Near the 
south-east corner of court c there is an arched doorway leading into the palace 
yard (Plate 37, Fig. 1). In the oblong chamber, 60, behind the southern liwan 
group, the south wall is occupied by a blind arcade of four arches borne by piers 
i-io metres wide and 1-05 metres deep. A similar blind arcade occurs in the 
corresponding chamber of court G, and indeed, except for slight variations in 
the measurements, the only difference between courts c and G is that in the latter 
there is no door into the palace yard. In the same way court H re-echoes court b 
save that in court H there is no doorway between the southern antechamber, 
82, and the corridor 28 (Plate J37, Fig. 3). 



UKHAipiR 33 

The arrangement of the rooms in court E is not symmetrical. On the east 
side court E is curtailed by the small oblong room, 61, and an open court, D. 
No. 61 is a continuation of the east arm of the corridor 28. It measures 5-25 
metres from north to south and 3-50 metres from east to west. The square for 
the brick groin with which it is roofed is obtained by laying a transverse arch 
to north and south. It opens by two arched doors, divided by a pier, into court D, 
which measures 10 metres from north to south and 9-20 metres from east to west. 
In the south wall there is an arched doorway into the palace yard. To the east 
of court E there is space for one chamber only (62) and a winding stair which 
leads to the roof. On the west side there are two chambers, 67 and 68, com- 
municating with one another and with the court. To the south of 67 there is 
a narrow passage (Plate 37, Fig. 2) which leads into an oblong room, 69, similar 
in all respects to the oblong rooms behind the liwan groups in courts B, c, G, 
and H. 1 Between the barrel vaults of 67 and 68 and the south arm of corridor 28 
are the usual tubes. The doorways of 67 and 68 are covered with ovoid arches 
set back from the jambs, but the opening into the narrow southern passage 
follows the line of the vault and oversails the wall. Above the vault of the 
passage there is an inaccessible passage or tube which exists for structural 
reasons only. To the south of court e lies a liwan with its side chambers, the 
liwan, 64, opening into the court by a wide archway, the side chambers by 
small doors, as in courts c and G. Finally, the space between 65 and 69 is filled 
up by a fourth room, 66, which communicates with 65 and with the narrow 
passage. Tubes are laid between all the barrel vaults of these rooms. 2 

The whole building above described is enclosed on three sides by a wall 
i-6o metres thick, set with towers 2-40 metres in diameter which project i-8o 
metres from the face of the wall (Plate 38, Fig. i). 3 Through the upper part 
of the wall runs the low, vaulted, and unlighted gangway which has already 
been mentioned (Plate 39, Fig. 1). It is no more than a tube between the wall 
and the vaults that adjoin the wall, but it serves to give access to the round 
chambers hollowed out of the towers. Access to the roof can be obtained at 
three points, the stair at the south-east angle of the central court, the stair 
at the south-east angle of court F, and the stair at the south-east angle of court e. 
Further, the three doors out of the first floor rooms 99, 102, and 106 open on 
to the roof of the single-storied block. There are traces of a narrow parapet 
round the edge of the roof, and the different courts seem to have been divided from 
one another and from the corridor 28 by low walls on the roof (Plate 38, Fig. 2). 

1 Dr. Reuther observed that in No. 69 the 3 As has been mentioned on p. 10, the original 

vault at the north end had been constructed intention was to carry this same wall round the 

without centering, while the vault at the south fourth side (the north side) also ; but when the 

end had been constructed over a centering ; great outer wall was added to the scheme, it 

Ocheidir, p. 43. replaced the smaller, less important wall of the 

* Rooms 63 and 65 are vaulted without center- first design. 
ing ; Ocheidir, p. 5. 

1M0 F 



34 UKHAIDIR 

One other building stands within the palace yard, the group of rooms 140-152 
to the east of the main palace. It is a later addition, though it resembles the 
rest of the palace too closely to admit of its having been added after the lapse 
of any considerable period of time. The north facade is prolonged beyond the 
chambers at either side, and is joined at the east end to one of the pilasters 
of the outer wall and at the west end to one of the towers of the inner wall, 
but it is not bonded in to the pilaster or to the tower. The northern end of the 
palace yard is thus divided off into a large court, which bears the same relation 
to the east annex as does the central court to the ceremonial chambers to the 
south of it. The stair to the first floor of the main palace was placed in this 
court, and it was approached from the main entrance through corridor 6. At 
the south-east corner the east annex does not connect with the angle of the 
east gate staircase, but is divided from it by an interval of -30 metre. 

The group of rooms 140-152 (the east annex) resembles in its main lines the 
group 29-42, south of the central court, and must have been intended for the 
same purposes. The north facade is decorated with blind arcades projecting 
•25 metre from the face of the wall (Plate 39, Fig. 2). The ovoid arches, which 
contain very shallow calottes, are carried by engaged columns having a diameter 
of -40 metre. A recessed polygon was placed in the spandrels. The arcade is best 
preserved at the west end, and it is there possible to see that a narrow cornice, 
consisting of a single course of stones, ran along the wall above the arches, and 
that above the cornice the top of the wall was adorned with small arched niches, 
borne on stumpy half-columns and separated from one another by larger engaged 
columns (compare the top of the outer north wall of the palace and the top of 
the north facade of the central court) . At the west end of the facade, in the first 
intercolumniation of the blind arcade, there is a gateway 1-90 metres wide, 
covered by a pointed arch. A similar gateway seems to have existed in the second 
intercolumniation from the east end, but the facade here is much ruined. The 
north wall of rooms 140, 142, and 145 has fallen (Plate 39, Fig. 3). There can 
be no doubt that access was obtained to the liwan, 140, by a wide archway, 
as in the case of the corresponding liwan, 29, south of the central court. I saw 
no trace of a north door into chambers 142 and 145, though in all probability 
it existed. The liwan, 140, is 5-40 metres wide by 10-50 metres long. Like the 
liwan 29, it has two doors on each side and a door in the south wall. It is, 
however, vaulted in stone, not in brick, and the vault does not rise above the 
level of those on either side. The door-jambs are enriched with shallow pilasters, 
•18 metre wide and -4 metre deep, worked in stucco (Plate 40, Fig. 2). They 
do not carry an arch over the archivolt of the door. In the side doors the archi- 
volt cuts into the line of the oversaving vault which is carried over them. Above 
the south door there is a high narrow arched window, giving additional light to 
room 141. On either side of the door is placed a shallow arched niche, 1 metre 
wide and -5 metre deep. The arch is filled in with a calotte, the lower edge of 



UKHAIDIR 35 

which is sunk behind the face of the wall. To the west of 140 are two vaulted 
chambers, 142 and 143, communicating with one another and with a similar 
chamber, 144, lying further to the south. The vaults of 142, 143, and 144 are 
set at right angles to the vaults of 140 and 141, so as to form buttresses to them. 
On the east side the same arrangement is observed in rooms 145, 146, and 147. 
These six chambers correspond to the more elaborate chambers 31, 32, 33, 
and 40, 41, 42 of the main palace. No. 141 (which corresponds with No. 30) is 
provided with four doors, one in the middle of each side. It was covered, not 
by a barrel vault, but by a stone groined vault, which has now fallen (Plate 41, 
Fig. 1). The chambers east and west of 141 (Nos. 144 and 147 ; compare 
the columned rooms of the main palace) communicate with the yard on either 
side and also with the vaulted passage or antechamber 148. Into this passage 
(Plate 41, Fig. 2 ; compare No. 36 of the main palace) the south door of No. 141 
opens. The vault of the passage has fallen. It was no doubt carried on the 
south side by columns and arches like No. 36. There are no chambers to east 
and west of the passage, but on either side of the open space to the south of it 
were two chambers, 149 and 150 to the west, 151 and 152 to the east. They 
communicated with one another and with the yard to the north, as well as with 
the corridor south of 141. Their vaults ran east and west. No. 150 has fallen 
almost completely and No. 152 is much ruined. 1 A doorway in No. 148 gives 
access to a stair which leads down into an underground room lying beneath 
Nos. 144, 143, and 142 (section e-f, Plate 5, Fig. 1). It is lighted by three 
splayed windows in the north wall ; under the windows there is an arched niche 
or taqchah. To the west of No. 142 there is a ruined chamber which contained 
a stair leading to the roof. Thus the analogy with the block of rooms Nos. 29-42 
is complete even to the serdab and the stair to the roof. 

The vault construction in the east annex shows a variation from that of the 
main palace. Instead of the long tubes running parallel with the barrel vaults, 
the masonry between the parallel barrel vaults of the annex is lightened by short 
compartments set at right angles to the vaults. Plate 39, Fig. 3, shows this 
construction between the vaults of 143 and 146 and the ruined vaults of 142 
and 145 ; Plate 42, Fig. 1, the same construction between the vaults 144, 141, 
and 147, and the ruined vault of the passage 148. This system is an improvement 
upon the tubular scheme, inasmuch as it fills in the space between the vaults 
more completely and gives greater solidity to the roof. Moreover, it has the 
advantage of leaving no long inaccessible tubes to serve as a home for birds 
and snakes. The decorative effect of the openings of the tubes is lost, but it 
was not needed in the blank east and west walls of the annex, nor yet in the 
arcaded north wall. 

1 The authors of Ocheidir restore a south wall on the analogy of court f. I saw no trace of 

running from No. 150 to No. 152, thus converting such a wall. 

the open space to the south of 141 into a court 

F 2 



3 6 UKHAIDIR 

The fact that a similar system of small compartments is to ;be observed in 
the building outside the palace to the north (though they are here laid parallel 
to the barrel vaults) leads me to suspect that it must have been built at about 
the same period, and is therefore a later addition to the original plan. It is 
completely detached from the palace, but it stands in line with the west wall of 
the palace and parallel to the north wall (Plate 43, Figs. 1 and 2). It is separated 
by a distance of 13-25 metres from the face of the arcades of the north wall. 
It was itself constructed at two different periods. The older portion lies to the 
south, nearest to the palace, and consists of a large open court, J, 33-20 metres 
from north to south and 24-80 metres from east to west, flanked on the east 
side by six vaulted rooms. The southernmost of these six rooms, 153, is 
9-55 metres from north to south and 780 metres from east to west. It is 
separated from court j by a wall 1 metre thick, but on the east side its 
wall is 1-90 metres thick and shows upon the exterior traces of an outer 
stair, leading to the roof, which passed over the wide arched opening in 
the east wall. The vault, which must have stood two stories high, like the 
vault of the great hall, has fallen. The remaining rooms, 154-158, have doors 
in the east wall and small loopholed windows in the west wall (Plate 42, Fig. 2). 
The rooms are divided across the centre by a transverse arch and vaulted in two 
compartments, the vaults running east and west. Court J had a cloister upon 
the west side ; it has entirely disappeared, but the spring of its vault is visible 
on the inner side of the west wall. Probably the vault was carried on the east 
side by columns and arches. Four round towers project at irregular intervals 
from the exterior of the west wall (Plate 44, Figs. 1 and 2) ; they have the same 
diameter as the towers in the outer palace wall. The southernmost is about 
3-40 metres from the southern angle of the court — an exact measurement is 
difficult because the angle of the wall is ruined. The next tower lies 5-65 metres 
to the north of the first ; an interval of 7-35 metres separates it from the third 
tower, and the third tower is 10-70 metres from the larger tower at the north-west 
angle of the court. The angle tower contains a winding stair. The three smaller 
towers seem to be a later addition to the wall ; they bear no relation to the 
three doors, and they block some of the windows. The windows are placed in 
groups of three, two groups between the south-west angle and the first door, 
one group between the first and second, and the second and third doors, and two 
groups between the third door and the angle tower. There are traces of a similar 
group in the north wall immediately to the east of the angle tower, and the 
straight face at the east end of the north wall gives reason to believe that there 
was a group of windows here also. The north wall is much ruined, and the ruin 
heaps are covered with blown sand. The arches of the windows are carried by 
engaged columns. 1 



1 Dr. Reuther gives a detailed photograph (Ocheidir, Fig. 50), showing a band of rhomboids round 
the window frame. 



UKHAIDIR 37 

To the north of room 158, and in a line with it, lie nine vaulted chambers which 
were added at a later date (Plate 44, Fig. 2) . They are separated from No. 158 by 
a stair running up to the roof, with a doorway to the west. At the east end there 
is a small room under the top of the stair with a loophole window in the east 
wall. From this room, which is accessible from No. 159, a stair, now completely 
ruined, led down into a substructure. Nos. 159 and 160 are 4 metres broad ; 
they are covered by barrel vaults and have a door at either end. No. 161 opens 
by two doors into No. 162. No. 162 is 480 metres broad and is divided across 
the centre by a transverse arch. East of the transverse arch only half the space 
is vaulted over. Besides the doors, there are two small windows high up in the 
north and south wall. In the east and west walls there is a wide archway 
instead of the usual doors. The five rooms 163-167 resemble in all respects 
Nos. 159-161. Except over No. 162, where the vault is higher than in the 
other chambers, the roof of rooms 154-167 is raised above small compartments 
lying over the barrel vaults (Plate 42, Figs. 2 and 3), and the mass of masonry 
between the vaults was lightened in the same manner. Slit-like windows 
appear high up in the east wall between the vaults (not, however, in rooms 
153-162), doubtless in connexion with these compartments. 

At a considerable distance to the north-east of the palace stands the small 
building which is known as the Hammam (Plate 5, Fig. 3). Unlike the rest of 
the palace, it is not oriented. It consists of a long chamber running slightly 
to the west of north (about 24 ), 10-65 metres long by 5-30 wide. It was covered 
by a vault which has now fallen. The door is on the east side ; in the north and 
south walls there is a deep rectangular niche. A door in the north-east corner 
leads into a smaller chamber, 4-10x3-30 metres. In this building the thrust of 
the vault over the larger chamber is taken by outer buttresses, the only instance 
of such construction at Ukhaidir. On the east side there is one buttress 
•60 metre deep ; on the west side three, 1-25 metres deep. A stair leading to 
the roof ran up over the western buttress. 



CHAPTER II 
QSAIR, MUDJDAH, AND 'ATSHAN 

QSAIR 

Among gypsum hillocks, about an hour's ride to the north-east of Ukhaidir, 
lie the ruins of a village known to the Arabs as Qsair. 1 There have been here 
a number of small houses, possibly lodgings for the gypsum workers, and I 
noticed several deep rectangular tanks, though whether they were intended 
for the storage of water, or were connected with the process of gypsum working, 
I do not know. Broken pottery was scattered sparsely over the ruin heaps ; 
most of it was unglazed, but there were also fragments of blue glazed ware 
and a few pieces with a black glaze on the inner side. Such sherds as these 
are to be found on every site, mediaeval or modern, in Mesopotamia, and do not 
offer any conclusive evidence as to date. One large building is standing in 
ruins (Plate 5, Fig. 4). It lies approximately north-east by south-west and 
has been enclosed by a wall of sun-dried brick, set with towers. On two sides 
this wall was clearly visible ; it lay thirty-two paces from the central edifice 
on the north-east and one hundred and ten paces from it on the south-west 
side. The 'little castle', from which Qsair takes its modern name, is a long 
narrow building 45-15 x 8-95 metres. The walls, 1 metre thick, are constructed 
of stones and gypsum mortar, but the masonry is slightly different in character 
from that of Ukhaidir. The stones, instead of being broken into thin slabs, 
are used in thicker blocks, and the binding courses are of the same blocks, 
whereas at Ukhaidir they are almost always composed of particularly thin 
slabs. There are traces of plaster upon the walls, but window and niche angles 
are finished with large blocks cut with a certain amount of care, another feature 
which is not to be observed in the smaller materials of Ukhaidir. The north- 
east end of the building was divided off by a wide archway, of which only the 
returns in the walls remain. The chamber thus formed (6-30 metres long by 
5-95 metres wide) was finished by a niche covered by a shallow ovoid calotte. 
The niche is rectangular in plan, 1-26 metres deep by 3-25 metres wide. The 
calotte was carried over the angles by shallow squinches, of which the archivolt 
was decorated with a zigzag ornament in plaster, 2 while at the base of the 
calotte there has been a similar band of plaster ornament. The construction 
of this niche recalls with fidelity the terminal semi-dome of a room in the 

1 It was visited by Massignon and appears in 2 Cf. the crenellated motive round the archi- 

lus map, Mission en Mesopotamie, vol. i, p. 21. volt of the doors of corridors 5 and 6 at Ukhaidir. 



MUDJDAH 39 

Umayyad castle of Kharaneh (see below, p. 114). Above the calotte there is 
a small rectangular window (Plate 45, Figs. 1 and 2). The back wall of the 
niche is exceedingly thin (-45 metre thick) and has in consequence broken 
away. There is a window high up in each of the side walls of the chamber, 
•50 metre from the transverse arch. 

The remainder of the building appears to have consisted of a single chamber 
33-10 metres long. The south-west end is very much ruined. There are 
traces of five doors on either side, and of a door in the south-west wall. The 
two doors in either side wall at the north-west end of the chamber were flanked 
by windows — probably there were more windows, though the ruined condition of 
the wall makes it difficult to speak with certainty. As regards the roof, there 
are remains of the spring of a vault in the north-east chamber and on the south- 
west side of the southern return of the transverse arch. On the exterior, at 
the north-east end, the wall is set back above the top of the calotte, and imme- 
diately below that level the east corner is sliced off diagonally, so as to form 
a triangular niche which has been partly covered by thin slabs (Plate 45, Fig. 3). 
Above the level of the calotte the angles of the building on either side appear 
to have been similarly sliced off. The side windows of the north-east chamber 
are rounded at the top, but the openings are so small that it was not necessary 
to construct these arches with voussoirs, and they are merely cut out of the 
masonry of the wall. The archivolt of the north-east niche is composed of 
a single row of voussoirs laid horizontally, as is the case in some of the more 
roughly built arches at Ukhaidir (for instance the door of passage 137, 
Plate 24, Fig. 2). None of the doorways are preserved up to the height of 
lintel or arch. 

I am inclined to suppose that this building was connected in some way 
with the working of the gypsum. It is possible that it may belong to the same 
period as Ukhaidir. 

MUDJDAH 

I sighted the tower of Mudjdah from the top of the tar east of Ukhaidir 1 
(Plate 46, Fig. 1). It stands in the level desert which stretches east to the 
Hindiyyeh ; there are no ruins in its vicinity, nor any evidence of water storage 
(Plate 47, Fig. 2). The tower is built of bricks measuring -27 x -27x7 metre. 
It rests upon a base of 4-35 metres square and 2-85 metres high, each side of 
which is adorned with three rectangular niches -20 metre deep and -36 metre 
wide. Each niche is covered by a triply recessed arch, roughly constructed 
of half-bricks set in rings, not as voussoirs (Plate 47, Fig. 3). Above the square 
niched substructure the tower is circular, and for a height of about 2 metres 
the wall is plain. On the east side, above the central niche of the substructure, 

1 M. Massignon heard of it under the name of Makhclah or Madjdah, but he did not visit it. Op. cit., 
p. 30. 



4 o MUDJDAH 

is placed a door (Plate 47, Fig. 1). The arch of the door, which is set in the 
second decorated zone of the tower, consists of a double row of half-bricks 
laid vertically and an outer belt of brick voussoirs laid horizontally. Each of 
the three members of the arch is recessed behind the other, the outer voussoirs 
being flush with the face of the wall. The door gives access to a winding stair, 
•60 metre wide, which leads to the top of the tower. The second decorated 
zone consists of a band of rectangular flutings, forming a zigzag in plan. Two 
courses above these flutings there is a course of bricks laid corner-wise so as 
to constitute a dog-tooth motive. The wall is then carried up for another six 
courses in plain masonry, above which lies a second course of brick dog-tooths. 
The succeeding zone is adorned with eight triply recessed niches with rect- 
angular heads. After four more courses of plain brickwork there is a third 
course of dog-tooths, and on the west side of the tower five courses of plain 
brickwork are preserved above the dog-tooths. That there was at least one 
other decorated zone seems certain. If my theory is correct, that the tower 
was intended as a landmark for caravans passing over this flat expanse from 
Nedjef to 'Ain al-Tamr, it is important to observe that at its present height 
it is not visible from Atshan, which is the nearest caravanserai to the east 
of Mudjdah. 

For purposes of comparison, I will set beside the tower of Mudjdah a minaret, 
as yet unpublished, belonging to a ruined mosque at Tauq, south of Kerkuk 
(Plate 48, Fig. 1). This minaret stood upon a low square base of which the 
surface of the brickwork is decayed. Upon this base was placed an octagon 
divided into three decorated zones ; the first and third are furnished with 
eight small arched niches, the central zone with eight larger niches, each one 
being recessed behind a rectangular frame of masonry. The remainder of the 
minaret is round and is adorned with broad alternating bands of brickwork, 
zigzags and diamonds, the latter being slightly recessed. The door is placed 
high up above the octagon and has no apparent means of access ; probably it 
was approached from the top of the mosque. The summit of the minaret has 
fallen ; of the mosque nothing remains but low mounds, and I know no record 
of its construction. ' Tauq is not mentioned by the earlier Arab geographers. 1 
Rich saw there a small gateway, the architecture of which he compares with 
the Mustansiriyyeh at Baghdad, 2 dated a.d. 1233, and the brickwork zigzags 
of the minaret are not unlike the decoration of the minaret in the Suq al-Ghazl 
at Baghdad, which may have been built about the same time as the Mustan- 
siriyyeh or a little earlier. 3 This is the period to which I should assign the 
minaret of Tauq, but the tower of Mudjdah must belong to an earlier age. In- 
stead of the broad ogee of the arches in the Tauq niches, the arches in the lower 

1 Le Strange, Lands of the Eastern Kaliphate, 3 Amurath to Amurath, p. 191. Massignon, 

P- 9 2 - Mission en Mlsopotamie, vol. ii, p. 41. 

* Residence in Koordistan, vol. i, p. 40. 



'ATSHAN 41 

zone of niches at Mudjdah are round, or as nearly round as their primitive con- 
struction would permit. The rectangular flutings are characteristic of a group 
of Persian monuments which are dated by Professor Sarre from the twelfth to 
the fifteenth centuries, 1 but the prototype is to be found in two minarets of an 
older period, the towers of Ghazni, one of which was built by Mabmud of Ghazni 
(a.d. 947-1030) and the other by his immediate successor. 2 

'ATSHAN 

Two hours' ride to the south-east of Mudjdah is the ruined caravanserai 
which the Arabs call 'Atshan, the Thirsty — the name is well deserved, for there 
is no water nearer than the Hindiyyeh. 3 It is not exactly oriented, but faces 
approximately north (Plate 46, Fig. 2). It is built of brick tiles varying from 
•31 X -31.x -7 metre to -32X-32X-8 metre and sometimes as large as -34 metre 
square. The walls enclose an area 29 metres square ; they are i-8o metres 
thick, and are strengthened at the angles by round towers, 4- 10 metres in 
diameter, projecting 1-90 metres from the face of the walls, as well as by smaller 
towers 275 metres in diameter which are placed in the centre of the east, west, 
and south walls. The small towers have the same projection as the angle 
towers. In the centre of the north wall is the gate, which is pierced through 
a double tower having a projection of 3-10 metres from the face of the wall. 
The gate towers are preserved up to a considerably greater height than the 
other towers (Plate 48, Fig. 2), but the systematic levelling of the walls and 
towers is probably due to brick- robbers, and there is nothing to indicate their 
original height. Even the gate-house towers have been higher than they are 
at present (Plate 49, Fig. 1). The west wall has fallen, carrying with it the 
south-west tower and all the constructions in the interior which ran along this 
side. The whole edifice looks as if it had been terribly shaken by earthquake ; 
great cracks have sprung open in the solid masonry ; the north-east tower leans 
outward and is on the point of falling. 

The north doorway is set back 75 metre within the segments of the flanking 
towers. 4 The doorway is 1-35 metres wide and opens into a small chamber, 
2-40 metres square, which is covered by a barrel vault. The inner doorway 
is set back within an arched niche (Plate 49, Fig. 2). To the west, a small 
opening has been pierced through the wall (it can be seen in Plate 49, Figs. 
1 and 2), but it has been formed merely by removing the bricks of the wall 

1 Tower tomb at Bostan, dated on the mihrab * Sarre, op. cit., p. 76 ; Fergusson, History of 

a.d. 1300-1301, Denkmdler persischer Baukunst, Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 494. 
p. 116, and Plate 85. Tower tomb at Rhages, 3 M. Massignon heard of a ruined khan called 

twelfth or thirteenth century, ibid., p. 57. Tower 'Atishan, op. cit., p. 30. He places it too far 

tomb at Veramln, twelfth or thirteenth century, east in his map. 

ibid., p. 59. Minaret of Khodja'Alam at Isfahan, * Cf. the east, west, and south gates of 

probably end of fourteenth or beginning of Ukhaidir. 
fifteenth century, ibid., p. 76 and Plate 62. 

isk G 



42 'ATSHAN 

and bears no sign of having existed in the original plan. The arches over the 
outer doorway and over the interior niche are composed of a course and a half 
of tiles laid vertically and an outer ring of brick voussoirs laid horizontally. 
The gateway leads into an irregular courtyard which has been surrounded on 
three sides by chambers. Near the centre of the court there is a brick tank, 
2-90 by 3-25 metres. This seems to have been the only provision which was 
made for water. A row of chambers 3-50 metres wide lies along the west wall. 
No. 1 is 5-80 metres long and has been roofed with a barrel vault running 
north and south. No. 2 has a length of 375 metres and was vaulted from 
east to west. No. 3 is 9-10 metres long and No. 4 is 4-15 metres long. There 
is no door between Nos.3 and 4. In the latter room a space of -8o metre is left 
open upon the east side and the remainder of the chamber is covered with 
a barrel vault lying east and west. Judging from the analogy of similar rooms 
at Ukhaidir, No. 4 was probably the kitchen. No. 3 seems to have communi- 
cated with the court by a door in the north-west corner. Parallel to it lies 
the vaulted liwan, No. 5, 4-90 metres wide (Plate 50, Figs. 1 and 2). At its 
southern end a door, placed in a wide and shallow niche, opens into No. 6. 
No. 6 communicates both with No. 4 and with the long, partially ruined hall, 
No. 7. The doorway between 6 and 7, 2-05 metres wide (the arch has broken 
away), is placed within a niche 1-45 metres deep which is covered by the segment 
of a semi-dome (Plate 51, Fig. 2). The semi-dome is laid across the angles by 
means of masonry brackets which must have borne a very strong resemblance 
to pendentives. The horizontal courses are carried up in the centre of the 
semi-dome for three courses, each shorter than the one below, and round this 
pyramidal core the brickwork of the semi-dome is laid concentrically. 1 To the 
south, the door niche is carried back beyond the width of the semi-dome, form- 
ing a small vaulted recess. No. 7 seems to have been provided with a door 
opening on to the court, but the western end of the north wall is completely 
ruined. A very narrow door under the semi-dome gave access to room 8, 
which could also be approached from the court by an arched door in the west 
wall (Plate 52, Fig. 1). No. 8, 2-90 by 575 metres, lies parallel to No. 7, and is 
roofed with a barrel vault. In the west wall, north of the door, there is an 
arched niche, -54 metre deep, and a similar niche is placed in the north wall. 
The main interest of No. 8 is the decoration on the exterior. On the west 
wall a simple and effective pattern is produced by laying a couple of rows of 
brick tiles face outwards at intervals along the top of the wall, and below these, 
north of the door, a rectangular tablet was formed, for purely decorative pur- 
poses, by inserting 2 or 2\ rows of faced tiles into the wall. The top of the 
north wall was ornamented with a row of four arched niches (Plate 50, Fig. 2). 
Small engaged columns, without bases, carry imposts formed of a single brick, 

1 Cf. a calotte in the central court at Ukhaidir, Plate 26, Fig. 2. 



'ATSHAN 43 

from which spring round arches decorated with three fillets in plaster. One 
of the niches is pierced by a narrow window. The vault construction is very 
similar to that of Ukhaidir. All the vaults oversail the walls by 4 centimetres. 
The lower part of the vault is composed of from five to nine courses of bricks 
laid horizontally, the upper of bricks laid vertically. Over the ovoid arch 
thus formed (it is always a course and a half thick) are carried the horizontal 
courses of the walls. I looked carefully for any trace of tubes between the 
parallel vaults, but found none ; the masonry seems to be solid in every case. 
All the door arches, as far as can be determined in their ruined state, were 
round and sprang flush with the jambs. 

The fortress-like character of the khan of 'Atshan, the plan of its gateway, 
and the details of its construction and decoration incline me to assign to it 
a date not far removed from that of Ukhaidir. The tower- of Mudjdah must 
stand in intimate connexion with the khan, for I can conceive of no reason for 
the erection of an isolated tower in the midst of a waterless desert, unless it were 
intended to serve some purpose on the caravan track from Kufah to Ain al- 
Tamr, of which the khan of 'Atshan was the intermediate stage. 1 I would 
suggest that neither khan nor tower can be dated much later than the ninth 
century; both are valuable and interesting examples of early Mohammadan 
architecture of the age, or at least of the school, to which Ukhaidir itself belongs. 

1 This seems to be the road to which al- Euphrates road and al-Anbar and take your 

Hadjdjadj alludes (Tabari, vol. ii, p. 945) : ' And way to 'Ain al-Tamr so that you may reach 

if you have come opposite to Hit, leave the al- Kufah.' 



G 2 



CHAPTER III 

QA$R-I-SHlRlN 

The general disposition of the Sasanian ruins at Qasr-i-Shirin has been 
given by M. de Morgan, and the plan of the two principal buildings, the palace 
of Khusrau and the palace (if palace it were) of Chehar Qapu, both of which 
I examined, appear in the same volume. 1 It is quite possible that the ruins may 
have suffered to a certain extent during the years which elapsed between M. de 
Morgan's visit and my own, and this may account for the omission in my plans 
of some features which are shown by him. Nowhere did I observe stucco decora- 
tions in so good a state of preservation as that which is depicted in his Figure 
208. I have, however, compared my photographs with those published by 
him and found no very noticeable differences. Moreover, it will be observed that 
such details as are absent from my plans are usually indicated hypothetically 
on those of the French mission, and it is therefore doubtful how much of them 
was actually seen and how much was conjectural. A very little excavation would 
determine whether these conjectures are correct. It is much to be regretted 
that I had not the French plans with me, as I might have been able to form 
some more definite opinion as to the value of the proposed restorations. As it 
is I must content myself with recording that which I saw above ground. 

THE PALACE OF KHUSRAU 

The larger edifice, which is known as the palace of Khusrau (i.e. Chosroe's II, 
Parwez, a.d. 590-628), is not built upon a single level. The central part is 
raised above the plain by means of a solid platform of earth some 3 metres high. 
The terribly ruined state of the buildings made it difficult to take elevation 
measurements which should approach to accuracy ; I have therefore endeavoured 
to give a correct impression of the structures upon the two levels by reproducing 
the plan in two parts. In the one (Plate 53) the upper rooms and courts are 
given ; the uncovered areas on the upper level are lightly tinted, the covered 
rooms are dotted, while the buildings on the lower level are shown only in outline. 
In the other (Plate 54) the upper level is left in outline and the covered and 
open areas of the lower level are fully indicated. 

The palace is exactly oriented, the main rooms and entrance facing east. 
The building materials are undressed stones laid in a thick bed of gypsum 
mortar. The stones are used exactly in the shape in which they were furnished 

1 Mission scientifique en Perse, vol. iv, Plates 40, 42, and 46. 



QASR-I-SHiRiN 45 

by nature, a shape which happened to be that of large rounded pebbles. With 
such materials accurately coursed masonry is not to be expected. The core of 
the walls is no more than a mass of concrete with stones bedded at haphazard 
in the strong gypsum mortar. On the outer surface of the wall, particularly 
in important chambers, the pebbles are, however, coursed with considerable 
care, but the face of the walls is necessarily very rough and must always have 
been covered with plaster. The vaults are constructed of the same unfavourable 
materials. They were built over a centering on which was laid an inner skin of 
stones and mortar ; when this had hardened it was strong enough to bear the 
mass of concrete which was built round and above it. Construction of this 
kind would have been impossible but for the excellent qualities of the mortar. 
I observed that the vaults both in this palace and at Chehar Qapu had almost 
invariably a slight outset from the wall (Plate 52, Fig. 2), as is generally the 
case in Sasanian vault building, whether in brick or in stone. The vaults are 
round or slightly ovoid, except in the lower corridor, under the margin of the 
platform (Plate 54, Corridor 103). Here the vaults are very markedly pointed 
(Plate 51, Fig. 1), but I should attribute this form not to any conscious predi- 
lection for the pointed arch — an arch which was, so far as I am aware, unknown 
to Sasanian architects — but to an accident inherent in the rude construction 
of an unimportant part of the building. Occasionally brick was used. I saw 
fragments of brick among the ruins of the palace of Khusrau, and in Chehar 
Qapu some brick vaults are still standing. The walls which were intended to 
support these massive stone roofs were seldom less than 130 metres thick, and 
sometimes considerably thicker. (In Chehar Qapu, however, they are not 
infrequently reduced to a thickness of little over a metre.) 

The eastern end of the platform is devoid of constructions. It is accessible 
by means of three double ramps which will be described in dealing with the lower 
level of the palace. Excluding the width of the ramps, the open platform is 
149 metres long (reckoning it up to the east wall of chambers 21, 22, and 23) 
and 98 metres wide. The main gateway of the palace is much ruined. The hall 
or porch which is numbered 1 on the plan is indicated by two grass-grown mounds, 
26- 60 metres long by about 5- 40 metres broad, leaving a space of about g- 80 
metres between. Another mound lying north and south marks the eastern limit 
of No. 2. At either end of this latitudinal chamber there were traces of cross 
walls, which I have shown on the plan. Upon the eastern mound I saw through 
the grass circular patches of brick which may have been the remains of columns. 
Whether No. 1 was flanked on either side by columns, as M. de Morgan has 
represented it to have been, I have no means of determining, but I have little 
doubt that it was a covered porch of some kind leading to a latitudinal chamber, 
No. 2, which was some 45 metres long (between the cross-walls) by 17 metres 
wide, and that this chamber was a covered antechamber to the hall of audience, 
No. 3. The hall (3) is 27- 20 metres square ; the walls are ruined down to the level 



4 6 OASR-I-SHIRIN 

of the side door arches, and the interior is filled with ruins to the depth of about 
i metre — judging by the present ground-level in the doorways (Plate 55, Figs. 1 
and 2). At each corner of the hall, 2- go metres from the walls on either side, 
there are the remains of a pier, 140 metres square, with two engaged columns 
projecting about 1 metre and producing a heart-shaped ground-plan. The 
pier at the south-west corner is tolerably well preserved, and there can be no 
doubt as to its form. The eastern wall of the hall is 4-35 metres thick and is 
broken by a single door 3 metres wide. At the south-east corner a small door- 
way leads into a short passage, probably vaulted, which gives access to the open 
platform. On the west side of the hall lies a liwan (4) 510X 13-15 metres. A 
door, i- 60 metres wide, opens into court A, but there is no direct communication 
between the liwan and its subsidiary chambers. Of these last there are two 
on either side. To the north, room 5 opens by doors into hall 3 and court A. 
No. 6 has only one door, opening into a narrow passage (9) which was probably 
covered by a vault. On the south side No. 7 corresponds exactly with No. 5, 
while No. 8 opens into No. 7 and not into the corridor 10. These corridors 
(9 and 10) lead respectively out of the north-west and the south-west corners of 
hall 3 ; they are prolonged beyond rooms 6 and 8 and open into court A. Parallel 
to them run a second pair of corridors (11 and 12) which are two of the main 
gangways of the palace. No. 11 is 180 metres wide. Its eastern end is, so 
far as I could ascertain, a cul-de-sac, but it may possibly be provided with a door 
into room 13 (the walls are very much ruined here). A doorway, placed 
immediately west of the end of corridor 9, leads into court A, and doors on the 
north side communicate with courts D and E. Corridor 12 is 1-70 metres wide 
and leads out of hall 3 ; the arched doorway into the hall is preserved. The 
only other doorway in this corridor of which I could make certain is one com- 
municating with court 1, but in both corridors (11 and 12) the walls are so much 
ruined that I cannot feel sure that they do not possess more doors. Beyond 
courts F and j both corridors drop down to the lower level and are then con- 
tinued to the western limit of court B, where they turn at right angles and unite 
behind court B, but on the lower level. Whether the descent was accomplished 
by steps or by a ramp I could not determine, but in No. 12 the vault at this 
point was well preserved, and I noticed that, as in the stairs and ramps of 
Ukhaidir, it was built not in an inclined plane, but in sections rising one above 
the other like inverted steps (Plate 56, Fig. 1). East of hall 3 and of the chambers 
pertaining to it, the remainder of the central area of the palace is occupied by 
two courts, a and B, 33- 90 metres wide, divided from one another by a much 
ruined cross wall in which there was presumably a door. Court A is 40 metres 
long from the west wall of the liwan (4) to the cross- wall ; court B is 71-30 metres 
long from the cross wall to the end of the platform. 

To north and south of the central area lie a series of courts with liwan groups, 
on the west side courts c and G alone offer slight variations .of scheme. In 



QASR-I-SHtRtN 47 

court c there is a liwan group at either end, the western group being the more 
important ; as will be seen, this is the usual arrangement in the courts on the 
lower level. There are, besides, three chambers (13, 14, and 15), lying between 
court c and hall 3. These chambers are almost completely buried under ruin 
heaps overgrown with grass ; I was able to see that No. 13 opened into No. 3 
and into court c, but I could not determine the position of the doors in Nos. 14 
and 15. Court c measures 2160 metres from north to south and 19- 20 metres 
from east to west. The western liwan is 5- 20 by 7- 25 metres. I would here remark 
that in all cases the liwans open by their full width on to the court, whereas in 
the French plan the entrance arch is narrowed by short returns in the side 
walls. The side chambers (17 and 18) do not communicate with the liwan 
(a rule which is followed throughout the palace), but have doors only into the 
court. A door in the west wall of the liwan (16) leads into a latitudinally placed 
chamber (19) measuring 5- 10 by 14- 30 metres, which is separated by a wall at the 
south end from a small subsidiary chamber, 175 metres wide, with which it 
communicates by a narrow door. There is also a doorway between No. 19 
and court D. This group of rooms (16 to 19) occurs unchanged in courts E, G, H 
and I, and is provided invariably with a posterior court. In one case only, court 
H, a shallow liwan group is placed at the west end of the posterior court. All 
the latitudinal chambers (19, 28, 32, and 42) behind the liwans are completely 
ruined. I conjecture that they were vaulted, but it is possible that they were 
not wholly covered, like the corresponding chambers behind the liwans at 
Ukhaidir. On the analogy of Ukhaidir they must have served the purpose of 
kitchens. I saw no trace in court c of the columns which are placed there in 
the French plan. At the east end there is a shallow liwan group (21, 22, and 23), 
the liwan being 4 metres deep. To the north of this group lies a short passage 
leading to a door which communicates with the open platform. A corresponding 
passage (20), 2- 30 metres wide, leads out of the north-west corner of court c, 
runs along the north side of courts D, E, and F, drops on to the lower level in the 
same manner as corridors 11 and 12, is continued as far west as they, and then 
turns off at right angles and joins the cross-passage which connects them. North 
of court c are two chambers on the upper level (106 and 24). No. 106 is a long 
passage room with two rectangular arched niches in the south wall, a door at 
the east end opening on to the platform, and a door at the west end which gives 
access to a ramp that descends into the exterior park, between the retaining 
wall to the south and the wall of a chamber on the lower level to the north. In 
the north wall of No. 106 there is a door leading into No. 24, a much ruined room 
about 7- 50 metres square, and a door further west opening on to the roof of a short 
passage. 

Courts E and F stand in the same relation to one another as courts c and D; 
court E is the forecourt of a liwan group with a kitchen (25 to 28) ; court F is 
the posterior court. The western wall of court F is the retaining wall of the 



4 8 QASR-I-SHtRfN 

mound on which the rooms and courts of the upper level are built. Court F, 
together with No. 28, are omitted in M. de Morgan's plan, a fact which shows 
that there must be serious errors in his measurements. 

Upon the southern side of the platform, court G is divided from the hall 3 
by three chambers (33, 34, and 35) which, like the corresponding chambers north 
of the hall, are ruined and filled with debris. They appear to have had no 
communication with the hall. On the south side a door leads from court G into 
corridor 43, 2- 60 metres wide, which corresponds with the northern corridor (20). 
The western end of court G is occupied by a liwan group and kitchen (29-32), 
the latter opening into court H. Court H, 15 metres from east to west, differs, 
as has been said, from its counterpart court D, in that it is furnished with 
a shallow liwan group at its western end. These rooms (36, 37 and 38) are much 
ruined, but it appeared to me that there was no communication with court 1. 
Court 1, 14- 20 metres from east to west, and court J, 17- 80 metres from east to 
west, with the liwan group and kitchen between them, correspond exactly in 
their arrangement with courts E and F. I do not doubt that all the rooms above 
described were covered by barrel vaults, but there is no wall on the upper level 
that stands much more than a metre high, and therefore no vault is preserved. 

In the central part of the palace the upper level is prolonged to the western 
end of court B, but in the wings it ends with courts F and J. Thus it is that the 
rooms and courts which flank the western end of court B are upon the lower 
level. They form two complete units, one on either side. The northern unit is 
composed of courts K and L and rooms 44 to 50. On the east side of court K 
lies a shallow liwan group (48, 49, 50), the liwan being 3-25 metres deep. On the 
west side the liwan group differs somewhat from those which have been already 
described. A narrow antechamber, 2-40 metres deep, is interposed between the 
liwan with its side chambers (44, 45, 46) and the court. A wide archway, corre- 
sponding with the arch of the liwan, and two doors, corresponding with the doors 
of the side chambers, open into court K, but the width of the arch and doors of 
the antechamber is slightly greater than the width of the arch and doors of the 
liwan and its side chambers. The door of 46 is 105 metres wide and stands 
i- 85 metres from the south wall ; the corresponding door of the antechamber 
is 1-70 metres wide and stands 1-30 metres from the south wall. The arch of 
the liwan has a width of 5- 20 metres ; the corresponding arch of the ante- 
chamber is 5-80 metres wide. Neither here nor in any other court where the 
antechamber occurs is it possible to determine the exact relation between the 
vault of the antechamber and the vault of the liwan, but the fact that the liwan 
arch seems to have been narrower than the antechamber arch (it is only in court 
K that the measurements can be taken with anything approaching to accuracy) 
leads me to suppose that the vault of the liwan cannot have been carried through 
to the court, as at Ukhaidir. In that case the antechamber must have been 
roofed with a continuous vault laid at right angles to, and possibly higher than, 



OASR-I-SHIRIN 49 

the vault of the liwan. The antechamber communicates with corridor n. 
Courts M and N, on the south side of court B, are the counterpart of courts K 
and L. The southern end of the antechamber is exceptionally well preserved, 
and the arched doorway leading into corridor 42 is standing (Plate 56, Fig. 2). 
Part of the vault of corridor 42 can be seen in Plate 57, Fig. 1. 

The cross-passage connecting corridors 20, 11 and 12 affords communication 
with the western courts, which form three units, all exactly alike, except for 
slight variations in width. Each unit consists of a pair of courts and two groups 
of rooms. A shallow liwan group lies at the east end of each of the forecourts, 
o, Q, and s (Plate 57, Fig. 2). Doors from the passage are placed in the side 
chambers of the liwans, and corresponding doors open into the courts. As far 
as I could ascertain the courts communicated with one another, but the division 
walls are ruined, often down to ground-level, and it is hard to decide between 
a doorway and a breach. At the west end of the courts stands a more important 
liwan group with an antechamber (Plate 58, Figs. 1 and 2, and Plate 59, Fig. 1). 
In no case is there a door in the back of the liwan, but communication with the 
posterior court is provided by means of a narrow vaulted passage (59, 67 and 75) 
placed to the south of the liwan group. 1 There is no latitudinal chamber in the 
posterior courts, but a small additional chamber (58, 66 and 74), possibly for 
domestic purposes, lies on the northern side of each liwan group. A corridor (79) 
leading out of court N bounds these courts to the south, and at right angles to it 
another corridor (80) bounds them to the west. The outer wall of No. 80 is 
ruined to the foundations, and I could not see whether there were doorways 
opening into the park. There were clear traces of doors leading into this 
corridor from courts P and T. Parallel to No. 79, but wholly separated from 
it, runs the continuation of corridor 43, which, after passing round the south 
side of court N, turns at right angles and opens at its western end into the 
park (Plate 59, Fig. 2). To the south of these corridors lies a large court, u, 
with remains of an arcade along its northern side. The space between the arcade 
and the wall of corridor 43 was probably vaulted; at its southern end it opens 
into the corridor. Court u is almost square (51x5170 metres). To the west 
and south its walls are ruined, but on the west side great heaps of stones furnish 
indications of a gate. On the opposite side of the court there is another gateway 
of which a considerable part is standing. It is situated at the west end of a rect- 
angular area, court v, arcaded on either side, which must have been intended 
for a private pleasure-ground or a place for games (Plate 60, Fig. 1). The 
latter is the more probable conjecture, since there is no direct communication 
between court v and the palace. The gateway was an important structure. 
From the western court (u) a porch 2- 70 metres deep opened through an arch- 
way 3- 70 metres wide into a rectangular vaulted chamber (83) 450 metres 

1 Cf. with these passages the vaulted passages to one side of the liwan groups at Ukhaidir in 
courts b, c, o, and h. 

imo H 



5© 



QASR-I-SHlRlN 



from east to west (Plate 60, Fig. 2). To the east of 83 lay a chamber (82) almost 
square (5-90x5-80 metres) having a rectangular vaulted niche, 150 metres 
deep, to north and south and an archway to the east opening into court v. 
No. 82 must have been covered by a dome, which was in all probability set over 
the angles on squinch arches (see below, Plate 69), but no part of the dome is 
standing (Plate 61). On either side of the gateway there are four chambers 
accessible only from court v. No. 85 opens into the passage, probably vaulted, 
which was formed by the northern arcade ; No. 89 opens on to the area outside 
the southern arcade. It would be natural to expect that an outer wall ran 
parallel to this arcade, dividing court v from the park, and I looked for traces 
of such a wall, but did not find them. Court v (18-50x102-50 metres) ter- 
minates in a group of much-ruined buildings of which I could only make out the 
general plan. The arcaded passage (92) ends in a small vaulted and unlighted 
room (93) (6-55x3-55 metres). To the south of 93 are two large chambers 
(94 and 95), No. 94 terminating at the southern end in a deep niche. Nos. 93 and 
94 are separated by a narrow passage from a small rectangular court (w) having 
two chambers at either end. Of these chambers Nos. 99 and 100 are completely 
ruined, but the vaults of Nos. 97 and 98, which are built partly under the upper 
platform, are standing (Plate 62). To the south lies another small court (x) 
out of which the passage 101 leads into a small rectangular chamber (102) 
which in turn communicates with the arcaded corridor 103. This corridor runs 
round the eastern end of the platform which is carried over it on a vault. The 
vault, which was very roughly constructed, is noticeably pointed, especially on 
the east side (Plate 51, Fig. 1). Three double ramps provided access to the 
platform, the eastern pair being the largest and most important. The eastern 
ramps begin opposite the fourth detached pier at either end of the arcade of 
the corridor, where a mass of masonry 6- 60 metres long by 4- 90 wide blocks 
the adjoining arch. Vaults carrying the ramp are placed before the seventh 
and eighth arches from either end of the arcade, and in front of the central 
arch lies a vaulted chamber 3-75 metres wide. The length of this double ramp 
is 48 metres (Plate 63, Fig. 1). On the west side of the corridor there are nine 
vaulted chambers, 5- 80 metres deep, which are tunnelled out under the platform. 
Their doorways correspond with the arches of the corridor. A detached chamber 
lies at either end of the corridor. The north and south ramps are constructed in 
the same fashion, but they are only 30- 80 metres long. Opposite the central 
vault there is a chamber under the platform ; on either side the platform is 
solid, after which there are two vaulted chambers. 

On the north side of the palace there is another group of much-ruined buildings 
on the lower level. The arcaded corridor (103) ends at this point in a narrow 
vaulted chamber (104) which lies under No. 106. Like 106, No. 104 has two 
arched niches in the south wall. It abuts at its western end against the ramp 
which descends from No. 106. A narrow passage leads out into a large enclosure, 



qasr-i-shIrIn 5 i 

court Y, in which all the walls are ruined. Plate 63, Fig. 2, shows the eastern 
end of No. 106 with its vault partially preserved, and the walls and substructures 
of No. 24. In the south-west angle of court Y there was a large chamber (105), 
and the north-west corner was occupied by two groups of three rooms lying to 
north and south of the small court z. Possibly there was a somewhat similar 
arrangement of rooms on either side of court z 1 . 

CHEHAR QAPU 

Like the palace of Khusrau, Chehar Qapu faces east. It covers a rect- 
angular area 134 metres from east to west, and 82-60 metres from north to 
south (Plate 64). The building materials are the same as those used in the 
larger palace. The principal entrance is in the east end ; I saw nothing of 
the great portico which M. de Morgan places on the south side, and as the outer 
wall at that point is entirely ruined, it is impossible to say whether there were 
a door there or no. The eastern gateway is much ruined (Plate 65, Fig. i), 1 
but the transverse arch between chambers 1 and 2 is standing. To north and 
south he a series of courts and small chambers, occupying a width from east 
to west similar to that of the gateway buildings and apparently appertaining 
in some way to the entrance, since they do not communicate with the interior 
of the palace. The eastern wall both of the gateway and of the outer courts 
has fallen, so that the architectural scheme of the facade cannot be determined. 
It is certain, however, that it was not symmetrical, for the courts are not sym- 
metrically disposed, nor is the north wing equal in length to the south wing. 
To the south of the central gate he two courts, a and b, io-io metres from 
north to south, and 9-35 metres from east to west. Court A is provided with 
a pair of small rectangular chambers on either side ; in court b there are two 
rooms upon the south side only. There are slight variations in size between 
these chambers, but they average about 4-10 metres square. They communi- 
cated with the court, but not with one another. They have all been covered 
by conical domes set over the angles on squinch arches. I give an example 
from No. 6 which will serve to illustrate the construction in every case (Plate 65, 
Fig. 3). Many of the rooms had a small niche in one wall (Plate 65, Fig. 2), 
the taqchah, which is to be seen in all Persian houses ; it appears again in 
numerous rooms in the body of the building. In No. 6 the niche is unusually 
large and, though it has broken through, the plaster decorations on the archivolt 
are preserved (Plate 66, Fig. 1). They consist of three fillets, and above the 
archivolt the small oversailing band of plaster which marks the springing of 
the dome is lifted so as to form a rectangular label. As can be seen from the 
photographs, most of the plaster has fallen from the walls ; where it remains 
it is usually decorated with an insignificant striated motive consisting of narrow 

1 In the photograph there seems to be a low however, merely a hole in the wall, and I satisfied 

archway on the south side oi the gate ; it is, myself that there was originally no opening here. 

U 2 



52 QASR-I-SHtRtN 

vertical and horizontal bands of five lines each, which look like the impress 
of some coarse matting on the wet plaster. To the north of the central gate 
there are two rooms, 9 and 10, communicating with one another. Further 
north lies a large court, c, 14-10 metres long, with two rooms at either end. 
Nos. 11 and 12 differ from the usual arrangement. No. 11 measures 6-20 by 4-05 
metres and has a niche in the east wall. The north wall, which contained 
the door into the court, has fallen. No. 12, 1-65 x 4-20 metres, opens into 
the court by a narrow door in the north-west corner, part of the wall having 
been cut away to allow space for it. Nos. 13 and 14 are domed rooms of the 
customary type. In No. 14 the north-west squinch is particularly well pre- 
served, part of the plaster fillets over the archivolt being still in place (Plate 66, 
Fig. 2). 

The central gateway opens into court D, 31-50x13-30 metres. At the 
western end of the south wall of this court there are faint traces of plaster 
decoration, shallow arched niches separated by engaged colonnettes. The court 
terminates in a second vaulted gateway (15), which is so much ruined that the 
details of its structure cannot be made out (Plate 67). On either side of this 
gate a low archway leads into the vaulted passages 16 and 17. At the eastern 
end of court D a door gives access to a chamber (18) 27 x 4-20 metres, which 
forms the east side of court E and opens into that court by two wide doorways. 
To north and south of court E lie chambers 19 and 20, 12-40x4-20 metres and 
12-40 x 4-20 metres, which open into the court by three arches carried on masonry 
piers varying from 2-50 to 2-80 metres in length. On the west side of the court, 
No. 21 corresponds with No. 18, but the greater part of its walls have fallen. 
Court f is flanked to the south by No. 23, 11-50 x 4-20 metres, a closed chamber 
with a single door, and to the north by No. 22, which is only 9-10 metres long in 
order to allow space for a door leading into No. 24 (11-40x4-40 metres). The 
west side of court f is partly occupied by the vaulted passage (16) and partly 
by No. 25, a room which no doubt communicated with the court by a door. 
A door leads from it into No. 26, whence a pair of doorways give access to court G. 
No. 27 lies to the north of court G and communicates with No. 28, to the north 
of court h. No. 28 in turn communicates with No. 29, lying parallel with 
Nos. 30 and 31, two rooms that open out of the west side of court h. Back to 
back with Nos. 29, 30, and 31 lie Nos. 32, 33, and 34, with doorways opening 
west. The vaults of these six chambers are well preserved. Plate 68, Fig. 1, 
shows the interior of No. 31 with an arched taqchah in the wall. The vault is 
ovoid and oversails the wall. 

The courts in the south wing of the palace correspond neither in size nor in 
disposition with those of the north wing. Opposite to the door of No. 18 
a door leads into No. 35, which is an isolated chamber with a deep niche at 
the south end. Court 1 can be approached from court D only by a circuitous 
route through passages 17 and 45. Upon the east side of court I lie the two 



QASR-I-SHIRIN 53 

rooms 36 and 37, 4-40 metres wide and respectively 7-85 and 8 metres long. 
On the south side there is a group of rooms preceded by an antechamber, of 
which nothing is standing but a return at the east end of the wall or arcade. 
Three doors lead out of the antechamber into rooms 39, 40, and 41. In the 
central chamber (39) there is an arched niche at either end leaving a space 
4-15 metres square which was covered by a dome set on squinches (Plate 68, 
Fig. 2). To east and west, the dome rested upon the arches of the doors leading 
into Nos. 40 and 41. Beyond 41 there is another room, 42, which was accessible 
from 41 only. On the north side of court 1 are two small rooms, 43 and 44, 
about 4-15 metres square and much ruined. Further west is the entrance to 
corridor 45. Court 1 is separated from court J by a wall which is ruined to its 
foundations. On the south side there is a single long chamber (47) with an 
antechamber ; the north side is occupied by corridor 45, which is accessible 
from court j by a door in the north-west corner of the court. Corridor 45 
communicates with corridor 17, a transverse arch separating the two. I call 
attention to the fact that the vault builders were always careful to avoid inter- 
section ; when two barrel vaults meet at right angles, the one is always divided 
from the other by a transverse arch. This is very noticeable in corridor 17, 
where the vault is standing. In the eastern arm of the corridor, opening out 
of court d, the east and west vault terminates against a transverse arch so as 
to allow the north and south vault of the western arm to run straight through to 
the head wall at the northern end. 

The western arm of corridor 17 opens into court K. The north and west 
sides of this court are completely ruined and represented only by grass-grown 
heaps of stones. On the south side there is a true liwan group (49, 50, 51) 
with an antechamber, the liwan (49) opening into the antechamber through 
a wide archway, the side chambers (50 and 51) by means of doors. To the 
west of these chambers there is an open space with no buildings standing upon 
it ; even the outer wall is completely ruined. It is here that the south gate 
is placed in the French plan. Some 19 to 20 metres west of No. 50, two cham- 
bers (52 and 53) with an antechamber are partially preserved. A mound of 
stones and grass runs northward, continuing the west wall of Nos. 51 and 53. 
East of this mound, at any rate at its northern end, there were ruin heaps 
indicating chambers, but I was not able to discern their exact form or extent, 
nor yet their relation to the hall 54. This hall is a chamber 16-15 metres square, 
with walls 3-90 metres thick which carried a dome set upon squinch arches 
(Plate 69, Fig. 1). No part of this dome is standing, but it is safe to conjecture 
that it was built of brick. 1 The method of constructing the squinches can be 

1 In the palace of Firuzabad the dome is of exactly similar to the Sarvistan work. Dieulafoy, 

stone, but at Sarvistan it is of brick. The con- L Art antique de la Perse, vol. iv, Plates 5 and 14. 

struction of the squinches at Chehar Qapu is not Sarvistan is much nearer in date to Chchar Qapu, 

like that of the Firuzabad squinches, but it is see below, p. 92. 



54 OASR-I-SHIRfN 

seen best at the south-west angle (Plate 69, Fig. 2). . An archway, 570 metres 
wide, breaks the centre of each wall. The round arches were built of brick, 
but on the south side only is any considerable portion of the brickwork pre- 
served (Plate 70, Figs. 1 and 2). The bricks are laid horizontally, not vertically, 
i.e. with the narrow face outward. Above each archway there is a small round- 
headed window. On the exterior the face of the walls has perished to a con- 
siderable extent. Between the top of the archways and the bottom of the 
windows the wall would seem to have been recessed back slightly (Plate 71), 
and at this level the corners of the building appear to have been sliced off, 
thus reducing the mass of masonry behind the squinches. This effect may, 
however, be produced merely by the decay of the masonry, for the lower part 
of the walls also has invariably broken away at the angles. At the north-east 
and north-west corners I noticed some brickwork embedded in the stone masonry. 
No. 54 stands 9 metres from the western outer wall, of which at this point 
nothing but foundations remain. At the north-west angle there are ruins of 
four chambers (55, 56, 57, 58) placed two deep, and to the south four chambers 
(59, 60, 61, 62) lie parallel to one another along the wall. No. 62 breaks off 
abruptly with a high peak of masonry (Plate 72), possibly part of an upper 
story. I saw no trace of any building further to the west. 



CHAPTER IV 

GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

The palace of Ukhaidir is not an isolated phenomenon. It belongs to a 
group of buildings which exhibit in varying proportions the characteristic 
features of the fortress and of the pleasure-house of princes. These buildings 
are scattered over the western frontiers of the Syrian desert ; Ukhaidir is as yet 
the sole example of the type which has been discovered upon the eastern side. 
They are a logical outcome of the period of cultural transition during which 
they arose, the difficult and distasteful passage from nomadic to settled life ; 
they attest the abiding call of the open wilderness, to which the poets and 
chroniclers of the first century after the Hidjrah are faithful witnesses. To the 
Arab the desert is more than a habitation ; it is the guardian of traditions 
older and more deeply rooted than those of Islam ; of traditions which are sacred 
to his race ; of his purest speech, and of his finest chivalry. It is for him the 
natural theatre of his actions, and there is no other stage on which he can play 
out his part. To this day I have heard the Beduin speak of themselves as the 
Ahl al-Ba'ir, the People of the Camel, just as they spoke of themselves in 
the early centuries as Ahl al-Dar', People of the Udder. 1 The authority of the 
Prophet was powerless to stay the current of his race. ' Periodically the Arabs 
succumbed to the allurement of the camel, to the need to drink of its milk. The 
Prophet himself was not exempt, since he prayed God to preserve him from it. 
For his nation, said he, he dreaded the diet of milk. When his companions 
expressed their astonishment at his fears, he replied : " The passion for milk 
will lead you to abandon the centres of reunion and to return to nomad exist- 
ence." ' % His immediate successors followed the example set by him, but the 
national inclination was not to be restrained, and the Umayyad khalifs returned 
to the habits of their forefathers. Their capital was Damascus, but their 
residence was the Syrian desert. They escaped to the badiyah, the spring 
pasturage in the rolling steppes, where the tents of the Sukhur still cover the 
plain when the winter rains are past ; they transported their courts to the 
hirah, the palace camp. 

1 Ibn Hanbal, Musnad III, 163, quoted by khalifs, published in the same journal, Lammens 

Lammens, ' La Badia et la Htra sous les Omai- has restored to the Umayyad period, which was 

yades,' Mtlanges de la FaculU orientate de neglected or wilfully misrepresented by Moham- 

Beyrouth, vol. iv, p. 95. madan historians, its capital importance. See 

* Lammens, op. cit., p. 92. In this brilliant too Musil, Qseir 'Antra, p. 150 et seq. 
article, and in a series of studies on the Umayyad 



56 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

The word « hair ' denotes a camp, a castle, or a villa. 1 The original significa- 
tion does not seem to have implied solid constructions, but rather the head- 
quarters of a desert princeling and his retainers. Such an assemblage must 
necessarily have been mobile. The exigencies of pasturage and the uncertainties 
inherent in tribal predominance, where the limits of authority cannot be 
expressed in terms of geographic definition, were alike unfavourable to stable 
residence. Joshua the Stylite 2 talks of the herta of Nu'man ibn Mundhir as 
having withdrawn into the inner desert before the attack of the ThaTabites — 
it must therefore have been a movable camp ; on the western borders there is 
no, certain evidence that the Ghassanid princes possessed either fenced cities 
or garrisoned fortresses. 3 But before the dawn of the Mohammadan era the 
hirah had begun to change its character, and the nomad encampment to develop 
into the standing camp and even into the city. The Ghassanids must have had 
a fixed establishment in the Djaulan, 4 and some of the existing ruins on the 
eastern frontiers of the Hauran may date from their time. At Khirbet al- 
Baida, for example, I could find no certain trace of Roman handiwork. The 
plan might date from the age of Diocletian, but the decorations betray a different 
origin. 5 Yet I cannot place them as late as the Umayyad period. Djebel Sais 
I have not seen. 6 The plan of the bath recalls the arrangement of the chambers 
at Qsair 'Amrah, and it may therefore be Mohammadan. At Qasr al-Azraq, 
Dussaud found a dedication to the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, but the 
fortress would seem to have been rebuilt in the thirteenth century a.d. 7 

Similarly upon the eastern side of the desert, the Lakhmid camp had grown 
into an important town, which absorbed the generic title and was known as 
al-Hirah, the standing camp par excellence, the capital of Persian Arabia. But 
no sooner did the Lakhmid princes find themselves enclosed within the walls 
of a city than they threw out fresh hirahs into the desert : palaces, the magnifi- 
cence of which haunted the imagination of Beduin poets of the Days of Ignorance 
and gave birth to legendary tales and to moral aphorisms which were recorded 
with pious, if uncritical, exactitude by the historians of Islam. We know 
the site of the most famous of these pleasaunces, Khawarnaq. 8 Ibn Batutah, 
in the fourteenth century a.d., saw the remains of its immense domes on the 
edge of a canal which was fed by the Hindiyyeh branch of the Euphrates. In 
his day it was still inhabited. The existing ruin mounds, standing upon the brink 
of the Sea of Nedjef, are covered with the sherds of mediaeval pottery. The 

1 Lammens, op. cit„ p. 106. Sir Charles Lyall * Possibly at Djabiyah. Teano ; Annali del- 
sends me the following note : ' I feel considerable /' Islam, vol. iii, p. 928. 

doubt as to Lammens's theory that the word 6 De Vogue, La Syrie centrale, vol. i, p. 69 ; 

' hirah ' was used in the time of the Umayyads. Bell, The Desert and the Sown, p. 125. 
The word is Syriac, not Arabic. See Noldeke, 8 De Vogue, op. cit., vol. i, p. 71. 

Sassaniden, p. 25, note 1.' » Dussaud, Mission dans les regions disertiques 

2 Ed. Wright, p. 46. See too John of Ephesus, de la Syrie moyenne, p. 31. 

iii, 42, where al-Mundhir's sons are described as 8 Bruno, Meissner, ' Von Babylon nach den 

pitching a great herta in the desert. Ruinen von Hira und Huarnaq,' Sendschriften der 

3 Noldeke, Die ghassanischen Fiirsten ans dem deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 2, p. 18. 
Hause Gafna's, p. 47. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 57 

canal has now silted up and the Sea of Nedjef is dry. I was told at Nedjef that 
thirty or forty years ago the lake was full of water, and that the climate of the 
town, never very much to boast of, had been considerably affected for the 
worse by the change. Below the town, the bed of the lake is occupied by palm- 
gardens and cornfields, watered by a canal recently constructed. What was 
its condition in Sasanian times I do not know. The lake was dry in the Middle 
Ages, 1 but 'Adi ibn Zaid speaks of the Nu'manid lord of Khawarnaq as having 
looked from his palace walls and rejoiced at the sight of the sea. 2 It is difficult 
to imagine that any one could have rejoiced in the Bahr Nedjef if it had worn 
its present aspect. The extent of the mounds of Khawarnaq is not large, though 
my impression is that part of the steep earth cliff overhanging the Bahr Nedjef 
has fallen away and carried the castle walls with it. The ancient canal from the 
Hindiyyeh lies about a quarter of a mile to the north of the mounds. Legend 
has been busy in accounting for the origin of the castle. It is said to have been 
built by Nu'man ibn Imra' al-Qais, by order of the Sasanian king Yazdegerd I, 
who desired that his son, Bahram V Gur, should be brought up in the salubrious 
air of the desert above Hirah. This would place its foundation in the early 
part of the fifth century A. D. 3 The architect was a certain Sinimmar, a Byzantine 
(Rumi) according to some authorities,* nor need this assertion excite surprise. 
A century later Justinian lent workmen to Khusrau I, when the latter was 
engaged in building the new Antioch near Ctesiphon. Other Lakhmid hirahs 
are mentioned besides Khawarnaq, but they are to us nothing but a name. 
Al-Sadir stood in the desert ' that lies between al- Hirah and Syria ', 5 presumably 
not far from Khawarnaq, since the two castles are frequently mentioned 
together. We hear also of al-Sinnin, where 'Adi ibn Zaid was imprisoned. 6 
Of greater importance was al-Anbar on the Euphrates, which was rebuilt by 
Shapur II in the early part of the fourth century. 7 None of the Lakhmid hirahs 
in the desert, except Khawarnaq, have been identified. In 1911 I rode out 
across the Bahr Nedjef from Khan Musalla to see a ruin called al-Ruhban, 
which was reputed to be ancient, but found nothing except a mud-built wall 
erected by the Bani Hasan. A few palm-trees had been planted near it. My 
guide, a sheikh of the tribe, was much distressed when I denied to Ruhban the 
antiquity which had been claimed for it. ' Mistress,' he expostulated, ' before 
my beard was grown, I saw it here.' His age I should judge to have been no 
greater than my own, and Ruhban may have had the advantage of us by a 

1 Le Strange, Lands of the Eastern Khali/ate, 6 Yaqut, vol. ii, p. 375. 

p. 76, n. 1. * Rothstein, op. cit., p. 115. See Massignon, 

1 Tabari, ed. de Goeje, Prima Series, p. 853, Mission en Mlsopotamie, vol. i, pp. 32 et seq., for 

Bell. A murath to A mural h, p. 141. Lakhmid topography. Sir Charles Lyall calls my 

1 Noldeke, Perser und Araber, p. 79. attention to a verse of al-Aswad ibn Ya'fur in 

4 Rothstein, Die Dynastie der Lakhmiden in which he gives a list of the Lakhmid buildings : 
al-HUa, p. 15. Tabari does not mention this al-Khawarnaq, al-Sadir, Tzariq, and ' the pin- 
fact, though he quotes a poem by ' Abd al-'Uzza nacled castle of Sindad '. 

in which Sinimmar is alluded to as ' al-'ildj ', the ' Encyclopidie de I'Isldm, under Anbar. The 

stranger, non-Arab. Tabari, vol. i, p. 852. site was ancient. 



58 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

decade. After this disappointment I declined to visit other qusur of the Bani 
Hasan (qasr = fort, is the name which is applied to any walled village or palm- 
garden) though he mentioned a considerable number. Subsequently a mullah 
of the Nedjef mosque told me that there were ancient remains at Hiyyadhiyyeh, 
which lies somewhere between the Bahr Nedjef and Ukhaidir, to the south of 
the line across the desert which I had followed. Hiyyadhiyyeh is mentioned 
by Niebuhr in his itinerary from Basrah to Aleppo by the desert road — Meshed 
'Ali, el Tukteqane or el Heiadie, el Hossian, el Chader (Ukhaidir) Ras el 'Ain. 1 
I doubt whether there is much to be found on the surface at Hiyyadhiyyeh, 
for the Bani Hasan have planted palm-groves there, and in so doing, they have 
probably destroyed most of what was old, but the mullah asserted that a Lakhmid 
castle had stood at that spot and another at Ruhbeh, which he said was identical 
with Qadisiyyeh. 2 I give his opinion for what it is worth, which is very little. 
There are, however, no doubt old ruins at Ruhbeh, whether Lakhmid or of 
a later time, if it occupies the site of Qadisiyyeh — a very possible hypothesis. 
It was a large village in a.d. 635, when the Mohammadan invaders defeated the 
Persians close to its walls. Muqaddasi knew it as a walled town on the pilgrimage 
road. Mustaufi (fourteenth century) describes it as mostly in ruins, while 
Ibn Batutah speaks of it as a large village. 3 The Sal Nameh of the Vilayet of 
Baghdad mentions a ruined qasr at Ruhbeh. 4 The sheikh of the Bani Hasan 
gave me the names of 'Izziyyeh, 5 and 'Atiyyah as qusur of his tribe, but he did 
not think that there were ruins at either place. 

To our scanty information concerning the pre- Mohammadan hirahs one other 
item is to be added. Mas'udi gives an account in the following terms of a palace 
built at Samarra by the khalif Mutawakkil (a.d. 847-861) in imitation of a 
Lakhmid hi ah : ' Mutawakkil in his days raised a building such as no man 
knew, it is that which is called the Mri and the two wings (literally sleeves) 
and the porticoes (arfiqah). And that was because a companion of his vigils 
related to him upon a certain night that one of the kings of Hirah, a Nu'manid 
of the Bani Nasr, erected an edifice in his capital, which was al-Hirah, after the 
model of an army in battle. (The word I have translated by army in battle is 
/iarb=w2ir or campaign ; Dr. Herzfeld suggests that it must be taken here to 
mean military camp — a somewhat hypothetical emendation) 6 . For such was 
his infatuation for war and his love of it ; so that the memory of it might never 
vanish from him under any condition. In this edifice the portico was the 

1 Reisebeschreibung, vol. ii, p. 236. hiyyeh to Nedjef they passed by Taqutqaneh 

2 Since this was written I learn that Hiyyad- (Niebuhr's Tukteqane) and Ruheimeh. 

hiyyeh was visited in 1912 by Prince Sixtus of 3 Le Strange, Lands of the Eastern Khalifate, 

Bourbon and Professor Musil, see the Vorbericht p. 76. 

of the latter in the report of the K. Akad. d. * Massignon, op. cit., p. 41. 

Wiss. in Wien, 1913, No. 1, p. 11. Journeying * Mentioned by Massignon under Ruhbeh, op. 

southwards from Ukhaidir they passed through cit., p. 41. 

Hiyyadhiyyeh, which is described as ' eine 8 Erster vorldufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgra- 

festungsartige kleine Ortschaft am rechten Ufer bungen von Sdmarrd, p. 40. 

des wadi al-Kherr '. On the way from Hiyyad- 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 59 

audience chamber of the king, and this was the centre (literally the breast) ; and 
the two wings (sleeves) lay to right and left. In the two dwellings which formed 
the wings lodged those who stood nearest to him among his courtiers. In the 
right wing was the wardrobe, and in the left wing was kept such wine as was 
needed. The open court of the portico was common to the centre and to the two 
wings. The doors, three in number, led to the portico. To this day this building 
(i.e. Mutawakkil's copy) is called the hiri and the two wings in allusion to 
al-Hirah. And the people followed Mutawakkil, imitating his creation, which 
is famous to the present time.' * The word riwaq, which I have translated 
' portico', does not necessarily imply the existence of columns, though it is used 
for the porticoes which surround the court of a mosque. Its primary signification 
is a roof in front of a tent, supported by a single pole in the middle. 2 I shall 
have occasion to return later to this important passage (see below, p. 86). 

But if we have little knowledge of the Lakhmid hirahs which were the 
precursors of Ukhaidir on the eastern frontiers of the desert, we have another 
and a richer source of information in the Sasanian palaces. The Lakhmid 
princes stood in close relations with the Sasanian empire. Among the officials 
of the Persian court there was an Arab secretary whose special duty it was 
to conduct the correspondence with ' the land of the Arabs '. Moreover, it is 
related that the Arab phylarch paid a yearly visit to the court of the Chosroes. 3 
To a Lakhmid the education of a Persian prince was entrusted, and Lakhmid 
armies placed Bahram V upon a contested throne. The Christians of Hirah 
belonged to the Nestorian church, the church of Assyria ; we hear of one, the 
poet 'Adi ibn Zaid, who was Arab secretary and enjoyed great influence with 
Khusrau Parwez. Half allies, half vassals, the Lakhmid phylarchs fought side 
by side with the Persians against Rome ; 4 they were sufficiently independent 
to receive an embassy from the Byzantine emperor, and sufficiently important 
to warrant an attempt on his part to buy them over from the Sasanians. Finally, 
at the beginning of the seventh century, Khusrau Parwez set the Lakhmid 
dynasty aside and established in place of Nu'man III an Arab of the Tayy, 
who lived and held his court at 'Ain al-Tamr near Ukhaidir. Possibly the huge 
walls of Qa§r Sham'un, on the outskirts of the oasis, 6 - may date from the time 
when 'Ain al-Tamr was the residence of the phylarch. But he was no longer an 
independent ruler ; a Persian adviser was appointed to assist him, and a few 
years later the state was converted into a province of the Sasanian empire 
under a Persian regent. Independent or subject, the civilization of Hirah 
must have been modelled upon that of Ctesiphon ; Persian influence must have 
been predominant in its arts and its architecture, and the Lakhmid hirahs 

1 Mas'udi, Marudj al-Dhahab, ed. Barbier de 3 Rothstein, op. cit., p. 130. 

Meynard, vol. vii, p. 192. * Idem, pp. 69, 74, 81. 

1 See Lane, Arabic and English Dictionary, 5 Bell, Amuraih to Amurath, p. 139. 
under riwdq. 

I 2 



6o GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

must have reflected the glories of Sasanian palaces. It is to these palaces that 
we should look first for an explanation of the architectural scheme of Ukhaidir. 
One reservation must, however, be made. It is true that Ukhaidir cannot be 
regarded as primarily a fortress. The absence of any sufficient provision of water 
would have been a fatal weakness in time of siege. No cistern exists within the 
palace ; no ancient well has been found, and if the conditions were the same of 
old as they are now (which is, however, by no means a safe assumption), any 
water within the palace would have been too brackish to drink, as is the case 
in the modern well in the palace yard. Moreover, the outer ring of walls, which 
encloses the northern annex, was obviously too weak for defence ; it is more 
like the garden wall of a pleasure-ground. Nevertheless, considerable care has 
been lavished upon the defences of the main building. They were, and they are 
to this day, adequate for the spasmodic warfare of the Arab tribes. In the 
very act of construction the architect seems to have bethought him that such 
protection was necessary and to have added a strong girdle to his palace plan. 
On the other hand, the Sasanian palaces, so far as they are known to us, are 
either unfortified, or they stand within a fortified park, the walls and towers 
of which are not in direct structural relation with the residential buildings. 
At the same time Sasanian military works, where they have been examined, 
do not differ materially from those of Ukhaidir ; the fortress of Qala'-i-Khusrau 
at Qasr-i-Shirfn is an excellent case in point (Plate 73, Fig. 1). It is a rectangular 
enclosure, about the size of Ukhaidir (roughly 180 metres square), surrounded 
by a wall which is strengthened by rounded towers. The towers are somewhat 
differently disposed from those of Ukhaidir ; they are larger and they are set 
twice as far apart, but the scheme is the same in both places. The interior 
buildings are much ruined. A row of chambers, or more probably, from the 
width of the ruin heaps, a row of small courts with chambers grouped round them, 
adjoined the inner side of the walls, leaving a central court which was partly 
filled by a large building, rectangular in plan. The town wall of Dastadjird was 
also furnished with rounded towers. 1 

Almost without exception the plan of the Sasanian palaces is a development 
of the liwan type, the origin of which is to be sought in the southern Hittite 
sphere, northern Syria and the mountain lands north of the Mesopotamian plain. 
The architecture of this region is known to us best through the excavations at 
Zindjirli, where the evolution of the southern Hittite palace can be traced over 
a period of close upon a thousand years. 2 It is an evolution which is dominated 

Sarre-Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, p. 237. it is impossible to doubt. Professor Garstang has 

2 Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, pt. ii. There found a khilani palace at Sakcheh Geuzu {Annals 

is some doubt as to whether Zindjirli was actually of A rchaeology and A nthropology, vol. v, Plate 3), 

occupied by Hatti. No Hittite inscriptions have Baron Oppenheim a very remarkable palace of 

been discovered there; but further researches have the same type at Ras ul-'Ain, of which the plan 

shown that architecturally Zindjirli belongs to has not yet been published, 
a group of settlements the Hittite origin of which 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 61 



5 1 1 1 r 1 J 1 « 1 / 1 3 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 1 


1 - 1 n 1 . 1 , 1 T ■ 




\ ^ .^ V " 


..." '' ' 












% '*■-. •> •••• 

fe'"i^-/' ... 




• ''-" '^^^^' f^^Er • *^^^S ittp^B^^^^^^^^I 


fcv.% *.V 






Hfe-v '-"■ ~ - ^ 






ls> ' " 










' laPSBi"^*' ^-<S^S "•- i Sfc/ / ^3 


HQQH 










W°^|-.^5^^^/\vA ^ P v jA| 


r^i ik 




dFEiv ^^s* fc^ 


i^ji l „ 




^K^#^113(/P05yi B^ 


"^H^r a^dDM ^^& 




[v£3^^HL . /l \ I^I^^Sfc^ifc %| riN*^> 


^1 n^sK^IH^ 




^3w^Hl3nr4 'V'^'--V#* ^^^w m^^^^-'JJiair^^m 


El. /jflV^^w ^Bet 




' '^*§k- mlT^A " 3— ;5 ^b*«^H^ ^% wi 














^yJK^iyC-,-?w^ ■r^' |?Y 1 v^p^^H 




''""":r>,. \Mpi(ii[iiiR 










^0& ' ' -^^^^B 


m r -« a ^ aa Wt0J- 










^Pfeli^ r ***** 








fc5 ^ ; 5s<Slkr~L- 








i 


'M*, 








t\ 






^ 




, ii.j-i ■ 


. . V . . . ■ *»£ 




1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 \ 


1 1 1 1 1 ' 





Fig. 5. Zindjirli. (From Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, by kind permission of the D. Orient-Gesellschaft.) 

from the first to last by the monumental gateway. At Zindjirli the type appears 
in its earliest and simplest form in the gateways of the inner city wall, which 
Professor Koldewey places approximately in the thirteenth century before 
our era. 1 A doorway set back between a pair of solid towers leads into a narrow 



1 Ausgrabungen, p. 173, and Fig. 82, p. 184. 



62 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



court, placed latitudinally, with a second doorway opposite to the first (Fig. 5, D). 
Three hundred years later this structure is adapted, in the earliest khilani palace, 
to residential purposes (Fig. 5, g). 1 The solid towers remain, but the space 
between them has been converted into a covered portico, or liwan, and the inner 
latitudinal court has become a latitudinal hall with a small chamber at either 
end. The further development is characterized by the multiplication of chambers 
and the disappearance of features proper to the fortress. In the khilani palace 
erected after Asarhaddon's destruction of the city in the first half of the seventh 
century (it appears in Fig. 5 to the north-west of g), the arrangement of the 
subsidiary chambers is conceived on freer lines, the walls are thinner, the 
flanking towers of the liwan have disappeared, and in their stead are set tower 




Fig. 6. 



chambers 



Pasargadae. (From Iranische Felsreliefs, by kind permission of the authors.) 

in short the fortress towers have given place to a purely decorative 
motive, the towered facade, which was destined to have a long and honourable 
history in Christian architecture. 2 That the Hittite khilani was imitated by the 
Assyrians during the eighth and the seventh centuries we know both from 
inscriptions and from excavations. 3 To it the Assyrian builders owed the 
introduction of the column, which was foreign to their architecture. At Pasar- 
gadae the khilani reappears in a form which bears testimony to its Hittite paren- 
tage.* The facade towers, the columned liwan, the orthostatic construction, 
and more significant still, the latitudinal disposition of the chambers, are all 



1 Ausgrabungen, Fig. 83, p. 184. 

2 Puchstein, ' Die Saule in der assyrischen 
Architektur,' Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Insiituts, 
1892, p. 11. 

3 Koldewey gives a chronological series of 
Assyrian khilanis and shows that the develop- 



ment in Assyria was a faithful copy of the 
development which he had noted at Zindjirli, 
op. cit., pp. 188 et seq 

4 Dr. Herzfeld suggests that it may have been 
transmitted to the Achaemenids through Media ; 
Iranische Felsreliefs, p. 186. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



63 



to be found in the Pasargadae palaces, but the greater depth which was given 
to the principal room necessitated the introduction of a double line of columns to 
support the roof (Fig. 6). At Persepolis and at Susa the same scheme is carried 
out in colossal dimensions. It is found alike in the gigantic apadanas and in 
the palaces, in the one case adapted to the ceremonial magnificence of the 
Persian king of kings, in the other to the requirements of the dwelling-house. 
In the apadana, the liwan was deepened and a second row of columns was added 
to the first ; the hall of audience was magnified into a huge quadrangular 




Fig. 7. Persepolis, Apadana of Xerxes. (From Iranische Felsreliefs, by kind permission of the authors.) 

chamber, the roof of which was supported by a forest of columns ; solid towers 
of unburnt brick flanked the liwan, and subsidiary liwans occupied the space 
behind them on either side of the audience hall (Fig. 7). In the palaces the 
towers were hollowed out into rooms correspondingly in depth with the liwan, 
and the audience hall was flanked by side chambers. Where space permitted, as 
in the palace of Darius at Persepolis, additional rooms were disposed round 
a courtyard at the back of the edifice. So constituted, the Achaemenid palace 
reproduced the traits of the later khilanis at Zindjirli in a form adapted to 
new requirements (Fig. 8). 

Before the khilani palace was taken up again by Persian hands, an immense 
revolution had swept over western Asia. Alexander's invasion is a turning-point 



64 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



** v^ii^rMyi'i'i^'ji'i^^itfti^i 




Fig. 8. Persepolis, Palace of Darius. 
(From L'Arl antique de la Perse, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.) 

in history. The Mesopotamian arts emerged from the period of Greek rule 
profoundly modified by direct intercourse with the West ; for the Seleucid 
kingdom, with one capital on the Tigris and another on the Orontes, had bridged 
the gulf between Babylonia and the Mediterranean coast-lands. Greek culture, 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 65 

Greek artistic conceptions were carried across Asia by the invaders ; but the 
further they penetrated, the less they overmastered local tradition. Babylonia, 
Assyria and Persia were never Hellenized in the sense in which Syria was 
Hellenized. The ancient East, with 3,000 years and more of a highly elaborated 
civilization behind her, assimilated what was brought to her, but she used 
it after her own fashion. She turned the Greek kings into oriental despots, 
and translated Greek ideas into her own forms of expression. The architectural 
remains of this period are as yet scanty. Seleucia and Antioch are unexplored, 
and except for the Greek theatre at Babylon, the excavation of Mesopotamian 
sites has yielded little but fragments. 1 But if the Seleucid era is comparatively 
unknown, the new elements which the Greek conquest had introduced into 
oriental architecture stand out with an amazing vividness in Parthian buildings. 
Loftus, whose excavations at Warka were the first to reveal a great Parthian 
settlement on a Babylonian mound, was not slow to appreciate the significance 
of his discoveries. 2 Together with capitals which bore an obvious relationship 
to the Ionic, and walls enriched with Ionic half-fluted engaged columns, he 
found plaster ornaments and fragments of wall-surface decoration covered 
with continuous geometric patterns in which he recognized an art that was 
essentially oriental. The Chaldaean monuments at Warka were covered with 
mosaics set in geometric designs which are the prototypes of the Parthian 
coloured reliefs. 3 Hellenistic houses of the Parthian period have been unearthed 
in the Amran mound at Babylon. The small Parthian palace at Niffer, with 
its columned hall of audience, opening through an anteroom, which is in the 
nature of a closed liwan, into a square peristyle, resembles a Greek dwelling-house 
seen through a Babylonian medium 4 (Fig. 9). At Assur, together with a temple 
(if temple it were) which is almost peripteral, 5 and a stoa, 6 we have a palace on 
a liwan plan, with ionicizing capitals and a facade of stucco mock-architecture 

1 Dr. Herzfeld calls attention to the signifi- 4 Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 

cant fact that the Babylonian theatre, while it p. 564, compares it to the ancient Greek houses at 

exhibits a good Greek plan, is built of sun-dried Delos, for which seeDurm, Baukunst der Griechen, 

brick, doubtless by local workmen, and is P-5i6. The juxtaposition of megaron and andron, 

technically indistinguishable from local structures each group of rooms opening into its own court, 

of an earlier age. Iranische Felsreliefs, p. 225. recalls irresistibly a yet older type ; cf. the plan 

To a reconstruction of a later period belongs the of Tiryns, Perrot-Chipiez, Histoire de I' Art, vol. vi, 

stage, with its burnt brick foundations, wooden Plate 2. It is curious to note that the audience 

superstructure, and ornaments of carved stucco, halls at Niffer are the oriental latitudinal 

and here too technique and material are of local chambers; indeed they have the closest connexion 

origin. The theatre is not yet published. Avery with the old Babylonian house type, which, as 

short account of the excavations is to be found in Professor Koldewey has observed, postulates in- 

Mitt. der D. O.-C, No. 21, p. 9, and No. 22, pp. 4 variably a court with a large chamber to the south 

et seq. ; a longer description in Koldewey, Das of it. The Niffer palace is little more than 

wiedcr erstehende Babylon, p. 293. a reproduction of such houses as the big house 

* Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 225. See in theMerkes at Babylon, plus the column, which 
Sarre-Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, p. 227, for a was due to Greek influence. See Koldewey, Das 
comprehensive enumeration of Parthian remains. wieder erstehende Babylon, pp. 279 et seq. 

* Dieulafoy, L'Art antique de la Perse, vol. v, s Mitt, der D. O.-G., No. 25, p. 39. 
p. 29. • Ibid., No. 28, p. 59. 

1560 K 



66 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

which indicates the road that led from the Hellenistic facade in two orders x 
to the stucco facades of Ctesiphon and Ukhaidir. 2 At Hatra a building which 
looks like the Parthian conception of a temple in antis stands in the court 
of a monumental liwan palace, 3 but so far as can be judged without excavation 
the Hellenistic house is conspicuous by its absence. Not only the royal palace 
(Fig. 10) but also such of the smaller palaces as are known to us through the 




Fig. 9. Parthian palace at Niffer. (By kind permission of Messrs. Holman.) 

admirable publication of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, show a strongly 
characterized liwan plan. To the Parthian interpretation of the venerable 
khilani scheme the Moslem East has remained unswervingly true. The liwan, 
as it is to be seen at Hatra, dominated the fancy of the Sasanian and of the early 
Mohammadan architects, and it continues to be an indispensable part of the 
modern house of Damascus or Baghdad — except indeed the post-modern, 
which are wretched imitations of the worst European styles, but these are found 
more often in ultra-civilized Syria than in Mesopotamia. The huge Parthian 
liwan was possibly a result of the introduction of the vault. The great hall, 
in which, no matter what its size,- the interior space was unbroken by pier or 
column, was a setting for princely state which could not be enhanced by any 

1 Stoae of Attalos at Athens and at Pergamon, 
Durm, Baukunst der Griechen, p. 504. 

2 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. 

* Andrae, Hatra, pt. ii, Plate 6. 



'I 





tit *- ott X XI K ttt K Itl K tn K ctr «r at «r £"■ 



on 






o 

I 

-M 



4 



3 



•a 
c 




o 

u 



rt 

& 







a 



68 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

architectural device. Portico and audience chamber were blended together, and 
the columns of the one served to enrich the walls which flanked the monu- 
mental archway of the other. 

The vault itself was not a new feature. It was well known to Babylonian 
and to Assyrian builders, by whom it was used to cover spaces of narrow span. 1 
Vaulted drains and tombs are of frequent occurrence, and Place found a barrel 
vault with a span of 4 metres in the gateways of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad. 2 
But though the principles of vault construction were familiar, the vault does 
not seem to have been developed to any notable extent before the second 
Babylonian empire at the earliest. Felix Thomas claims to have found the 
remains of monumental vaults in Sargon's palace, but the proofs which he adduces 
are not convincing. There is no direct evidence for the domes which Place 
reconstructs over the rectangular chambers adjoining the temples, the area of 
the palace which was known in his days as the Haram. 3 Layard found no 
trace of monumental vaults in his excavations of Assyrian palaces, 4 nor have 
any been discovered by the German excavators at Assur. Professor Koldewey 
is of opinion that the great hall at Babylon was vaulted, since, in the absence of 
all trace of columns, no other way of covering it is conceivable ; and though direct 
evidence is not forthcoming, there is a strong likelihood that the proportions of 
the vault may have been greatly increased, and its structural value much 
more fully realized towards the end of the seventh or the beginning of the 
sixth century before Christ. 6 There are no data for its employment in 
Mesopotamia during the Hellenistic period, but it may safely be assumed that 
the absence of vaulted buildings in the eastern parts of the Seleucid kingdom 
is fortuitous. From the fourth century b.c. onwards western Asia shows a 
continuous series of cut stone vaults of small span, 6 many of which exhibit traits 
which point to their derivation from the sun-dried brick vaults of Assyria or 
from the cut stone vaults of the Saitic period in Egypt, themselves a derivation 
from sun-dried brick construction. In the second half of the third century, 
vaults with similar characteristics appear under Hellenistic influence in central 
Italy, where, after the middle of the second century, they underwent a develop- 
ment to which the Hellenistic East can offer no parallel. 7 At the end of the 



1 The literature on this subject is of vast 
extent. See Choisy, L'Art de bdtir 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. Delbruck's chrono- 
logical resumi of the history of the vault has 
brought order into chaos ; Hellenistische Bauten 
in Latium, pt. ii, pp. 63-85. 

* Place, Ninive, vol. i, pp. 176, 255. 
3 Idem, vol. i, pp. 254 et seq. 

* Layard, Nineveh, vol. i, p. 127, and vol. ii, 
p. 260. 



5 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. 

6 Delbruck, 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. 

' Early Hellenistic barrel vaults in the 
Mediterranean coast-lands. Delbruck, 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 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



69 



second century, while Latin builders threw their stone vaults securely over 
a span of 14^ 50 metres, as in the Ponte di Cecco in the Via Salaria, and even of 
1850 metres, as in the Pons Mulvius, 1 the Greeks of Asia Minor did not venture 
upon a span wider than 7- 10 metres, 2 and confined themselves as a rule to vaults 
under 4 metres in span. It was now the part of the East to learn from Imperial 
Rome. Western Asia took back its own creation from the hands of Roman 
builders in the vast proportions which the proficiency of the latter had given 
to it, and over the whole of the Roman Empire the monumental vault sprang 
into being. The earliest extant examples on Mesopotamian soil are the great 
vaults of the palace at Hatra. 3 Throughout the city, so far as our knowledge 
goes, the vault is systematically used, and for the first time it is constructed of 
dressed stone, not of brick. For it must be borne in mind that the expansion 
in Asia of the Roman Imperial stone and mortar vaulted architecture encoun- 
tered a similar expansion of brick vaulted architecture in which both material 
and structure point to an ancient oriental tradition and an independent Asiatic 
origin. 4 If Hatra is the oldest example of the systematic use of the vault in 
a monumental building, the very presence there of a method so fully developed 
postulates a long evolution. That this evolution was oriental is suggested by the 
fact that the forms which the vault assumes at Hatra can be traced back, almost 
without exception, to Asiatic brickwork, while the systematic employment of 
the vault is foreshadowed in hollow substructures which date from the Hellen- 
istic era, and even from earlier times. 6 In Babylon such substructures, several 
stories high, roofed with stone slabs, would seem to have been devised before 
Alexander's conquest, while Strabo's description, which probably applies to 
a Hellenistic reconstruction, mentions terraces in which the vaults rested on 
cube-shaped piers, vaults and piers being built of burnt brick with a mortar of 
asphalt. Moreover, Strabo notes that in Seleucia, the capital of the Hellenistic 
kingdom on the Tigris, all the houses were vaulted on account of the want of 
timber. 4 That these vaults were of brick goes without saying ; stone was even 



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. 
Delbrflck, pt. ii, pp. 77-80. Development of the 
Egyptian cut stone vault out of sun-dried brick 
construction, idem, pp. 80-3. 

1 Delbrflck, op. cit., pt. ii. Table C, p. 70. 

1 Bridge at Pergamon, Delbrflck, pt. ii, Table 
D, p. 72. 

' 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 1480 metres. 

4 Choisy, L'Arl de bdtir chez Us Byzantins, 
P- 154- 

* Podium of the altar and of the upper 
gymnasium at Pergamon, Delbrflck, 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 sub- 
structure 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. 

• Strabo, xvi, 1, 5. 



yo GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

more difficult to obtain at Seleucia than wood. In this connexion the possibility 
that Nebuchadnezzar's great hall at Babylon may have been covered with a vault 
should not be overlooked. 

The vaults of Hatra fall into five groups. 

1. A primitive vault, composed of oversailing horizontal courses of stone 
is found in the small chambers of tombs {Hatra, ii, Figs. 93, 111, 155). Some- 
times the walls incline smoothly inwards from base to summit until the space 
between them is narrowed sufficiently to admit of the imposition of a covering 
slab {Hatra, ii, Figs. 99, 118, 120, 155. In Fig. 155 the slope begins in the fourth 
course above the base). The vault built of oversailing horizontal courses was 
an obvious expedient for the roofing of narrow spaces, and it is, as might have 
been expected, widely distributed. 1 There is one instance at Hatra of a dome 
constructed in the same manner. It covers a rectangular chamber, 1-50 x 
1-70 metres, and it is the solitary known example of an attempt on the part of 
Parthian builders to solve the problem of a circular vault over a rectangular 
substructure {Hatra, ii, Fig. 93). 

2. The true vault oversailing the wall occurs in numerous tomb chambers 
{Hatra, ii, Figs. 100, 105, 125, 130, 144, 145, 149, 152, 163), as well as in most 
of the smaller rooms of the inner palace {Hatra, ii, Figs. 225, 226, 237, and Plate 8) 
(Plate 74, Fig. 2). It is a form which originated in brick building. It is found 
in Assyrian brick tombs, 2 but never, so far as my knowledge goes, in any dressed 
stone vaults save in those of Hatra. It appears at Ctesiphon in the side vaults, 3 
and in the rough stonework of Qasr-i-Shirin (Plate 52, Fig. 2, and Plate 68, Fig. 1). 
It is constant at Ukhaidir and in early Mohammadan architecture, 4 and it is 
used invariably in the brick vaulted constructions of Mesopotamia at the present 
day. It is perhaps the triumphant survival of the old brick vault of horizontal 
oversailing courses, represented by Mughair, and it bears, at Hatra and else- 
where, another indubitable mark of its brick origin in the horizontal or almost 
horizontal joints of its lower courses. 5 

3. The vault springing flush with the walls is used in tombs {Hatra, ii, Figs. 
103, 118, 128, 139, 159), in the southern and in the northern liwans of the main 
palace and in the two liwans which were added at the northern end {Hatra, ii, 
Plate 8), in the western annex, the so-called temple {Hatra, ii, Plate 9), and in 
building b {Hatra, ii, Fig. 183). The moulded cornice, which usually divides 
this vault from the walls below, is absent in most of the tombs. The high stilt 

1 Chaldaea.atMughair.sun-driedbrick; Perrot- in the Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Instituts, vol. x, 

Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 232. Egypt, at Dair el-Bahri, 1907. 

18th Dynasty; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. i, p. 536 ; 2 Mitt, der D. O.-G., No. 27, p. 29. 

and a brick dome at Abydos ; Choisy, Histoire 3 In one of these only is the springing of 

de V Architecture, vol. i, p. 19. Syria, dolmenic the vault preserved. Bell, Amurath to Amuraih, 

tomb at Ridjm elMelfuf ; Annual of the Palestine Fig. 109. 

Exploration Fund, 1911, p. 9. Knossos; Evans, * Samarra, Amurath, Fig. 154. 
Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, p. 139. Numerous 5 Cf. the stone vaults at Medinet Abu, Del- 
other examples are cited by Durm in two articles bruck, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 81. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 71 

formed by the horizontal lower courses, which is especially remarkable in the 
larger of these vaults, differentiates them from western Hellenistic vaulting 
and connects them more closely with brick forms. In one of the smaller 
palaces there is a striking example of the survival of brick building methods 
(Hatra, ii, Fig. 74). The stone vault is composed, almost to its whole height, 
of horizontal courses, and only the very top of the arch is filled in with radiating 
voussoirs. Nor is the elliptical vault, which is the form naturally assumed 
by oriental uncentered brickwork 1 wanting at Hatra (Hatra, ii, Figs. 108 and 
162, Fig. 162 being a primitive example, where the vault is carried down to 
the floor of the chamber). 

4. One room on the upper floor of the palace shows a fuller comprehension 
of the thrust and buttressing of the vault (room No. 12, Hatra, ii, Plate 10 and 
Fig. 226). The space to be covered is diminished by placing two arched niches 
on either side, a system which points the way to the breaking up of the wall 
into buttressing piers. This principle was carried out yet further by Sasanian 
builders. In the palace of Sarvistan the lower portion of the piers was detached 
from the body of the wall and further lightened by being divided into two 
small columns, 2 while angle piers terminating in a single detached column 
bore the dome of a chamber situated at the back of the palace (Plate 74, Fig. 1). 
The advance in structural knowledge thus gained was carried little further 
in these regions ; indeed it is curious to observe that Ukhaidir exhibits a move- 
ment in the opposite direction. Although in rooms 33 and 40 the vaults are 
set upon columns which stand absolutely free, the vault of the great hall rests 
upon arched niches whereof the piers are connected with the wall, and the 
principle of the detached column is recalled only by the engaged columns 
which form part of the pier. The arcade on free standing columns with a 
vaulted corridor behind it is of frequent occurrence, but the fact that in all the 
palace only one, and that one the shortest, of these arcades remains standing 
(No. 20) shows that the skill of the builders was at fault. Again, in the church 
of Mar Tahmasgerd at Kerkuk the engaged columns are present, as in the 
great hall of Ukhaidir, but in the same manner they are structurally one with 
the piers behind them 3 (Plate 75, Fig. 1); and in the churches of northern 
Mesopotamia, where deep niches under the vault are a constant feature, the 
engaged pier of Hatra returns in all its primitive simplicity. 4 Whether the 
data afforded by extant monuments in Mesopotamia and Persia are conclusive 
would be hard to determine. The setting of arch, vault, and dome on free 
standing supports would seem to have been a conception deeply rooted in 
Hellenistic art, but for actual examples we can adduce only the evidence of 

1 Dieulafoy, L'Arl antique de la Perse, vol. iv, 3 Bell, Churches and Monasteries of the Tur 

Fig. 10; Mitt, der D. O.-G,, No. 40, Fig. 10, a late 'Abdin, p. 100 (44). 
Assyrian tomb. * Idem, pp. 65 (9), 71 (15), &c. 

1 Dieulafoy, L'Art antique, vol. iv, Plate 7. 



72 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

relief architecture or the disposition of rock-cut tombs and temples. The 
blind order under the vault of the men's caldarium near the forum at Pompeii, 1 
the rock-cut dome on engaged columns of the Hellenistic tomb of Akeldama 
at Jerusalem 2 exhibit a motive to which the architecture of a later age was 
to give fully developed plastic execution. Yet more explicit are the indications 
afforded by the rock-cut monuments of Egypt and of India. At Memphis one 
of the graves of the Persian period shows a vaulted nave resting on piers, 3 
and the rock-cut temples of Hellenistic India, with their long vaulted naves 
resting on columns, 4 point to similar achievements in the Seleucid architecture 
of Mesopotamia from which they are derived. The existence of an underlying 
desire to solve statical problems which were of the highest importance to the 
spatial interior is attested by the sporadic survival of such buildings as the 
Praetorium at Musmiyyeh and a room in the Golden House of Nero, 8 where 
the four-sided and the round dome were placed respectively on piers and on 
columns ; but the final mastery was reserved for early Christian builders of 
the Hellenistic coast-lands, or developed in the same age in Rome out of methods 
which were specifically Roman, such as the intersecting barrel vault and con- 
struction in concrete. In Rome also the original impulse may have come from 
the East. 6 

5. In three of the upper rooms in the palace (Nos. 13, 15, and 16, Hatra, ii, 
Figs. 227 and 228, and Plate 10) the roof is formed by means of transverse 
arches (respectively five, three, and one in number) carrying stone slabs which 
cover the space between them. This type of roof was universally employed 
in Syria from Nabataean times until the Mohammadan invasion. 7 It was 
a simple and a satisfactory method of roofing in stone in a country where 
centering beams, sufficiently massive to sustain a stone vault, were difficult to 
obtain. I know no other Mesopotamian example of it in stone, but it was 
copied in Sasanian brickwork, where the stone slab was replaced by a brick 
vault running at right angles to the main axis. 8 In this form it finds a place 
at Ukhaidir in room 32, and it continued to be used by Mohammadan builders 
in the Middle Ages, the most renowned example being that of Khan Orthma, 
at Baghdad. 9 

The absence of the dome at Hatra is significant. The small square chambers 
of the palace were well suited to dome construction, yet nothing but the barrel 
vault is present. Moreover, it is the barrel vault in its simplest expression ; 

1 Mau, Pompeii, Us Life and Art, p. 199. * Delbruck, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 145. 

2 Delbruck, op. cit., pt. ii. Fig. 45. ' Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sect. A, 

3 Idem, p. 146. pt iii, Fig. 185 ; de Vogue, La Syrie centrale, vol. i, 
* Fergusson and Burgess, Cave Temples of p. 47. 

India, Plates 9 and 11. » Tag-i-twan, Dieulafoy, V Art antique, vol. v, 

6 De Vogue, La Syrie centrale, Plate 7, and p. 80. 

Delbruck, op. cit., pt. ii, Fig. 77. The records * Dieulafoy, ibid., vol. v, p. 80. 

only have survived ; the buildings themselves have 
disappeared. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 73 

not even an intersection is attempted. In the vaulted passage surrounding 
the central chamber of the western annex, the ' temple ', one end of the vault 
terminates on each of the four sides against a transverse arch, whereby the 
insuperable difficulty of intersection was avoided 1 (Plate 75, Fig. 2). Hellen- 
istic builders had attacked the problem as early as the second century B. c. in 
Asia Minor, 2 and yet more boldly in Rome. 3 I know no single example of 
the intersection of barrel vaults in Sasanian buildings ; even at Ukhaidir the 
system is sparingly used, and never without careful abutment. Where two 
barrel vaults meet at right angles, they are either joined together diagonally, 
without intersection, as in the chemin de ronde, or they terminate against trans- 
verse arches, and not infrequently in the rectangular space thus formed, a 
semi-dome takes the place of the intersecting vault, as in the mosque and in 
the upper gallery No. 134. The rock-cut temples of India exhibit a similar 
termination of the barrel vault in a semi-dome. 4 The dome, though it is at 
Ukhaidir of frequent occurrence, the chambers of the chemin de ronde in all 
the round towers being domed as well as the two chambers north and south 
of the great hall, Nos. 4 and 27, is never placed over a span wider than 3- 10 
metres. The square rooms, Nos. 30 and 141, behind the two liwans 29 and 140, 
where, on the analogy of the Sasanian palaces (see below, pp. 74, 76 and 78) a dome 
might be expected, are covered in one case by a barrel vault, and in the other 
case by a groined vault. There was no question here of a dome on free standing 
columns ; where the opportunity occurred, in rooms 33 and 40, it was set 
aside in favour of parallel barrel vaults. The domed chambers in the towers 
have a circular ground-plan, and when the problem presented by the rectangular 
substructure arose, it was met in a fashion which is applicable only to very 
small edifices. The dome in No. 4, and all the calottes over rectangular niches, 
are set over the angles upon horizontal brackets of masonry. On the octagon, 
or half-octagon, thus formed, a circle or segment of a circle of small diameter 
could be placed without any difficulty. It was an expedient which had been 
adopted by early dome builders both in Syria and Asia Minor, 5 but it was 
inadequate when the space to be covered assumed larger dimensions and, 
before the date of Ukhaidir, Byzantine and Sasanian architects had elaborated 
solutions of the problem. In the West the great dome of Santa Sofia had already 
been placed securely upon stone pendentives ; in Persia the use of the arched 
angle niche, or squinch, had enabled Sasanian builders to throw their domes 
over a span of 16 metres. The three domes of Firuzabad, the earliest of the 
Sasanian palaces, have a diameter of 13- 30 metres ; the larger of the two domes 

1 Andrae, Hatra, pt i, p. 18. * Fergusson and Burgess, Cave Temples, 

* Pergamon, Athenische Mitt., vol. xxix (1904), Plates 11, 15, 24, and 28. 

p. 136, Plate 13 ; Delbriick, op. cit., pt. ii, Table G, s Kalybes at Shaqqah and at Umm al-Zaitun, 

and p. 103. de Vogue, La Syrie centrale, p. 44, and Plate 6. 

3 Delbriick, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 104. Two domes at Binbirklisse, Ramsay and Bell, 

Thousand and One Churches, pp. 80 and 241. 

1M0 L 



74 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

at Sarvistan is about 12 metres across, the dome in the smaller palace at Qasr-i- 

Shirin covered a chamber 16-15 metres square. 1 If the audience chamber in 

the larger palace at Qasr-i-Shirin was domed, as I suspect, it covered an area 

about 16 metres square. Under this dome, at each angle, at a distance of 

2- 90 metres from the walls stands a corner pier 140 metres square, terminating 

on the two inner sides in an engaged column 1 metre in length. The distance 

between the piers is thus about 16 metres, that is to say that the dome would 

have been no larger in diameter than that which covered the principal chamber 

in the neighbouring palace. The walls there are 3- 90 metres thick, whereas 

the side walls of the chamber in the palace of Khusrau are never more than 

2 metres thick, but in the one case the wall was the only support, whereas in 

the other the thrust would have been taken first by the angle supports and by 

them transferred to the outer wall. Moreover, the walls themselves were 

buttressed by vaulted rooms. The piers are buried about 1 metre in the ruins 

with which the hall is filled (the ruin heaps lie deepest along the walls and 

reach almost to the height of a doorway arch which remains in place on the 

south side) ; the best preserved of the four piers projects less than 1 metre out 

of the present surface ; that is to say that its whole height is at present under 

2 metres. It is conceivable that the piers may at no time have been carried 

very much higher. Like the columns under the small dome at Sarvistan, 

they may have been bound into the wall at that level by arches carrying a barrel 

vault, which would in this instance have had a span of 5- 20 metres, and the 

dome placed upon the square substructure thus formed would reproduce the 

Sarvistan dome in magnified proportions. 2 It is clear that Ukhaidir shows 

a retrogression in the art of dome building, both in point of span and in point 

of distribution of thrusts, nor is the fact surprising. The desert hirah of an 

early Mohammadan prince need not be expected to rival in architectural 

achievement the summer palace of the Sasanian king of kings, situated upon 

one of the high roads of his empire. 

Firuzabad affords the earliest extant example of the dome in Persia. In 
Babylonia and Assyria no dome is standing which can be dated earlier than 
Ukhaidir. Possibly the Lakhmid hirahs would have provided us with other 
instances, but the tentative nature of dome building at Ukhaidir throws doubt 
upon the proficiency of Lakhmid construction in this respect. 3 In the Baby- 



1 As to the date oi these palaces, I accept the 
suggestions of Dr. Herzfeld until good reasons for 
modifying them have been shown. Ardashir I 
founded the city of Firuzabad in a. d. 226 ; the 
palace is probably of his time. Sarvistan belongs 
possibly to the time of Bahram V Giir, 420-438 ; 
Qasr-i-Shirin may have been built by Khusrau II 
Parwez towards the end of the sixth century. 
Sarre-Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, pp. 128-31. 

a The Sarvistan 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. 

3 Baladhuri (FutuA, p. 288) says that Ibrahim 
ibn Salamah, one of the chiefs of Khurasan, built 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 75 

Ionian cultural sphere the dome does not seem to have played an important 
part in monumental building until a late period, and in my opinion too much 
significance has been attached to the celebrated relief exhibiting domed build- 
ings which Layard found at Quyundjik. 1 We have here a representation of 
village architecture, and it is natural to suppose that the domes were of small 
dimensions. They are to be found to this day in the village architecture of 
northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia, indeed no other form of roof exists ; 
and they take the shapes depicted upon the relief. They are built of sun-dried 
brick held together by a mortar of clay. The high ovoid domes which appear 
upon the relief and in modern villages are built of oversailing rings, like the 
solitary dome at Hatra. I imagine that the summit of the round domes is 
constructed over a light centering, but I have not actually seen them in process 
of being built. The difficulties presented by these methods are practically nil, 
owing to the light and malleable material and the smallness of the span. The 
translation of this primitive dome into larger diameters was a very different 
matter, and there is no evidence for the belief that this step was taken in 
Mesopotamia in an early age. 

The Sasanian conquerors came out of lands on which Hellenism had made 
an impression less deep than on Mesopotamia, lands where Rome had never 
penetrated ; and they came of a stock more tenacious of its own traditions and 
less eclectic than the Parthians. To a large extent they re-orientalized the 
territories which they occupied. No doubt there was less for them to copy, 
for in the interval of some 300 years during which the Parthians were pre- 
dominant, Seleucid monuments must have disappeared, and the blurred Arsacid 
copy of Greek or Roman models had taken their place. The Sasanians created 
an art of their own, less dependent than that of Parthia on Western forms, and 
more potent to influence those who came into contact with it, not excluding 
the Byzantines. In the earliest of their palaces, so strongly marked is the 
reversion to Achaemenid types that Dieulafoy relegated it unhesitatingly to 
the earlier Persian period. In its general characteristics the plan of Firuzabad 
differs little from that of an Achaemenid khilani palace (Plate 73, Fig. 2). The 
liwan has deepened, and the employment of the vault has enabled the builder 
to dispense, as at Hatra, with the columns that sustained its roof. The greater 
depth of the liwan, combined with a desire to keep the vaulting span within 
moderate bounds, have led to the breaking up of the tower room on either 
side into two narrow chambers. In order to counteract more effectually the 
thrust of the main vault (1330 metres wide) the side chambers are placed at 
right angles to the liwan, a principle which was not adopted at Hatra, but 
which rules at Ctesiphon, and at Ukhaidir. The towers themselves have 

the dome of the old Persian palace of Khawarnaq, the domes seen by Ibn Batutah were due to this 

in the khalifate of Abu Abbas, and adds that Mohammadan restoration. 

previously there was no dome there. Possibly ' Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 146, Fig. 43. 

L2 



76 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

disappeared, and though their place remains in the plan, in the elevation it is 
probable that the facade presented an unbroken line. The audience hall of the 
khilani palace is reduced to a domed chamber, and the clumsy construction 
of the dome makes it evident that the builder would not have ventured to 
stretch its diameter further. Finally, round the posterior courtyard are grouped, 
besides the living-rooms, two smaller liwans, placed, like those in the Ukhaidir 
courts, so that they may serve respectively for winter and for summer. 

The resemblances in detail between the Achaemenid palaces and Firuzabad 
are no less striking. The high fluted gorge and narrow torus of stone which 
cover the doorways and niches of the one are repeated in the plaster-work of the 
other. The plain fillets which surround the openings at Persepolis reappear 
at Firuzabad, but in the latter case all the openings are arched, and the moulded 
archivolt is set within the rectangle formed by the fillets. The taqchah niches, 
which, so far as my knowledge goes, are found for the first time in the palace of 
Darius, are present also at Firuzabad, 1 and henceforth assume a permanent place in 
Persian architecture, from which they were borrowed by Mohammadan builders. 
The building material at Firuzabad is undressed stone, very roughly coursed 
and set in a bed of mortar. In the domes the stones are cut thinner, more 
carefully coursed and provided at intervals with a bonding course ; in the 
vaults the thin slabs are laid vertically, parallel with the main axis of the 
chamber. Exactly the same principles are observed at Ukhaidir. Nor do 
the resemblances end here. Tubes are not absent from the vaulting system, 2 
and most of the archways are set back from the jambs to facilitate the placing 
of centering. 3 The arches are semicircular as at Qasr-i-Shirin. In the vault 
of the big liwan centering would seem to have been used, for it is set back from 
the face of the walls, doubtless in order to leave a convenient ledge for the 
centering beams. The vaults and domes here and in all other Sasanian buildings 
have the ovoid shape common to Ukhaidir and to subsequent Mohammadan 
work in Mesopotamia. It is the old Mesopotamian vault contour. The 
exterior walls of Firuzabad are broken into a continuous series of recessed and 
arched blind niches divided by engaged columns carrying an entablature of 
modest proportions. 4 The appearance of this decoration is to my eyes so 
entirely un-Hellenistic that I have difficulty in connecting it with any classical 
influence, and in point of fact an arched niche from one of the reliefs from 
Quyundjik, in the British Museum (Fig. n), is nearer akin to it than such 

x Dieulafoy, op. cit., vol. ii, Plate 14 and vol. on the right side of the big liwan and the domed 

iv, Plate 15. Possibly there are earlier examples chamber to the right of the central hall of 

of the taqchah than those at Persepolis. Room audience. See, too, the tubes in Flandin and 

11 in the big house in the Merkes at Babylon Coste's sections, Plates 40 and 41 bis. 
would seem from the plan to have possessed a 3 Dieulafoy, vol. iv. Figs. 25 and 26, and Plate 

taqchah. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Baby- 14, an arched niche in the inside of the dome. 

Ion, Fig. 236. According to Flandin and Coste's sections, all the 

8 A tube can be seen in Dieulafoy's Plate 9, door, window, and niche arches were so treated, 
vol. iv. It runs between the inner barrel vault 4 Idem, vol. iv, Fig. 29. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



11 



facades as those of Ctesiphon or Ukhaidir. But it must be admitted that 
while the recessing of Babylonian and Assyrian wall surfaces is in no sense 
an imitation of architectural forms, least of all an imitation of the column, 




Fig. ii. Relief from Quyundjik. 
(From L'Art antique de la Perse, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.) 

which was an element unknown to the designers of these recessed buildings, 1 
and that while on the Quyundjik relief the architrave is placed directly upon 
the piers without the intermission of impost or capital, the engaged columns 
of Firuzabad are true columns carrying an impost, and the whole scheme is 
no longer a pattern, but a copy in relief of a colonnade in the round. In the 



1 Koldewey, in Mitt, der D. O.-G., No. 12, p. 6. 



78 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

courtyard the rectangular niching is retained, but without the engaged columns. 1 
On the facade of the palace a series of seven arched niches is set high up in the 
wall, on either side of the arched opening of the liwan. 2 It is a motive which 
recalls the open loggias in the facade of an Assyrian palace. 3 

The palace of Sarvistan bears an obvious relationship to that of Firuzabad, 
but the strict symmetry which regulates the latter is not so closely adhered to, 
and the construction is handled with greater freedom and skill (Plate 76). 
The principal liwan happens, it is true, to have resumed the old latitudinal 
disposition, but the longitudinal liwan is present in a subsidiary position. The 
lateral chambers are provided with wide arched openings which, together with 
the arch of the liwan, form a facade not unlike those of the Ukhaidir courts. 4 
The breaking of the facade by doors leading into the lateral chambers of the 
liwan occurs first at Hatra, and characterizes all liwan buildings later than that 
of Sarvistan. Instead, however, of the piers and engaged columns of Ukhaidir, 
the three arches of Sarvistan are separated by groups of triple flutes. These 
flutes are far more clearly connected with ancient oriental tradition than the 
engaged columns of Firuzabad. They are derived from the reed-like flutings 
of Babylonia and Assyria, which are to be found as late as the Parthian counter- 
feit at Telloh. 5 The motive does not disappear after the Mohammadan invasion. 
It occurs at Kharaneh, a hirah on the western borders of the Syrian desert (see 
below, Plate 80, Fig. 2), and I found it upon the facade of Sultan Khan, a Seldjuk 
building in the heart of Asia Minor. 8 Here, as at Sarvistan, it flanks a central 
doorway. At Sarvistan it gives way at the angles of the palace to a single 
engaged column. As at Firuzabad, the audience hall at Sarvistan is a square 
domed chamber, but it opens immediately into the posterior courtyard and 
a single liwan faces it on the further side. Besides the partial detachment 
from the wall of the supports of some of the vaults and of the columns bearing 
the smaller dome, there are other evidences of advance in structural know- 
ledge. In the central liwan, in the tower chambers, and in the central domed 
chamber the walls are partially hollowed out by blind niches, which add to the 
security of the vaults while they increase the interior space of the chambers. 
These blind niches lend to the supports of the dome something of the appearance 
of free standing angle piers, and they show a dawning apprehension of the fact 
that the thrust of the dome is concentrated mainly upon the corners of the 
substructure. In the isolated dome of Ferashabad 7 the hollowing out of 
the walls is carried yet further. 

The building material used in walls and vaults is undressed stone and mortar, 

1 Dieulafoy, vol. iv. Fig. 30. 6 De Sarzec-Heuzey, Decouvertes en Chaldee, 

2 Idem, vol. iv, Plate 17. p. 397. 

3 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 140. • Ramsay and Bell, The Thousand and One 

4 Flandin and Coste restore the facade differ- Churches, Fig. 355. 

ently and give it the true oriental form of the ' Dieulafoy, vol. iv, p. 77. 

liwan facade ; see below, p. 137. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 79 

but at Sarvistan the stones are more carefully coursed than at Firuzabad. As 
far as can be judged from photographs, the vaults must have been built over 
a centering. They oversailed the walls as at Ukhaidir, while the semicircular 
door and window arches were set back from the jambs according to Dieulafoy's 
restoration, and oversailed the walls according to the restoration of Flandin. 1 
The side walls of the palace are broken by frequent doorways, and in the smaller 
dome windows were pierced through the drum. 2 The domes are built far more 
skilfully than those of Firuzabad. The zone which contains the squinch over- 
sails the wall, standing flush with the outer edge of a small cornice adorned with 
a dog-tooth. The squinches are built with a proficiency which is in marked 
contrast with their rude prototypes at Firuzabad. They are divided from the 
dome by a second dog-tooth cornice, and the dome itself is constructed of light 
brick tiles. 3 This combination of the two materials is resorted to again at 
Ukhaidir. The niches in the columned chambers are covered with semi-domes 
which are set clumsily over the angles on very small squinches.* The Achaemeni- 
dizing plaster-work of Firuzabad is not repeated, but the dog-tooth is copied 
from the cornice under the dome in the older palace. It is significant that the 
cornices of Sarvistan have but one fillet instead of the two fillets of Firuzabad. 
A tendency to reduce the importance of horizontal decorations is characteristic 
of Sasanian and of Mohammadan work in Mesopotamia (see below, p. 130). 

Both for Firuzabad and for Sarvistan a minute re-examination is urgently 
needed, but the political conditions of the province of Fars are not favourable 
to archaeological research. Nor was the state of affairs ideal at Qasr-i-Shirin 
when I was there in April 1911, and I measured the palace of Khusrau to the 
tune of the whizzing of stray bullets. That they were not intended to hit me 
was due principally to the fortunate circumstance of my having been accredited 
by a powerful Kurdish ally on the Turkish side of the frontier to the leading 
Kurdish brigand, Kerim Khan, on the Persian side. This fact rendered the situa- 
tion more reassuring, but I was not tempted to prolong my stay beyond the five 
days which I devoted to the palaces, neither did I loiter over my work. It would 
have been difficult to push on further into the interior, or perhaps I should say 
that it would have been too expensive ; for though Kerim Khan would have 
provided me with an escort, he would have expected a small fortune in return 
for his protection, and perhaps it might fairly be urged that he would have 
deserved it. According to the information which has reached me from Baghdad, 
matters have gone from bad to worse since the date of my visit, and the high 
road of the Sasanian kings has been definitely closed to traffic. 

1 Idem, vol. iv, Plate 1. In the flanking From Dieulafoy's picture of the dome, it would 

chamber to the left of the entrance liwan the seem that the arches of the side niches there 

vaults of the niches oversail the wall and the same certainly oversailed the jambs. Plate 5. 
seems to be the case in the vault of the liwan 2 Idem, vol. iv, Plate 2. 

itself. Flandin and Coste draw all the door, 3 Idem, vol. iv, Plate 5. 

window, and niche arches oversaving the jambs. ' Idem, vol. iv, Plate 7. 



8o 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



Like the Achaemenid palaces, Firuzabad and Sarvistan were not intended for 
the lodging of vast hordes of retainers. These may have been accommodated 
in tents or in mud-built houses of an unpretending nature. But with the close 
of the sixth century we come to a group of royal dwelling-places wherein pro- 
vision was made for an indefinite number of women, courtiers, servants, and 
guards, and the type of building thus created was taken over by the khalifs of 
Islam and extended to proportions vaster still. Of this type the palace of 
Khusrau at Qasr-i-Shirin is the best example we possess. 1 In general terms 
Ukhaidir is its fortified counterpart. 

The palace of Khusrau is built upon an artificial platform like Persepolis and 
the Assyrian palaces, while additional lodgings for the king's family and suite 
are placed on the level of the plain. The double ramps or stairways by which 
the platform is approached are exactly similar to those employed in the older 
prototypes. The eastern end of the platform is occupied by an immense open 
space lying before the entrance to the state apartments. A deep porch, possibly 
with columns on either side, leads into a latitudinal chamber, the details of 
which cannot be determined without excavation. From this antechamber 
a doorway communicates with the square hall of audience, which corresponds 
precisely with the audience halls of Firuzabad and Sarvistan. In the posterior 
wall there is a deep liwan in which, perhaps, the throne of the Chosroes may have 
been placed. Behind the reception-rooms there is an open court round which 
the living-rooms are grouped, not singly, but in a series of subsidiary courts, 
some of which are placed on a lower level. The whole scheme is thus exactly 
parallel to the scheme of the palaces in Fars, though the reduplication and 
enlargement of the various parts somewhat obscures the resemblance at first 
sight. At Qasr-i-Shirin a porch is added to the liwan palace and the entrance 
liwan has become a closed chamber, the porch having superseded the columned 
entrance of the Achaemenids and the archways of the earlier Sasanians. 
The rectangular audience hall of the normal Sasanian khilani palace follows. The 
small liwan to the rear, with its flanking rooms, have their parallel at Firuzabad, 
but the small liwan at Qasr-i-Shirin forms part of the hall of audience and 



1 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 Qasr-i-Shirin. That I did not linger 
there was due partly to the circumstances de- 
scribed 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 Kerim Khan's 
brother, who resides at Haush Quru. In plan 
the palace is very similar to the central block of 
Qasr-i-Shirin. 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 Shirwan, 
p. 362, another of Dereh Shah, p. 367, and a 
fragmentary plan of Hazar Dar, together with 
some remarkably interesting details of decoration. 
Hazar Dar 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. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 81 

three of the flanking rooms can be entered from that hall, as well as from the 
open court behind it. 

I must pass from what went before to what came after and draw a com- 
parison between the palace of Khusrau and the desert palace of Ukhaidir. A 
characteristic feature of the latter, the girdle of walls, must be left out of account. 
At Qa§r-i-Shirin the walls were placed round the large pleasure-grounds with 
which the Sasanian king surrounded his dwelling. It is the wall-less Ukhaidir, 
the Ukhaidir as it was originally conceived by its builders, which must be taken 
into consideration, though even in that first design the desert hirah was not 
left entirely defenceless, since it was compressed into the rectangle of its own 
enclosing walls, strengthened by towers. The space within those walls had to 
be utilized to the full. At Qasr-i-Shirin the guards could be lodged in the 
lower rooms about the stairways, at Ukhaidir they were gathered together within 
the main entrance. The great hall is, in fact, a monumental gateway. It 
belongs to the system of defences which is absent from the Sasanian palaces. 
The Mohammadan builders reverted to an older type, to the fortified palace 
of the ancient East. At Khorsabad the principal entrance to the palace lay within 
the walls of the acropolis, and it was not, therefore, strongly fortified, but 
such gates as those in the acropolis walls are the true progenitors of the Ukhaidir 
scheme (Plate 78, Fig. 1). In Sargon's palace the long entrance passage, some 
10 metres wide, represents the great hall of Ukhaidir ; the lateral chambers on 
either side are divided at Ukhaidir into groups of smaller lateral rooms which, 
both at Khorsabad and at Ukhaidir, were very insufficiently lighted. In either 
case some additional light is obtained from a court into which the chambers 
open. The symmetrical arrangement of the Ukhaidir gate with the central 
court and audience rooms behind it would not have appealed to ancient autho- 
rities on fortification. Chaldaean and Assyrian gateways are seldom if ever 
situated opposite to one another, an asymmetrical disposition being accounted 
better for purposes of defence. 1 The long passage room of Khorsabad and 
Ukhaidir, but without the lateral chambers, exists in some of the excavated 
gateways at Susa, 2 and at Susa above the gateway stands a hypostyle pavilion 
offering a high and airy abode to the great folk who inhabited the palaces within, 
just as at Ukhaidir an open court with liwans on all sides occupies the high summit 
of the gate-house. At Ukhaidir there is no direct communication between the 
ground floor of the gate-house block and the rest of the palace, except one door 
out of the great hall. The gate tower and hall, with the adjoining rooms for 
dependants, and the mosque, which had of necessity to be accessible to all, 
formed the public part of the building, and the upper stories, since they too 
could only be reached by passing through the public rooms, cannot be regarded 
as containing private apartments. The better rooms may have been intended 

1 So too at Susa; Dieulafoy, L'Acropole de Suse, p. 239. 2 Idem, Fig. 126, and p. 240. 

1MO M 



82 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

for guests ; the chambers in the gate-tower, and those which were in direct 
connexion with the chemin de ronde, for guards. 

The great open platform of Qasr-i-Shirin is represented at Ukhaidir by the 
central court. The ceremonial rooms at Ukhaidir recall with singular fidelity 
the disposition at Firuzabad, but the flanking chambers of the liwan (the old 
tower chambers of the khilani palace) have doors of their own, as at Hatra and 
Sarvistan, and the three halls are barrel vaulted instead of domed. Special 
care has been taken with these vaults. In the audience chamber (No. 30), 
as in the liwan (No. 29), they are finely built of brick, while in rooms 33 and 
40 they are set upon columns. The unequal intercolumniations in these rooms 
(the columns stand -90 metre from the walls and 2-50 metres from each other) 
is no doubt due to a desire to secure as much space as possible in the centre of 
the room, but it produces a singular resemblance to Sasanian methods, where the 
short columns are set close to the walls that they may be the more easily bound 
in with them by arches. The rooms round the small court f are probably not 
intended for dwelling-rooms, but stand in some definite relation to the cere- 
monial chambers ; as Dr. Reuther has suggested, the little room 37, with chimney- 
pipes in the vault, may have been used for the preparation of light refreshments 
for the prince and his guests. For what special purpose the elaborately decorated 
rooms 31 and 32 were intended it is of course impossible to say, but as I shall 
point out (p. 115) they accord with a similar arrangement at Kharaneh. The 
rooms of ceremony were provided with a serdab under No. 42. Almost exactly 
the same grouping of chambers is found in the block which was set at a later 
date into the eastern part of the palace yard. The north-east angle of the yard 
forms the court ; the facade of the annex is adorned with engaged columns and 
niches ; even the serdab and the stair to the roof are reproduced. It is clear 
that we have here a second set of reception-rooms similar to the first, but why 
a second set was needed it is impossible to tell. The fact that an outer stair was 
added to the older part of the palace, so as to place the new reception-rooms 
in direct connexion with the first floor of the gate-house block, the floor which 
I have tentatively assigned to guests, leads me to suggest that the second 
ceremonial liwan, with its dependences, was intended for any visitor who was 
of such distinction as to need a separate audience room. 

The courts B, c, H, and G can have served no other purpose than that of the 
haram, the dwelling-places for the wives and children. Each court is a habita- 
tion complete in itself, a bait as it is called in Arabic, a house. Each is provided 
with a winter and a summer liwan, with living-rooms adjoining it, and behind 
each liwan lies a long narrow room partly open, with chimney-pipes in the vault 
— the kitchen. 1 Each bait has access to two of the chambers hollowed out of 

1 I had not realized the purpose for which study of Mesopotamian domestic architecture of 

these oblong rooms were intended until Dr. the present day and published an excellent book 

Reuther told me that he had seen similar kitchens on the subject, Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad und 

in modern Arab houses. He has made a careful anderen Stddten des Irak. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 83 

the towers, which, according to the suggestion of the authors of Ocheidir, were 
probably closets. In two of the courts, B and H, the flanking chambers of the 
liwan are provided with anterooms which open into the court through an 
archway resting on engaged columns. They are covered with barrel vaults 
running at right angles to the vaults of the chambers behind, and separated from 
the liwan vault by transverse arches. The vault of the liwan is carried straight 
through from the back wall to the wall of the court, but the side walls are not 
continued through to the court, as in c and G, but open through wide arches 
into the antechambers. These arches are the transverse arches against which the 
antechamber vaults abut. In the ground plan this group has the appearance 
of a short liwan flanked by two short chambers, with an antechamber common 
to all three, though structurally this would not be a true description. The ante- 
chamber predicts the modern tarmah, which is, as a rule, either a short ante- 
chamber to the central room only, or a long antechamber common to all the 
three rooms (Fig. 12). In either case the modern tarmah is actually that which 



Oda I 


Oda 
Tarma 


loda 

L 




Oda 


Luvan.1 Oda. 


Tarma. 









Fig. 12. Modern Tarmah houses. 
(From Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad, by kind permission of Dr. Reuther.) 

the tarmah of Ukhaidir only appears to be, an independent latitudinal ante- 
chamber cutting off part of the liwan. 

In court E the arrangement of the rooms is modified owing to the exiguous 
space which remained at the back of the ceremonial chambers. The elements 
are, however, the same, a court, a liwan with side chambers, and a kitchen. To 
these are added a stair leading to the roof, which is absent from the haram courts. 
It is reasonable to assume that court E was the private bait of the lord of 
Ukhaidir. These courts or baits are foreshadowed in the posterior courts of the 
Achaemenid and the early Sasanian palaces (again Firuzabad offers the closest 
parallel) ; in the palace of Khusrau they reach a development which was to be 
very little modified at Ukhaidir. The scheme can best be studied in the courts 
on the lower level o, Q, and s. Each of these courts is provided on the west side 
with a liwan, flanking chambers, and a tarmah, while a fourth chamber to the north 
may be a kitchen. To the south a vaulted passage leads in each case to a posterior 
court p, R, and T. On the eastern side of the forecourts there is another liwan 
group, much shallower than the first and without a tarmah or any subsidiary 
rooms. The flanking chambers of the eastern liwans have small doors into the 
court and into the vaulted passage behind them. As far as I could judge, the 
three forecourts communicated with each other, in which case the strict isolation 

m 2 



84 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

of the baits of Ukhaidir is a new feature. In courts k and m the arrangement is 
a little different. The east end in one court only is occupied by a shallow liwan 
group, the west end in both by a deep liwan group with a tarmah, but the subsi- 
diary chambers are to the rear, one small and one larger room, approached by 
a door through the liwan and opening on to a posterior court. The four baits on 
the upper level are very similar. The subsidiary chambers are placed behind the 
main liwan ; in courts c and G there is a group of rooms to the side, and court G 
is without the shallow eastern liwan group in its forecourt, but possesses it on 
the west side of its posterior court. Neither courts e nor i have the small liwans. 
All the courts communicate with one another (except perhaps courts I and h) 
and with the passage. These long vaulted passages are a feature of Ukhaidir 
also. The building materials at Qasr-i-Shirin are those of Ukhaidir and Sarvistan, 
undressed stones, coursed with a certain amount of care, and burnt brick tiles 
for the finer work. 

One further step in the long history of oriental palaces can now be taken, 
thanks to the excavations of Professor Sarre and Dr. Herzfeld at Samarra. Part 
of the plan of the great complex of Balkuwara lies before us (Fig. 13). Just as 
the palace of Khusrau reproduced the khilani palaces on a gigantic scale, so 
Balkuwara is a gigantic reproduction of Qasr-i-Shirin. The approach to the 
palace, through two courts, covers an area some 300 metres long (the measure- 
ments are only my approximate estimates made from the scale of Dr. Herzfeld's 
outline plan) and passes under three ornamental gateways. A third courtyard, 
lying before the halls of audience, is over 100 metres long and is set round 
on two sides by a free standing colonnade (instead of the blind arcade of 
Ukhaidir), a corridor, and a long line of rooms, these last carried round the third 
side also. An immense liwan, 30 metres long by 15 metres wide, with two rows 
of flanking chambers, occupies the centre of the fourth side. Beyond a small 
latitudinal room there is a group of four great chambers arranged crosswise. 
Meeting in a central chamber, between the arms of the cross, lies a complex of 
nine smaller rooms, four groups in all, and beyond this we find another latitudinal 
room and a great liwan opening into a garden court. 1 On the further side of 
this garden pavilions stand upon the banks of the Tigris. The area to the left 
of the ceremonial halls is occupied by twenty-four courts, each one a bait after 
the manner of Qasr-i-Shirin and Ukhaidir. Besides the liwan group at one 
end (Dr. Herzfeld speaks of the principal room as J_-shaped, but judging from his 
outline the form is produced by the combination of the liwan group and the 
tarmah) and the group of three shallower rooms at the opposite end, there are 
three rooms down either side of each court, and rooms flanking the group at 
either end. Some of the courts are still bigger and more complex. In the right 

1 I suspect that the cross-shaped disposition fifth-century church of Qal'at Sim' an (de Vogue, 

of chambers was used in oriental palaces older La Syrie centrale, vol. i, p. 141), for which I do 

than the Mohammadan era. It is found in the not know a Western prototype. 




Fig. 13. BalkuwirA. (From ErsUr vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Atisgrabungen von Sdmarrd, by kind permission of Dr. Herzfeld. 



86 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

wing of the palace, besides a number of baits of a more or less normal character, 
there are a bazaar and barracks. The huge building here displayed covers 
only a quarter of the whole area of Balkuwara. It is interesting to note that 
the chief mosque lies to the right hand of the main entrance, just as at Ukhaidir 
it lies to the right of the gate. The smaller palace of al-'Ashiq is again composed 
of a central block between two wings. 1 The audience chambers appear to consist 
of a large liwan with a rectangular room behind it, this room being flanked by 
two similar rooms (compare Firuzabad). The general features of the main 
gateway, a closed liwan flanked by two chambers on either side, each with an 
antechamber, were already known, as well as the details of the wall decoration 
on either side of the gate. 2 M. Viollet, who did some work in 1910 on the 
great palace known as the Bait al-Khalifah, has published a sketch-plan of it, 3 
and Dr. Herzfeld is now engaged on further excavations there. Both he and 
M. Viollet have published exceedingly instructive photographs of stucco decora- 
tion from the palaces, and I gave a few in Amurath to Amurath. Dr. Herzfeld's 
series is naturally far the most interesting, as his work has been the most thorough. 
If the palace of Khusrau is unmistakably the culminating point of a long 
oriental tradition, and the model for future generations of oriental potentates, 
it serves also to illuminate the little known period during which it arose ; it 
throws light upon the hirahs of the Lakhmid phylarchs, concerning which 
we have practically no contemporary information. Mas'udi tells us that the 
khalif Mutawakkil copied in one of his palaces a scheme which had been adopted 
by a king of Hirah. It consisted of a central block, wherein was situated the 
audience chamber, and two wings containing storerooms and lodgings for 
courtiers. In front lay an open court common to all three parts of the palace ; 
the way to the audience chamber passed through three gates. Dr. Herzfeld, 
when he had laid bare the plan of Balkuwara, realized that it corresponded with 
Mas'udi' s description. 4 That Mas'udi believed the type of the Hiri with two 
sleeves to have been created by a Nu'manid prince in imitation of the battle 
array of his army, we, who are acquainted with older monuments, know to be 
incorrect ; B it is the latest descendant of a long ancestral line of oriental palaces 
which runs back through the Achaemenid and the Assyrian to the Hittite. The 
palace of Khusrau is as perfect an instance of the scheme as is the palace of 
Balkuwara ; the differences between them are differences of dimension, not of 
kind. At Qasr-i-Shirin old oriental traits, such as the artificial platform and 
the double stairways, are peculiarly well marked. The three gates of Balkuwara 
are not present at Qasr-i-Shirin, or rather they are not laid out in the same 

1 Herzfeld, Erster vorldufiger Bericht iiber die prisenUs a I' Acad, des Ins. et Belles-Lettres, vol. 

Ausgrabungen von Sdmarrd, Plate 9. xii, pt. ii. 

1 Herzfeld, Sdmarrd, Fig. 23 ; Bell, Amurath to * Erster vorl. Bericht, p. 40. 

Amurath, Fig. 148. • Dr. Herzfeld believes the type to be based 

Un palais musulman au ix'sitele,' Mimoires upon the Roman camp, a point to which I shall 

refer later, p. 120. 



3 < 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



87 



relation to one another, but it is very possible that Mas'udi's account of the 
Nu'manid palace was coloured by a lively recollection of the glories of Balkuwara, 
which in his day was beginning to fall into ruin. Samarra was finally abandoned 
by the khalifs in 892, and Mas'udi wrote in 943. But if Qasr-i-Shirin fulfils 
the requirements of the tenth-century writer, so does Ukhaidir, and Ukhaidir, 
standing within two days' journey of Hirah, may well be taken to be the closest 
representation of the Lakhmid hirahs until Khawarnaq itself is excavated. 

The genesis of the liwan house as it appears in the palace of Khusrau, at 
Ukhaidir and at Balkuwara has emerged from the analysis of a long series of 
more ancient buildings. The baits adhere severely, I might almost say implacably, 
to a type which was derived ultimately from the khilani. It is, however, possible 
that in their later form another influence may have been at work. We know that, 
to a certain extent at any rate, the Parthians adopted the Hellenistic house. 
The Greek peristyle is found in Parthian houses at Babylon and at Niffer (Fig. 9) ; 
but, on the other hand, in the Parthian palace at Telloh, ' in spite of the pene- 




TVrirTTl 



Posticutn. 



Fig. 14. Scheme of Pompeiian house. 
(From Mau's Pompeii, by kind permission of Messrs. Macmillan.) 

tration into the heart of Asia of the elements of Greek civilization, the con- 
structors, contemporaries of the Seleucids, have remained in all points faithful 
to the traditions of ancient Asiatic civilization,' 1 and at Hatra no Hellenistic 
house has yet been recorded. The plan of the Hellenistic house is well known 
from excavation, principally at Delos and at Priene. As early as the second 
century B.C. it is found in combination with the Roman atrium house at 
Pompeii (Fig. 14). In the ordinary private house, which was too small to admit 
of a complete peristyle, the oecus gives into the courtyard through a prostas 
with an open colonnaded facade, while other less important rooms are set round 
the remaining sides of the court (Fig. 15). This has already something of the 
appearance of a liwan group with a tarmah, and the resemblance is increased if 
oecus and prostas are reduplicated and two rooms placed in the centre (Fig. 16). 
The genesis of this house is totally different from that of the liwan-tarmah house ; 
the house of Priene is an abridgement of the peristyle house, the liwan-tarmah 
house is a development of the khilani, but it is nevertheless possible that the 



1 Sarzec-Heuzey, Dccouvertes en Chaldie, 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 con- 
fused ; Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, 
p. 286. 



88 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



Hellenistic peristyle house, in its abridged form, may have given the initial 
impulse which led to the adding of the tarmah to the liwan. We may be sure that 
no columned facade could have come into existence in Mesopotamia before the 
close of the second Babylonian empire, and indeed at Ukhaidir the columned 
facade is not applied to the tarmah house, though it is found in arcaded galleries 
— for instance in No. 20. Moreover, the rooms in courts B and H are structurally 
more closely related to the simple liwan of Hatra than to the oecus-prostas house, 
while the modern tarmah house is structurally, as well as in plan, one with the latter. 
What is the principle which determined the arrangement of the rooms or 




.STRASSE 



1 Oecos A 1 
1 Proslos Ip* 1 


■ OectJsB 

1 Prastas 
L 67-90 1 


■■■— — ■ — - WIm^p^b 


^f 




9iSm 









Fig. 15. Priene, house 33. (From Priene, by 
kind permission of the General Director of the 
K. Museen in Berlin.) 



Fig. 16. Priene, house 24. 
(From Priene.) 



groups of rooms within the bait, and of the baits within the palace ? Professor 
Koldewey, in one of those generalizations, as profound as they are brilliant, 
which we owe to his learning and acumen, has laid down a law touching archi- 
tectural grouping which will be of service in considering this question. Speaking 
of the intentional separation of the main chamber of a Babylonian temple from 
the encompassing wall, he says : ' This intentional separation is perhaps connected 
historically with the origin of the Babylonian house, which must be dealt with 
in another place. In my view, a view which rests upon the study of Babylonian 
ground-plans in historic and in prehistoric times, the grouping of chambers in 
ground-plans throughout the Babylonian cultural sphere proceeds from the 
interior. The embracing wall, Duru, is the primary, the indispensable essential. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 89 

Within the compass of the wall, the single chambers are set in such fashion, 
and in such fashion are they linked together, that ultimately a court remains 
over. In the Greek house, on the other hand, the single chambers, Megara, are 
so placed, and joined together in such manner, that ultimately a court results. 
The Italic house creates for itself a kind of court by sundering a roof which was 
originally continuous. It is therefore possible to distinguish between the different 
types of houses with courtyards by denning the Babylonian ground-plan as 
injunctive, the Greek as conjunctive, and the Italic as disjunctive.' * 

With the disjunctive plan Mesopotamian archaeology is not concerned; 
nor do I believe that the conjunctive plan was either widely or permanently 
of importance, at any rate up to the period to which Ukhaidir belongs. The 




1 '"' ~'*'T|~iiiri"Hr '"~ "" 



Fig. 17. Palace at Pergamon. 
(From Dunn's Baukunst der Griechen, by kind permission of Messrs. Gebhardt.) 

Greek scheme cannot be brought into sharper contrast with the Mesopotamian 
than by laying a plan such as that of the Pergamene palace (Fig. 17) beside a plan 
such as that of the smaller palace at Niffer (Fig. 9). I select with intention 
a building wherein Hellenism has influenced the details, but left the fundamental 
principle unchanged. At Pergamon the court results from the manner in which 
the isolated chambers are placed and linked together ; at Niffer a court 
remains over from the manner in which the chambers or groups of chambers are 
placed within, and linked to, the encompassing wall. In the baits of Ukhaidir 
it is no less the encompassing wall which is the indispensable essential, and 
it may even be surmised that the latitudinal chamber which lies behind the 
liwan is a survival of the intentional separation of the principal room from the 
wall. But it is not only the bait, the unit, which must be considered, it is 
the grouping of units. Now these units are so placed round the encompassing 



1S80 



1 Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa, p. 14. 

N 



go GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

wall, and joined together in such fashion, as to leave a court over. In detailed 
and in general disposition Ukhaidir exhibits the injunctive plan. 

Before considering the Umayyad hirahs of the western desert three other 
Sasanian buildings must be passed briefly under review. I will deal first, though 
it is not first in date, with the second palace at Qasr-i-Shirin, Chehar Qapu. 

Is it a palace ? A glance at the plan is enough to prove that it does not fall 
precisely within the four corners of the scheme to which Khusrau's palace belongs. 
This divergence of plan, and the peculiar character imparted to the ruins by the 
isolated quadrangular chamber which dominates the whole complex, have led 
to the suggestion that Chehar Qapu may have been a fire temple. In support of 
this view two buildings have been cited, the rectangular western annex at Hatra, 
and a ruin excavated by Dieulafoy at Susa. The last-named instance carries 
little weight. 1 Its resemblance to Hatra depends upon the reconstruction pro- 
posed by Dieulafoy upon data too slight to be convincing. Until a further 
examination has been made, the ruin at Susa offers too frail a substructure for 
the lightest of theories. As regards Hatra (Fig. 10), the western annex blocks 
a window in one of the smaller rooms of the south liwan and is therefore certainly 
a later addition. But the learned author of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft 
publication has given us two plans of smaller palaces, found among the ruins 
in the city, of which one certainly, and the other probably, is composed of a liwan 
with its flanking chambers, and a posterior rectangular room with, however, the 
interposition of a narrow latitudinal room between them (Fig. 18) . Dr. Andrae 
has pointed out that while a liwan group combined with a rectangular 
chamber, but without a latitudinal chamber, exists in the main palace (south 
liwan), two liwans with a latitudinal chamber but without the rectangular 
chamber are found in the northern annex, which, like the western annex, is a later 
addition to the palace. The fact that the dispositions observed in the main 
palace are not entirely isolated examples is of the highest significance, but it 
does not solve the problem connected with the so-called ' temple '. In all 
these palaces the posterior quadrangular chamber may have been a sanctuary, 
or it may equally well have been a living-room. The theory that in the main 
palace it is indeed a sanctuary rests mainly upon the symbolic representations 
carved upon the lintel of one of its doorways. 2 The motives there used are 
familiar elements of Parthian decoration. The dragon occurs upon the facade 
of Hatra itself and was found by Loftus among the Parthian fragments at 
Warka, 3 as well as upon a lintel excavated by George Smith at Quyundjik, 4 
but there is no saying whether the lintel belonged to a sanctuary or to a private 
dwelling. Nor is there much to be learnt, with regard to fire temples, from 
literary sources. Herodotus declares that it was not the practice of the Persians 

1 L'Acropole de Suse, Fig. 264. 4 Assyrian Discoveries, pp. 146 and 429. 

1 Hatra, pt. i, Fig. 32. Photograph opposite p. 308. 

* Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 225. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 91 



to erect statues, temples, or altars ; * Strabo that they erect neither statues nor 
altars, but, considering the heaven as Jupiter, sacrifice on a high place. Strabo 
goes on, however, to state that they have large shrines called Pyraetheia, in the 
middle of which the Magi, entering daily into the shrine, maintain an inextin- 
guished fire. 2 Trustworthy architectural data for such buildings we do not 
possess, and as Dr. Andrae has observed, the rectangular chamber at Hatra is 






» 




Fig. 18. Small palace at Hatra. (From Hatra, by kind permission of the D. Orient-Gesellschaft.) 

unlike any other temple known to us, either in the East or in the West. 3 In the 
outer court of the palace he found a ruin which he calls tentatively an ateshgah 
(fire altar). 4 It is a block of masonry almost square which stood 10 to 12 metres 
high and has traces of a stair that may either have wound round three sides of 
the tower, or have zigzagged up the face on one side only. He compares it with the 
tower some 28 metres high at Djur, near Firuzabad, which was published by 
M. Dieulafoy 5 . The Djur tower may date from the time of Ardeshir Babagan, 



1 Bk. i, ch. 131. 

* Bk. xv, ch. 3, 13-16. 

3 Hatra, pt. ii, p. 143. 



4 Ibid., pt. ii, p. 109. 

6 L'Art antique, vol. iv, p. 79. 



N 2 



92 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

a.d. 227-240. Here, too, there was a stair, which must have wound three times 
round the tower in order to attain the platform at the summit. M. Dieulafoy 
was struck by the resemblances that existed between the tower at Djur, the 
ziggurat at Khorsabad, and the minarets at Samarra and at Cairo. 1 A ramp 
winding round the ziggurat to the summit of the pyramid is described by 
Herodotus, but has not yet been assured by excavation, and even the existence 
of pyramids with platforms at various heights among the ruins hitherto examined 
is doubtful. 2 The whole question of fire altar and fire temple is therefore very 
obscure. The towers at Djur and at Hatra may have been sacrificial altars, and 
Strabo bears witness to the fact that the Persians sacrificed in a high place ; but 
I find it difficult to believe that they can have been intended for an inextinguished 
fire. To keep a fire alight in so exposed a spot would have taxed the ingenuity 
of the Magi beyond endurance. The shrines in which the perpetual fire burnt 
must have afforded better shelter, but what shape they assumed we do not know. 
No help can be expected from this quarter, and the problem presented by 
Chehar Qapu must be considered on its merits. It is slightly cleared by a 
recognition of the fact. 

The quadrangular chamber of Chehar Qapu, viewed impartially, does not 
offer any serious difficulty. If the audience hall in the palace of Khusrau were 
standing, its aspect would be much the same, for it too was a large square chamber 
with a dome rising above and dominating the rest of the palace. At Sarvistan 
a parallel structure exists to this day. But it is the surrounding buildings which 
are different, and the question is further complicated by the circumstance that 
the rooms in the immediate vicinity of the domed hall are so much ruined 
that their exact arrangement cannot be decided without some excavation — it 
is provoking to think how little excavation would be needed. So far as can 
be observed at present Chehar Qapu is a rectangular complex with the main 
entrance to the east ; the gateway is flanked to the south by two courts, to the 
north by one, each court being furnished with small rectangular rooms. I con- 
jecture that these were guard-rooms, and they may be compared with the rooms 
under the ramps in the palace of Khusrau. The main entrance opened into a long 
quadrangular court with a monumental gate at the further end. To the north 
of this court, and communicating with it by a door at the eastern end, there 
is an almost quadrangular area, formed by rooms set round the courtyard 
numbered e on the plan. The rooms are latitudinal, and they bear no resem- 
blance to the liwans of the palace of Khusrau. To the west lies another court, 
F, with latitudinal rooms on two sides and an independent communication 
with the entrance court ; still further west are two smaller courts, G and H, 

1 In the mosque of Ibn Tulun at Cairo. The controversy. Personally I subscribe to the view 

origin of the minaret is a vexed question which of Dr. Andrae and M. Dieulafoy. 
has been treated at length by Thiersch, Der 2 Koldewey, Die Tempel von Babylon und 

Pharos, and continues to be the subject of Borsippa, p. 66. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMAD AN PALACE 93 

with rooms on two sides ; and finally, to the north of the domed hall, there 
seems to have been a fifth court or open space with rooms on two sides. The 
south wing is not symmetrical with the north wing and it is considerably 
wider. There are three large courts here. Court 1 has chambers on three sides ; 
those on the south side resembling a liwan group with a tarmah. Court J has on 
the south side a latitudinal chamber, with a tarmah on the north side, and a 
passage communicating with the entrance court, A. Court K has a liwan group 
with a tarmah on the south side ; the north and west sides are ruined. Beyond 
this lies a totally ruined area, to the west of which stand two rooms, apparently 
with a tarmah, and at the south-west end of the palace there is a series of four 
rooms. With the exception of the small courts on either side of the main gate, 
all the courts seem to have had some direct intercommunication; this was 
probably the case in the palace of Khusrau also. The grouping of the rooms in 
the court is, however, almost entirely unlike that which has been described in the 
larger palace at Qasr-i-Shirin, at Ukhaidir, or at Samarra. Courts I and K alone, 
with their liwans and tarmahs, offer shadowy resemblances to the others. The 
arrangement of the rooms, the irregularity of the areas covered by the courts, and 
the tendency towards an asymmetrical disposition, point to a reversion to the 
methods of the ancient East. Symmetry plays no part in the palace-planning 
of Babylonia and Assyria. From the earliest to the latest, from the Chaldaean 
palaces * to the palace of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon, 2 through all the intervening 
palaces in Assyria, at Nimrud, at Quyundjik, at Khorsabad and at Assur, no 
principle of symmetry is to be observed. Nor yet is it to be found, except quite 
fortuitously, in the Hittite khilani palaces (the late khilani, north-west of G in 
Fig. 5, is one of the few instances), although they originated in the symmetrical 
gateway ; and it is markedly absent in the northern Hittite palaces and 
temples at Boghaz Keui, though in other respects they have little in common 
with the southern Hittite monuments. 3 Assyrian temples more nearly approach 
to a symmetrical disposition, but only under influences foreign to Assyria, 
influences which can be traced back to the end of the twelfth century before 
Christ in the Anu-Adad temple at Assur. The old Assyrian scheme, of which 
we have one example in the temple of Assur, at Assur, built by Shamshi-Adad, 
was derived from the Babylonian temple plan and, like the Babylonian, it was 
asymmetrical. The imported plan is characterized by the substitution of 
longitudinal for latitudinal chambers. 4 But these foreign, probably Western 

1 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, pp. 448-9. by cultural influences other than those which 

1 Koldewey, Die Tempel von Bab. und Bar., obtained at Boghaz Keui. For example, the 

Plate 2 ; the palace has not yet been published, latitudinal disposition of the chambers which 

but the plan is given here. See, too, Das toieder characterizes the southern khilani is absent at 

erstehende Babylon. Boghaz Keui. Can it be that southern Hittite 

' Puchstein, Boghaskoi, Plates 33, 42, 44, 46, architecture is in truth Syrian architecture under 

and 47. The differences are so profound that Hittite domination ? 

I am led to the belief that the architects of * Andrae, Der Anu-Adad Tempel, Plate 4, is 

southern Hittite palaces must have been governed an example of the symmetrical temple. On p. 83 



94 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

influences (for they were responsible also for the creation of Solomon's temple, 
apparently a symmetrical building), 1 could not reduce Assyrian architecture 
to an ordered plan, and the temples in Sargon's palace at Khorsabad fall far 
short of symmetry, 2 while in Babylonia the longitudinal chamber, i.e. the 
imported plan, was never adopted, and until the latest period, the temples, 
like the palaces, remained entirely unsymmetrical. 3 The plan of Quyundjik, 
which is the most complete record of any Assyrian palace which has yet been 
published, throws considerable light upon Chehar Qapu (Plate yy). Courts xxvn 
and xxx in the temple area, courts xvm, xix, xx, and xxn in the domestic 
quarters, exhibit an unsymmetrical grouping of latitudinal and longitudinal 
chambers very much akin to that of the courts of Chehar Qapu. In court xvi 
we have a foreshadowing of the tarmah scheme. (Place believes the rooms in 
court xvi to have been storehouses for wine, from the quantity of jars found in 
them.) 4 It would be ridiculous to push a minute comparison too far, seeing 
that a period of over 1,000 years separates the two buildings, but a certain 
resemblance in details and, still more, a general correspondence on the funda- 
mental principle of asymmetry leads me to suspect that a primaeval tradition 
survived through all the innovations of Greece or Rome, Parthia or Persia, and 
that, at the end of the sixth century, it had sufficient vitality to guide the crafts- 
men to Khusrau Parwez in the composition of a monumental building. Survivals 
of this nature are not infrequently connected with hieratic tradition, and if 
my conjecture is correct it might serve in some measure to support the claim 
to a non-secular character which had been put forward for Chehar Qapu, although 
the domed hall, which we must assume to have been the sanctuary, bears no 
resemblance to the cella and anteroom of the Babylonian or of the Assyrian 
temple. It would be necessary to postulate that while the Sasanian builder 
retained in the courts and chambers of his temenos something of an ancient 
tradition which had come to be regarded as sacred, he gave to the shrine wherein 
the holy element burned with a perpetual flame the form which had been assumed 
by the ceremonial dwelling of the divine Chosroes. 

The two remaining Sasanian buildings which it will be necessary to mention 
are Ctesiphon and Karkh. Ctesiphon is the most famous of all the later Persian 
palaces (Fig. 19). It was erected by Shapur I (a.d. 242-272) 5 and is therefore 
about 100 years later than Hatra, and earlier than Qasr-i-Shirin by some 
250 years. Not only chronologically, but also in plan, it is closely related 
to the Parthian palace. It reproduces in yet more striking dimensions the 
simple liwan scheme, of which Hatra offers the earliest monumental example. 

Andrae discusses the influences under which it 1 Koldewey, Sendschirli, p. 18. 

arose, a subject of the highest interest and impor- 2 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 196. 

tance.forwhichtherecentexcavationofthetemple 3 Koldewey, Die Tempel von Bab. und Bor., 

of Assur has given chronological data. Mitt.derD. Plates 3, 5, 7, and 12. 

O.-G., No. 44, p. 40. The plan of the Assur temple 4 Place, Ninive, vol. i, p. 101. 

is given in Die Festungswerke von Assur, Plate 2. 6 Sarre-Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, p. 129. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



95 



The liwan at Ctesiphon is covered by a vault spanning 25- 80 metres, a dimension 
which was not exceeded in Rome itself. On either side of the liwan five vaulted 
chambers were set at right angles ; rising in stories their vaults abutted the 
main vault, as at Firuzabad and Ukhaidir. The side chambers had an inde- 




\.^ 



'■ t, m — 



Fig. 19. Ctesiphon. (From L'Acropole de Suse, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.) 




Fig. 20. Karkh. (From L'Art antique de la Perse, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.) 

pendent entrance in the fagade, a system which was first employed at Hatra. 
The masonry is of brick, chained with wooden beams as at Ukhaidir ; but at 
Ctesiphon the beams are placed parallel with the coursing of the masonry, 
whereas at Ukhaidir they are inserted at right angles into the walls. 

The second building is at Karkh, the town known in Syriac as Karkha. de 



96 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

Ladan. It was founded by Shapur II (309-379) 1 when he rebuilt Susa, from 
which it is not far removed. Of this palace we have nothing but a fragment, 
possibly a monumental entrance (Fig. 20). The central chamber is covered 
by a dome which was set over squinches upon four wide archways. 2 The 
cutting away of the walls under a dome is thus very highly developed at Karkh. 
Four transverse arches span each of the wings, and the space between the arches 
is covered by a vault. In connexion with Ukhaidir this scheme of the wings 
at Karkh is of special interest because it is repeated in room 32, where even 
the windows under the vaults are reproduced by blind niches. The material 
used at Karkh is brick, and it may here be noticed that at Susa and in Baby- 
lonia, where brick was the only available local material, it is invariably used 
by Sasanian architects ; in Fars and in the Qasr-i-Shirin district, where stone 
was more easy to obtain than brick, they constructed in unsquared stones, 
roughly coursed, using brick only for the larger vaults and domes and for 
those portions of the walls which were finely finished. The latter system was 
employed at Ukhaidir. Vault construction in stone was facilitated there by 
the fact that the stone broke naturally into thin slabs and could be made to 
assume more or less the proportions of brick tiles. For this reason stone 
vaults could be built without the use of centering. At Qasr-i-Shirin this was 
not the case. The stones are smooth rounded blocks like large pebbles ; it 
would have been impossible to use them for vaults unless the cement in which 
they were laid had been peculiarly strong, and the vaults thus formed are 
of the rudest kind. Coursed and undressed stone held together by a clay 
mortar was used for vaulting purposes as early as Lydian times ; a vault of 
that character covers the tomb chamber of the tumulus of Alyattes near Sardis. 
The same masonry is found in the terrace of the Takht-i-Mader-i-Suleiman at 
Pasargadae (fifth century B.C.), and is still in common use in Asia Minor. 3 
Masonry of dressed and undressed stones set in a mortar of clay or pitch has 
been found in Assyrian buildings, 4 but gypsum mortar was not known in Meso- 
potamia till the seventh century. Its earliest appearance was in the palace 
of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon. In Egypt it is of much earlier occurrence, 
and the use of mortar in the Aegean region during the second millennium B. c. 
(Mycenae, Argos) was probably due to Egyptian influence. 5 Hatra is the 
earliest Mesopotamian monumental building in dressed stone and mortar ; 
it was an example which was not followed by Sasanian architects. The method 
was foreign to local tradition ; native workmen returned to their own systems 
and continued to construct wall, vault, and dome of brick or of undressed stone. 
A survey of Sasanian buildings leads to the conclusion that a singular want 

1 Noldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber, 3 Delbriick, Hellenistische Bauten, pt. ii, p. 86. 
p. 58, note. * For instance, the walls of Assur, Mitt, der 

2 Dieulafoy, L'Art antique de la Perse, vol. v, D. O.-G., No. 26, p. 35, and No. 28, Fig. 11. 
p. 79. B Delbriick, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 90. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 97 

of technical skill was displayed in their vaulting system. The vault and the 
dome may have been born in Mesopotamia, but they lingered there in a state 
of immaturity. The barrel vault, the vault on transverse arches, the dome on 
Persian squinches, or in smaller dimensions on the horizontal bracket, these 
were the only forms which were employed. If an inclined plane was to be 
covered, the barrel vault was split up into sections and raised in steps ; if the 
barrel vaults met at right angles, they were carefully separated from one another. 
At Ukhaidir the groined vault is added to this slender stock of forms, but it 
is not used in many places where it might be expected to appear, and when 
it is employed, it is only with the utmost precaution. As far as the invention 
shown in the Mesopotamian regions is concerned, we might to-day be obliged 
to content ourselves with the barrel vault and the dome poised carefully upon 
four walls (or little better ); but the Greek builders of the Mediterranean coast- 
lands stepped into the breach, and it is primarily to them that we owe the 
development of the elementary principles of oriental vaulting. 

I have already alluded to a series of early Mohammadan buildings which 
are of the utmost importance to the study of Ukhaidir, the Umayyad hirahs 
which stand upon the frontiers of Syria. On the western side of the desert 
the authority of the khalifs had been preceded by the authority of Imperial 
Rome. Lands which were occupied by Roman armies were endowed with 
a solid heritage, more enduring than any political domination has proved to be. 
To this day the traveller to Petra has the paved Roman road under his feet 
for many a mile ; he can reckon his journey by Roman milestones, and daily he 
will pass by shattered wall and piles of ruin which mark the site of Roman 
watch-tower and Roman fortified camp. After the lapse of eighteen hundred 
years these massive structures still offer a meagre shelter to the Beduin shepherds 
and their flocks, and in the seventh century, when the Umayyad khalifs fled 
from their cities to the beautiful solitudes of the Syrian desert, most of the 
castles of the Roman limes, which had been re-occupied by the Ghassanid allies 
of Byzantium, were standing in all their towered strength. Here indeed was an 
inheritance for those who loved the wilderness ; where the Roman legionaries 
had languished in interminable exile, the children of the desert held their court. 

The Arabian limes did not differ in its system of military defence from the 
limites of Europe, but whereas the European camps were originally laid down 
as stockaded earthworks and were not systematically clothed in stone till the 
time of Hadrian, 1 on the Syrian frontier the camps and forts were from the 
first built of solid stone masonry. The comparatively late date of the oriental 
defences was no doubt partially responsible for this peculiarity, but it must 
also be borne in mind that fortification by means of earthworks was foreign 
to the regions through which the Arabian limes ran. As early as the time of 
Vespasian, the camps of Flavius Silva at Masada, near the Dead Sea, were 

1 Koepp, Die Renter in Deutschland, p. 76. 
1M O 



9« 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



surrounded by walls of rudely piled stones, 1 while in the Flavian period the 
European camps were still fortified by earthworks and stockades. The Roman 
province of Arabia Petraea was created in a.d. 105, and the fortification of the 
first limes dates therefore from the time of Trajan. On this inner limes one 
great camp stands in ruins, the camp of Odhruh. 

Archaeological research on the Roman frontiers in Germany, Austria, and 
Britain, as well as in North Africa, has made us familiar with the general dis- 
position of the legionary camps ; moreover, we have two literary sources of 
information. Polybius, writing in 150 B.C., has left a description of the camp 
in his day, and Hyginus, writing not earlier than a period shortly before the 
time of Hadrian, has given an accurate account of the camp as he knew it. 2 
Architecturally there is no fundamental difference between the two. The 
camp of Hyginus was a rectangular enclosure, with a length one-third greater 
than its width. It had four gateways, the Porta Praetoria and the Porta 
Decumana in the centre of each of the short sides, the Porta Principalis Sinistra 
in one of the long sides, but not in the centre, and the Porta Principalis Dextra 
opposite to it in the other. Round the interior of the walls lay an open space, 
the Intervallum. The interior area was divided by thoroughfares placed in 
a regular order. Between the Porta Principalis Dextra and the Porta Princi- 
palis Sinistra ran a cross street, the Via Principalis. At right angles to it, the 
Via Praetoria ran up to the Porta Praetoria. These two were the most impor- 
tant of the roads ; they were wider than the others, and in the later stone- 
built camps they were sometimes flanked by colonnades, while at their point 
of junction was set a tetrapylon. The colonnades and the tetrapylon are 
common in cities which were laid out on the Roman camp plan. 3 Opposite 
the point of junction of the two streets, the centre of the camp was occupied 
by official and public buildings. Here lay the Forum and the Praetorium, with 
the Sacellum wherein the eagles of legion and cohort were deposited. Behind 
the Praetorium, the Via Quintana crossed the camp from side to side, while 
numerous small roads at right angles to it gave access to the lodgings of the 
troops ; the Via Sagularis, within and parallel to the Intervallum, was carried 
round the whole rectangle. To this general scheme the camps which have been 
excavated conform, with little divergence. 4 I give as an example the fort at 



1 Brunnow-Domaszewski, Die Provincia Ara- 
bia, vol. iii, p. 221. 

2 Stolle, Das Lager und Heer der Rdmer, pp. 52 
et seq., 105 et seq. 

3 Bosra in eastern Syria, Brunnow-Domas- 
zewski, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 2 ; Shuhba in the 
Hauran, idem, iii, p. 146, and Butler, Architecture 
and other Arts, p. 393 ; Apamea in northern Syria, 
Butler, idem, p. 54. 

* The material for their study is ample : Der 
obergermanisch-rdtische Limes des Rtmerreiches , 
published by the Reichs-Limeskommission ; Der 



romische 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, 
Fiihrer durch das Romerkastell Saalburg. For 
Africa, Ballu, Les Ruines de Timgad ; Gsell, 
Monuments antiques de I'Algirie ; Cagnat, Les 
Deux Camps de Lambese. For Britain, Bruce, 
The Roman Wall ; Curie, A Roman Frontier Fort. 
Lyell, A Bibliographical List of Romano-British 
Architectural Remains, gives reference to others. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



99 



GREAT WALL 



Housesteads, on the Roman Wall (Fig. 21). The sanctuary, x, which is here 
rectangular, is not infrequently apsed. 1 As a rule not much remains of the 
interior buildings except the Praetorium and a few large public edifices, such 
as granaries and armouries. The Praetorium varies considerably in detail, 
but in general disposition it resembles the Greek peristyle house. A typical, 
well-preserved example is to be found at Wiesbaden. 2 One of the most imposing 

W ORTH. GATE ^KT 




SATE 



Fig. 21. Roman fort at Housesteads. (By kind permission of Professor Haverfield.) 



of Praetoria is that of Lambaesis 3 in northern Africa, where a stone-built camp 
was constructed about the same date as Odhruh to replace the older earth- 
work. The development of the Praetorium varies with the size and importance 
of the station. As regards the outer fortifications the four gateways were 
flanked by towers which projected inwards, from the inner face of the wall, and 
not uncommonly had a slight salience upon the exterior also. 4 There are one 
or two examples in which the gate towers are rounded upon the outside and 
have a more considerable projection. 6 Towers are usually placed at the rounded 



Der oberger.-rdt. Limes, No. 66, Aalen, No. 65, 
Unterbobingen. 

1 Der oberger.-rdt. Limes, No. 31. 

* Cagnat, Les Deux Camps de Lambise, p. 19, 
Fig. 2. 



4 Der oberger.-rdt. Limes, No. 8, Zugmantel. 

5 For example Weissenberg, Der oberger.-rdt. 
Limes, No. 72. 



O 2 



ioo GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



corners of the wall, and sometimes at intervals along the wall ; they have 
no salience upon the exterior. 1 The barracks, which were as a rule roughly 
built huts, were more solidly constructed in some of the great permanent camps, 
and the whole interior plan has been traced at Carnuntum and at Novaesium. 
The barracks in these camps consisted of long double rows of small chambers, 




Fig. 22. Odhruh. (From Provincia Arabia, by kind permission of Professor Brunnow.) 

more or less regularly disposed and standing back to back. A street or court, 
open at either end, unless it happened to terminate against one of the larger 
official buildings, separated each row from the row opposite. The Intervallum 
was left open, that free access might be given to the walls ; at Carnuntum only, 
part of the west side was occupied by buildings. 

In the Trajanic camp at Odhruh (Fig. 22) no trace of the interior buildings 



1 There are scarcely any exceptions, but at 
Stockstadt, Der oberger.-rat. 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 
romischen Stadttore,' Bonner Jahrbuch, 1909, 
p. 324) attaches no importance. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 101 

remains except a small apsed Sacellum, placed precisely in the position in 
which it would be found in a camp on the European frontiers. Since the four 
gateways compare equally well with those of the European camps, we may 
conclude that the interior arrangement of Odhruh was normal. But the forti- 
fications are not normal. Rounded towers project some ten metres from the 




Fig. 23. Ledjdjun. (From Provincia Arabia, by kind permission of Professor Brunnow.) 

outer face of the wall and the angles are strengthened by circular towers of 
still greater salience. Thus in the earliest camp of the Arabian limes we en- 
counter a developed system of flanking towers which is completely absent in 
Europe. 

The second or outer limes cannot be much later in date, and in all probability 
it belonged to the time which saw the fortification of the road from Palmyra 
to Damascus. Dumair (Plate 78, Fig. 2), the second of the chain of forts that 
extended from Damascus to the desert capital, 1 is dated by an inscription 
in the year a. d. 162 ; it bears a close resemblance both to Trajan's camp at 

1 Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, vol. ii, p. 153. 



102 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

Odhruh and to Ledjdjun, a camp on the outer Arabian limes. The salient, 
rounded, intermediate towers and circular angle towers of Odhruh are repeated 
at Dumair with unimportant variations in detail. No part of the Praetorium 
is standing, but there are traces of some of the rows of huts in the Praetentura, 
and according to Domaszewski's plan they extended, on one side at least, over 
the Intervallum to the wall. 1 In the Retentura one ruined building remains, 




Fig. 24. Da'djaniyyeh. (From Provincia Arabia, by kind permission of Professor Brunnow.) 

which the learned archaeologist believes to have been the Armamentarium. 
In the camp of Ledjdjun the walls and towers are an exact copy of those of 
Odhruh (Fig. 23). The interior buildings belong to two periods. The greater 
part of the Praetorium, and a small apsed structure to the north of it, belong 
to the first period ; and to the same date, Domaszewski assigns certain build- 
ings placed along the walls between the towers, the largest of which he takes 
to have been a Horreum. The rows of barracks which fill the eastern half 



1 Ci. Khirbet el Fityan, which belongs probably to the time of Diocletian, Briinnow-Domaszewski, 
vol. ii, p. 139. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 103 

and a part of the western half of the camp are of later date and belong probably 
to the time of Diocletian. 

No other legionary camps of the size of these three exist along the Arabian 
limes ; the other fortresses which have been examined and planned are smaller, 
different in character, and later in date. Of these there are three which I pro- 
pose to consider, Da'djaniyyeh, Bshair, and Qastal. Da'djaniyyeh is undated, 
but from its plan I should judge it to be earlier than the other two. Bshair is 
dated by an inscription in the time of Diocletian ; for Qastal there is no epi- 
graphic evidence, but the capital found among the ruins of the Sacellum can 
scarcely be earlier than the fifth century. 1 That the towers in the fortress of 
Da'djaniyyeh should be rectangular and set a cheval upon the walls, is not 
of any significance (Fig. 24). Round and square towers are commonly found 
at one and the same time, though the round tower, which is strategically an 
improvement upon the rectangular tower, is in fact later in origin (see below, 
p. 108). It is worth noting that the details of construction in the walls and 
towers of Da'djaniyyeh are exactly reproduced at Qastal, a fort which diverges 
much more than Da'djaniyyeh from the Roman camp scheme, but even at 
Qastal the stairs and approaches to the towers are copied from the Odhruh 
prototype. The remarkable feature at Da'djaniyyeh is that the Roman camp 
plan is obscured and almost lost. The greater part of the Intervallum is filled 
in with buildings ; stables, horrea, and armamentaria are linked to the encom- 
passing wall in a manner which recalls the ancient oriental system, a system 
which is perhaps foreshadowed at Dumair and Ledjdjun. 2 In a wall set round 
with chambers there is no room for gates ; the suppression of gateways is 
therefore a necessary corollary of the change of scheme, and at Da'djaniyyeh 
the Portae Praetoria and Decumana have disappeared. The postern in the 
south-east wall is not a survival of the Porta Praetoria ; its existence is due 
to the fact that the main water-supply of the fort was a cistern lying outside 
the walls at this point. Apart from these striking innovations the interior 
preserves the Roman plan. The Praetorium and Sacellum stand in their 
accustomed place, but the Via Praetoria, besides having no independent gate, 
is no longer laid quite symmetrically with regard to the Praetorium. Some- 
thing like the same combination of camp and oriental fortress can be seen 
in the Byzantine citadel at 'Abdeh, but the features of the Roman camp are 
more completely obliterated and the Praetorium is probably represented by 
a large ruined building, placed unsymmetrically against one of the walls. 3 
At Bshair the orientalizing process is carried a long step further (Fig. 25). 
The chambers are placed symmetrically round the enclosing wall ; there is but 

1 Briinnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 102, Fig. show the exact relation of the interior buildings 

685. to the encompassing wall at Dumair and Ledj- 

* It must be remembered that in all these djun. 
ruins only those parts which remain above ground 3 Revue biblique, 1904, p. 414, and Musil, 

have be^n recorded. Excavation is needed to Arabia Petraea, vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 118. 



104 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

one gate, and the Sacellum itself (k) is set against the wall, leaving the central 
court clear. Bshair is no longer a Roman limes fortress, it is a military caravan- 
serai. The same definition applies to the undated fort at Qastal (Fig. 26). 
Again, the interior buildings are set round the encompassing wall, but they 
are not single chambers ; they are the baits of the Mesopotamian palaces, minus 




Fig. 25. Bshair. (From Provincia Arabia, by kind permission of Professor Brunnow.) 

the liwan. Each unit is composed of a small open court with rooms on either 
side (this is the normal arrangement, though three of the baits at Qastal have 
rooms upon one side only), and in the interior of the complex a court is left over. 
There is no room in this scheme for a Praetorium and accordingly it is given 
a place outside the walls, 1 but fragments of carved ornament found in the 
principal court make it probable that a small Sacellum occupied the centre. 
This principle is retained in the caravanserai fortresses of other parts of Syria. 
At Dair al-Kafh (a.d. 306) a small temple, which was subsequently converted 



1 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. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 105 

into a chapel, stood in the centre of the court ; 1 in the barracks at Anderin 
(a.d. 558) a chapel is similarly placed, 2 and at Qasr ibn Wardan (a.d. 561) 
a building, the uses of which have not been determined, stands in the barrack 
yard. 3 Beyond this small resemblance, the divergence of Qastal from the 
Roman camp type is complete. All the more noticeable is its likeness to the 




Fig. 26. Qastal. (From Provincia Arabia, by kind permission of Professor Briinnow.) 

only Sasanian castrum of which we have any sufficient record. Qastal belongs to 
the same family as the fort at Qasr-i-Shirin (Plate 73, Fig. 1). The towered walls, 
the single gate, the chambers or baits placed round the interior of the walls 
so as to leave a central court over, all these are characteristic of the older build- 
ing ; but at Qasr-i-Shirin the lodging of the commandant is placed inside the 
court, whereas at Qastal it is outside. 4 In the Zohab district there is another 



1 Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sect. A, 
pt. ii, p. 146. 

2 Idem, Sect. B, pt. ii, Plate 8. 

3 Idem, Sect. B, pt. i, p. 26. 

4 I am aware that this view is in contraven- 

1580 



tion of Dr. Herzfeld's opinion, but I fail to discern 
any ground for his statement that the castrum of 
Qasfal belongs to the type of the great legionary 
camps. ' Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst,' Der 
Islam, vol. i, p. 123. 



106 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

building of a somewhat similar type, but it looks more like the ordinary cara- 
vanserai than like a fortress. 1 

The caravanserai type, when once it had established itself on the Arabian 
limes, was not to be ousted, but its later application is not only to fortress and 
barrack, but to genuine lodgings for caravans. In the Roman or Byzantine 
caravanserai of Khan al-Zebib enough remains to show that the interior 
buildings were placed round the encompassing wall. 2 At Umm al-Walid this 
interior arrangement is clearly preserved ; 3 at Umm al- Rasas baits, not unlike 
those of Qastal, are linked to the wall, 4 and the plan of a later building at Khan 
al-Zebib (it is probably Moslem) differs not at all from that of a small modern 
caravanserai. 5 Khirbet al-Baida (see above, p. 56) belongs to the same group, 
but from its geographical position it must be regarded as a military station 
rather than as a true caravanserai, though it may have served both purposes. 
To what cause is the singularly rapid change from Roman camp to Asiatic 
caravanserai to be attributed ? The answer is obvious. On the Arabian 
limes the builders were brought into contact with a strong Asiatic tradition ; 
they were probably themselves local workmen, and they orientalized the Roman 
scheme. They applied from the first their own system of flanking towers to 
the defences ; they grafted an injunctive plan on to the Roman camp plan, 
and they ended by discarding the latter in favour of the former. 

The covering of dead ground by means of flanking towers and cremailleres 
goes back in western Asia to the earliest times. The plan of the acropolis of 
Gudea, drawn upon a tablet which is placed in the lap of a statue of the patesi 
of Lagash, exhibits, in the middle of the third millennium B.C., a system of 
fortification so fully developed that scarcely a dead angle exists in the whole 
circuit of the walls (Fig. 27). In the science of military engineering even Egypt 
would seem to have lagged behind Chaldaea, for the advantage of flanking 
towers was not understood there until the Asiatic expeditions of the Eighteenth 
Dynasty had taught the Pharaohs how to correct the defects in the unbroken 
lines of their massive defences. 6 In the Assyrian reliefs, double and triple 
rings of walls set thick with towers surround the towns ; towered walls are 
represented in the ground-plans, 7 and excavation has proved the existence of 
rectangular towers in the walls of Khorsabad and of Assur. 8 A chemin de ronde, 

1 Flandin-Coste, Voyage en Perse, Plate 213 bis. p. 35, and plan of the western half of the mound, 

2 Briinnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 82. issued with that number. The towers are 4 

3 Idem, vol. ii, p. 89. metres wide, with a salience of 2 metres ; the 

4 Idem, vol. ii, p. 65. curtain walls vary in length from 24-55 metres to 

5 Idem, vol. ii, p. 78. 29 metres — distances, remarks Dr. Andrae, which 

6 Dieulafoy, L'Acropole de Suse, p. 163. lie well within the limits of a bow-shot. See 
' Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 341, Gates of too Andrae, Die Festungswerke von Assur, vol. i, 

Balawat, and other plans, pp. 343-4. p. 5, where the normal proportions of Salmanassar 

8 Plan of the acropolis of Khorsabad, Perrot- Ill's outer wall are given as follows : towers 8 

Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 326 ; the towers have a salience metres wide, with a salience of 3 to 4 metres ; 

of 4 metres and are placed at intervals of 27 curtain walls 30 metres long. Towers existed in 

metres. Walls of Assur, Mitt. derD.O.-G., No. 32, the archaic walls (idem, p. 65), as well as great 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 107 

loopholes, and machicolations have been found in situ in the walls of Assur, 
together with traces of crenellation, 1 and all these features, as well as hourds 
projecting from the battlements, and the ladders and battering-rams which 
they were intended to counteract, are familiar upon Assyrian reliefs. Rounded 
towers have not been revealed by Babylonian or Assyrian excavations. They 
belonged to a later age or perhaps to a different sphere of culture, the Hittite 
or Syrian. But Dieulafoy observed them on the Achaemenid fortifications of 
Susa ; % and at Hatra, while the inner walls of the town were flanked by rect- 
angular towers, solid or casemated, and casemated bastions, on the outer wall 




Fig. 27. Lagash. (From L'Acropole de Suse, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.) 

a rounded tower has been recorded, and Dr. Andrae conjectures that it was one 
of many. 3 In this particular, as in the approximately circular outline assumed 
by its walls, Hatra may exhibit traits borrowed from the civilization of the 
southern Hittites. There are rounded and rectangular towers in the larger 
Parthian palace at Niffer. 4 In Sasanian fortifications the rounded tower 
seems practically to have displaced the rectangular. 5 

Flanking towers strengthened the walls of Hittite cities. At Zindjirli the 
gradual development of more scientific methods can be traced in the successive 
walls which encompassed the town and the acropolis. The inner city wall, 



bastions standing out from 10 to 20 metres from 
the face of the wall (idem, p. 123). 

1 Mitt. derD. O.-G., No. 31, p. 28, No. 32, p. 36; 
and Festungswerke, vol. i, p. 115. 

1 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. 



3 Andrae, Hatra, pt. ii, pp. 36, 39, and 53. 

4 Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 

P- 559- 

5 Dastajird, Sarre-Herzfeld, Iranische Fels- 
reliefs, p. 237 ; Istakhr (the walls may, however, 
have been Achaemenid), Flandin-Coste, Voyage 
en Perse, Plate 58 ; Qal'a-i-Kuhna, idem, Plate 
213 bis. 



P2 



108 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

which was the first in date (it was probably built in the thirteenth century), 
is provided with rectangular towers which have a salience of 2 metres. The 
outer acropolis wall (Fig. 5), built about 900 B.C., has semicircular towers 
with a salience of 3^ metres ; the strategic disadvantages of rectangular towers 
had been realized and corrected. A further improvement was effected in the 
inner cross wall, behind the main gate of the acropolis. The wall is built in 
retreating angles, and set with towers alternately rounded and rectangular ; 
the rectangular towers project 180 metres from the face of the wall, while the 
rounded towers cover them with a projection of 4- 50 metres. The outer city 
wall was built after the destruction of the city by Asarhaddon in 681 B. c. and 
is no more than a copy of the earliest wall, but at the same period casemates 
were added to the walls of the acropolis. 1 The Hittite capital of Qadesh on 
the Orontes, as depicted in the frescoes at AM Simbel, a temple built by 
Rameses II (1388-1322), was protected by a wall with towers, the height of 
which must be due partly to the imagination of the Egyptian craftsman. 2 
These towers have the appearance of being round, but the absence of architectural 
records of round towers at so early a date throws doubt upon the matter. In 
Asia Minor rectangular towers have been found upon the outer and the inner 
walls of Boghaz Keui ; 3 they do not as a rule exceed a projection of 2§ metres. 
At Troy the earliest walls had towers 3 metres wide, and 2 metres salient ; 
the curtain wall was in some places not longer than 10 metres, and the city 
gates were flanked by deep bastions. In the walls of the third period at Troy 
three towers were uncovered on the south-east side ; they are 3- 20 metres wide, 
2- 35 salient, and are separated from one another by a distance of only 6- 40 metres. 4 
But on the Greek mainland, at Tiryns, and at Mycenae, the fortifications are 
characterized by cremailleres and by deep bastions rather than by towers. 6 
Much more lavish is the use of towers in the pre-Hellenic cities of Asia Minor, 
other than Troy. The very ancient acropolis on the Yamanlar Dagh above 
Smyrna possessed rectangular towers. 6 In Caria the fortification known as 
the Wall of the Leleges opposite lassos had rounded towers and cremailleres, 7 
and the walls of Alinda rectangular towers a cheval. 8 The Lycian towns 
depicted upon the bas-reliefs in the tombs at Pinara, discovered by Benndorf 
and Niemann, exhibit salient rectangular towers 9 , while fortified towers of the 
same character are depicted on the monument of the Nereids at Xanthos, 10 
and we have a plan of the ancient walled town of Pydnai in which the features 
portrayed on the reliefs are clearly to be recognized. 11 Nor must the towns 
of the Phoenicians be forgotten, the towered walls of Mount Eryx in Sicily, of 

1 Koldewey, Sendschirli, pt. ii, pp. 172-8. ' Idem, vol. v, p. 321. 

2 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iv, p. 505. 8 Idem, vol. v, p. 324. 

3 Puchstein, Boghaskoi, Plate 2. • Reisen in Lykien und Karien, p. 54. 

4 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. vi, Plate 1. 10 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, p. 385. 

6 Durm, Baukunst der Griechen, pp. 38 and 42. u Benndorf-Niemann, op. cit., p. 124. ■ 

8 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, p. 45. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 109 

the acropolis of Lixos in Mauritania Tingitana, of Thapsus, of Carthage, and 
of Tyre. 1 

With such a wide development of fortifications by means of flanking towers, 
extending from the cultural spheres of the Babylonians and the Hittites over 
all the western parts of Asia, and carried by the Phoenicians into the furthest 
limits of the Mediterranean, it is not surprising that the fortifications of Greek 
towns in the fifth century should exhibit the same features. Assos, the finest 
example of this period, carries on the tradition in the cremailleres and rect- 
angular towers of its walls ; 2 and Messene, with its rounded and rectangular 
towers, shows in the succeeding century a yet more complete understanding 
of military architecture. 3 The acropolis of Selinus, with semicircular towers, 
bears witness at a like age to the carrying over of the Greek system of defences 
into Sicily. 4 The walls of Ephesus, built by Lysimachus towards the close of 
the third century, ' one of the greatest monuments of fortification which have 
been left to us by antiquity,' s show the towered wall of the Hellenistic age, 
while Mantineia, with its circular outer wall, is like an isolated reversion to 
the round cities of Hittite lands. 6 Philon of Byzantium formulated the laws 
which governed Greek fortification in the Alexandrian age. Towers, cremail- 
leres, and casemated walls combined to make a system of defence all the 
elements of which had been familiar to the Hittites and to the Assyrians, and 
the methods of attack which he sought to counter were the same as those which 
can be seen on the Assyrian reliefs. 7 Vitruvius advocates the flanking of walls 
by round or polygonal rather than by rectangular towers, but his words should be 
taken as a counsel of perfection, not as representing the practice of his day, 
for the systematic use of rounded towers by Roman engineers is later than 
Augustan times and polygonal towers are unusual before the age of Diocletian. 
At Aosta, which was fortified soon after 25 B.C., the towers are rectangular, 8 
but at Frejus and at Autun, both of which were fortified in the Augustan age, 
we have two of the rare instances of circular or semicircular towers. 9 As 
Schultze has pointed out, the planning of towers varies with time and place, 
but not infrequently rounded and rectangular towers can be seen on buildings 
of the same date. 10 As at Zindjirli the rounded tower denotes a technical 
advance, though the rectangular tower is not necessarily displaced by it. The 

1 Perrot-Chipier, vol. iii, pp. 331, 338, 348, s Forschungen in Ephesos, vol. i, p. 91. 

353, and 325. * Koldewey, Sendschirli, vol. ii, p. 179. It 

1 Texier, Asie Mineure, vol. ii, Plate 108. was built in 320 B.C. 
Investigations at A ssos, Clarke, Bacon, Koldewey, ' Choisy, Histoire de I' Architecture, vol. i, 

pt. i, p. 13. p. 501. 

* Merchel, Die Ingenieurtechnik im Alterthum, 8 Promis, Le Antichitd di Aosta, Plates 3 
p. 425. Messene was founded by Epaminondas and 4. 

in 371 B.C. ' Blanchet, Les Enceintes romaines de la Gaule, 

* The town was destroyed by the Carthagi- pp. 211 and 14. 

nians in 409 B.C., and the walls date from after 10 'Die romischen Stadttore', Bonner J ahrb., 

that period. Durm, Baukunstder Griechen, p. 209. 1909, p. 293. 



no GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

typically Roman conception of frontier defences, the fortified limes, was definitely 
abandoned in Europe about the year A. D. 360, but a century earlier the invasion 
of Gaul and Spain by the Franks had proved that the long line of strongholds 
was powerless to check the inrush of barbarian hordes, and in the last half 
of the third century the fortified town was virtually substituted for the fortified 
frontier. Towered walls sprang up about the cities of Roman Gaul, and the 
work of fortification begun by Probus was carried on by Diocletian. 1 The 
same process can be observed throughout the empire during the course of the 
third century, and almost without exception these later fortifications were 
strengthened by circular or semicircular towers. 

But if the walls of Roman cities can claim to have inherited, through Greece 
and the civilizations of the Aegean, the formulae of the ancient East, the fortified 
camp was essentially the creation of Rome herself. The stockaded earthwork, 
with rounded corners and lines devoid of flanking defences, determined the 
plan of the stone wall which replaced it in Europe and in Africa, 2 and it was 
not until the Romans applied their system to lands which had seen the birth 
and development of a science of warfare different from their own that they 
modified their design. The difference was fundamental. The Roman camp 
was intended primarily for purposes of attack. It was the camp of an army 
on the march, indispensable, in the eyes of commanders as wary as they were 
daring, to a halt that lasted no longer than a single night, but in its essence 
impermanent. The oriental fortress displays a contrary intention. It was 
defensive and abiding, a stronghold provided with few exits (since the gateway 
is the weakest point of a fortified position), but with high walls, heavily flanked 
by towers which would give the garrison every advantage against the besiegers. 

By the time of Diocletian the transition upon the Arabian times from camp 
to fortress had been completed. The Umayyad khatifs, when they in turn 
strewed the fringes of the Syrian desert with the creations of their architects, 
copied, not the Roman plan which had been imported under Trajan and had 
survived, in broad outline at any rate, at least, as late as the year a.d. 162 
(the date of Dumair), they copied its oriental counterpart, adapting it to the 
use of princes by methods borrowed from Byzantium and from Persia. We 
know that the Umayyads, like the Ghassanids before them, repaired and re- 
occupied the Roman fortresses. Hamza al-Isfahani believed that Qastal and 
Odhruh had been built by Djabala ibn al-Harith ; 3 Yaqut mentions that Yazid 
ibn 'Abd al-malik (Yazid II) lived at Muwaqqar, and judging from the existing 
remains it is probable that he either built or rebuilt it. 4 His son Walid occupied 

1 Blanchet, op. cit., pp. 335-7. 3 Brunnow-Domaszewski, op. cit., vol. ii, 

s Not only were the walls of camps less p. 100. 

strongly fortified than the walls of towns, but 4 Idem, vol. ii, p. 182 ; I think it very 

the defences of the gateways were not so highly doubtful whether any part of the existing ruins 

developed. Cramer, Trier, p. 72. are Roman. See too Herzfeld, ' Genesis,' Der 

Islam, vol. i, p. 128. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE in 

Qastal and Azraq. 1 But princes whose passion for magnificent construction 
was so great that the subjects of Yazid III could see cause for exacting from 
him, when he came to the throne, a promise that he would not lay stone to 
stone or brick to brick, 2 were not likely to content themselves with the forts 
of the Roman limes. The poets, who were welcome guests at their palaces 
in the wilderness, have left descriptions of the luxury of their surroundings, 3 
and the picture has been completed by the discovery of some of the buildings 
themselves. None of the ruins which have been examined are mentioned by 
contemporary writers under the name by which they are known to the Beduin, 
but a palace or palaces are recorded in the Wadi Ghadaf , and it is in that district 
that Tubah, Kharaneh, and Qsair 'Amrah stand.* Mshatta, which was the 
first to be visited by archaeologists, bears a name which is probably modern. 

Qsair 'Amrah lies somewhat outside the architectural type to which the 
other three buildings belong. It is a small unfortified pleasure-palace with 
a reception hall and throne-room on a basilical plan, and a bath. Very closely 
related to it is the early Mohammadan ruin of Hammam al-Sarakh, discovered 
by the Princeton Expedition. 5 The bath at Djebel Sais is not dissimilar, but 
in the light of our present knowledge it requires re-examination. 6 Both at 
Qsair 'Amrah and at Hammam al-Sarakh there is a small dome over a square 
chamber. At Hammam al-Sarakh this chamber is 2- 15 metres square; the 
dome is set on pendentives and lighted by windows. It is laid up in gores 
with projecting ribs constructed of long, thin, wedge-shaped bits of shale, 
entirely undressed and completely covered by plaster. When intact it must 
have presented an appearance not unlike that of the ribbed dome at Ukhaidir, 
except that the ribs were set wider apart and the pendentive substituted for 
the primitive bracket. Concerning the structural features of the dome at 
Qsair 'Amrah, the publication of the Viennese Academy, which leaves much 
to be desired, is not explicit. Dr. Musil, who is always the best guide in matters 
architectural and archaeological, describes it as being set on pendentives and 
lighted by windows in the dome. 7 Here and at Hammam al-Sarakh two semi- 
domed niches are placed opposite to one another, one at either end of the domed 
chamber, and a room (3- 30 metres square at Hammam al-Sarakh) next to the 
domed chamber is roofed with a groined vault. We have a similar use of the 



1 Lammens, ' La Badia et la Hira,' Mllanges 
de la Faculti orientate de Beyrouth, vol. iv, p. 103 ; 
and Musil, Qseir 'Antra, pp. 155-6. 

* Musil, idem, p. 163. 

* Lammens, op. cit., p. 107. 

4 Moritz, ' Ausfluge in der Arabia Petraea,' 
Mllanges 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.3i3> 
and Qseir 'Antra, p. 115), or al-Weyned (Musil, 
A rabia Petraea, vol. i, p. 289, and Qseir 'Antra, p. 93). 



They are both on the caravanserai plan and differ 
little from the edifice which stands near Qsair 
'Amrah. This last was probably a lodging for 
guards and courtiers. Musil, A rabia Petraea, vol. i, 
p. 223 ; Qseir 'Antra, Plate 2. 

5 Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sect. A, 
pt. ii, p. 77, and appendix, p. xix. 

• De Vogue, La Syrie centrale, vol. i, p. 71. 

' Arabia Petraea, vol. i, p. 229, and Qseir 
'Antra, p. 64. 



ii2 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

groined vault in the east annex at Ukhaidir. At Hammam al-Sarakh some of 
the doors are covered by straight lintels, others (together with all the windows ) 
by semicircular arches. Some of the wider arches are slightly pointed, but 
the vaults and transverse arches in the reception-room are semicircular. At 
Qsair 'Amrah straight lintels are the rule for doors and windows, but over the 
architrave of the wide door leading into the audience chamber there is a shallow 
relieving arch. The three parallel barrel vaults of the audience chamber are 
visible upon the exterior, and the absence of the flat roof obviates the need of 
tubes between the vaults. In both of these badiyahs the walls were decorated 
with frescoes. Qsair 'Amrah was built between the years 711 and 750, when 
the house of Umayyah came to an end, the earlier date being determined by 
the presence among the frescoes of a representation of Roderick, the last king 
of the West Goths, who came first into contact with the Arabs at the battle of 
Xeres in 71 1. 1 

To the same group belong a small ruined bath at 'Abdeh 2 and the bath at 
Rhaibeh, 3 the first being possibly Byzantine. At 'Abdeh the dome placed between 
two semi-domed niches is set on horizontal brackets. In the palace of Qasr 
ibn Wardan the dome between two semi-domed niches is the basis of the plan, 
but it is further elaborated by the placing of a semi-domed chamber on the 
alternate sides. These two chambers are not, however, an integral part of the 
domed chamber, for they are separated from it by solid walls broken only by 
doorways. Fortunately we are not reduced here to conjecture concerning the 
date. On the lintel of the south gate an inscription gives the year a.d. 564.* 
It is clear, therefore, that the dome between semi-domed niches is an architectural 
scheme which was taken over by the builders of the Mohammadan age from 
their Byzantine predecessors, and all the evidence points to the conclusion 
that in both periods the artificers were Syrians. 

Al-Tubah is the southernmost of the Wadi Ghadaf palaces 5 (Fig. 28). Its 
plan is that of Qastal repeated three times, with the addition of projecting 
rectangular chambers on either side of the gates. When the three main courts 
adjoin one another the side chambers against the dividing walls are omitted. 
The individual baits are very similar to those of Qastal, but only one row of 
chambers is interposed between each of the small courts. Thus at first sight 
it looks as if the Tubah bait consisted of a court with rooms on one side only, 
except in the north-east and north-west angles, where the courts have chambers 
on both sides, that the corner spaces may be filled in. Actually, however, the 

1 Noldeke, Neue Freie Presse, March 28, 1907, 3 Musil, Arabia Petraea, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 75, 
and Becker, Miinchener Neueste Nachrichten, May and Qseir 'Amra, p. 65. 

28, 1907. 4 Butler, Ancient Arch, in Syria, Sect. B, 

2 Revue biblique, 1904, p. 423 ; Musil, Arabia pt. i, Plate 4, and in the same number Greek and 
Petraea, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 106, and Qseir 'Amra, Roman Inscriptions,^. 40. 

p. 72. * Musil, Arabia Petraea, vol. i, p. 176, and 

Qseir 'Amra, p. 13. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 113 

bait centres round each alternate court, which communicates with the two 
chambers on either side, and the intermediate court is merely a yard common 
to two baits. The bait of Tubah is therefore the same as the typical bait of 
Qastal. The enclosing walls and the foundation of all other walls are of stone, 
the rest of the building is constructed of brick tiles. The western end of the 
palace, and most of the northern side were completed ; the eastern and south- 
eastern parts were never carried above the foundations. The doorways are 



1-1-Bfl-n^ 



n n 




SOU 



Fig. 28. Tflbah. (From Qseir 'Antra, by kind permission of the Akad. derWiss. in Vienna.) 

covered by brick and stone arches, but a stone or wood lintel was placed under 
the arch. Where the lintel is of stone its outer side is adorned with an interesting 
early Mohammadan pattern, which has affinities with the carving on the eastern 
end of the facade at Mshatta. The stone lintels are not carried through to the 
inner side of the arch. The arches, which are round, are built of stone, as is the 
wall below them. The wooden lintels have rotted away or have been removed 
by the Arabs. They were laid in brick walls and covered by brick relieving 
arches composed of two rings of brick tiles. In the inner ring the bricks are 
set vertically, parallel to the main axis of the arch, with the broad side outwards ; 

1680 Q 



ii4 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

in the outer ring they are laid horizontally, at right angles to the main axis, 
with the narrow end outwards. It is the principle on which many of the smaller 
arches at Ukhaidir are constructed. The brick arches at Tubah are a stilted, 
slightly pointed oval ; that is to say that the transition from the ovoid to the 
pointed arch is illustrated here in much the same manner as at Ukhaidir. 

Kharaneh lies a few hours to the west of Qsair 'Amrah l (Fig. 29). It is two 
stories high and about 35 metres square, and it consists of baits grouped round 
a central court (Plate 79, Fig. 1). A rounded tower is set at each of the four 




Fig. 29. Kharaneh, upper floor. (From Qseir 'Antra, by kind permission of the Akad. der Wiss. in Vienna.) 

corners, a semicircular tower in the middle of each of three sides, and in the 
fourth side stands a gate between semicircular towers, which are cut away on 
the interior face, like the towers on the south, east, and west gateways of 
Ukhaidir (Plate 79, Fig. 2). The rooms on the ground floor are ill lighted, and 
were probably intended for stables, storehouses, and guard-rooms. The court 
was surrounded by a cloister, the roof of which rested on arches springing from 
angle piers. On the upper floor this roof, which was constructed of stone slabs, 
provided a passage or gallery into which the baits of the first floor opened 
(Plate 80, Fig. 1). The rooms on the upper floor correspond with those below, 



1 Musil, Arabia Petraea, vol. i, p. 290, and 
Qseir 'Amra, p. 97; Moritz, 'Ausfluge,' Melanges 
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. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 



115 



but in some of the larger chambers (three, according to Musil's plan) the vault 
is divided into sections by means of transverse arches borne on slender engaged 
columns in groups of three (Plate 8o, Fig. 2). The column groups recall with 
singular fidelity the triple reed-columns on the facade of Sarvistan. Beyond 
the evidence afforded by Dr. Moritz's photograph, we have no information 
regarding structural details, though they must be well worth a careful study. 
The vaults and transverse arches seem to belong to the same family as those of 
room 32 at Ukhaidir. The end of the chamber at Kharaneh is closed by a semi- 
dome reaching from the back wall to the first transverse arch — the same arrange- 
ment as has been described in the mosque and in gallery No. 134 at Ukhaidir. 
It is also extremely significant that the semi-dome at Kharaneh should be 
carried over the angles of the walls on squinch arches. The arches spring over 
the angle instead of being filled in with a small semi-dome. The fillets round the 
arches and round the rectangular windows must be compared with the fillets 
round the arched niches in room 32 and round the archivolts of squinch and niche 
at Chehar Qapu. Another very important point is mentioned by Dr. Moritz. 
To the right of the audience chamber, which he photographed, and connected 
with it by a door, is a small rectangular room, beyond which lies another rect- 
angular room of about the same size. Round this last room runs a moulding, 
above which stand circular plaques of stucco decorated with formal plant -motives 
in Sasanian style, and with late Syrian leaf-motives. One of the plaques Dr. 
Moritz detached from the wall, and it can be seen standing upon the floor in his 
photograph (Plate 80, Fig. 2), and is now in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin. 
It is more than a coincidence that to the right of an audience hall there should 
be found both at Ukhaidir and at Kharaneh a chamber, the elaborate orna- 
mentation of which points to its having some special ceremonial significance. 
At Ukhaidir this side chamber is carried through to the audience hall, at Khara- 
neh it is divided from it by an interposed room, but the principle :s the same 
in both cases, and in both cases it must be connected with laws of etiquette of 
the Umayyad courts with which we are unacquainted. Over the above-named 
doorway, leading from the audience hall into the first right-hand chamber, 
Dr. Moritz found a graffito inscription in which a date corresponding with 
November, A. D. 710, is mentioned. Kharaneh, therefore, must have been standing 
at that time. The archway he describes as an ordinary round arch ; in the 
photograph the door appears to be set within a niche, whereof the arch oversails 
the wall, like the larger archways at Ukhaidir. The door itself is covered by a lintel, 
and a lintel of solid stone covers the door of the main entrance (Plate 79, Fig. 2). 
In his section Dr. Musil represents some of the doors as round-arched and some 
with a lintel and a relieving arch above it ; the latter follow a scheme which is 
common to most of the buildings in the west side of the Syrian desert and 
exists at Ctesiphon, but is unknown at Ukhaidir and unusual in the later 
Mohammadan buildings of Mesopotamia. Of the loophole windows in the 

Q2 



n6 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

outer wall at Kharaneh, those on the ground floor are finished in precisely the 
same manner as the loopholes in the towers at Ukhaidir, the opening is filled 
in with an upright stone against which two bricks are placed diagonally. On 
the upper floor the loopholes show the same method somewhat simplified. There 
is but one main door, as in the original scheme of Ukhaidir. The masonry is 
of undressed stones set in mortar, with an occasional bonding course as at 
Ukhaidir. All round the castle, between the two upper rows of loopholes, runs 
a decoration consisting of two horizontal courses of brick with a brick zigzag 
between. On the towers this band of ornamental brickwork is repeated lower 
down. The presence of brick used decoratively leads one to suspect that it may 
be used also in the finer vaults, but like all the technical questions at Kharaneh, 
this cannot be answered without further observation. Over this main gate 
there appears to have been some kind of hourd, corresponding in level with the 
upper story ; above it the wall between the towers is decorated with five 
perpendicular bands of late Syrian leaf-motives. Dr. Musil's reconstruction of 
the gate * cannot be correct ; it does not take into account the horizontal floor- 
line below the opening which gave access to the hourd, and it covers the bands 
of ornament. The Kharaneh gateway must be reconstructed in much the 
same fashion as the three gates in the outer wall at Ukhaidir. A vaulted chemin 
de ronde seems to have crowned the walls. 

The rooms of the upper story are grouped into five baits. Over the entrance 
an additional chamber is interposed between two baits (compare the courts 
at Tubah which are common to two baits) and on the opposite side there are 
two extra rooms to fill up the angles. These two additional rooms communicate 
with the baits on either side, and the gate-house chamber communicates with 
either bait ; otherwise the baits are kept distinct from one another. The scheme 
is in fact that of Tubah or Da'djaniyyeh, but with the small courts vaulted 
over and turned into audience halls or big living-rooms, and here we may seek 
the explanation of the difference between the baits of the palaces on the eastern 
side and of those on the western side of the Syrian desert. The normal bait on 
the Mesopotamian side consists of two liwan groups with a court between, 
and the liwan is derived, as has been shown, from the khilani. The domestic 
arrangements of the East, where the women are lodged apart from the men, 
and if possible the several wives apart from each other, make the bait system 
in some form indispensable to every dwelling-house, but in Syria the khilani 
plan was adopted only for monumental facades, such as that of Solomon's 
temple, and from it, through temples of the pagan era, to Christian churches. 
The normal bait on the Syrian side has therefore no connexion with the khilani ; 
the liwan is absent. The group of chambers consists of two pairs of rooms with 
an intervening court, or in complexes more closely knit together, an intervening 

1 Arabia Petraea, vol. i, Fig. 135. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 117 

hall. The group thus formed is the half of a new unit, and may either share 
a central court with other half-baits, as at Kharaneh, or be provided with 
a small court of its own and another half-bait, as at Mshatta. This distinction 
apart — it is a distinction which is due to local custom and local architectural 
tradition — the close relationship which exists between Kharaneh and Ukhaidir 
cannot be insisted upon too strongly, for it helps to determine the date of 
Ukhaidir. 

Mshatta lies a few hours to the west of Kharaneh (Plate 81). x It is the best 
known of the Syrian hirahs, and its magnificent carved facade is now in the 
Kaiser Friedrich Museum. All that concerns me here, however, is its place in 
the architectural group of which Ukhaidir is the eastern representative. It was 
perhaps built by Yazid II, 2 and it was left unfinished at his death. It may there- 
fore be a little later than Kharaneh, for Yazid died in A. D. 724. As at Tubah and 
Ukhaidir, the materials used in it are brick and stone. It is surrounded by a 
wall set with towers, of which, as at Ukhaidir, more than the half-circle projects. 
The towers on either side of the main gateway are octagonal. Of the buildings 
immediately within the gate we have nothing but the ground-plan. Roughly 
speaking they correspond to the three-storied block at Ukhaidir, and as Dr. 
Herzfeld has pointed out, 3 a further correspondence lies in the fact that the 
oblong court to the right of the gate-house group, with a niche in the qiblah 
wall, was probably a mosque. The mosque at Ukhaidir occupies much the same 
position with regard to the gate, but since the orientation of the two buildings 
is different, the qiblah niche at Mshatta is hollowed out of the main outer wall, 
while the niche at Ukhaidir is hollowed out of an opposite wall. (It must be 
noted that the big mosque in the palace of Balkuwara occupies the same 
position relatively to the gate.) The conclusion which Dr. Herzfeld reaches, 
namely that neither palace was a copy of the other, but that both were repro- 
ductions by different hands of the same general scheme, is borne out in all other 
particulars. Beyond the gate-house block lies the central court ; beyond the 
court the hall of audience. At Mshatta, where the liwan was unknown, its place 
was taken by an aisled hall on a basilical plan. Instead of the simple apse 
there is a trifoliate chamber covered by a dome. The most renowned example 
of the trifoliate apse is in the church at Bethlehem. The learned disagree as 
to whether that apse was built by Constantine or by Justinian, but in either 
case it was earlier than Mshatta. For the rest, the trifoliate or quadrifoliate 
chamber covered by a dome is a familiar Hellenistic motive which occurs 
frequently in palaces and in the baptisteries of early Christian churches. At 
Ukhaidir we have, in the same position as the trifoliate chamber, the quad- 
rangular room No. 30. The throne-room, if I may so term it, at Mshatta bears 

1 Schultz and Strzygowski, Mschatta ; Brttn- 2 Lammens, ' LaBadiaet la.Hira; MSlanges de 

now-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 105 ; Musil, Qseir la F. O. de Beyrouth, p. no. 

'Antra, p. 39. * 'Genesis,' Der Islam, vol. i, p. 126. 



u8 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMAD AN PALACE 



comparison with the throne-room at Qsair 'Amrah, where two small apsed rooms 
correspond to the apsed side niches. On either side of the ceremonial chambers 
of Mshatta lies a bait, the unit, now complete, which was foreshadowed at 
Kharaneh and at Qastal. Such is the arrangement of the central part of the 
palace. The two wings (to return to Mas'udi's definition) were never built. 
Schultz's ingenious reconstruction gives in each wing a row of baits, all adhering 
more or less closely to the norm, with subsidiary courts, and chambers at either 
end to fill up the space. When we come to structural details, the materials 
are sadly lacking. Either the buildings are too much ruined to afford the 
necessary information, or the photographs which have been taken are insufficient. 1 
Those given by Briinnow and Domaszewski are the best. From them, and from 
the reconstruction of Schultz, it is possible to see that the vaults oversail the walls 2 
and that they are built of a double slice of tiles laid vertically, parallel to the 
main axis, so as to dispense with centering. The only photograph of a doorway 
which has been published 3 shows a relieving arch constructed of the same 
double slice of tiles, with place for a lintel below it. Schultz was able to deter- 
mine that the lintel was composed of a wooden beam carrying a straight arch 
of stones. The straight arch occurs at Ukhaidir, but without the support of 
a lintel. The relieving arch has the form of the brick arches at Tubah, a stilted 
and slightly pointed oval, and from the photograph it would seem that it was 
set back from the face of the jambs below the lintel, but Schultz in his recon- 
structions gives it the same width as the door opening. 4 Briinnow and Domas- 
zewski reconstruct the doorways in the domed chamber without lintels, and 
the doorways in the small chambers of one of the baits without arches — that is 
to say, they are arch-shaped, but the arch is merely cut out of the solid wall. 
Schultz places lintels and relieving arches over all the doors. Kim belir ? The 
windows are small and round-arched. The closets were in the towers as at 
Ukhaidir, and Schultz in one of his drawings 5 places over the niche a fluted 
semi-dome. We know no more. 



1 Mea culpa I I visited Mshatta 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 — 
Mshitta), but I was so much dazzled by the 
splendour of the facade that I photographed 
nothing else. Moreover, I was not then suffi- 
ciently 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 congratula- 
ting myself on having seen it in 1900. It remains 
in my mind as the most princely of rurahs, wrap- 



ped round by the grass-grown Syrian desert, mild 
and beneficent in winter ; and the flocks of the 
Sukhur resort to it as kings resorted of old. 

s Cf . the vaults in the side niches of a building 
on the citadel at 'Amman 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. 

3 Briinnow and Domaszewski, op. cit., Fig. 720. 

1 In any case the maxim laid down by 
Dr. Herzfeld (' Genesis,' Der Islam, vol. i. p. 1 10) is 
misleading. It is too hasty a generalization and 
it does not cover the facts. At Ukhaidir 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 
Sarvistan. See above, p. 79. 

6 Mschattd, Plate 6. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 119 

It now remains to sum up the conclusions reached with regard to the origin 
of hirah and badiyah on either side of the desert. And first it is clear that 
Ukhaidir stands in the closest relations to the Syrian group, not only in general 
conception, but in details of construction. But Ukhaidir reflects the older 
Lakhmid hirahs, those palaces that were supposed to represent an army in 
battle with two wings, and through them it re-echoes the Sasanian palaces 
which were contemporary with them. These too, as we know from the palace 
of Khusrau at Qasr-i-Shirin, were composed of a centre and two wings. Again, 
allowance must be made for Byzantine influence in the Sasanian palaces and 
the Lakhmid hirahs. Justinian lent artificers to Khusrau I ; Khawarnaq was 
built by a Greek. The intercourse, friendly and unfriendly, between the 
Sasanian and the Byzantine empires was unbroken. When it was friendly it 
took the form of commerce, and architects were among the exchangeable com- 
modities ; when it was unfriendly it took the form of prisoners cf war. Khusrau I 
must have captured a large and varied selection of artificers when he removed 
the whole population of Antioch to Seleucia. It is improbable that they should 
have sat idle in their new abode. They exercised their crafts, and they exercised 
them in their own manner. It may well have become the fashion among the 
citizens of Ctesiphon to shop in the Greek Bazaar, just as the citizens of Damascus 
shop in the Greek Bazaar of their own town. Greek influence, as we know, 
did not begin with Justinian. It began with a mightier figure than that of the 
imperial lawgiver — with the mightiest of all, with Alexander. I have already 
shown that the Mohammadan liwan took to itself a part of the Greek peristyle 
and uses it still under the name of tarmah. Who can tell when this process 
began ? The Greek peristyle exists in a Parthian palace at Niffer and in 
Parthian houses at Babylon. Hatra fronts the desert with a Hellenistic facade ; 
so does Ctesiphon ; it adorns the central court of Ukhaidir. But that Byzantine 
or earlier Western influence affected in any fundamental manner the plan of 
palace or hirah is not borne out by this evidence. No fundamental change can 
be observed at any time, but on the contrary a steady, continuous growth of 
oriental methods, on oriental lines, and a steady development based on 
developing needs, ceremonial and social. From the days of the Hittites the palace 
was composed of a centre and two wings. The khilani palaces of Zindjirli were 
laid out on a small scale ; the khilani palaces of Pasargadae and Persepolis 
covered a wide area, but provided little better accommodation ; for the courtiers 
and guards were lodged elsewhere, in buildings of a less permanent character. 
Persepolis was the capital of an empire ; all the needs of the time were fulfilled 
there. But this is not the case at Firuzabad and Sarvistan. Of the capital 
seats of the Sasanian kings we know but two, in any real sense, Ctesiphon and 
Qasr-i-Shirin, and at Ctesiphon we know only the great hall of audience — 
together with a fairly accurate guess at its flanking chambers. Before we can 
say that the extensive wings, which at Qasr-i-Shirin were added to the khilani 



120 GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 

palace, were not a natural development (and they are planned on principles 
which are entirely oriental) we must have a clear conception of that which lay 
about the great hall at Ctesiphon, of the palace at Dastadjird which Heraclius 
committed to the flames, and of the palaces in the Zohab district. The oriental 
palace, in the form which it had received from Chosroes and Nu'manid, laid 
a strong hold upon the imagination of the East. In the Days of Ignorance the 
Arab of the desert entered its courts with praise ; in the days of conquest 
he divided its spoils with his fellow soldiers, and sent a part to Mekkah, glorying 
in the God-given strength which had dispossessed the kings of the earth. Not 
by literary evidence alone can the deep impression which it created be measured. 
It gave birth to the Syrian hirahs and to the stupendous residences of the 
Abbasids. 

On the Syrian side of the desert there is another element to be considered, 
the Roman legionary camp, and this too had a centre and two wings. The 
truth is that any complex of buildings laid out on an ordered plan falls almost 
inevitably into this disposition. The palace of the Flavians on the Palatine 
had a centre and two wings, yet it was not for that reason derived from the 
khilani or related to the oriental palaces. Its ancestor was the Greek peristyle 
house which goes back in turn to the megaron palaces of Mycenae and Tiryns 
and Troy. Neither were Qasr-i-Shirin and its offspring in the Syrian desert 
derived from the limes camp. Gradually but surely, while Rome still held 
the Syrian frontier, or rather while Rum — the Hellenistic, the Byzantine Rome, 
itself half -orientalized — held it, the ancient Asiatic scheme invaded the limes 
fortress, pushed out the Praetorium, or pushed it back against the encompassing 
wall, which had become an indispensable requisite, and having grouped its 
baits after its own fashion, left a court over. The union of both sides of the 
desert under the hand of a single ruler quickened the process. Neither the Roman 
Qastal nor the Umayyad Tubah are palaces on the Persian hirah plan ; then 
suddenly Kharaneh and Mshatta spring into being, uniting the oriental traditions 
of the Mesopotamian side of the desert with oriental traditions which had 
developed independently from the same root on the Syrian side. The Syrian 
architects were masters of a more scientific technique, for they had been trained 
in a Graeco-Roman school. They taught their Mesopotamian brothers, and even 
the builders of remote Ukhaidir had learnt how to lay a cross vault. 

But if the legionary camp is powerless to affect the ancient palace plan, it 
did not wither away, unnoticed, like a plant upon uncongenial soil. It bloomed 
again in the cities of the eastern Roman empire, in Bosra, in Damascus, in 
Apamea. Towns such as Diyarbekr, where not one Roman stone remains upon 
another, still betray a Roman origin in their crossed thoroughfares and quad- 
ruple gateways. 1 And therewith it returned, remodelled, to the West. The 

1 So it appears to me, but I am conscious that and Antioch are Seleucid foundations, and we 

the roots may go deeper. Damascus, Apamea, know nothing of the Seleucid city plan. 



GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 121 

palace at Antioch was built on the plan of the Roman limes camp. Diocletian 
copied it at Spalato, and Constantine's palace in his new capital was in some 
respects an echo of that of Diocletian, though the true oriental palace was not 
without effect upon Constantinople. 1 The imperial residence, stereotyped by 
him, went on into other phases, too complex, and often too obscure, to be 
followed here, but it is curious to note that five hundred years later, Theophilus, 
himself an Asiatic, since his father, Michael II, was a Phrygian by birth, built 
for himself a palace on the Bithynian coast which was modelled avowedly on 
the palace of the khalifs at Baghdad. 2 A few years later Mutawakkil laid out 
Balkuwara — what sister hiri with two sleeves stood at Bryas, on the shores 
of Marmora ? 

One other point remains. The palace of Ukhaidir is contained within 
a towered wall which is wholly distinct from it. This is not the encompassing 
wall of the ancient East, the primary condition of the structure. It has the four 
gateways of the Roman camp, though the unneeded cross-roads have dropped 
away. Here at last Imperial Rome has come to her own. For all its oriental 
system of fortification, its towers and its hourds, its machicolations and its 
loopholes, its casemates and its crenellations, this wall is perhaps no other 
than the wall which surrounded the legionary camp. But I doubt whether the 
camp itself, which made so fleeting an apparition on the Asiatic frontiers, was the 
deciding factor. The camp lived on in the city and made a far deeper impression 
through the city than through the limes fortresses. The scheme is repeated at 
Samarra. Balkuwara forms part of a great enclosure similarly disposed, with 
three gates, like the gates of Ukhaidir, the palace taking the place of the fourth. 3 
The area covered by the enclosure is so extensive that it resembles a town 
rather than a royal dwelling, and through this town run the crossed thorough- 
fares which were once the Via Principalis and the Via Praetoria. 

1 Ebersolt, Le Grand Palais de Constantinople, from the fall of Irene to the accession of Basil I, 

pp. 162-7. p. I3 2 - 

1 Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire 3 Herzfeld, Erster vorl. Bericht, p. 33. 



1580 



CHAPTER V 

THE FAgADE 

The breaking up of the wall-face into horizontal zones was a device familiar 
to the ancient East. In the main gateway of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad the 
wall is divided into a high orthostatic podium, decorated with reliefs, and a brick 
superstructure diversified by vertical flutes and rectangular recesses. 1 In the 
interior of the palace, the court of the haram shows a similar disposition, except 
that the podium is of enamelled brick, not of stone. 2 The upper part of the 
walls is in no case preserved. On Assyrian reliefs it is not uncommon to find 
a horizontal band along the top of the walls below the crenellations ; 3 but the 
nature of the upper zone or zones in decorated facades such as those of Khorsabad 
is a matter of conjecture. Concerning Chaldaean wall decoration we have little 
evidence. The building on the Wuswas mound at Warka, of which Loftus 
published a sketch, 4 has recently been re-examined by Dr. Jordan, who believes 
it to be post-Babylonian. 5 The walls of the temple of Bel at Niffer were 
decorated with shallow buttresses, while the gates bore resemblance, both in 
plan and decoration, to the gates of Khorsabad. 6 The gateway of Gudea at 
Telloh has the same doubly recessed rectangular niches that have been noted at 
Khorsabad, but they do not seem to have been grouped in panels, and the 
plinth is reduced to insignificant proportions. 7 It is significant that in 
the post-Babylonian construction at Telloh both the rectangular niche and the 
flute are present, and it may be surmised that the walls of Wuswas, with their 
recessed and fluted panels placed one above the other, represent an ancient 
scheme. It is a scheme which may be compared with that of the facade of 
Ctesiphon (see below, p. 134). At intervals groups of recessed niches are carried 
up continuously to the height of two registers of panels, just as in the two lower 
zones at Ctesiphon the engaged columns embrace two registers of arched niches. 
But at Ctesiphon we have architectural forms borrowed from Hellenism instead of 
the surface decoration (recess and flute) of Chaldaea and Assyria. 

The orthostatic construction was used in Hittite architecture at Zindjirli, 
Boghaz Keui, and Sakcheh Geuzu. Mr. Hogarth has found it at Carchemish 

1 Sprenger-Michaelis, Handbuch der Kunsl- 6 Mitt, der D. O.-G., No. 51, p. 71. 
geschichte, 9th ed., vol. i, p. 60. e Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 

2 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 101. p. 483, and fig. on p. 552. 

3 Dieulafoy, L'Acropolede Suse, Figs. 93, 100, ' Sarzec-Heuzey, Dicouvertes en Chaldie, 
132- Plate 53 bis, Fig. 1. 

4 Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 174. 



THE FACADE 123 

and Baron Oppenheim at Ras al-'Ain. 1 But in all these buildings, Babylonian, 
Hittite, and Assyrian, there was no attempt to ornament the facade with the 
similitude of plastic architectural forms. The elements of such ornament were 
not indeed lacking, but they appear in isolated examples and were not applied 
to the wall-face in a continuous decorative system. Side by side with stelae 
and altars adorned with fluted motives akin to those of the facades 2 there are 
instances of mock architecture in relief. An Assyrian stela upon a slab found 
at Quyundjik and now in the British Museum will serve as an illustration 
(Fig. 11). Two pilasters carry an architrave consisting of a double fillet and 
a band of crenellations ; between and behind the pilasters an arched niche, 
placed in counterfeited perspective, frames a hunting scene. It is an early 
example of the application of the third dimension to architectural ornament, 
and it conveys the impression of plastic architecture in two planes. As Professor 
Delbruck observes, by the addition of free-standing columns placed before the 
pilasters, we should have here a motive familiar to Graeco-Roman facades. 3 
The archivolt, of which the enrichment is expressed at Quyundjik in the terms 
of a shallow fillet, appears at Khorsabad, with enamelled brick enrichment, 
over a doorway, 4 and also upon reliefs. 5 All the methods of decorating the face 
of the arch which were known to antiquity are found on the Assyrian monuments. 
The podium facade is oriental, for it was used in Assyria and in Persia. Pre- 
Greek is the employment of blind openings ; in the Persepolitan palaces a blind 
niche is placed in every intercolumniation, and in plastic architecture an open 
gallery or loggia was common to Egypt and to Assyria. 6 In pre-Hellenic Egypt 
and western Asia there is, however, no example of a continuous series of arches 
in relief, though the continuous treatment of decoration on the wall-face is 
typical of Babylonian architecture from the earliest time, and it remained only 
to apply it to true architectural motives instead of to the purely decorative 
motives of Chaldaea and Assyria. That these last were mainly based upon the 
outward aspect of primitive wooden structures, I do not doubt, but at the remote 
date at which we first know them they had already lost all structural significance. 
The step from pattern to imitative architecture must have been taken at an 
early stage in the Hellenistic East. Seleucid buildings which have vanished are 
reflected in the stupas of Hellenistic India, where the surfaces are adorned with 
blind openings between engaged piers, and in the rock-cut temples, where the 
decorative scheme of the facade is a podium carrying a colonnade in relief. 7 

1 The last two examples are not yet pub- * Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii. Fig. 123. 

lished. For the connexion of the orthostatic 5 Idem, vol. ii. Fig. 136. 

construction at Pasargadae with Assyria and the • Perrot-Chipiez, vol. i, Fig. 267, and Puch- 

Hittite cultural sphere, see Herzfeld, Iraniscke stein, Die ionische Saule, Fig. 45, for Egypt ; 

Felsreliefs, p. 184. The link between the two is Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 39, for Assyria. 

probably to be sought at Ecbatana. ' Fergusson, History of Indian and Oriental 

* Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Figs. 107 and no. Architecture, p. 115, facade of the Chaitya Cave 

3 Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, pt. ii, at Nassick. 
p. 147. 

R 2 



124 



THE FACADE 



In Egypt rows of niches are present in the interior of tombs, 1 and an early example 
of the same motive can be seen in the gateway at Perge, a city which lay under 
the direct influence of Antioch. 2 The lightening of the massive wall by means of 
niches and blind openings can be traced through pre-Greek architecture in 
Mesopotamia (Assyrian palaces and temples) and in Egypt (from the Eighteenth 
Dynasty and even earlier) down to the Achaemenid period. The systematic 
application of this principle to the wall-face, and its union with imitative archi- 
tecture in relief as a decorative scheme took place, as far as can be determined 
at present, in the Hellenistic age. 

In the third and in the second century B.C. the division of the wall into 
two zones by means of a moulding appears at Delos, Priene, Magnesia, and other 
parts of western Asia, 3 and a little later it is found in what is known as the 
incrusted style at Oscan Pompeii. The lower zone consists of unpainted stucco 
decoration representing a stonewall, composed of one or of two rows of orthostatae, 
and above them several courses of dressed stones. The upper zone, which was 
at first undecorated (it represented space, the upper air), takes on later the 
semblance of a colonnaded gallery 4 in imitation of the open galleries character- 
istic of Eastern Hellenistic architecture. 5 The podium facade carrying an open 
arcade is, as Professor Delbruck is careful to point out, in origin different from 
the galleried wall, but in facade schemes the two run together so as to be almost 
indistinguishable. The theme is represented in relief upon the facade of the 
Bouleuterion at Miletus 6 and frequently in Pompeii, where, however, the engaged 
columns do not stand upon a podium. 7 Behind the columns, both at Delos and 
in the Pompeiian examples, the wall is still divided into two zones by a moulding. 
In all cases it is a theme which stands as a representation in relief of plastic 
architecture, of deep colonnades such as those which were to be seen on the 
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. 8 The blind order of the Ephebeum at Priene 
may be cited as another striking example of imitative architecture. 9 Similarly 
the superimposition of one blind order upon another, a decorative motive so 
familiar in Roman theatres and amphitheatres, finds its prototype in the colon- 
nades of Hellenistic stoae, such as those erected by Attalus in Athens and in 
Pergamon. 10 



1 In the Sema of Ptolemy Philadelphos ; 
Thiersch, ' Die Alexandrinische Konigsnekropole,' 
Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts, 1910, p. 65. See 
too Der Pharos, p. 210, for an extant example at 
Taposiris Magna. Delbriick'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. 



2 Lanckoronski, Stadte Pamphyliens mid Pisi- 
diens, vol. i, p. 59. 

3 Bulard, ' Peintures murales et mosaiques de 
Delos,' Memoir es Plot, vol. xiv, pp. 116 etseq. 

4 Idem, Plate 6 A ; Wiegand-Schrader, Priene, 
p. 312. 

6 Delbruck, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 128. 

6 Wiegand, Milet, pt. ii, Plate 7. 

7 Delbruck, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 129. 

8 Durm, Baukunsl der Griechen, p. 542. 

• Wiegand-Schrader, Priene, p. 268. Del- 
bruck, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 130. 

10 Durm, Baukunsl der Griechen, p. 504. 



THE FACADE 125 

Professor Delbriick is of opinion that the impulse towards decorating the wall- 
face with the similitude of plastic architecture was quickened by Greek painting, 
which, from the fourth century B.C. onward, gained an increasing mastery in 
the representation of spatial dimensions. Plastic examples of the phase of 
development represented by the Boscoreale frescoes might be expected in the 
second century B.C., and in fact there were at that period mock colonnades in 
relief, such as the Ephebeum at Priene. The cutting away of the wall-face by 
means of niches was foreshadowed in Hellenistic art ; the lightening of the 
wall-mass by niches has been noticed in the gate at Perge and the tombs of 
Alexandria, while windows in the intercolumniations were of frequent occurrence. 1 
It is possible, as Professor Delbriick suggests, that in Hellenistic Mesopotamia 
decoration by means of blind openings, whether doors, windows, or niches, won 
a great popularity because it was based on pre-Hellenic tradition, and it is 
interesting to observe that the only early examples of the arched niche, which 
is the leading motive at Ukhaidir, are to be found in western Asia. 2 But the 
systematic application of these principles to the facade was accomplished only 
in the latest phases of Hellenistic art, and we may perhaps owe it to Roman 
builders. In the intercolumniations of the decorated zone niches, arcades and 
windows take the place of the traditional moulding, 3 and the upper wall is broken 
by a row of arches or of windows. 4 On inner walls a double row of niches is 
sometimes accompanied by stucco incrustation, 5 while the podium is decorated 
with engaged columns. 6 

It remained for the Imperial period to complete the development. Orders 
of columns were placed in zones one above the other ; niches of richer type 
occupied the surface of the wall, and not infrequently they were placed one within 
the other ; rounded and rectangular niches followed one another in a rhythmic 
sequence ; columns and piers stood out in higher relief and the podium and 
architrave were broken above and below them. Gradually the orders and niches 
lost their original significance ; they were looked upon merely as decorative 
motives, and as such followed a development of their own. They lent to the wall- 
surface an ever-increasing movement and rhythm as their forms grew richer 
and freer. This evolution can be seen upon the walls of Roman buildings which 
are yet standing ; if in the cities of the eastern Mediterranean most of the monu- 
ments have fallen, the elements of their composition have been found and put 
together, as in the Nymphaeum at Miletus, 7 or the theatre at Ephesus, 8 and 

1 For instance, in the Agora at Magnesia; 4 Praeneste, Delbriick, pt. i, Plates 13 and 

Humann, Magnesia am Maeander, p. 113. 17, and pt. ii, Plate 1. 

* Delbriick, pt. ii, p. 137. He cites the 5 Apse at Praeneste, Delbriick, pt. i, Plate 18. 

Ephebeum at Priene and the upper gymnasium * Tivoli, Delbriick, pt. ii, p. 12. 

at Pergamon. 7 Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts, vol. xvii, 

3 Praeneste, Delbriick, pt. i, Plates 13 and 17, 1902 ; Archdologischer Anzeiger, p. 152. 

and pt. ii, Plate 1. Tabularium, Delbriick, pt. i, 8 Heberdey, Ephesos, vol. ii, Plates 7, 8, and 9. 
Plate 7, and pt. ii, Plate 3. 



126 



THE FACADE 



similar decoration can still be studied upon the walls of Ba'albek. 1 But in 
western Asia, and notably in Syria, the old classical love of unbroken wall- 
surfaces died hard — perhaps it may be said to have survived long into the 
Middle Ages in the smooth faces of dressed stone which give so much dignity to 
the Mohammadan buildings of Damascus and Aleppo. Older and simpler decora- 
tive forms continued to rule when in Rome the evolution had gone on to other 
stages. The facade of the Nabataean temple at Si', for example, echoes in free- 
standing architecture the features of the relief decoration of the Ephebeum at 
Priene. 2 In the temenos of the basilica at Apamea (second century a.d.) the 
solid outer wall has disappeared, and its place is taken by a series of piers with 
rectangular openings between, but in the basilica itself the treatment of the wall 
is still of an extremely simple character. 3 The temenos wall of the temple at 
Palmyra is treated with the old formal severity. At Baqirha and at Isriyyeh 
the walls are unbroken save by shallow pilasters, 4 a simplicity which rivals that 
of the pre- Roman tomb of Hamrath at Swaida. 6 At Mushennef and at Qanawat 
pilasters are set at the angles, and the rest of the wall is undecorated. 6 In 
the pre- Roman temple at Swaida, niches, in imitation of small doors, are placed 
on either side of the single entrance ; 7 at 'Atil a double order of niches, the lower 
rectangular, the upper rounded and arched, occupy the same position, but the 
walls of the cella are without even the customary pilasters ; 8 in the Qaisariyyeh 
at Shaqqa a genuine opening flanks the doorway on either side, but the facade 
is otherwise unadorned. 9 In the Philippeion at Shahba the side niches are omitted 
and there are no pilasters except at the angles ; rounded and rectangular niches 
are employed on the interior walls of the palace, and on either side of the interior 
doorways of the bath, but in all other respects the latter building is noticeable 
for the entire absence of decoration upon its walls ; 10 and as late as the sixth 
century angle pilasters set upon a podium were considered a sufficient decoration 
for the walls of the exquisite tomb at the southern Dana, 11 while the porticoes 
of house and stoa are models of severity. 12 

The fantastic variety which characterized the late Hellenistic and the 
Roman Imperial age must be sought for in south-west Asia in another group of 
monuments. The influence of Alexandria dominates over the tomb facades 
of Petra, and was felt even in the earlier tombs at Madain Salih. 13 With the latter 



1 Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Institute, vol. xvi 
1901, p. 143, and vol. xvii, 1902, Plate 9. 

2 Butler, Florilegiutn Melchior de Vogue, The 
Temple of Dhushara, Plate 1. 

3 Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, p. 55. 

4 Idem, pp. 67 and 77. 5 Idem, p. 325. 
8 Idem, pp 347 and 351. ' Idem, p. 327. 
8 Idem, p. 343. » Idem, p. 371. 

10 Idem, pp. 380 et seq. u Idem, p. 245. 

u Idem, pp. 252 and 265. 

13 For the latter see jaussen-Savignac, Mission 



archeologique en Arabic A number of the 
tombs are dated, and the learned fathers of 
St. fitienne, in publishing the inscriptions, have 
given us a solid basis for the evolution of the 
Hedjr tomb. For the Petra tombs, Briinnow- 
Domaszewski, Provincia Arabia, vol. i ; and 
Dalman, Petra und seine Felsheiligtiimer, and 
Neue Petra-Forschungen. The material was 
brilliantly reviewed by Puchstein, Jahrbuch des 
k. d. arch. Instituts, 1910 vol. xxv ; Arch. 
Anzeiger, p 3. 



THE FACADE 127 

I am not immediately concerned, except in so far as they help to determine the 

date of the Petra tombs. It is enough to notice that the local oriental forms, the 

pylon tombs with a band or bands of crenellated ornament, or with a staircase 

motive at the angles, dropped out of fashion during the first half of the first 

century after our era, and that in the first century a.d. Hellenistic forms had 

invaded the Hedjr tombs. 1 The gable tomb and the columned facade, which 

Domaszewski has christened the Roman temple tomb, do not indeed appear at 

Madain Salih, but the fully developed aedicula, with quarter-columns in the 

antae, is found there as early as the year a.d. 31 in the tabernacle which frames 

the doorway, 2 and the tabernacle, both with a gable and with an archivolt, 

was employed in Arabia at an early date for votive niches. 3 It is therefore 

unnecessary, as Puchstein has pointed out, to assign such gable tombs at Petra 

as date from a period before the Roman occupation (i.e. before a.d. 106) to some 

fortuitous Greek influence, 4 since the type was familiar to the stone-cutters 

of an earlier period. Not later than the middle of the first century a.d. a second 

order of dwarf columns was placed in the attic (the earliest dated example is 

tomb F4 at Madain Salih, a.d. 63-64), but it is instructive to note that the 

appearance of a new form does not imply the elimination of older types. At 

Madain Salih all the different variations continue to exist side by side, and there 

is an example of the primitive pylon tomb with a single band of crenellations, 

the unmitigated copy of an Arabian house for the living turned into a house for 

the dead, which is dated as late as the year a.d. 74, 8 just as the Egyptian gorge 

is found side by side with, and indeed upon the same tombs as, a fully developed 

Ionic entablature. The Roman temple tomb of Petra is predicted in the dwarf 

piers of the attic (which are of frequent occurrence at Madain Salih) inasmuch 

as they imply a corresponding series of engaged piers in the wall below. A single 

example of this so-called temple tomb exists at Madain Salih, but without the 

piers in the attic ; it is probably to be dated in the middle of the first century 

a. d. 6 The engaged column, in contradistinction to the engaged pier, is employed 

at Madain Salih only in the antae of the tabernacles ; at Petra it takes its place 

among the main supports of the facade. At Petra, too, the plastic freedom of 

late Hellenistic architectural forms makes itself felt. Broken podiums are found 

upon wall paintings of the second style at Boscoreale, though their architectural 

counterpart cannot be pointed out at so early a date ; broken entablatures are 

present in late Hellenistic work at Alexandria, but not elsewhere in the Greek 

cultural sphere at the same period. 7 Both these features, together with the 

1 Egypt, as Puchstein has observed, was always graves of Greek merchants, Prov. Arabia, vol. i, 

the dominant influence. The form and origin of p. 15. 

Nabataean tombs goes back to the time of the 6 Puchstein, op. cit., table, p. 35. 

Pharaohs, Arch. Am., 1910, p. 40. * Jaussen-Savignac, op. cit., p. 382 ; the tomb 

1 Jaussen-Savignac, tomb A 5, p. 357. called Al-Ferid. 

' Idem, pp. 414 et seq. 7 Delbruck, op. cit., pt. ii, pp. 170, 173. 

4 Domaszewski suggested that they were the 



i28 THE FACADE 

preference for engaged columns instead of piers, are common at Petra, and they 
are like sign-posts pointing to the source whence the stone-cutters of Petra drew 
their inspiration. There are, it is true, early examples of the broken architrave 
in Italy in the triumphal arches of Rimini (27 B.C.) and Aosta (25 B.C.), but the 
systematic use of broken podium and entablature is one of the distinctive features 
of the later Imperial period. In the Lion Tomb at Petra, which recalls the 
tabernacle of the tomb F 4 at Madain Salih, architrave, frieze, and cornice are 
broken over the angle columns and piers. In the tombs of the second century 
the principle is carried further ; architrave, frieze, and cornice are all broken, 
and the system is extended to the plinth-like member which is interposed 
between the entablature and the dwarf order of the attic, and, when the facade 
reaches a second story, to the upper entablature also. 1 In the Corinthian 
tomb, the Dair, and the Khazneh a second order is superimposed upon the first. 
In each case a tholos occupies the centre of the upper story and the pairs of 
flanking columns are crowned by a broken pediment. In the Dair an engaged 
pier and quarter-column fill out the facade on either side (Plate 82, Fig. 2). 
In the Corinthian tomb the lower zone is complete in itself (Plate 82, Fig. 1). 
The engaged columns stand upon a high plinth and carry a broken architrave 
composed of frieze and cornice only ; the dwarf piers are placed upon a broken 
plinth with a moulded cornice, which is interrupted above the central door 
by a moulded archivolt. The dwarf columns carry a complete entablature, 
architrave, frieze, and cornice, and a low broken pediment occupies the centre 
of the facade. Above this structure the second order, with its tholos, stands 
upon a moulded plinth. In the Storied tomb the lower order carries a complete 
entablature and a broken attic which contains the gables and archivolts of the 
doors ; upon a plinth with a moulded cornice rises a second order bearing an 
entablature ; a second plinth, itself divided by a horizontal moulding, carries 
a dwarf order which is crowned by a third entablature (Fig. 30) . Yet another 
order crowned the tomb, but it was built, not rock-cut, and little of it remains. The 
tholos in these facades is a Hellenistic motive, though it is known to us at an 
early period only from wall paintings and from literary sources. 2 To the multipli- 
cation of horizontal decorations earlier Nabataean tombs had shown a strong 
inclination. The double band of crenellations in the pylon tombs of Madain Salih 
and of Petra, the double attic of the so-called Hedjr tombs in both places, point 

1 Tomb of the legate Sextius Florentinus, phos, and Vitruvius a description of a wall 

Briinnow-Domaszewski, vol. i, p. 170 ; Corinthian painting at Alabanda, which Studniczka compares 

grave, idem, p. 168; No. 34, idem, p. 172. with the Khazneh. Tropaeum Trajani, p. 66; 

Al-Dair, idem, p. 187; the Storied tomb, idem, Thiersch, ' Die Alexandrinische Konigsnekropole,' 

p. 169 ; the Khazneh, idem, Plate 2, and Pales- Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts, vol. xxv, 1910, 

tine Exploration Fund Annual, 1911, p. 95. p.67. A free-standing tholos, placed upon a pluteum 

See Hittorff, ' Pompeii et Petra,' Revue arch. or attic, appears upon the tomb of Absalom at 

N.S., vol. vi, p. 7. Jerusalem, which Puchstein dates in the first half 

1 Wall paintings in Alexandrian tombs and at of the first century a. d. See Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iv, 

Boscoreale. Athenaeus gives a description of p. 279. 
a tholos on the state barge of Ptolemy Philadel- 



THE FACADE 



129 



the way to such compositions as the Storied tomb. Everywhere a strong 
centralization rules the scheme of the facade. It is rare to find more than one 
door; where doors are placed in the flanking intercolumniations they are 
insignificant in size, as in the Corinthian tomb. In the Dair (Plate 82, Fig. 2), 
mock windows occupy the outer intercolumniations. In the Storied tomb, 
where there are four doors, the two central entrances are higher than the others, 
and, in the upper story, the central intercolumniation is wider than those on 
either side. But the long unbroken lines of the horizontal mouldings give an 




Fig. 30. Petra, the Storied tomb. 
(From Provincia Arabia, by kind permission of Professor Brunnow.) 

exceptional monotony to this facade. Usually a gable or archivolt, breaking 
into the attic, emphasizes the centre of the facade and is re-echoed in the pedi- 
ment, with its central acroterion which crowns the whole, while in the tholos 
tombs the centralization is even more strongly underlined. The angles are 
commonly in antis, with a quarter-column set against the corner pier. The 
archivolt is conspicuous by its absence. It is never used except in exchange 
for the pediment over aediculae, and, exceptionally, over mock windows, as 
for example in the lower zone of the Dair. 

The same insistence upon horizontality is to be observed in the facades of 
Ctesiphon and Ukhaidir ; but the effect is produced in a different manner. 
No doubt it is difficult to do justice to the horizontal members in these buildings, 
owing to the fact that, from the perishable nature of the material, they have 

1580 S 



i 3 o THE FAgADE 

suffered complete destruction, but it can safely be conjectured that they were 
never of much importance to the general effect. The space left between the 
decorated zones is too small to admit of the full entablature, attic, and podium 
which separate the lower order from the first upper order in the Storied tomb, 
or even of the entablature and podium which are interposed between the upper 
order and the order of dwarf columns. The multiplication and the breaking 
of horizontal members in Western Hellenistic monuments are discarded in 
Mesopotamia, and with them vanishes much of the significance of the facade. 
The zone decoration becomes a pattern composed of innumerable groups of archi- 
traved and arched divisions, set one within the other, so as to cover the whole 
surface of the wall. Where exigency demands, real doors and windows may be 
placed in the niches ; the zones may correspond to a certain extent with the 
structural division of the building into stories ; but the main intention of the 
architect is to cover his wall with continuous motives which are not dependent 
upon the structure and must fit into it as best they can. It is the traditional 
surface decoration of the ancient East, disguised in the new dress which it had 
borrowed from Hellenism. 

No better example of the oriental practice can be found than in the facade 
of Ctesiphon. The north wing and the face of the great central arch have fallen, 
but they are preserved in M. Dieulafoy's photograph 1 (Plate 83). The facade 
is divided into three zones, but organic connexion between them is lacking. Each 
zone, in either wing, is subdivided into two horizontal registers. The lower 
register of the lowest zone consists of wide arches separated by pairs of engaged 
columns which are carried up to the top of the zone. The width of the inter- 
columniations bears no relation to the width of the wing ; a space remains over 
at the outer end which is awkwardly filled by two small blind arched niches, 
placed one above the other. The upper register is occupied by groups of three 
niches ; in each group the central niche is wider than the other two, and each 
niche is flanked by engaged colonnettes. At the outer end there is no room 
to complete the pattern, and the outer flanking niche is omitted. The lower zone 
breaks off abruptly here against a plain pylon-like wall, and at the inner end 
it is not organically connected with the great archway which forms the centre of 
the facade. Single engaged columns divide the middle zone into five com- 
partments. They are not placed above the pairs of engaged columns of the lower 
zone, nor yet in the centre of the lower intercolumniations, but purely in accord- 
ance with the dictates of the pattern which covered the middle zone. It, too, 
is subdivided into two horizontal registers. In the lower register there are five 
pairs of niches, with three engaged colonnettes between. At the inner end 
the pair must have been incomplete owing to lack of space ; at the outer end the 

1 This should be compared with Dr. Herzf eld's und Tigris-Gebiet, vol. iii, Plate 41. I doubt 

drawing of the facade with conjectural restora- whether any of the columns were furnished with 

tions in the north wing. Sarre-Herzfeld, Euphrat- bases. 



THE FAgADE 131 

engaged column is omitted for the same reason. In what relation the triple 
colonnettes stood to the niche arches is not clear. They were not regarded as 
necessary to the arch, for on the outer side of each pair they are absent, and the 
same applies to the colonnettes and arches in the upper register of this zone. 
These groups consist of three niches of equal size, with a pair of colonnettes 
between the central and the flanking niches. In the third zone the upper of the 
two registers has almost entirely disappeared ; it is obvious, however, that 
the two registers were not welded together by engaged columns. In the lower 
register the arched niches, separated by engaged colonnettes, are conceived 
without any thought of the division of the wall below them, and, from the 
fragment of the upper register which remains, it would seem that the niches 
which adorned it were equally independent of the niches of the lower register. 
Into this confusion breaks the huge central arch, cutting short the pattern at 
the inner end of the wings just as the pylon wall cuts it short at the outer end. 
Yet the gigantic size of the facade and the even repetition of the arches in each 
register gives to the eye a sense of orderly grouping, and draws the whole into an 
apparent symmetry which an analysis of the details proves to be lacking in 
reality. 

Ukhaidir, separated from Ctesiphon by an interval of some 500 years, shows 
a sensible advance. The north facade of the court is not indeed centralized, 
nor is it symmetrically placed in the wall of the three-storied block, but the two 
lower zones are organically connected with one another. The seven blind niches 
of the lower order correspond with those of the second order. In the second order 
the breaking up of the zone into registers is still adhered to, but since an archi- 
volt has taken the place of the architrave of Ctesiphon, the principle is not so 
strongly marked. It works only within the arched niches. That it is substantially 
the same is, however, apparent from the fact that at Ukhaidir, as at Ctesiphon, 
the lower register consists of groups of two small niches, the upper register of 
groups of three, the central niche being the largest. The seven large niches of the 
second order are separated by a cluster of four columns ; in the spandrels of 
the arches there are niches containing windows. The pylon-like wall of Ctesiphon 
is represented by a battered wall at Ukhaidir, but instead of sloping back and 
forming horizontal ledges, its perpendicular face seems to have been divided 
at intervals by horizontal bars of masonry. There is no space between the zones 
for important horizontal mouldings. Dr. Reuther in his reconstruction (Ocheidir, 
Plate 25) places a plain masonry balcony along the narrow platform formed by 
the summit of the second zone. It is, however, conjectural, and in my opinion 
it lays a stress upon the horizontal divisions between the zones which is contrary 
to the spirit of the decorative scheme. In the upper zone the plain wall is in 
far better accord with the classical treatment of wall-surfaces than are the 
restless nichings of Ctesiphon, and it enhances the value of the rich orders below 
it. But it is not regarded, like the plain wall of early Hellenistic decoration, as 

s 2 



132 



THE FACADE 



representing space, the upper air ; E it is rather the gallery wall of ancient 
Assyrian and early Hellenistic architecture. It is confined by an upper row of 
arched niches, each one, so far as can be determined in their ruined condition, 
placed within a rectangular frame of engaged columns and architrave, like the 
niches upon the outer fortification wall of the palace. And here we have the 
system that dominates Ctesiphon, the column and architrave framing arched 
niches. In the upper zone of the Ukhaidir facade symmetry has vanished. The 
long crowning row of niches calls attention to the fact that the decorated lower 
zones of the facade do not stand in the centre of the wall, and the doorways 
of the third zone bear no more relation to the arches below them than the 
perpendicular divisions of the Ctesiphon wall bear relation to one another. 
Another similarity exists between the two buildings. The arches of the second 
zone at Ukhaidir are decorated not with the mouldings of the classical archivolt, 
but with the cusp of the great arch at Ctesiphon. So far as I am aware the 
earliest example of this cuspidated ornament in monumental architecture is at 
Ctesiphon. It appears in northern Syria in the fifth century A. D., when it can be 
seen both with the cusps pointing inward 2 and with the cusps pointing outward. 3 
In the latter form it bears a close resemblance to the broken palmette of late 
Graeco-Roman ornament, 4 and its origin is probably to be sought in oriental 
Hellenism, but whether it was developed in the Syrian or in the Mesopotamian 
regions I cannot determine. It became a common motive in Syrian architecture 
during the sixth century, 5 where it is used in both forms, but in the Mesopo- 
tamian sphere it is almost always inverted, as at Ctesiphon. We have it at 
Ukhaidir, not only in the facade but also on the arches of the mosque doorways 
and possibly in the liwan arches in the courts. 6 In exactly the same form it 
is employed in the early Abbasid buildings of Samarra, 7 and there is another 
notable example of its use over the doorway of the mosque at Harran, where an 
outward-pointing cusp is used (Plate 84, Fig. 2). In the mosque at Mayafarqin 
it is found inverted on the elaborate arches which cover the mihrab niches, on 
the relieving arches over the doors of the outer north wall (Plate 84, Fig. 3), and 
on the blind niches above. This part of the wall belongs to the earlier portion 
of the building, which is ascribed, in an inscription round the dome, to the 
Ortokid Alpi (a.d. 1152-1176). It is a common feature of Ortokid decoration 
at Diyarbekr, 8 and in the first half of the thirteenth century it is seldom absent 



1 Delbriick, Hellenistische Baulen, pt. ii, p. 129. 

2 Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, p. 132 ; 
east church at Babisqa. 

3 Idem, p. 150 ; chapel at Kfair. 

4 Bronze tablet found at Ephesus and ivory 
diptych in the British Museum, Mschattd, pp. 266 
and 277. 

5 Pointing inwards on the apse at Qalb Lozeh, 
and pointing outwards on a doorway at Bash- 
mishli; Butler, Anc. Arch., pp. 223 and 239. 



6 Oche'idir, p. 41. 

7 At Al-'Ashiq ; Amurath, p. 238, and Herz- 
feld, Samarra, p. 40. Also round the windows 
of the great mosque at Samarra ; Amurath, Fig. 
142 ; Herzfeld, Erster vorl. Bericht, Fig. 1. 

8 For instance in a madrasah of the Ulu 
Djami'. The inscription round this madrasah is 
published (Amida, p. 87, inscr. No. 28), and I have 
the photographs, but these are not yet published. 



THE FACADE 133 

from the lintels of Christian churches and Mohammadan mosques in Mosul and 
the surrounding districts, 1 nor yet, in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth 
centuries, from the lace-like decoration of the arches in the mosques at Hasan 
Kaif 2 (Plate 84, Fig. 1). Other examples in late Mohammadan architecture 
are too numerous to be mentioned. I select the few which I have quoted because 
they are little known. 

In attempting a reconstruction of the Ukhaidir facade (Plate 85) I have sought 
some guidance from the representation of a Sasanian fortress which is to be 
seen upon a silver dish, now in the possession of the Kais. Archaol. Kommission 
of St. Petersburg 3 (Plate 86, Fig. 2). It has been assigned to the beginning 
of the Sasanian period. The facade depicted bears some interesting analogies 
to that of Ukhaidir. It is divided into two stories. In the lower story the lower 
zone consists of eight arched niches, the arches borne on tall engaged columns 
without capitals. The archivolts are decorated with three fillets and a small 
oval motive is placed in the spandrels. Above the arches there is a cornice com- 
posed of two simple horizontal mouldings with a band of spirals between them. 
I surmise that these spirals, which seem to be singularly out of place in a monu- 
mental facade, were put in to fill up the space and have no warrant in any actual 
building. The gateway occupies the centre of this zone. A wide archway, set 
in a rectangular frame, covers two narrow arched doors. Within the semicircle 
of the embracing arch there is a shallow calotte decorated with broken concentric 
rings. The archivolt is outlined by a moulding which is carried up continuously 
round the rectangular frame. Within this frame a horizontal moulding is laid 
above the arch. This scheme of archivolt and rectangular frame with a con- 
tinuous moulding is common in Syria and Mesopotamia. 4 The crowning member 
of the portal breaks the line of the cornice. It consists of a frieze carved in 
relief with a human (or divine ?) head and bust, and a cornice bearing a row of 
cusps. The upper zone of the lower story is less easy to describe in terms of 
architecture. There is a frieze (or dwarf order ?) decorated with four groups 
of six nutings or engaged colonnettes and five groups of four circles, each circle 
containing a quatrefoil. The cornice is composed of two bands, the first deco- 
rated with alternate circles and rhomboids, the second with diagonal brickwork. 
A projecting hourd is placed at either end of the building, and between the 
hourds the top of the wall is battlemented. These crenellations form a parapet 
to the gangway which runs along the base of the second tower-like story. Upon 
the gangway stand eight figures, seven of whom are blowing trumpets. Behind 

1 Amurath, Fig. 170. 4 An early Syrian example, possibly Naba- 

* Unpublished. I have all the photographs taean, is to be found at Umta'iyyeh ; Butler, 

and M. Max van Berchem has studied the Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sect. A, pt. ii, p. 89. 

inscriptions from them. Cf. too the facade of the basilical hall at Mshatta. 

1 It was shown at the exhibition of Moham- (Schultz-Strzygowski, Mschattd, Plate 4), and an 

madan art held in Munich in 19 10, and was interesting example on the tambour of the church 

numbered in the catalogue 2696 (Meisterwerke of the 'Adhra at Hakh ; Bell, Churches and 

muhammedanischer Kuust, vol. ii, Plate 122). Monasteries of the Tur 'Abd'm, p. 84 (28). 



134 THE FACADE 

them the wall is plain, but the upper part is decorated first with a band of 
half-florettes, then with a row of arched niches, each niche being set within 
a rectangular frame, and finally with a band of diagonal brickwork. The summit 
of the wall is battlemented and a wooden hourd projects from either side. The 
lower zone of the lower story corresponds very fairly with the lowest zone at 
Ukhaidir. The schematized horizontal bands of the second zone bear little or 
no relation to real architecture, but the upper story is set back, as at Ukhaidir, 
and the battlemented parapet of the gangway is a very probable solution for the 
parapet of the Ukhaidir gangway. The upper story, with its plain wall and its 
row of niches is the same in both facades, and the upper battlements may safely 
be restored at Ukhaidir. 

At Ctesiphon the capitals and bases (if bases there were) of the columns and 
colonnettes were moulded in stucco and have disappeared. Bases seem to have 
been absent from the slender engaged columns on the outer walls of Firuzabad 
and Sarvistan, but at both places the state of the ruins renders an exact determina- 
tion of such details difficult. The engaged columns seem to rest upon a low 
plinth. The decoration in those palaces is, however, far more nearly connected 
with oriental than with occidental tradition. We have not much information 
as to Sasanian capitals. The columns and double columns of the inner rooms at 
Sarvistan are covered by rectangular imposts, 1 and de Morgan gives a drawing 
of a stucco capital from Shirwan. 2 It is scarcely necessary to allude to the famous 
impost-capitals of Bisutun and Isfahan, which belong, in all probability, to the 
end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century. They show far greater 
skill in the handling of the rectangular impost than the capitals at Sarvistan, 
but whether they are a natural development out of the latter, or borrowed 
directly from Byzantine art, existing material does not enable us to decide. 3 
The latter theory seems to be the more probable, and it is supported by the 
fact that the evolution of the Mesopotamian capital did not proceed upon the 
Bisutun-Isfahan lines. At Ukhaidir there is a reversion to the simple impost 
of Sarvistan, nor did the development there go beyond the elementary impost- 
capital of rooms 30 and 40. The capitals of the swelling columns on the 
north facade of the central court may have been more like those of Bisutun 
and Isfahan, but unfortunately they are completely ruined. At a later date, 
in the church of Mar Tahmasgerd at Kerkuk (eighth or ninth century), the scheme 
of the Sarvistan halls is repeated, but the pairs of columns are without capitals 
or bases, and the colonnettes of the niches in the spandrels are similarly 
treated (Plate 75, Fig. 1). I should be inclined to reconstruct all the columns 
and engaged columns at Ukhaidir and Sarvistan, and possibly at Ctesiphon also, 
without bases. 

On the western side of the Syrian desert the evolution of the capital is 

1 Dieulaioy, L' Art antique, vol. iv,Plates 6 and 7. 3 Strzygowski, Mschattd, p. 354; Herzfeld, 

* Miss, scient. en Perse, p. 364. 'Genesis,' Der Islam, vol. i, p. 118. 



THE FACADE 135 

different. The engaged capitals at Madam Salih and Petra show a marked 
tendency towards the Corinthian. Like the capitals of the Kom al-Shukafa 
oasis ' and capitals on Pompeiian frescoes of the second style, they have the 
Corinthian form and the Corinthian rosette upon the abacus, not indeed worked 
out into a true rosette, but left in the shape of a simple boss. In the second- 
century facades at Petra, such as the Corinthian tomb and the Khazneh, this 
tendency reaches full expression. The replacing of the architrave by the 
archivolt created a structural need which was satisfied by the introduction of 
the impost-capital, and we find the latter both at Mshatta 2 and at Muwaqqar, 3 
the capitals at Muwaqqar being closely related to the Bisutun-Isfahan type. 
With these stone-carved capitals, the brick and plaster capitals of Ukhaidir, 
so far as they are preserved, are little concerned. The further history of the 
Muwaqqar capitals must be sought, in the realm of Mohammadan art, at 
Samarra and in the mosque of Ibn Tulun. 4 

New to Mesopotamian architecture are the clustered columns in the middle 
zone of the Ukhaidir facade. No doubt they are not essentially different from 
the triple supports between the arches of the second zone at Ctesiphon ; but 
at Ukhaidir they are given a true architectural meaning, the central pair carries 
the wall, the flanking columns carry the cusped arches ; moreover they are set 
in different planes, the central pair standing in front of the flanking columns. 
The effect produced is almost Gothic, a foreshadowing of the clustered piers 
of Armenian churches. 6 It was a scheme which was not to remain sterile in 
early Mohammadan art. Clustered piers carried the roof of the great mosque 
at Samarra 8 and the arcades of the mosque at Ibn Tulun. 

The first great distinction, then, between the second-century facades of 
Petra and the third-century facade of Ctesiphon is that the mock architecture 
at Petra is organically coherent, whereas at Ctesiphon it is incoherent, i.e. it 
is a pattern covering the wall-face rather than a simulation of plastic con- 
struction. The second great distinction is the systematic use of the archivolt 
at Ctesiphon for all the secondary intercolumniations in the wings. It is 
perhaps not without importance to observe that the same change from archi- 
trave to archivolt took place, though at a rather later date, in the stone-building 
regions of western Asia. In Syria, for example, the arched window almost 
entirely replaced the rectangular window in the course of the fifth century. 7 
In the lower and central zones of Ctesiphon the arches are framed by groups 
in a rectangle composed of engaged piers and architraves ; in the upper zone 
this system is abandoned. The principle of the arched niche within a rect- 
angular frame appears, as has been seen, as early as Assyrian stelae, but for 

1 Sieglin-Schreiber, Die Nekropole von Kom * Herzfeld, Enter vorl. Bericht, Fig. 5. 

esch Schuhdfa. Figs. 214, 215. 6 Lynch, Armenia, vol. i, Fig. 74. 

* Strzygowski, Mschattd, Fig. 36. • Herzfeld, Erster vorl. Bericht, p. 9. 

» Brunnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 185, Figs. ' Butler, Ancient Architecture, p. 130. 
760-5, and Plate 49. 



, 3 6 THE FAgADE 

the use of the motive in a continuous series upon the facade there is, so far 
as I am aware, no example earlier than the Tabularium. 1 In the Augustan age 
it is found upon the Porta Praetoria at Aosta, 2 and thenceforward it governs 
the decorative scheme of Roman city gateways. Whether it was derived from 
Hellenistic Alexandria, together with the whole city gateway type, as Schultze 
surmises ; 3 or whether it was evolved out of such wooden superstructures as 
gave birth to the decoration upon the Etruscan gates at Perugia ; 4 or whether 
it was a specifically Roman (Stadtromisch) conception, it is impossible to say. 
Nor does it signify. We know it as Roman, not only in the gateways, but 
also in the theatres and amphitheatres of the Roman empire, and I cannot 
doubt that the perfected Roman scheme is at least as directly responsible for 
Mesopotamian wall-surface decoration as is the western Asiatic development 
of Hellenistic facades. The gateway at Aosta, the Storied tomb at Petra, may 
well be taken as representing the immediate progenitors of Ctesiphon. 

Five hundred years later, in round figures, comes Ukhaidir — five hundred 
years of architectural growth and of fairly continuous intercourse with the West. 
The architrave has vanished from the principal orders ; it is retained only to 
form the old rectangular framework for the small niches at the top of the wall. 
Symmetry and organic cohesion rule over the two lower zones. But in the 
details of its composition there is nothing at Ukhaidir which might not have 
been foretold from the facade of Ctesiphon. 

The lower zone of the north facade forms part of the decorative scheme of 
the central court as a whole. The central court resembles, as has been observed 
by Dr. Reuther, a Greek peristyle with engaged columns in place of free standing 
columns ; the southern side is, however, treated as a separate facade, the facade 
of the liwan. The principal feature was necessarily the wide arched opening 
of the liwan itself. There is nothing new here ; we have it at Ctesiphon, com- 
bined with Hellenistic wings ; we have it at Firuzabad, without side doors, 
and at Sarvistan and at Hatra. 

Hatra, though in plan it is no less purely oriental than Ctesiphon, shows 
direct Western influence far more strongly than the southern Mesopotamian 
or the Persian palaces. Dr. Herzfeld has compared its triple-arched facade, 
wherein the central arch surpasses the flanking arches in height and width, 
with that of the triumphal arch, 8 and the comparison is apt. So far as my 
knowledge goes, the triple-arched scheme appears for the first time in the 
Assyro-Persian cultural sphere at Hatra, and it is accompanied there by strongly 
Hellenized details of decoration, which distinguish it from the older oriental 
palaces to which it is related in plan. This Hellenized decoration is present 
in all other Parthian ruins, and it is not surprising that it should be so. The 

1 Circa 78 b.c, Delbruck, Hell. Bauten, pt. ii, 3 Die romischen Stadttore, p. 296. 

Plate 3. * Ibid., pp. 285-6. They too are Augustan. 

2 Promis, Antichita di Aosta, Plate 7. 6 Erster vorl. Bericht, p. 34. 



THE FACADE 137 

Parthians wrested their empire from a Greek dynasty. The Mesopotamia 
which they conquered was a part of Asiatic Greece ; it was more closely linked 
to Greek culture than it had ever been linked before, or was ever to be linked 
again. The Hellenistic triple-arched scheme fitted the liwan plan admirably, 
inasmuch as it provided the great opening which was essential to the liwan hall. 
But it implied the placing of doors in the two flanking chambers, and this was 
done for the first time at Hatra. The side doors were an innovation which 
was not accepted without hesitation. It was not adopted in the facade of 
Firuzabad, where Hellenistic influence is almost entirely lacking. To a great 
extent the Sasanians stand for a reaction against Hellenism. A fresh wave 
of orientalism flows back into Mesopotamia with their conquest, and they went 
far to complete the severance with the West which the Parthians had begun 
when they overthrew the Seleucids. But the Greek domination, together with 
the fitful occupation of parts of northern Mesopotamia by Roman armies, left 
an indelible mark. Moreover, the Sasanian frontiers marched with those of 
Rome, and the interpenetration of the two civilizations was inevitable. It is 
felt in the facade of Ctesiphon. Though the triple-arched scheme is not present 
there, the provision of independent doors to the side chambers was a conveni- 
ence ; it was used at Firuzabad in the liwan group at the back of the posterior 
facade ; it was used at Ctesiphon, and thereafter it was not to disappear. With 
it the triple-arched facade came into favour. It formed part of the truly 
oriental facade of Sarvistan ; no doubt it existed at Qasr-i-Shirin ; it exists 
at Ukhaidir, but it is there completely re-orientalized. The tarmah-liwans 
bear a faint resemblance to the Hellenistic motive; in the liwans of courts c 
and G the likeness fades ; in the south facade of the central court it is gone 
altogether and the side doors are no more necessary to the scheme than they 
were at Ctesiphon. In place of the triumphal arch facade we have the liwan 
facade which dominates the architecture of Persia and of India. The central 
hall is raised above the flanking vaults and this raised vault implies a lifting 
of the central part of the facade. Dr. Reuther conjectures that a rectangular 
frame was given to the central arch, and since that is the stereotyped form of 
the liwan facade of a later date, I have adopted his view. Moreover, some 
such device must have been used at Hatra. There, too, the vault of the liwan 
rises above the flanking vaults, and Dr. Andrae, in his reconstruction of the 
facade, has given it a rectangular frame (Fig. 31). But at Hatra the arched 
opening of the liwan was considerably lower than its vault and need not neces- 
sarily have broken the horizontal lines of the facade. It must, however, be 
borne in mind that something very like the later liwan facade must have existed 
at Hatra, as it existed at Ukhaidir. Flandin and Coste, in their restorations 
of Sarvistan (Voyage en Perse, Plate 29), give a true liwan fa9ade to the principal 
entrance and to the side liwan, and indeed their section indicates the vault 
of the side liwan as springing so high that the facade must have been raised 

1880 x 



138 



THE FACADE 



to correspond. The liwan arch has been given in these restorations the same 
rectangular frame which has been conjectured to have existed at Hatra and at 
Ukhaidir. At Ukhaidir, as at Ctesiphon, the wings are decorated by blind 
arcades, two of which, for the sake of convenience, are broken by doors. The 
arcades are shallower than those which are carried round the other three sides 
of the court ; the capitals of the columns, as Dr. Reuther has pointed out, 
must have been different from the other engaged capitals, since the shafts 
swell outwards towards the top ; x and the calottes which cover the niches are 
adorned with Hazarbaf, the interwoven motive common in oriental wood- 
work. 2 The great arch of the liwan is carried by pairs of engaged columns set 
in antis, and this is the arrangement which was usually adopted in the later 
liwan facades. We have seen it in the tombs of Madain Salih and of Petra. On 




Fig. 31. Hatra, facade of palace reconstructed. 
(From Hatra, by kind permission of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft.) 

either side there is a narrow arched niche which has the appearance of buttress- 
ing the central arch ; beyond these follow three arched niches of wider span, 
the innermost on either side being slightly narrower than the others. The 
engaged column of the liwan arch is joined to the quarter-column of the small 
flanking niche by a straight wall-face, on the same principle as that which is 
employed in the central supports of the tarmah-liwans of courts B and H. The 
result is in plan a double column, similar to the double columns which carry 
the arcades of every early Christian church in central Anatolia. 3 I saw one 
of these double columns in a graveyard at Raqqah, where it is used as a tomb- 
stone. They are foreshadowed in the Nabataean facade at Si' in the Hauran. 4 
The triple-arched facade must have been popular in the early Abbasid 
period. It is found in the Bait al-Khalifah at Samarra, where it is as pro- 
nounced as it was at Hatra. It was present in the two main facades of the 
audience chambers at Balkuwara. 5 But the single arched motive was to play 



1 Ocheidir, p. 33. 

2 Reuther, Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad, p. 74. 

3 Ramsay and Bell, The Thousand and One 
Churches, Fig. 6, and passim. 

4 Butler, Ancient Architecture, Fig. 127, p. 364. 
See too double columns at Palatitza ; Heuzey and 



Daumet, Mission archeologique de Macidoine, 
p. 198, where other examples are cited. 

6 Herzfeld, Ersler vorl. Bericht, p. 34. As 
Dr. Herzfeld points out, Mshatta offers another 
notable example of the three-arched facade. See 
Schultz-Strzygowski, Plate 4. 



THE FAgADE 139 

an equally important part in Mohammadan architecture, a part of which an 
early (perhaps the earliest) indication is to be seen at Ukhaidir. On the north 
wall of the great hall the central feature is the great arch with its shallow 
calotte. Within this frame is set the smaller arched opening of the door. 
Here, as Fergusson has observed, 1 is the ' perfectly satisfactory solution of 
a problem which has exercised the ingenuity of architects of all ages '. It has 
always been manifest ' that to give a large building a door at all in proportion 
to its dimensions was, to say the least of it, very inconvenient. Men are only 
six feet high and they do not want portals through which elephants might 
march. It was left, however, for the Saracenic architects completely to get 
over the difficulty. They placed their portals — one or three, or five, of moderate 
dimensions — at the back of a semi-dome. This last feature thus became the 
porch or portico, and its dimensions became those of the portal, wholly irre- 
spective of the size of the opening. No one, for instance, looking at this gate- 
way (south gate of Akbar's mosque at Fatehpur Sikri) can mistake that it is 
a doorway, and that only, and no one thinks of the size of the openings that are 
provided at its base. The semi-dome is the modulus of the design, and its 
scale that by which the imagination measures its magnificence'. The same 
principle rules over two of the smaller doorways of Ukhaidir, the doors at the 
outer ends of the corridor 5-6. 

The arched niche, either blind or pierced with doors or windows, is used 
at Ukhaidir to complete the decoration of the north wall of the great hall. 
Blind niches with a rectangular frame stand on either side of the central calotte, 
while above it the three niches are pierced by windows. Here and in all other 
examples at Ukhaidir, the opening, simulated or real, is covered by a shallow 
calotte. In the central court the single niche at the south-east corner is poten- 
tially a doorway ; it is covered by a fluted semi-dome (compare the doubtful 
example at Mshatta, above, p. 118). In the same manner the niches on the 
two side walls of room 32 are potentially windows ; at Karkh, where they are 
similarly placed, but in outer walls, they are actually pierced by window open- 
ings. The single niche motive is found in room 140, where, however, the niche 
is unusually shallow. That the form of such niches as those of the great hall 
and of rooms 31 and 32 is Hellenistic is not open to a moment's doubt. Out 
of the countless classical parallels I may cite the aedicula upon the east facade 
of the basilica at Shaqqah. 2 The archivolt at Shaqqah is carried on colon - 
nettes, the semi-dome is fluted, and the addition of a pediment, in the true 
Graeco-Roman style of Syria, involves the doubling of the colonnettes. The 
purely decorative character of the aedicula may well be compared with that 
of the niches on either side of the central calotte in the great hall. Dr. Reuther 
draws an apt parallel between the placing of the niches in the great hall and the 

1 History oj Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 580. 3 Butler, Ancient Architecture, p. 367. 

T2 



i 4 o THE FAgADE 

placing of the niches in the building on the citadel at 'Amman, 1 and he calls 
attention to the fact that at Amman the colonnettes have neither capital nor 
bases and that the archivolts of one of the pairs of niches in room 32 are decorated 
with a zigzag ornament analogous to that of Amman. All these points help 
to prove the Mohammadan origin of the building on the citadel. It is not, 
however, strictly correct to describe the colonnettes either at 'Amman or at 
Ukhaidir as being without capitals. They are all provided with a small impost 
block. In room 32 a strikingly oriental motive is introduced into the niches 
on the side walls. The spear-shaped ornament in the centre of each niche 
was familiar to Assyrian decoration. Whether it had, or had not, its origin 
in the spear-shaped loopholes of fortified walls, 2 it is used for purely ornamental 
purposes in Assyrian decorative crenellations at Assur and in Parthian crenel- 
lations at Warka. 3 It was common in a similar position during the Achaemenid 
period, 4 and was carried on into later Mohammadan work, with the difference 
that the whole niche was given a spear-shaped or trifoliate heading 5 (Plate 75, 
Fig. 1). Nor are the recessed rosettes of the stucco decoration at Ukhaidir 
connected with Hellenistic types ; they have affinities with the rosette motives 
of Assyrian fresco and enamelled brick, 6 but the floret shape of the Assyrian 
rosette disappears with the perspective treatment. In a cruder form the 
rosette of Ukhaidir is used at Mar Tahmasgerd. Here it is not recessed but 
cut deeply into the wall, and its effect is produced solely by the resultant shadow. 
The crenellated motive of the stucco work in the mosque has its counterpart 
in the ornamental crenellations of Assyria and Persia, but it is used at Ukhaidir 
with singular freedom. The crenellations are combined so as to form recessed 
rhomboids ; they are even applied to the archivolt in the two doorways of 
corridors 5 and 6. 7 Save for the rosettes, all the stucco decoration at Ukhaidir 
is of an architectural character — that is to say that it imitates plastic construction 
such as crenellations, arched and columned openings ; or else it is an elaboration 
of structural details, such as the squinch or the transverse arch. Sometimes it 
is actually called into being by structural processes, as in the horizontal ridges 
of the vaults in the mosque and room 31. The motives placed on the summits 
of the vaults in rooms 31 and 32 are reminiscent of coffering, and I have little 
doubt that their origin is to be sought in the Hellenistic scheme of ceiling 
decoration. It is, however, interesting to note that Western forms are more 
obscured at Ukhaidir than in buildings of a later Mohammadan period. The 
stucco coffers of the vaults at Samarra stand very close to classical types, 8 
whereas the coffers at Ukhaidir are employed in a manner foreign to classical 
conceptions. This must be largely due to the fact that in the great palaces 

1 Dieulafoy, vol. v, p. 99. 6 Another good instance is at Tekrit ; Amu- 

2 Milt, der D. O.-G., No. 31, p. 28. rath, Fig. 130. 

3 Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 225. 8 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Figs. 106,116, 124, 136. 

4 Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, Figs. 340 and 342. ' Ocheidir, Fig. 19. 

a Herzfeld, Erster vorl. Bericht, p. 35. 



THE FAgADE 141 

at Samarra Western artificers were at work, while in the comparatively unim- 
portant desert retreat oriental workmen and oriental ideas had the upper hand, 
yet I would suggest that the differences between Ukhaidir and Samarra indicate 
a considerable difference in date. In the ninth century Western influence was 
stronger in Mesopotamia than it was in the preceding age, when the arts were 
still held closely in the thrall of Sasanian tradition. Consequently we find at 
Samarra capitals inspired by the Corinthian acanthus capital, and among the 
wall decorations the Hellenistic vine motive plays a conspicuous part. 1 We 
have yet to learn that the flowing vine, so essential to Coptic decoration and 
to that of the Hellenistic coast-lands, was a feature of Sasanian architectural 
ornament. It occurs in monuments of the Umayyad period which were directly 
under the sway of Hellenistic Syria, such as Mshatta and the mihrab of the 
Khasaki Djami', 2 but except for sporadic examples in Parthian architecture, 
where the Hellenizing tendencies of the decorations are indisputable, 3 its syste- 
matic use on Babylonian soil begins (so far as the evidence goes) at Samarra 
in the middle of the ninth century, and there it was the artificers, not the work 
of their hands, which were imported. I do not deny that in comparison with 
the Samarra palaces Ukhaidir is a crude product of local workmanship, wherein 
it is natural to expect a closer adherence to local tradition ; but it is important 
to point out how close that adherence is, and how well it corresponds with 
recorded examples of Mesopotamian and Persian decoration earlier than the 
Umayyads, whereas the decoration in the same regions, but at a later period, 
diverges widely from the older schemes. The divergence is due, in my estima- 
tion, to the diffusion of Western influence when the western and the eastern 
provinces of the khalifate were drawn together under the Abbasids and all 
quarters of their empire contributed to their constructions. In the ninth 
century we find Mesopotamian architecture in Cairo and Coptic decoration in 
Samarra. I regard the oriental character of Ukhaidir as indicative not only 
of its isolated position, beyond the direct course of international civilization 
and arts, but also as typical of the primitive age during which it arose. 

Materials for the study of early Mohammadan decoration are still so scanty 
that the difficulty of assigning exact dates to such as we possess is great. It is 
enhanced by the fact that the workmen of the first khalifs must have been of 
non-Arab extraction. The Arab invaders, pouring in out of deserts which were 
innocent of monumental constructions, had nothing to contribute to archi- 
tecture or to the arts. So far as we know them in the pre-Mohammadan period 

1 Idem, p. 23, and p. 18. are better defined as combinations of the palmette 

2 The latter, though it is now at Baghdad, was and the acanthus than as modifications of the 
in all probability an import from northern Meso- vine, and the typical Parthian decoration at 
potamia or northern Syria. Herzfeld, ' Genesis ', Assur consists of various forms of the continuous 
Der Islam, 1910, Plates 1 and 2. pattern, the old oriental decorative scheme. 

3 The workmen at such a site as Warka may Andrae, Hatra, pt. ii, Sheet 47, and Plate 12 ; 
have been half bred with Greeks. The rinceaux Mitt, der D. O.-G., No. 42, Figs. 7 and «. 

on the door-jambs at Hatra, on the other hand, 



i 4 2 THE FACADE 

they had not created an art of their own. Along the trade-routes, the rock- 
cut tombs of Madain Salih and of Petra exhibit, without salient divergence, 
the artistic principles of Hellenized Egypt and Hellenized Syria, while con- 
cerning the older Arab civilizations in the southern parts of the peninsula we 
have as yet no evidence save that of inscriptions. The Mohammadan con- 
querors employed the workmen of their predecessors, and according to the 
nature of their own traditions, these workmen might raise a palace with a 
basilical hall, like Mshatta, or a palace entirely composed of liwan groups like 
Ukhaidir ; they might cover their walls with Hellenistic fresco, as at Qsair 
'Amrah, or with ornament derived mainly from the ancient East, as again at 
Ukhaidir. The variations of this period were due to individual idiosyncrasy, 
or rather to individual training ; there is no reason why they should be taken 
to denote a chronological distinction. A hundred and fifty years later this 
heterogeneous material had been welded together and the Islamic Weltkunst 
was beginning to take shape. Samarra, in the eastern part of the Abbasid 
dominions, the mosque of Ibn Tulun in the western part, re-echo one another ; 
artistic conceptions are not only interchangeable, they are the same ; and 
though, all through the history of the arts of Islam, local peculiarities, based 
on local conditions and traditions, continue to differentiate one region from 
another, it is not the differences but the similarities which are the most striking. 
They go hand in hand with the singular solidarity of Islam, with the uninterrupted 
intercourse between remote parts of the Mohammadan world, with the ceaseless 
passage of travellers and scholars from the western limits of Europe on the 
one hand to the eastern limits of Asia on the other. This intercourse was 
quickened, as the Prophet had intended that it should be, by the institution 
of the annual pilgrimage. The mosque of Ibn Tulun is not an isolated example 
of a direct borrowing by one region from another. The gates of al-Mehdiyyeh 
in Tunis were copied from the gates of Raqqah. 1 It is impossible to explain the 
curious niching of the walls of the eleventh-century palace of the Menar, to 
take another Tunisian example, except by a comparison with the wall-surface 
decoration of Babylonia and Assyria. 2 I am fully aware that a long period 
of time had elapsed between the fall of the Mesopotamian empires and the 
erection of the Menar, and that it would be vain to attempt to establish a con- 
tinuous sequence of buildings between them, but I would point out that the 
Parthians, when they reconstructed the Babylonian palace at Telloh, repro- 
duced the Babylonian wall decoration so closely that de Sarzec was persuaded 
that the ruins of their palace belonged to the Chaldaean age. 3 

Turn again to the fortress of the Bani Hammad and you will find the cusp 

1 De Beylie, La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad, 3 The Wuswas ruin at Warka has furnished 
p. 41, quoting Ibn Hauqal. another example of the imitation of Babylonian 

2 De Beyli6, La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad, decoration by Parthian builders. Mitt, der D 
p. 41. O.-G., No. 51. 



THE FAgADE 143 

motive of Syria and Mesopotamia repeated on its arches ; * and at the palace 
of Medinat al-Zahra. in Spain (end of the tenth century) we have the plaster 
decorations of the walls of Samarra carried out in a style which betrays their 
Coptic and classical parentage, 2 though they are not devoid of characteristic 
motives, such as the palmette tree and the continuous pattern, which are rooted 
in oriental tradition. 3 In the same ruins the workers in stone have borrowed 
alike from Byzantium and from Mesopotamia ; some of the continuous geo- 
metrical patterns are closely allied to those of Samarra, 4 while the free use of 
the crenellated motive may be compared with its use at Ukhaidir (Plate 87). 
The earliest Mesopotamian examples of such patterns as these are Parthian 
(Plate 86, Fig. 1). 

One of the structural features of Ukhaidir has a value which is not only 
structural but also decorative. I allude to the use of masonry tubes between 
parallel barrel vaults. Obviously it is a scheme which was born of the syste- 
matic use of the vault. It is to be found at Hatra, where it appears in some 
of the tombs. 8 The same system is present at Firuzabad, where there was 
a masonry tube between the barrel vaults of the side chambers of the entrance 
liwan and the domed chamber. 6 In later Mohammadan architecture I have 
found masonry tubes at Khan al-Khernina above Tekrit. 7 A second device 
for the lightening of the wall mass between parallel barrel vaults is employed 
at Ukhaidir in the east annex and in the buildings to the north of the palace. 
It takes the form of a number of narrow tubes. I saw it also in a fourteenth- 
century khan at the foot of the Djebel Sindjar (Plate 88, Fig. 1), a khan which 
is famous for the dragon reliefs on its doorway, 8 and in a mosque of the early 
fifteenth century at Hasan Kaif (Plate 88, Fig. 2). The decorative importance 
of the first scheme, the large single tube, lies in the effect which its opening 
produces on the facade. This can be observed in the courts on the ground 
floor at Ukhaidir, as well as in the court on the upper story of the gate-house. 
The arched openings of the tubes between the arched doors of the liwan and 
its side chambers form an essential part of the facade, and they are retained 
when vault and tube are alike absent. The existence of tube openings in the 
facades round the central court, the sahn, of the mosque of Ibn Tulun is suffi- 
cient to show that the Egyptian mosque was copied from a vaulted prototype 
(Plate 89, Fig. 1). I do not doubt that it was modelled on the vaulted buildings 

1 De Beylie, op. cit., p. 63. ' Amurath, Fig. 133. As regards the date, 

1 R. Velazquez Bosco, Medina Azzahra y M. van Berchem calls my attention to a passage 

Alatniriva, Plate 17. in the Fakhri of Ibn al-Tiqtaqa (ed. Derembourg, 

3 Idem, Plate 18. p. 445), in which it is stated that the khalif al- 

* Amurath, Fig. 161. Mustansir built among other monuments such as 

* Andrae, Hatra, pt. ii. Fig. 37, Sect, e-f, and the Mustansiriyyeh at Baghdad and the bridge at 
Fig. 152. Harba, khan al-Khernina. I was therefore right 

* Dieulafoy, L' Art antique, vol. iv, Plate 9. in assigning it to the thirteenth century a.d. 
Possibly there are others ; the palaces of Fars 8 A drawing of the gate is published by Sarre- 
must be re-examined Herzfeld, Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, vol. i, p. 13. 



i 4 4 THE FACADE 

of Mesopotamia, though vault and tube are absent from its structure. The 
great mosque at Samarra was not vaulted ; unfortunately the data are insuffi- 
cient to determine the scheme of the facades of its sahn. Nor was the mosque 
of Abu Dulaf vaulted ; it had a flat roof carried on arches, like Ibn Tulun ; 
but the tube openings appear in the form of niches on the facades of the sahn 
(Plate 89, Fig. 2). As at Ibn Tulun, they have become purely decorative. 
I do not know whether there are tubes between the vaults of the Bait al-Khalifah 
at Samarra, but the openings are simulated upon the facade by shallow blind 
niches. The same system holds good in the sahn facades of the Azhar at Cairo, 
a building which has no other connexion with Mesopotamian architecture 
than this traditional use of a decorative motive, the true significance of which 
had long been forgotten. 



CHAPTER VI 
THE MOSQUE 

The mosque of Ukhaidir has an exceptional interest. It is one of the earliest 
mosques known to us which retains its original form and decoration, and its plan 
may be regarded as one of the first examples which we possess of the systematized 
architectural scheme which, in slightly varying types, ruled the Mohammadan 
world until the fourteenth century of our era. It was a scheme which was derived 
from the inaugural sanctuary of the Faith, the Prophet's house at Medinah. 

Recent research has made it abundantly clear that Muhammad, when he 
constructed his new dwelling after the flight to Medinah in a.d. 622, had no other 
object in view than the purely domestic. It was not a mosque which he set 
himself to build, but a living-house, and he laid it out in the fashion which was 
customary in his day. It may indeed be doubted whether he contemplated the need 
of a temple of any kind. 1 In the view of the founder of Islam there were but two 
sanctuaries in the world, the mosque of the Ka'bah at Mekkah and the mosque of 
the Aqsa at Jerusalem, the former being at that period an open space, bounded 
only by the buildings of the city, with the house of Abraham in its midst, the 
latter an area on the edge (aqsd = extremity) of the sacred enclosure at Jerusalem, 
an area actually occupied by the ruins of Justinian's Church of the Virgin, 
which had been destroyed by the Persians in A. D. 614. For the rest God could 
be worshipped in every place, and the nomads of Arabia could perform their 
religious exercises as satisfactorily in the open wilderness as in any other spot. 
But, as has been well pointed out, 2 even in the Days of Ignorance, the madjlis, 
the place of assembly — that is to say the courtyard of the Arab house — was 
itself invested with a kind of sanctity ; the meetings held in it were conducted 
with gravity and order, and it may also have been used for cult purposes. To 
it the terms ' madjlis ' and ' masdjid ' were applied impartially, and it was not until 
after the advent of the Prophet that the word ' masdjid ' was narrowed down 
so as to signify only such places of assembly as were connected with religious 
observances. 3 These places were not, however, used exclusively for cult purposes. 
In Muhammad's masdjid at Medinah, the court of his house was necessarily 
the centre of his domestic life ; in it he lived and entertained his wives and 
took counsel with his friends, and, since he was the head of his community, it 

1 Teano, Annali dell' Islam, vol. i, p. 443. the " place of prostration " (sadjada) and this use 

* Lammens, ' Ziad ibn Abihi,' Rivista degli of 'sadjada' is anterior to Islam. See al-'A'sha's 
Studi Orienlali, vol. iv, p. 242. line : " Whoever sees Haudhah prostrates himself 

* Sir Charles Lyall sends me the following note : (yasdjud) without delay, when he puts on the 
' There is a masdjeda at Medain Salih. Masdjid is crown above his turban or lays it down." ' 

1580 U 



i 4 6 THE MOSQUE 

was the meeting-place of the Faithful, whether for religious or for secular needs. 
The homeless among his adherents found a lodging in it, and the wounded were 
tended there. Nor did themasdjid al-djama'ah, the mosque of assembly, lose its 
secular character until more than a hundred years had passed after the Hidjrah. 
For the mosque, as Wellhausen has put it (and the phrase cannot be bettered) , 
was the forum of primitive Islam. When the conquerors founded their camp- 
cities, the misrs of Mesopotamia and of Egypt, their first step was to mark out 
the area of the mosque, to provide, that is to say, a central place of assembly 
for the people. To it the khalif repaired on his accession and the governor 
on his appointment, and the discourses which they pronounced on these occasions 
were political rather than religious. 1 Thither, too, they summoned the people 
when questions of importance were to be discussed, or weighty tidings to be 
communicated. 2 

Muhammad's house at Medinah, which was to play so influential a part in 
the architectural history of Islam, consisted of a courtyard ioo ells square 
{circa 60 metres) enclosed by a wall, the lower part of which was stone and the 
upper of sun-dried brick. The qiblah, the direction in which the worshippers 
turned in prayer, was towards Jerusalem, i.e. it lay to the north ; there was, 
however, no niche to mark it, and the word ' qiblah ' did not carry with it any archi- 
tectural connotation, but merely the sense of a moral order. That the congre- 
gation might be protected from the burning sun, this side of the court was 
covered by a roof of woven palm-leaves, supported on columns made of palm- 
trunks. The roof was so low that a man could touch it with his hand. On the 
east side, two rooms, for the two wives, Sauda and 'A'ishah, were placed outside 
the wall at its southern extremity. In the opposite corner (the south-west) 
a primitive lodging was provided for the poorest of those who had followed 
the Prophet in his flight. It was covered by a roof (suffah) similar to that of the 
qiblah, and those who inhabited it were known as the Ashab al- Suffah, the 
people of the portico. There were three doors into the courtyard. That which 
lay to the south was the principal entrance ; a subsidiary door was placed on 
the west side, and on the east side was the door used by the Prophet. At a sub- 
sequent date, owing to quarrels with the Jews, the qiblah was turned away from 
Jerusalem and placed in the direction of Mekkah. This necessitated the closing 
of the south door and the opening of a door in the north wall. Moreover, the 
Ashab al- Suffah were moved to the north-east angle of the court and their roof 
was re-erected there. 3 In addressing those who were present, the Prophet was 
accustomed to lean against the trunk of a palm-tree, but in the year seven or 
eight of the Hidjrah he caused a wooden minbar to be erected. It consisted 

1 As, for instance, the khutbah of 'Amr ibn al- 2 Lammens, ibid., p. 31; and Becker, * Zur 

'As in his mosque at Fustat (Corbett, ' The Mosque Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,' Der Islam, 

of 'Ami,' Journal of the R.Asiatic Soc, 1890^.768), vol. iii, p. 394. 
and the khutbah of Ziyad ibn Abihi at Basrah 3 Teano, op. cit., vol. i, p. 438. 

(Lammens, op. cit., p. 36). 



THE MOSQUE 147 

of two steps and a seat. On or before it he conducted the prayers. 1 The khalif 
'Umar enlarged the mosque at Medinah, but the new building scarcely exceeded 
the old in architectural pretension. The wall was of sun-dried brick, the columns 
of palm-trunks (or according to one account of sun-dried brick also) supporting 
a palm-leaf roof. It is not clear whether this roof was carried all round the 
court or was confined to the south side. The court, which in Muhammad's 
day was without any kind of pavement, was given by 'Umar a floor of pebbles 
beaten into the ground. 2 Further improvements were carried out by 'Uthman, 
but it was not until the time of the Umayyad khalif Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik 
(a.d. 705-715) that the old simplicity of construction was abandoned. In the 
year a.h. 87 or 88 he pulled down the mosque and rebuilt it. The workmen 
whom he employed were Greeks and Copts from Damascus and Egypt. 3 The 
walls and columns of the new edifice were of cut stone ; gold, silver, and mosaic 
were used to adorn it ; the mihrab and the maqsurah were of teak. 4 The maqsurah, 
the enclosure reserved for the khalif, had already, according to Baladhuri, 
been introduced into the mosque by Marwan (a.d. 683-685), but his maqsurah 
was of stone. The mihrab was a new feature : ' the first who introduced the 
novelty of a concave mihrab was 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz when he restored 
the mosque of the Prophet' (by order of the khalif Walid). 5 Both maqsurah 
and mihrab were borrowed from Christian usage ; the maqsurah was copied from 
the Imperial enclosed dais of Byzantine churches, the mihrab from the Christian 
apse — it was ' min shin al-kana'is ', an attribute of churches, and was adopted 
with some reluctance by Islam. 6 Concerning the Medinah mosque Professor 
Becker quotes an exceedingly suggestive anecdote. Walid, boasting of his 
construction to a son of the khalif 'Uthman, who had been the last before him 
to restore the mosque, said : ' How far our building excels yours.' ' True,' 
replied his interlocutor, ' we built after the manner of mosques, but you after 
the manner of Christian churches.' 

Elsewhere the development followed similar fines. The Haram of Mekkah 
stands apart ; its arrangement could never be the same as that of ordinary 
mosques. Yet it is interesting to observe that it was at first innocent of any 
building except the Ka'bah. The khalif 'Umar enlarged the area by pulling 
down adjacent houses, and enclosed it with a wall lower than a man's stature ; 
'Uthman is said to have been the first to furnish it with riwaqs. Again here, 

1 Idem, vol. ii, pt. i, p. 68 ; and Becker, Die 6 Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 569, quoting 

Kanzel im Kultus des alien Islam, p. 3 (Orientali- Makrlzi, Khitat, vol. ii, p. 247. 

sche Studien Theodor Noldeke gewidmet). * Lammens, Ziad ibn Abihi, op. cit., p. 246 ; 

* Teano, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 965. Becker, ' Zur Geschichte d. islam. Kultus.'op. cit., 
3 The Copts built the facade, the Greeks the pp. 392-3. Professor Becker points out that 

side and back walls ; see Becker's very interest- though the architectural form was borrowed from 

ing note, Der Islam, vol. iii, p. 403. the Christian apse, the word ' mihrab ' which was 

* Baladhuri, Fut&h, ed. de Goeje, p. 6. Yaqut, applied to it had had an earlier usage. It 
Mu'djam, ed. Wustenfeld, vol. iv, p. 466. signified the princely seat of honour, which in all 

probability was generally niche-shaped. 

U 2 



I4 8 THE MOSQUE 

as at Medinah, it was Walid who first beautified the mosque with marble columns 
and with mosaic. 1 

The accounts of the foundation of the misrs of Basrah, Kufah, and Fustat 
throw a vivid light upon the requirements, spiritual and architectural, of primi- 
tive Islam. It is recorded that the khalif 'Umar gave orders to the respective 
governors of the three places, Abu Musa, Sa'd ibn abi Waqqas, and 'Amr ibn 
al-'As, that a masdjid al-djama'ah should be provided, while each tribe was to 
have a small mosque for its particular use. At Basrah the mosque was marked 
out {ikhtatta) but not built, and Baladhuri is careful to add that the people 
prayed in it without buildings. 2 It was subsequently enclosed with a fence 
made of reeds, and this fence Abu Musa replaced by a wall of sun-dried brick 
and roofed it (presumably the qiblah side) with reeds. Ziyad ibn Abihi, Mu- 
'awiyah's powerful viceroy, enlarged it considerably. His building was of 
burnt brick and gypsum mortar, and he roofed it with teak. 3 Five columns 
(the word used is sawdri = masts, the columns were therefore presumably of 
wood) supported the roof of the qiblah wall ; the side walls were of stone, and 
columns are not mentioned there. The columns were probably of teak like the 
roof ; some of them had four 'uqud=ties, which I take to mean the metal collars 
which were used to fasten together the different sections of wooden or marble 
columns. Ziyad was the first to introduce a maqsurah, and he is said to have 
built a minaret of stone. Al-Hadjdjadj or his son put in columns made of stone 
from the mountains of Ahwaz. 4 At Kufah the mosque was marked out on a high 
spot before any part of the city had been built. On three sides the sahn was 
bounded by a ditch ; on the fourth, that which faced towards Mekkah (the front 
side as it is called by the Arab writers) , there was a covering roof (zullah) which 
had neither side nor end walls; it was 200 ells long, and was supported by 
columns of marble which were taken from churches built by Chosroes. The 
ceiling was like the ceiling of Greek churches. 5 'And such', says Tabari, 'was 
the mosque (at that time), with the exception of the mosque at Mekkah which 
they would not imitate.' 

The first mosque at Kufah therefore consisted of a great sahn surrounded on 
three sides by a ditch and on the fourth, the qiblah side, by an open colonnade 
carrying a roof, and the arrangement was exactly the same as that of Muhammad's 
house, except that the qiblah wall and the palm-trunk columns were replaced 
by marble columns. Baladhuri gives a tradition that the mosque at Kufah 
was built out of part of the materials taken from the palaces of al-Mundhir at 
Hirah, 6 and Tabari says that the castle at Kufah was of burnt brick taken from 
Persian buildings at Hirah. Ziyad rebuilt the mosque. He summoned, according 

1 Baladhuri, Futuh, p. 46. 6 Tabari, Prima Series, p. 2489 ; Teano, op. 

2 Idem, p. 350. cit., vol. iii, p. 857 ; Lammens, Ziad, op. cit., 

3 Idem, pp. 347-8. p. 247. 

4 Idem, p. 277. 6 FutM, p. 286. 



THE MOSQUE 149 

to Tabari, 1 Persian builders, and expounded to them the plan of the mosque 
and its extent, and that which he desired regarding the length of its 
roof, saying that he wished to erect an edifice which should not have its 
parallel. To which a man, who had been one of the builders of Chosroes, replied 
that could only be accomplished by using columns from the Jebel Ahwaz which 
should be carved and polished and filled with lead and iron clamps (safdfid 
= skewers). The ceiling should be 30 ells high (circa 17 metres !), and it should 
be roofed. The mosque should also have side and end walls. This scheme was 
adopted by Ziyad. Baladhuri mentions that he placed a maqsurah in this mosque 
also, and that both at Basrah and at Kufah he strewed pebbles on the sahn to 
prevent the people from getting dusty. 2 

At Basrah and at Kufah the sahn was the principal feature of the mosque, 
as indeed it had been at Medinah ; this was not the case at Fustat. The first 
Egyptian mosque was built by 'Amr ibn al-'As in the year a.d. 642. It stood 
in the midst of vineyards and consisted merely of a covered place, 50x30 
cubits in extent (28-92 x 17-34 metres), enclosed in a brick wall. 3 The people 
assembled in the open space which surrounded it. The roof, which was very 
low, must have been supported on columns, though these are not mentioned. 
The brick walls were unplastered, and the floor was strewn with pebbles. 'Amr 
set up within it a wooden minbar, but this was resented by 'Umar, and it was 
removed. ' Is it not enough ', wrote the khalif, ' that thou shouldst stand 
while the people sit at thy feet ? ' This episode is of the highest significance 
in the history of the minbar. It is clear that it was regarded at that time as 
a throne rather than as a pulpit, and as such unsuited to any but the khalif. 
It was not until the close of the Umayyad period that the minbar lost its secular 
significance and became a part of the ritual furnishing of the mosque. With 
this change it is probable that its form changed also, and instead of the two steps 
and a seat of the Prophet's minbar, the high pulpit of the modern mosque came 
into use. That this pulpit was copied from the pulpits of Christian churches is 
not improbable. The minbar which was set up in the time of 'Abd al-Aziz ibn 
Marwan (a.d. 685-705) in the mosque of 'Amr is said to have been taken from 
a Christian church. 4 Neither was there in 'Amr's mosque any mihrab to mark 
the qiblah ; it was not until the third enlargement of the mosque in A. D. 710 
that the qiblah wall was given a mihrab. It is further recorded that the orienta- 
tion adopted by 'Amr was imperfect, so that the worshippers were obliged to 
stand askew that they might face truly towards Mekkah while they prayed. 
The mosque was provided with six doors, two in each wall, with the exception 
of the qiblah wall, which was left unbroken. The first enlargement of the building 

1 Tabari, Prima Series, p. 2492. * Becker, Die Kanzel, passim, and ' Zur 

2 FutHA, p. 277. Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,' op. cit., 
8 Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 563 et seq. ; p. 393 ; Corbett, loc. cit., p. 773, n. 1. 

Corbett, ' The Mosque of 'Amr,' Journal of the 
R. Asiatic Soc, 1890, pp. 759 et seq. 



, 5 o THE MOSQUE 

took place in A. D. 673, on which occasion an open space, or court, was added to 
the north. In the second enlargement (a.d. 698-699) the mosque was entirely 
rebuilt and the sahn was included within its walls. 

It appears from these accounts that by the middle of the Umayyad period 
the development from courtyard-house to sanctuary was complete. Its course 
had been simple and obvious. All the essentials of the stereotyped form were 
present at Medinah ; the differences were differences in size and splendour, 
not in kind. The domestic court had become the sahn ; the palm-leaf sheltering 
roofs against the qiblah wall and in one angle of the court had solidified into the 
riwaqs ; the palm-trunk columns had been replaced by columns or piers of brick 
(possibly by brick columns at Medinah itself as early as the time of 'Umar), or, 
where the spoils of Sasanian and Byzantine lay ready to hand, as at Kufah 
or Fustat, by columns of marble. The qiblah had been given a visible shape 
in the mihrab niche, and by the close of the Umayyad period the minbar had 
wholly lost its temporal attributes and had taken its place as part of the necessary 
furniture of the mosque, though it probably still continued to be a movable 
wooden structure. Such a sanctuary, but reduced to the modest dimensions of 
a private chapel (if I may be permitted the phrase), is the mosque of Ukhaidir. 
The fact that its orientation is inexact — Mekkah lies to the south-east of Ukhaidir, 
whereas the direction indicated by the mihrab is almost due south — would not 
have been regarded as of much importance. As has been mentioned, 'Amr's 
mosque had the same defect, and in this respect Mansur's mosque at Baghdad 
offers a yet more significant parallel. Tabari observes that the mosque in the 
round city was not properly oriented because it was built to fit the qasr, whereas 
at Rusafah the orientation was right, because the mosque was built before 
the qasr. 1 Precisely the same explanation applies to the Ukhaidir mosque. The 
palace builders were accustomed to square their plans to the points of the 
compass, and a mihrab in the south wall was the closest approximation which 
could be obtained in an edifice which lay north and south. The mosque was so 
small that there was no difficulty in applying to it the system of vaulting which 
reigns over the whole palace, but the massive Mesopotamian vault was unsuited 
to free-standing columns and the roof of the riwaqs has fallen. Outside Ukhaidir 
we have no extant example of a vaulted mosque on this plan. We are specifi- 
cally told that the roof of the mosque at Basrah was first of reeds and then of 
teak ; the nature of the roof of the zullah at Kufah is open to doubt. Its ceiling was 
like the ceiling of Greek churches, a description which does not exclude the possi- 
bility of a vault. That the mihrab at Ukhaidir received no decoration need cause 
no surprise. Far from being regarded as having any special sanctity, the mihrab 
is defined as the least holy part of the mosque and the Imam is earnestly warned 
not to take up his station within it — doubtless, as Professor Becker observes, 

1 Tabari, Tertia Series, p. 322. 



THE MOSQUE 151 

in order to emphasize the fact that though the mihrab was copied from the 
Christian apse, it shared none of its attributes. 1 Of the minbar it is improbable 
that any vestige would be found under the ruin heaps at Ukhaidir. It was 
most likely of wood, and has long been destroyed. Nor is it necessary to suppose 
that the sahn contained a water-basin for ablutions. No such feature is men- 
tioned in the account of the early mosques, save that at a later date Maqrizi 
records the presence in the mosque of 'Amr of an ancient well appertaining to 
the gardens in which the mosque was built. 2 

It will be convenient to carry this survey a little further in order to include 
the mosques of Samarra, which are not far removed, either chronologically 
or geographically, from the mosque of Ukhaidir, but in so doing the early Syrian 
and North African mosques must be taken into account. The plan of the 
first mosques in Syria was partly determined by the fact that they were erected 
on the site of Christian churches. They differ, therefore, from the normal con- 
struction of the Medinah type. To the khalif 'Umar is ascribed the first Moham- 
madan building upon the site which is now occupied by the Aqsa, but it seems 
probable that his edifice was nothing but a makeshift reparation of the ruined 
church of the Virgin. 3 Probably the Umayyad khalif 'Abd al-Malik rebuilt the 
mosque in the year a.d. 691, but in a.d. 746 it was destroyed by an earthquake. 
Mansur rebuilt it, and it was again destroyed by earthquake. It was restored 
by al-Mahdi about a.d. 780, but the plan was considerably altered. Even the 
mosque described by Muqaddasi in a.d. 985 is materially different from 
the building which exists to-day. I think it exceedingly doubtful whether 
the mosque retained at any time after the temporary construction of 'Umar the 
plan of Justinian's church, since the necessary alteration in the orientation must 
have introduced a wide diversity ; but the design of the many-aisled church and 
the presence of a large quantity of columns and capitals may well have influenced 
the mosque builders. In any case the position of the Aqsa would have led to an 
abnormal plan, inasmuch as the great court of the haram enclosure, in which it 
stood, rendered it unnecessary to give a separate court, or sahn, to the mosque. 

The Umayyad mosque at Damascus is also abnormal, but its plan seems to 
have been far more directly determined than in the Aqsa by the building which 
preceded it on the same site. The nave and aisles of the church of St. John must 
have dictated the scheme of its arcades, and its distinguishing feature, the wide 
central aisle running north and south, can only be explained by a similar disposi- 
tion, either transept or narthex, in the church. 4 It is conceivable that the temple 
porticoes may have given the impulse to the full development of the riwaqs 

1 ' Zur Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,' Tigris-Gebiet, vol. i, p. 98. Professor Thiersch 

p. cit., p. 393. believes it to have been copied from the Chalce 

• Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 567. of the Augusteion at Constantinople, but his 
' Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, theory is based solely upon hypothesis and it 

p. 90. appears to me to be far-fetched. Thiersch, Pharos, 

* I follow Dr. Herzfeld's view, Euphrat- und p. 214. 



i 5 2 THE MOSQUE 

about the sahn, just as the porticoes of such buildings as the Serapeion, the agora, 
and the gymnasium at Alexandria, or of the stoas and agoras which adorned the 
Hellenistic cities of the Roman empire, may have had their share in suggesting 
an extension of the colonnades of the mosque, and indeed in Mesopotamia, 
where these models were absent, there is no reason for supposing that the 
riwaqs were carried in the first constructions all round the sahn. But this exten- 
sion was in itself a not unnatural growth out of the Medinah plan, and in its 
further history, the courtyard-mosque with its deep haram and its narrow 
flanking riwaqs pursued its own line of development, based upon its own needs. 
In this development no doubt the renowned Umayyad mosque at Damascus 
played a part. In Syria both the Aqsa and the mosque at Baalbek show the wide 
central aisle running north and south. 1 It is typical of the Tunisian mosques, 
but here it is almost always found in conjunction with a wide transept running 
parallel with the qiblah wall ; a dome covers the mihrab where the wide aisle 
and the transept meet, and a second dome stands at the opposite end of the 
central aisle. This J_-shaped scheme can be seen at Qairawan, in the Zaitunah 
at Tunis, at Tilimsan, and elsewhere. The mosque of Qairawan was founded in 
a.d. 671, but entirely rebuilt, first in 703 and again in 837. 2 The Zaitunah was 
founded in a.d. 732. The great mosque at Cordova, founded at the end of the 
eighth century, had the same disposition. 3 The Tilimsan mosques are consider- 
ably later in date and are built with piers, with the exception of Sidi al-Halwi, 
where both piers and columns are used. 4 

With the exception of the late Tilimsan group, the wooden roof of all the above- 
mentioned mosques, both in Syria and in North Africa, was supported by 
columns and arches, the columns having invariably been taken from pre- 
Mohammadan buildings. Probably the earliest extant example of a mosque 
in which the arches rested on piers is at Harran, but the building is unfortunately 
so much ruined that its exact disposition cannot be determined without excava- 
tion. The plan, so far as it is apparent, has been given by Dr. Preusser. 5 The 
central arch in the north facade of the haram alone remains standing. Its width 
would seem to indicate that here, as at Damascus, the central aisle was broader 
than the rest. On either side of it there was an arch of much narrower span. 6 
None of the other piers can be placed with certainty. There are some fragments 
of columns both in the haram and in the east riwaq. An inscription on the east gate 
gives the name of Salah al-Din, 7 but I think it certain that it alludes not to the 

1 At Ba'albek its width is strongly marked in * Marcais, Monuments de Tlemcen, Figs. 14, 
the facade of the sahn and in the arcade next to 49, 69. 

the qiblah wall, not in the intermediate arcades. 6 Nordmesopolamische Baudenkmdler, Plate 

For plan see Berchem-Strzygowski, Amida, Fig. 73. 

271. 6 Cf. the narrow blind arches on either side 

2 Saladin, La mosqute de Sidi Ohba a Kairouan, of the liwan in the central court at Ukhaidir. 
pp. 18 et seq. ' Sachau, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, 

3 Saladin, Manuel d'art musulman, Architec- p. 221. 
lure, Fig. 139. 



THE MOSQUE 153 

foundation, but to the restoration of the mosque. The cusped ornament round 
the relieving arch over the door corresponds with the cusped motive on the 
facade of the Maya.fa.rqin mosque, and the gateway at Harran has every appear- 
ance of being the work of Salah al-Din. But the engaged capitals of the interior 
responds in the east wall, and the wreathed acanthus capital under the central 
arch of the haram (one capital only is preserved) must be dated several centuries 
earlier. I do not doubt that they were executed for the places which they 
occupy, and I agree with Dr. Herzfeld in assigning them to the Umayyad period. 1 
I observed, however, among the ruins in the interior of the mosque many frag- 
ments of carved ornament which cannot be earlier than the time of Salah al-Din, 
and I came to the conclusion that until the building has received further study 
it is impossible to make a more precise statement concerning it than that it 
seems to be a structure of which parts at least belong to the early eighth century, 
that it had a wide central aisle and four gable roofs supported on masonry piers, 
or possibly upon piers and columns. 

At Raqqah, according to Baladhuri, 2 a mosque was built by Sa'id ibn 'Amir 
ibn Hudhaimnot long after the conquest of the country by the Mohammadans ; 
and Muqaddasi, as I have already had occasion to mention, 3 speaks of one of 
the Raqqah mosques as built upon columns. My impression upon visiting the 
site in 1909 was that the earliest Mohammadan city must have occupied the 
ground where, among ruin heaps, rises a rectangular minaret. In connexion 
with this minaret I conjectured that the first mosque had stood (though possibly 
the minaret was not contemporary with the earliest building), and since the 
town to which it belonged was the successor of Nicephoricum-Callinicum, and 
there were no doubt plenty of columns at hand for the mosque, I conclude that 
it was Sa'id ibn 'Amir's edifice which was described by Muqaddasi, and that 
it is to be classed with the normal type of courtyard-mosque built on classical 
sites, i.e. it had a riwaq or riwaqs composed of columns. The khalif Mansur 
founded in the year A. H. 155 a second town, the ruins of which are still to be seen 
to the west of the earlier settlement. Upon this site there were no ancient 
remains, 4 that is to say that Mansur had not Roman or Byzantine materials at 
his disposal. Now within the walls of Mansur's city stand the ruins of a mosque 
built upon piers (Fig. 32). According to an inscription over the central arch of 
the haram arcade it was repaired in a.d. 1166 by the Atabek Nur al-Din. 5 It 
was surrounded by a wall built of sun-dried brick, which was strengthened by 
rounded towers. The haram was composed of three rows of oblong brick piers, 
of which the northernmost alone is standing ; the riwaqs on the remaining 
three sides were of two rows of columns which can be traced only by the holes 

1 Orientalische Literaturzeitung, September ' Baladhuri, Futuh, p. 179. 

1911, p. 422. * Amurath to Amurath, p. 57; Sarre-Herzfeld, 

1 Futuh, p. 178. Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, vol. i, p. 4, and 

3 Amurath to Amurath, p. 56. vol. iii, Plate 66. 

14M X 



'54 



THE MOSQUE 



in the ground whence the burnt bricks whereof they were built have been 
extracted. The central arch of the haram is no wider than the arches on either 
side, but the niche in which it is set is carried up higher than the other niches, 
and M. van Berchem has suggested that it may have been surmounted by a 
gable, like the mosques at Damascus and Diyarbekr. It is possible that this 
was so, but both at Damascus and at Diyarbekr the central aisle is distinguished 




Fig. 32. Mosque at Raqqah. 

from the side aisles by its greater width. The round minaret in the sahn at 
Raqqah I believe to have been the work of Nur al-Din. At Baghdad, Mansur 
built a mosque of which we have nothing but the description. Its walls were of 
sun-dried brick and its columns of wood, each column being composed of two 
pieces, the ends bound together with sinews and glue and rings of iron, with the 
exception of five or six columns near the minaret, which were constructed of 
rounded pieces of wood. 1 

Less than a hundred years later Mutawakkil (a. d. 847-861) built the mosque 
of Abfl Dulaf, which is closely related in plan to Mansur's mosque at Raqqah 
(Fig. 33). 2 There is the same enclosing wall of sun-dried brick garnished with 



1 Salmon, Introduction topographique a I'his- 
toire de Baghdad d'al-Khatib, Arabic text, p. 60 ; 
Sarre-Herzfeld, Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, p. 91. 



2 Amurath to Amurath, p. 243; Sarre-Herzfeld, 
Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, p. 69. 



THE MOSQUE 



i55 



rounded towers. The arcades are of burnt brick, but the central aisle of the 
haram and the corresponding aisle of the north riwaq are more than a metre 
wider than the others (7-33 metres as against an average of 6-20 metres), and 



J o J a (5 




Fig. 33. Mosque of Abu Dulaf. 

a transept 10-40 metres wide runs along the qiblah wall. Dr. Herzfeld informs 
me that he has by excavation ascertained the existence of a mihrab in the 
centre of the qiblah wall where I had placed a door. In one respect Abu Dulaf 
differs from all other mosques built with piers ; the arcades of the south riwaq, 

x 2 



i 5 6 THE MOSQUE 

instead of lying parallel to the qiblah wall, are placed at right angles to it. I do 
not think that this variation is of great importance, for the outer and inner 
arcades (that is to say, the arcade on the sahn and the arcade next to the qiblah 
wall) are placed parallel to the qiblah wall, and it is only between these two that 
the haram arcades run at right angles. The divergence from the normal scheme 
is not therefore so great as would at first appear. The mosque is surrounded by 
an outer enclosure, or ziyadah \ within which stands the spiral minaret, to the 
north of the centre of the north wall. The piers and arches of the riwaqs must 
undoubtedly have carried a flat wooden roof ; nevertheless in the facades of the 
sahn each pier is adorned with the blind niche which I believe to be derived 
from the tubular system of Mesopotamian vaulting (Plate 89, Fig. 2). This 
decoration is a direct link between the unvaulted mosque of AM Dulaf and the 
vaulted palace of Ukhaidir, and the fact that it appears again in the mosque 
of Ibn Tulun is to my mind an indubitable proof of the essential exactitude of 
the tradition which connects Ibn Tulun's building with Mesopotamian architec- 
ture (Plate 89, Fig. 1). Other structural evidence is not wanting. The position of 
the minaret in the northern ziyadah (to say nothing of its spiral form) corresponds 
with the position of the minarets both at Abii Dulaf and at Samarra, and even 
if we leave on one side the much-disputed question of the origin of the stucco 
ornament in the Cairo mosque, there is another feature of its decoration which 
points directly to Mesopotamia. The walls are crowned with a fantastic parapet, 
which probably goes back, in design at least, to the ninth century, and below 
the parapet, just above the level of the roof, runs a decorative band consisting 
of a recessed square pierced by a circular hole (Plate 91, Fig. 1). The same motive 
appears upon the walls of the Samarra mosque, with this difference, that it is 
placed below the level of the roof and not above it (Plate 91, Fig. 2). Instead 
of forming part of a light parapet, it forms part of the solid wall ; with the result 
that the circle is not pierced through to the interior, but remains a saucer-shaped 
motive sunk within the square. I hazard the conjecture that the origin of this 
ornament is to be sought upon the walls of Assyrian fortifications, and that it 
represents the row of shields set within rectangular frames which are to be seen 
on innumerable Assyrian reliefs (Fig. 34). 

In the great mosque at Samarra the wooden roof was borne directly (without 
the interposition of arches) by composite piers having bases 2- 07 metres square. 2 
These piers were composed of an octagonal core of brick with four slender 
marble columns placed one at each corner. The columns were sometimes round, 
sometimes octagonal, and averaged 30 metre in diameter. Dr. Herzfeld 
calculates that each column consisted of three sections, placed one on top of 
the other and bound together with lead and with metal rings. They rested 
upon bell-shaped bases and carried bell-shaped capitals. Dr. Herzfeld points 

1 It appears in M. Viollet's plan, ' Description du palais d'al-Moutasim,' Mimoires prisentes a 
I' Acad, des Inscr. et Belles-Lellres, vol. xii, pt. ii. Plate 8. a Herzfeld, Erster vorl. Bericht, p. 7. 



THE MOSQUE 



157 



out that the teak columns of Mansur's mosque at Baghdad were similarly com- 
posed of sections joined together in the same manner. The haram and the north 
riwaq at Samarra were given a wide central aisle. 

The two small mosques of which Dr. Herzfeld has uncovered the foundations 
in the palace of Balkuwara present further variations. The larger was an oblong 
chamber of brick, 35x15 metres, the roof supported by two rows of eight 




Fig. 34. Assyrian fortress. 
From L'Acropole de Suse, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy. 

columns which were probably either of wood or of marble. In the wall opposite 
the qiblah there were three doors. The smaller mosque was a chamber 1035 x 
7- 76 metres, built of sun-dried brick, without columns. The mihrab was a deep 
rounded niche surmounted by a cyma moulding and flanked by engaged columns, 
and in the opposite wall were three doors. The mihrab of the larger mosque, 
which is totally destroyed, is probably to be reconstructed in the same style. 
Neither of these mosques has a sahn, the great palace enclosure in which they 
stand serving them as court. 1 

With the exception of the small palace chapels at Balkuwara, all the Meso- 

1 Idem, p. 37. 



i 5 8 THE MOSQUE 

potamian mosques were laid out on the same plan, but they differed in details of 
construction. When columns were available they were used in the riwaqs, as 
at Kufah and in the first mosque at Raqqah. Elsewhere there were either wooden 
columns (Basrah, Baghdad), or columns of masonry (Ukhaidir) J or the riwaqs 
might be built with brick piers (Mansur's mosque at Raqqah, Abfi Dulaf) or, 
where stone was easy to obtain, with stone piers (Harran). At Samarra there is 
an isolated example of a composite pier. The roofs also differ from one another. 
At Harran there must have been wooden gable roofs over the riwaqs ; at 
Ukhaidir they were vaulted ; at Abu Dulaf the flat wooden roof rested on arches ; 
at Samarra, and probably at Baghdad, it was carried directly by the piers or 
columns. The wide central aisle was present at Harran, at Samarra, and at 
Abu Dulaf ; at the latter there is also a side transept, producing the same 
J_-shaped plan that has been noticed in the Tunisian mosques. The data are 
too scanty to admit of any but the most general conclusion. We find divergent 
detail but no divergence in type, and the type in Mesopotamia, as in other parts 
of the Mohammadan world, was derived ultimately from the Prophet's house 
at Medinah. It is in Mesopotamia that we have the earliest examples of the 
brick pier. We do not know how far Nur al-Din's reparations at Raqqah extended, 
nor what was the aspect of the facades of the sahn before his time, but at AM 
Dulaf the original construction is preserved and the brick piers and arches of 
the facades bear in their spandrel niches a characteristic Mesopotamian trait. 
I do not doubt that the first Egyptian mosque built with brick piers, that of 
Ibn Tulun, was inspired by the Mesopotamian scheme ; the marks of relation- 
ship are too numerous not to be convincing. The engaged quarter-columns 
with which his piers are provided were no new thing. Engaged half-columns 
are universal at Ukhaidir, and the oblong piers with quarter-columns in Ibn 
Tulun's mosque are nothing but a translation into solid masonry, along the lines 
indicated at Ukhaidir, of the octagonal piers with angle colonnettes of Samarra. 
More than a hundred years later this building served as a model to al-Hakim, 
and it is interesting to note that the Mesopotamian pier was applied at a still 
later date to a building which seems in other respects to have been a direct 
imitation of the Umayyad mosque at Damascus. The great mosque at Diyar- 
bekr (I give here a plan which I made in 1911, Plate 90) is a patchwork of older 
materials re-used at different times. The oldest part of the existing structure is 
the west wing of the haram, which is dated by an inscription in the year A. D. 1091, 1 

1 a.h. 484 ; it is the inscription on the north The east wing of the haram bears an inscription 

wall. On the south wall of the same wing there on the north wall dated a.h. 5so=a.d. 1155, and 

is an inscription, which probably alludes to some another on the same wall dated a.h. ioo4=a.d. 

reparation and gives the date a.h. 874 = a. d. 1683, while upon the east gable there is an 

1469. The inscription on the minaret is in the inscription dated a.h. 735=a.d. 1334. An 

nameofthelnalidlnaldi (a.h. 503-536 =a. d.i 109- inscription on the west arcade of the sahn is 

1141). Two decrees are built into the north wall of dated a.h. 5i8=a.d. 1124, and the eastern arcade 

the wide central aisle ; they are dated respectively is dated a.h. 559=a.d. 1163, while a second 

a.h. 639=a.d. 1241, and a.h. 73i=a.d. 1330. inscription contains the name of Abu 'al-Qasin 



THE MOSQUE 159 

but the west arcade of the sahn, though it is dated a.d. 1124, must preserve the 
memory of a plan which is older than that of the present mosque. It strikes the 
north wall of the haram at an angle of 78°, and by reason of its oblique disposition 
it cuts off the north-west corner of the sahn, which is 6- 24 metres shorter on the 
north side than it is on the south side. The east arcade of the sahn (dated 
a.d. 1163-1179) lies almost at right angles to the north wall of the haram. 
Whether the orientation of the west arcade was dictated by a pre-Mohammadan 
building or, as Dr. Herzfeld has acutely suggested, by the plan of a mosque 
which stood upon this site before the year a.d. 1091, 1 cannot be determined 
with certainty. In its present form it is the work of Mohammadan builders of 
the twelfth century, though it is partly composed of pre-Mohammadan materials. 
Whence these materials were derived has not been ascertained. There is, however, 
a further proof that a building older than the existing mosque, oriented in the 
manner corresponding with that of the west arcade, existed on this site. On the 
north side of the sahn, between the two northern madrasahs, there is a lane or 
passage which communicates with the street beyond the precincts of the mosque. 
On the east side of the passage there is a fragment of wall, built of large dressed 
stones, entirely dissimilar from the masonry in anypart of the existing mosque, and 
this fragment lies at the same angle as the west arcade of the sahn (Plate 93, Fig. 1). 
Not far from Diyarbekr there is another building which shows in its plan and 
decorations the influence of the Ulu Djami' in that city. The so-called mosque 
of Salah al-Din at Mayafarqin ranks, even in ruin, among the finest of Moham- 
madan monuments (Plate 92). The wide central aisle has been converted into 
a chamber almost square (it is not quite rectangular and averages 13-60x13-32 
metres), which was covered by a dome set on elaborately decorated squinch 
arches (Plate 93, Fig. 2). Under the dome runs an inscription assigning the build- 
ing of the mosque to the Ortokid Alpi (a.d. 1152-1176). The square chamber 
is surrounded on three sides by a corridor consisting of eleven bays, some of 
which were probably domed, while the others were vaulted. The columns 
placed against the piers of the dome were taken from a neighbouring early 
Christian basilica. The wings to east and west are divided by three arcades into 
four transepts averaging alternately 5 metres and 260 metres in width, a narrow 
transept lying next to the qiblah wall. The eastern mihrab in the south wall of 
the east wing is dated by an inscription of the Ayyubid Ghazi in the year 
a.h. 624= a.d. 1227. The west wing contains no date, but the very shallow 
mihrab in the south wall is proved by its decoration to belong to a period not 

'Ali, who died about a.h. 575= a.d. 1179. On the and the north doorway of this madrasah a.h. 5 76 = 

east gate there is an inscription dated a.h. 575= a.d. 1180. 

a.d. 1 179. The madrasah at the north-west l Orienlalische Literaturzeitung, September 

corner of the sahn is dated a.h. 935=a.d. 1528 ; 1911, p. 399. In a.d. 1046 Nasiri Khusrau saw 

the wall to the east of the north door (behind the a mosque here which had marked resemblances 

arcade) a.h. 625=a.d. 1228 ; the small madrasah with the existing building. Ed. Schefer, p. 28. 
court to the north of this wall a.h. 595 = a.d. 1198, 



160 THE MOSQUE 

earlier than the sixteenth century, and as the whole wing as it stands at present 
seems to have been rebuilt, it may well be that it all belongs to a late reconstruc- 
tion or reparation. Still further west are some ruined edifices which formed 
part of the precincts of the mosque, and here a lintel, re-used in a doorway of 
a later period, bears a second inscription of the Ayyubid Ghazi and the date 
a.h. 624=a.d. 1227. There are no remains of a minaret, and the sahn is com- 
pletely ruined and filled with debris, but the north facade, which is almost entirely 
preserved, is of remarkable interest in the history of Mohammadan decoration. 
(The photograph of a section of this facade has been given on Plate 84, Fig. 3.) 
The wings and the north facade show many signs of reparation, and no doubt the 
mosque shared the fate of all great buildings in these stormy regions, and suffered 
frequent ruin and subsequent restoration ; but it seems probable that the two wings 
were originally built between A. D. 1226 and 1228, and that they were added to the 
domed chamber with its corridor which had been erected some fifty years earlier. 

In the Ayyubid mosques at Hasan Kaif, all of which are dated in the first 
half of the fifteenth century, no suggestion of an early plan can be traced. At 
Mosul, the great mosque as it exists at present dates from the time of Nur al-Din 
Mahmud (a.d. 1146-1173), but the plan shows traces of an earlier riwaq con- 
structed with piers, and lying immediately to the north of the present haram ; 
while fragmentary inscriptions in decorated Kufic must belong, according to 
M. van Berchem, to the eleventh century a.d. 1 

That we have no further information concerning the Mesopotamian mosque 
shows how insufficient are the data which bear upon its architectural history. 
From the facts which I have briefly summarized one conclusion may, however, 
be drawn. The mosque builders were guided by a scheme of extreme simplicity, 
the details of which were executed according to the nature of the building material 
which was available. When that material could be taken from older buildings 
the Mesopotamian artificers were not slow to profit by so fortunate a circum- 
stance ; elsewhere they reverted to the system of construction which from time 
immemorial had prevailed in those regions. They built with sun-dried or with 
burnt bricks, or where stone could be obtained they built with stone. Sometimes 
they imported stone from Ahwaz for the columns of their riwaqs, and sometimes 
wood ; sometimes they raised columns of stone masonry, or again they combined 
brick piers with colonnettes of marble. But since imported wood and stone were 
expensive, and the Sasanian monuments, which had served as quarries, were 
speedily exhausted, there was a natural tendency to return to the old local forms, 
and piers of brick or stone masonry were the obvious solution for the supports 
of the riwaqs. Ukhaidir is the only example which remains to us of a mosque 
in which the riwaqs were covered with a vault ; probably the vault was seldom 
employed. It is certain that all the mosques of the early Abbasid period, of which 
the ruins are preserved, must have been roofed with wood. 

1 Sarre-Herzfeld, Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, vol. i, p. 17 ; and vol. iii, Plate 88. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 

There are no inscriptions by which to fix the date of Ukhaidir. 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 Islam, and, like Ukhaidir, the hirahs 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 Ochei'dir 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. 1 The original is 
so indistinct that I doubt whether any photograph would reproduce it satis- 
factorily. After an unsuccessful attempt to take a squeeze, I made a copy — 
scarcely more successfully (Fig. 35). When I returned to Ukhaidir 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 : 

. . . Hi ffflj *1 'iXaJ] j*£ &.>) ( _o»a£ t^J ScXc t>i jAULi . . . lt>A r"^" 9 JJj*^> cV*jsvo « 

"This water from the house (?) to . . . from this water. And the declaration 
was pronounced that there is no God but God and Muhammad is his Prophet. 
And there was present at this . . . Bishr, son of 'Adah son of 'Isa 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 

1 Mission en Misopotamie, vol. i, Plate 20. 

1M0 Y 



i6 2 THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 

reserve the rights of watering at or near Ukhaidir. 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 Jjoa., ^jw^c, and s^ic^J!. 

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 con- 
cerned with the building or restoration of the palace. The water to which it 
alludes must be the well in the Wadi al-Ubaid. 

The name ' Ukhaidir ' 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. Mshatta, Qsair 'Amrah, Kharaneh, are not known to 
history under those titles ; even the word ' Hamad ', 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 ' Ukhaidir ' 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 hirah of the 
Umayyads in Damascus was called ' al-Khadra '/ and Baladhuri mentions 
another Khadra, in or near Kufah, in his description of that city. 2 It would, 
however, be vain to attempt to identify the Khadra of Kufah with Ukhaidir, 
though some at least of the place-names given in Baladhuri's catalogue denote 
sites well without the limits of Kufah itself, and even at considerable distances 
from the town. Khawarnaq, for example, comes into the list, and a building 
or village called Qasr al-Muqatil, which is stated by Yaqut to be either between 
'Ain al-Tamr and Damascus, or near al-Qutqutaneh and Sulam. 3 Qutqutaneh 
we know to be the modern Tuqtuqaneh, and Sulam I must connect with the 
well of the same name, of which I heard as lying under the Tar east of Ukhaidir 
a little to the south of my path to Mudjdah and 'Atshan. 4 Qasr al-Muqatil is 
said by Tabari, by Baladhuri, and by Yaqut to have been called after a certain 
Muqatil ibn Hasan ibn Tha'labah ibn Aus ibn Ibrahim ibn Ayyub ibn Madjruf 
ibn 'Amir ibn 'Usayyah ibn Imra'al-Qais ibn Zaid Manat ibn Tamim, who 
would seem to have lived during the Days of Ignorance, and in fact the Qasr 
of the Banu Muqatil is mentioned by Ibn al-Athir in his account of the move- 
ments of Persian and Mohammadan leaders which preceded the battle of 
Qadisiyyeh. 5 From a further passage in Ibn al-Athir it would appear to have 

1 Ibn al-Athir, vol. v, p. 224. The governor 3 Yaqut, vol. iv, p. 121. 

of 'Iraq, Yusuf ibn Umar, was imprisoned in * Professor Musil also heard the name ; he 

the Khadra by Yazld III, a.d. 744. See too writes it Aslam and applies it to the southern end 

Lammens, ' La Badia et la Hlra,' Milanges de la of the Tar. Proceedings of the K. Akad. der Wiss. 

Fac. Or., vol. iv, p. 100. in Wien, No. 1, 1913, p. 10. Bir Aslam appears 

2 FutM, p. 284. The palace of Hadjdjadj in in Captain Leachman's map. Journal of the R. 
Wasit was called al-Qabbet al-khadra on account Geog. Soc„ 1911. 

of its green dome ; ibid., p. 290. s Ibn al-Athir, vol. ii, p. 349. 




8 
.a 

o 
g 

tsfl 

■a- 






,6 4 THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 

lain near Qutqutaneh, on the road from Kufah to Anbar. 1 Yaqut states that 
'Isa ibn 'Ali ibn 'Abdallah (who was great-uncle to the khalif Mansur) demolished 
and subsequently rebuilt Qasr al-Muqatil, and that it belonged to him : he 
goes on to quote a couplet of Ibn Takhma. al-Asadi : ' Methinks there is not 
in the Qasr, the Qasr of Muqatil, or in Zurah, any pleasant shade or a friend ; ' 
from which I infer that the Qasr was not a walled palm garden, like the modern 
qusur in the vicinity of the Bahr 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 Ukhaidir with the Qasr al-Muqatil, but I would 
nevertheless call attention to the following points : 

i. It is strange that a building as important as Ukhaidir 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 Qasr of Muqatil, so far as somewhat vague indications 
allow it to be determined, would not accord ill with the site of Ukhaidir. 

There is, however, another way of accounting for the silence of early records, 
namely, by supposing that Ukhaidir 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 Ukhaidir is in many respects more closely related to that of 
the palace of Khusrau at Qasr-i-Shirin than to the plan of Balkuwara. 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 develop- 
ment necessarily implies the lapse of any long period of time, or indeed of any 
appreciable period of time, between the erection of Ukhaidir and the erection 
of Balkuwara, 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 Balkuwara, wherein the influence of Hellenistic Syria and Coptic Egypt 
is apparent, and the limited range of the decorations of Ukhaidir, 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 Ukhaidir and the buildings at Samarra. 
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 

1 Ibn al-Athir, vol. iv, p. 328. Yaqut's alter- it in this passage in connexion with the revolt 

nate site, between 'Ain al-Tamr and Damascus, of Shabib, during the vicegerency of Hadjdjadj. 

must therefore be rejected. Ibn al-Athir refers to 



THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 165 

curve of the arches. Ukhaidir 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 Qasr-i-Shirin), the 
Sasanian arch is, so far as my knowledge goes, invariably round. The arches 
of Sarvistan are specifically stated to be round, 1 the arches of Firuzabad 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. 2 All 
the arches of the Ctesiphon facade are round, and at Qasr-i-Shirin 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. 3 The pointed arch, like the pointed vault, 
may have been used sporadically in the pre-Mohammadan era (it is found in 
the church of Qasr ibn War dan, which must have been built about the year 

A. D. 564 4 ) ; 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 Hamman al-Sarakh, Tubah and Mshatta. it assumes exactly the same 
shape in which we have it at Ukhaidir, a slightly stilted, pointed ovoid which 
bears the hall-mark of its descent from the Sasanian elliptical vault. Similarly 
at Ukhaidir 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 
Samarra 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. 5 Of the 
same character are the arches of the Baghdad gate at Raqqah, which cannot 
be earlier than the reign of Mansur and may with greater probability be assigned 
to Harun al-Rashid.' 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, Ukhaidir must belong to an earlier period, more closely approxi- 
mating, 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. 

1 Flandin-Coste, Voyage en Perse, p. 27. 5 The arches of the tomb known as Slaibiyyeh 

* Dieulafoy, L'Art antique de la Perse, vol. iv, are the best preserved. Amurath to Amurath, 

Fig. 26. Figs. 150 and 151, and Herzfeld, Erster vorl. 

' ' Genesis der islamischen Kunst,' Der Islam, Berichl, Fig. 6. Dr. Herzfeld found in it three 

vol. i, p. 112. graves, and he believes it to have been the mauso- 

4 Butler, Ancient Architecture in Syria, Sect. leum of the khalifs Muntasir, Mu'tazz, and 

B, pt. i, p. 32. Muhtadi. * Amurath, Figs. 43 and 44. 



166 THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 

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 Samarra, as well as to the Syrian hirahs 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 Ukhaidir, are not 
present in monumental buildings at a later date. There is no recorded example 
of this construction at Samarra. 

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 Meso- 
potamia long before Ukhaidir was built, and it is used to this day. It appears 
at Taq-i-Girra, a monument of which the date is not determined, though the 
classical workmanship of its mouldings indicates a period early in the Christian 
era ; 1 it is found in a Hellenistic vault at Chiusi, 2 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 Mayafarqin. 3 As for the methods of vaulting employed 
at Ukhaidir 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 Ukhaidir 
and Kharaneh. 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 Abu Hurairah and at Raqqah, 4 
in buildings which must be placed in the middle of the twelfth century, differ 
little, if at all, from those of Ukhaidir and Kharaneh. 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 Kharaneh, but unfortunately the later 
palaces have not been preserved or are not yet adequately explored. Possibly 
the excavations at Samarra may throw further light on the subject. 

There is, however, another matter which must be taken into account. The 
palace of Ukhaidir 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 haram courts is very imperfect, a fact which points to a primitive stage 
of Islam. It is true that the haram courts are separated from each other and 

1 Sarre-Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, pp. 232 * Bell, Churches and Monasteries 0/ the Tur 

ctseq. 'Abdin, p. 87 (31). 

* Third and second century b. c, Delbruck, * Sarre-Herzfeld, Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, 

Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, pt. ii, p. 68. vol. i, Fig. 57 ; and vol. iii, Plate 68. 



THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 167 

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 biram liwans, 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 
Ukhah.lir I found it inhabited by some Arabs from Djof. 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 Abbasid 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'qflbi, writing towards the close of the ninth century, 
mentions the fact that the castles of the Abbasid khalifs were situated on or 
near the road to Mekkah. ' He who wishes to travel from Kufah to the Hidjaz 
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 Hashimid khalifs. 
The first station is Qadisiyyeh.' l The Arabic word which 1 have translated 
' castles ' is qusur ; it is the word which is applied to-day to the mud-walled palm 
gardens of the Babr Nedjef. Whether in this passage it should be taken to 
denote palm gardens or hirahs situated along the Hadjdj road I do not know, but 
it is significant that, with the exception of Ukhaidir, no trace of any such hirahs 
has remained to our day. Ukhaidir is not upon the road that runs from Kufah 
to the Hidjaz, but neither is it more than two days' journey removed from it. 
That the khalif Harun al-Rashid carried his hunting expeditions into the region 
near Kufah 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. 1 The story of the finding of the grave 
bears every si^'n of having been a legend invented by Hie Shl'ahs, but it lends 
additional colour to the supposition that the early Abbasids frequented t In- 
eastern deserts in pursuit of game, and therefore that they may have possessed 
palaces outside Kufah to which they were accustomed to resort. Mansur, the 
second of the line, founded Baghdad in a.d. 762, and removed the offices of 
government thither from Hashimiyyeh near Kflfah in 763. His predecessor 
§affah had lived at Hashimiyyeh near Anbar : it was he who had transferred 
the capital from Damascus to 'Iraq. Previous to 750, when the last Umayyad 

1 Ya'qubi, ed. do Goejo, p. 311. Dr. Moritx Mekkah road. These castles can, however, have 

calls my attention to a passage in Murudj at- been nothing but guard-houses. 
Dhakab of Mas'udi (ed. Barbier de Meynard). vol. * Le Strange, Lands of th$ Eattirn Khalifat*, 

viii, p. 294, in which it is related that the khalif p. 77. 
Kashld built wells, cisterns, and castles along the 



i68 THE DATE OF UKHAIDIR 

khalif, Marwan II, was deposed and slain, the eastern provinces of the empire 
were governed by powerful viceroys, and if Ukhaidir is to be regarded as pre- 
Abbasid it is to one of these that it must be attributed. Men like Ziyad ibn 
Abihi or Hadjdjadj, who controlled the riches of 'Iraq and Persia, were scarcely 
second in wealth and power to the khalifs themselves. Ziyad's personal 
austerity is attested by historians who had no desire to depict the character 
of Mu'awiyah'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 Basrah. 1 He died in a.d. 673 after holding 
his high office under 'Ali and Mu'awiyah for a period of nearly fifteen years. 
Hadjdjadj was governor of 'Iraq from a.d. 695 to 713. In the khalifate of 
Hisham, Khalid ibn 'Abdallah ruled over 'Iraq for thirteen years (724-737), 
and Yusuf 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'manid 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 Hirah could lay 
claim. But the existence of a mihrab in the mosque fixes a date before which 
it is unlikely that Ukhaidir could have been built. According to Mohammadan 
writers, the first mihrab was that which was constructed in the mosque of 
Medinah between a.d. 709 and 711, and if that be so Ukhaidir cannot be placed 
earlier than the last years of Hadjdjadj. I take the years 709-711 as the earliest 
possible date and the khalifate of Harun al-Rashid 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 Ukhaidir as compared with those of Raqqah 
and Samarra on the other, I conclude that Ukhaidir must have been built 
towards the middle of the eighth century. 

This leads me back once more to the Qasr of Muqatil, which, though it was 
in existence during the pre-Mohammadan and Umayyad periods, was destroyed 
and rebuilt by 'Isa 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 Wadi al-Ubaid is the only spot in the region immediately south 
of the lake of Abu 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 Hirah and Kufah were rich and important 
centres of population is difficult to suppose. But whatever habitation was in 
existence on the Wadi al-Ubaid during the Days of Ignorance, it cannot have 
been the same as the palace of Ukhaidir, which is indisputably of Mohammadan 
origin. The Qasr al- Muqatil was, however, rebuilt in the early part of the 
Abbasid 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 Ukhaidir. 

1 Lammens, ' Ziad ibn Abihi,' Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. iv, p. 232 and p. 656, note 2. 



SUBJECT INDEX 



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. 
aiwan, see liwan. 

Alexandrian influence, 126, 127, 136. 
ancient road, Kufah-Shethatha, 2, 43. 
antechamber, see tarmah. 
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 ; construc- 
tion, 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. "2, "5, 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 facade, 

130, 131, 132. 
ateshgah, 91, 92. 
attic, 127, 128, 129, 130. 

B 

badiyah, 55, 112, 1 19. 

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, sec hammam. 
battering-ram, 107. 
brackets, horizontal, under domes, semi-domes, 

and calottes, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 27, 42, 

73, 97, in, 112, 113. 

1580 



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. 



calotte, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 34, 38, 73, 
133. !38 ; 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, 
!33, J 3° ; free-standing, 16, 17, 28, 29, 32, 35, 
45, 47. «3. 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. 

cremaillere, 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. 



i;o 



SUBJECT INDEX 



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. 

diwan, 19, 22. 

djami', 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 

facade, Babylonian and Assyrian, 122, 123 ; 
Graeco-Roman, 123 ; Hellenistic, 24, 25, 51, 
66, 88, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126-34 ; of hwan, 
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 khilani, 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 ateshgah. 

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, Ukhaidir, 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, Kharaneh, 115 ; Ukhaidir, 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 
hair, 56. 

hammam, 4, 37, 56, III, 112. 
haram, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27, 82, 83, 122, 147, 151, 

153. 154. 155. 156, 157. 158, 159. l6 o. 167. 
harb, 58. 

HazarMf, 26, 138. 
head wall, 19, 27. 
herta, 56. 
hirah, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 74, 78, 81, 86, 87, 90, 

97, 117, 119, 120, 161, 162, 166. 
hiri, 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 ; liwan-tarmah, 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, Diyarbekr, 158 ; Harran, 

152 ; Kharaneh, 115 ; Mayafarqin, 159 ; 

M6sul, 160 ; Qasr ibn Wardan, 112 ; Raqqah ; 

153- 
intervallum, 98, 100, 102, 103. 

K 
khan, 40, 41, 43, 143. 
khilani, 62, 63, 66, 75, 76, 80, 82, 84, 87-93, 116, 

119, 120. 
khutbah, 146 n. 1. 
kitchen, 32, 33, 42, 47, 48, 49, 82, 83. 



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, no, 111, 
120 ; Roman western, 98, no. 

lintel, 112, 113, 115 ; of masonry, 16, 25, 118. 

liwan, 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. 



SUBJECT INDEX 



171 



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. 

maqsfirah, 147, 148, 149. 

masdjid, 145. 

masdjid al-djama'ah, 146, 148. 

megaron, 65 n. 4, 89, 120. 

mihrab, 16, 17 n., 18, 132, 141, 147, 149, 150, 
151, 152, 155, 157, 159, 168. 

minaret, at Abu Dulaf, 156 ; at Baghdad, 40 ; 
at Basrah, 148 ; at Isfahan, 41 n. 1 ; at 
Raqqah, 153, 154 ; at Samarra, 156 ; at 
Tauq, 40 ; of Ghazni, 41 ; of Ibn Tulun, 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 tarmah. 

niche, arched, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 

34. 37. 38, 39. 4i. 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 khilani ; 
Mohammadan, 84-7, 110-21, 168 ; Parthian, 
65-72, 89, 90, 140 ; Roman, 121 ; Sasanian, 
44-54, 73-8i, 83, 84, 90-7, 118, 119, 120, 121. 

palmette, 141 n. 3 ; broken, 132 ; tree, 143. 

panel, 42, 122. 

1580 z 



pediment, 129, 139 ; broken, 125, 127, 128. 

pendentive, 42, 73, 1 11. 

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, III, 117, 142 ; change of, at 

Ukhaidir, 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 cremaillere. 
rinceaux, 141 n. 3. 
riwaq, aruqah, 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, no ; 

stone, 97, 99, 100-4 : type, 98, 99- ™3. 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. 
safafid, 149. 
sahn, 17, 20, 21, 23, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151, 

152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160. 
Sasanian influence, 59, 75, 115, 137, 141, 164. 



172 



SUBJECT INDEX 



scollop, see cusp. 

semi-dome, 18, 27, 28, 38, 42, 73, 79, XXI, 112, 

115, 139 ; fluted, 25, 118, 139. 
serdab, 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 atesgah, 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. 
suffah, 146. 
symmetry, 92. 

T 
tabernacle in votive niches and tombs, 127. 
taqchah, 28, 35, 51, 52, 76. 
tarmah, 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, a 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 
Ukhaidir, 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, 

3°. 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 ; hammam, 37 ; imperfect seclu- 
sion of haram courts, 166 ; inner walls and 
towers, 33 ; mosque, 16-19, I 5° > 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-^, 34, 35, 
82 ; three-storied block, 14-23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 
81, 117. 

underground rooms, see serdab. 

'uqud, 148. 

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, III, 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 'Iraq, 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, in. 
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. 

ziyadah, 156. 

zullah, 148, 150. 



INDEX OF NAMES 



Abbas, Abu, 75 n. 

'Abdeh, 103, 112. 

Absalom, tomb of, 128 n. 

Abydos, 70 n. 

'Adhra, the, church of, 133 n. 

'Adi ibn Zaid, 57, 59. 

Africa, 98 n., no ; North, 98, 99, 152. 

Ahwaz, 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. 

Amman, 118 n., 140. 

'Amr ibn al-'As, 146 n., 148, 149 ; his mosque, 

149, 150, 151. 
'Amrah, Qsair, 56, in, 112, 114, 118, 142, 162. 
Amran mound, 65. 
'Anah, ix. 

Anatolia, Central, 138. 
al-Anbar, 43 n., 57 and n., 164, 167. 
Anderin, 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. 
Aqsa, the, mosque of, 145, 151, 152. 
Arabia, vii, 127. 
Arabia Petraea, 98. 
Ardashir I, 74 n. 
Ardeshir Babagan, 91. 
Argos, 96. 

Asarhaddon, 62, 108. 
al-'A'sha, 145 n. 
al-'Ashiq, 86, 132 n. 
Asia, 65, 69, 87, 142 ; South-west, 126 ; 

Western, 63, 68, 123, 124, 126, 135. 



Asia Minor, 73, 78, 96, 108. 

'Asileh, wells, 1. 

Aslam, see 'Atshan. 

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-Athir, Ibn, 3 n., 162 and n., 164 n. 
'Atil, 126. 
'Atiyyah, 58. 

'Atshan, Khan, viii, 2, 3 and n., 40-3, 162 and n. 
Attalus, 124. 
Austria, 98. 
Autun, 109. 

Ayyubid Ghazi, 159, 160. 
al-Aziz ibn Marwan, 'Abd, 149. 
al-Azraq, Qasr, 56, in. 

B 

Ba'albek, 126, 152 and n. 

Babisqa, 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. 
Baghdad, ix, 5, 40, 58, 66, 72, 79, 121, 141, 

143 n., 150, 154, 157, 158, 167. 
Bahr Nedjef, see Nedjef. 
Bahram V Gur, 57, 59, 74 n. 
el-Bahri, see Dair el-Bahri. 
al-Baida, see Khirbet al-Baida. 
Bait al-Khalifah, see al-Khalifah. 
Baladhuri, 74 n., 147 and n., 148 and n., 149, 

153. 162. 
Balkuwara, 84, 85, 86, 87, 117, 121, 138, 157, 164. 
Ballu, 98 n. 
Baqirha, 126. 
Bashmishli, 132 n. 

Basrah, ix, x, 58, 146, 149, 150, 158, 168. 
Bassora, see Bajrah. 
Batutah, Ibn, 56, 58, 75 n. 
Becker, Prof., 17 n., 112 n., 146 n., 147 and n., 

149 n., 150. . .. 



z 3 



174 



INDEX OF NAMES 



Beduin, tribe, 5. 

Bel, temple of, 122. 

Bell, Miss G. L., xi, 40 n., 56 n., 5711., 5911., 

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 'Adah son of 'Isa son of 'Umar), j 

161. 
Bisutun, 134. 

Blanchet, 103 n., 109 n., no n. 
Boghaz Keui, 93 and n., 108, 122. 
Bosco, R. Velazquez, xii, 143 n. 
Boscoreale, 125, 127, 128 n. 
Bosra, 98 n., 120. 
Bostan, 41 n. 
Britain, 98 and n. 
British Museum, 76, 123, 132 n. 
Bruce, 98 n. 
Bruckmann, xii. 
Briinnow, Prof., xii, 98 n., 100, 101, 102, 103 n., 

104, 105, 106 n., no 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. 
Burdan, Wadi, 1. 
Burgess, 72 n., 73 n. 
Bury, 121 n. 
Butler, 72 n., 98 n., 105 n., inn., 112 n., 126 n., 

132 m, 133 n., 135 n., 138 n., 139 n., 165. 
Byzantium, 97, 109, no. 



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 (Ukhaidir) Ras el-'Ain, x, xi, 58. 

Chaitya Cave, 123. 

Chaldaea, 70 n., 106, 122, 123. 

Chehar Qapu, 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. 

Chosroes, the, 59, 80, 94, 120, 148, 149. 

Chosroes 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, no 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 
Daba, Djebel, 2, 3. 
Da'djaniyyeh, 102, 103, 116. 
al-Dair, 128 and n., 129. 
Dair al-Kahf, 104. 
Dair el-Bahri, 70 n. 
Dalman, 126 n. 
Damascus, 55, 66, 101, 119, 120 and n., 126, 

147, 151, 152, 154, 158, 162, 164 n., 167. 
Dana, 126. 

Darius, King, palace of, 63, 64, 76. 
Dastadjird, 60, 107 n., 120. 
Daumet, 138 n. 
Dead Sea, the, 97. 
De Beyli6, 142 n., 143 n. 
De Goeje, 3 n., 57 n., 147 n., 167 n. 
Delbriick, 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. 
Delia 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 Vogue, 56 n., 72 n., 73 n., 84 n., in 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, no, 121. 
Diodorus, 69 n. 

Diyarbekr, viii, 120, 132, 154, 158, 159. 
Djabala ibn al-Harith, no. 
Djabiyah, 56 n. 
Djaulan, the, 56. 



INDEX OF NAMES 



175 



Djof, 5, 167. 
Djofiyin, the, 5. 
Djur, 91, 92. 

Domaszewski, 9811., 102, 10311., 106 n., lion., 
117 n., 118 and n., 126 n., 127 and n., 128 n., 

135 n. 
Dulaf, Abu, mosque of, 144, 154, 155, 156, 158. 
Dumair, 101, 102, 103 and n., no. 
Dunn, 65 n., 66 n., 70 n., 89, 108 n., 109 n., 

124 n. 
Dussaud, 56 n. 



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, no, 142. 
Evans, Sir Arthur, 70 n. 



Fars, 79, 80, 96, 143 n. 

Fatehpur Sikri, 139. 

Ferashabad, 78. 

Fergusson, 41 n., 72 n., 73 n., 123 n., 139. 

Firuzabad, 53 n., 73, 74 and n., 76-80, 82, 83, 

86, 91, 95, 119, 134, 136, 137, 143, 165. 
el-Fityan, see Khirbet el-Fityan. 
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, no. 
Frejus, 109. 
Fustat, 146 n., 148, 149, 150. 



Garstang, Prof., 60 n. 
Gaul, 104 n., no. 
Gebhardt, Messrs., xii, 89. 
Germany, 98. 
Ghadaf, Wadi, in, 112. 
Ghassanids, the, 56. 
Ghazni, towers, 41. 
Gsell, 98 n. 
Gudea, 106, 122. 



H 

Habbaniyyeh, 1, 2, 3. 

al-Hadjdjadj, 43 n., 148, 162 n., 164, 168. 

Hadrian, Emperor, 97, 98. 

Hakh, 133 n. 

al-Hakim, 158. 

Halicarnassus, 124. 

Hamad, Khan, 2. 

Hammad, Bani, the, fortress of, 142. 

Hamrath, tomb of, 126. 

Hamza al-Isfahani, no. 

Hanbal, Ibn, 55 n. 

Hanging Gardens, the, 69 n. 

Harba, 143 n. 

Harran, 132, 152, 153, 158. 

Harun al-Rashid, 165, 167, 168. 

Hasan, Bani, 3, 57, 58. 

Hasan Kaif, 133, 143, 160. 

Hashimiyyeh, 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. 

Hauran, the, 56, 98 n., 138. 

Hauran, Wadi, 1. 

Haush Quru, 80 n. 

Haverfield, Prof., xii, 99. 

Hazar Dar, 80 n. 

Heberdey, 125 n. 

Hedjr tombs, 127, 128. 

el-Heiadie, see Tuqtuqaneh. 

Heraclius, 120. 

Herodotus, 90, 92. 

Herzfeld, Dr., xii, 58, 60 n., 62 n., 65 n., 7411., 
80 n., 84, 85, 86 and n., 94 n., 105 n., 107 n., 
non., 117, 118 n., 121 n., 123 n., 130 n., 
132 n., 134 n., 135 n., 136, 138 and n., 140 n., 
14m., 143 n., 151 n., 153 and n., 154, 155. 
156 and n., 157, 159, 160 n., 165 and n., 166 n. 

HSt, see Hit. 

Heuzey, 78 n., 87 n., 122 n., 138 n. 

Hidjaz, 167. 

Hidjrah, the, 55. 

Hilprecht, 65 n., 107 n., 122 n. 

Hindiyyeh, the, 2, 39, 41, 56, 57. 

al-Hirah, 56-9, 86, 87, 148, 168. 

Hisham, 168. 

Hit, x, xi, 43 n. 

Hittorff, 128 n. 

Hiyyadhiyyeh, 58. 

Hogarth, Mr., 122. 

Holman, Messrs., xii, 66. 

el-Hossian, 58. 



176 



INDEX OF NAMES 



Housesteads, 99. 
Humann, 125 n. 
Hurairah, Abu, 166. 
Hyginus, 98. 



I 



lassos, 108. 

Ibrahim ibn Salamah, 74 n. 

Inaldi, Inalid, 158 n. 

India, 72, 73, 137. 

'Iraq, 162 n., 167, 168. 

'Isa ibn 'Ali ibn 'Abdallah, 164, 168. 

Isfahan, 41 n., 134. 

Isriyyeh, 126. 

Istakhr, 107 n. 

Italy, 68, 128. 

Ives, x. 

'Izziyyeh, 58. 



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. 
Kerbela, 1, 2. 

Kerbela-Nedjef road, 2, 3 n. 
Kerim Khan, 79 ; his brother, 80 n. 
Kerkuk, 40, 71, 134. 
Kfair, 132 n. 
Khader, see el-Chader. 
al-Khadra, see al-Qabbet al-Khadra. 
Khalid'ibn 'Abdallah, 168. 
Khalid ibn al-Walid, 3. 
al-Khalifah, Bait, 86, 138, 144. 
Kharaneh, 39, 78, 82, in, 114-18, 120, 162, 166. 
Khasaki Djami', the, 141. 
Khawarnaq, 56, 57, 75 n., 87, 119, 162. 
Khazneh, the, 128 and n., 135. 
al-Khernina, Khan, 143 and n. 
al-Kherr, Wadi, 58 n. 
Khirbet al-Baida, 56, 106. 
Khirbet el-Fityan, 102 n. 
Khodja 'Alam, 41 n. 

Khorsabad, 68, 81 92, 93, 94, 106 and n., 122, 
123. 



Khurasan, the, 74 n. 

Khusrau I, 57, 119. 

Khusrau II Parwez, 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. 
Kufah, x, 2, 3, 43 and n., 148-50, 158, 162, 164, 

167, 168. 
Kuhna, Qal'a-i-, 107 n. 



Lagash, 106, 107. 

Lambaesis, 99. 

Lammens, 17 n., 55 n., 56 n., inn., 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. 
Ledjdjun, 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 andn., 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. 

Madain Salih, vii, 126-8, 135, 138, 142, 145 n. 
Madjdah, see Mudjdah. 
Magnesia, 124, 125 n. 
al-Mahdi, 151. 
Mahmud of Ghazni, 41. 
Makhdah, see Mudjdah. 
Makrisi, 147 n. 
al-Malik, 'Abd, 151. 

Mansur, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 164, 165, 167. 
Mantineia, 109. 
Maqrizi, 151. 
Marcais, 152 n. 
Marmora, sea of, 121. 
Marwan, 147, 149, 168. 
Masada, 97. 



INDEX OF NAMES 



177 



Massignon, M., xi, 31 n., 38 n., 39 n., 40 n., 57 n., 

58 n., 161. 
Mas'udi, 58, 86, 87, 118. 
Mau, 72 n. 

Mauritania Tingitana, 109. 
Maximian, Emperor, 56. 
Mayafarqin, viii, 132, 153, 159, 166. 
Media, 62 n. 

Medinah, 145-52, 158, 168. 
Medinat al-Zahra, 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-Melfuf, see Ridjm el-Melftif. 
Memphis, 72. 

Menar, 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, in n., 114 n., 115, 161, 167. 
M6sul, 133, 160. 
Mount Eryx, 108. 
Mshaiyesh, 111 n. 
Mshatta, III, 113, 117, 118 and n., 120, 133 n., 

135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 162, 165. 
Mu'awiyah, 148, 168. 
Mudjdah (Madjdah, Makhdah), viii, 2, 3, 39-41, 

43. 162. 
Mughair, 70 and n. 
Muhaiwir, 1. 

Muhammad, 145, 146, 147, 161. 
Muhtadi, 165 n. 
al-Mundhir, 56, 148. 
Munich, 133 n. 
Muntasir, 165 n. 
Muqaddasi, 3, 58, 151, 153. 
Muqatil ibn Hasan ibn Tha'labah ibn Aus ibn 

Ibrahim ibn Ayyub ibn Madjriif ibn 'Amir 

ibn 'Usayyah ibn Imra'al-Qais ibn Zaid 

Manat ibn Tamim, 162. 
al-Muqatil, Qasr, 162, 164, 168. 



Musa, Abu, 148. 

Musalla, Khan, 57. 

Mushennef, 126. 

Musil, Prof., 2 n., 55 n. ( 58 n., 103 n., in and n., 

112 n., 113, 114 and n., 115, 116 and n., 

117 n., 162 n. 
Musmiyyeh, 72. 
al-Mustansir, 143 n. 
Mustansiriyyeh, the, 40, 143 n. 
Mustaufi, 58. 

Mutawakkil, 58, 59, 86, 121, 154. 
Mu'tazz, 165 n. 
Muwaqqar, no, 135. 
Mycenae, 96, 108, 120. 

N 
Nabataean tombs, 127 n., 128. 
Nasiri Khusrau, 159 n. 
Nasr, Banu, 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. 
Nimrud, 93. 

Noldeke, 56 n., 57 n., 96 n., 112 n. 
Novaesium, 100. 
Nu'man III, King, 59. 
Nu'man ibn Mundhir, 56. 
Nu'man ibn Imra' al-Qais, 57. 
Nu'manid, 120. 
Nur al-Din, 153, 154, 158, 160 (Mahmud). 

O 
Odhruh, 98-103, no. 
Oppenheim, Baron, 60 n., 123. 
Orontes, the, 64, 108. 
Orthma, Khan, 72. , 

Ortokid Alpi, 159. 

P 
Palatitza, 138 n. 
Palmyra, 101, 126. 
Parwez, see Khusrau II Parwez. 
Pasargadae, 62, 63, 96, 119, 123 n. 
Pergamon, 66 n., 69 n., 73 n., 89, 124, 125 n. 



1 7 8 



INDEX OF NAMES 



Perge, 124, 125. 

Perrot, 6511., 68 n., 7011., 7511., 78 n., 93 n., 

9411., 106 n., 108 n., 109 n., 12211., 123 n., 

128 n., 140 n. 
Persepolis, 63, 64, 76 and n., 80, 119. 
Persia, 65, 71, 73, 74, no, 123, 137, 140, 168. 
Persian Gulf, the, 1. 
Perugia, 136. 

Petra, vii, 97, 126-9, *35. 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, in. 
Probus, no. 
Promis, 109 n., 136 n. 
Ptolemy Philadelphos, I24n., 128 n. 
Puchstein, 62 n., 93 n., 108 n., 123 n., 126 n., 

127 andn., 128 n. 
Pydnai, 108. 

Q 

al-Qabbet al-Khadra, 162 and n. 

Qadesh, 108. 

Qadisiyyeh, 58, 162, 167. 

Qairawan, 152. 

Qalb L&zeh, 132 n. 

Qanawat, 126. 

al-Qasim 'AH, Abu, 158 n., 159 n. 

Qastal, 103-6, 110-13, 118, 120. 

Qsair, viii, 1, 38-9. 

Qsair 'Amrah, see 'Amrah. 

al-Qutqutaneh, 162, 164. 

Quyundjik, 75, 76, 77, 90, 93, 94, 123. 

R 

Rahhaliyyeh, 1. 

Ramadi, 2. 

Rameses II, 108. 

Ramsay, 73 n., 78 n., 138 n. 

Raqqah, 138, 142, 153, 154, 158, 165, 166, 168. 

Ras al-'Ain, 60 n., 123. 

al-Rasas, Umm, 106. 

Rashid, 167. 

Reuther, Dr., xi, 6-36 passim, 82 and n., 83, 

131, 132 n., 136-40, 166. 
Rhages, 41 n. 
Rhaibeh, 112. 
Ridjm el-Melfuf, 70 n. 
Rimini, 128. 



Ritter, xi. 

Roderick, King, 112. 
Rome, 72, 73, 95, no, 126. 
Rothstein, 57 n., 59 n. 
al-Ruhban, 57. 
Ruhbeh, 58 and n. 
Ruheimeh, 58 n. 
Rum, 120. 
Rusafah, 150. 

S 
Saalburg, the, 98 n. 
Sachau, 152 n. 
Sa'd ibn abi Waqqas, 148. 
al-Sadir, 57. 
Saffah, 167. 

Sa'id ibn 'Amir ibn Hudhaim, 153. 
St. Petersburg, 133. 
Sais, Djebel, 56, III. 
Sakcheh Geuzu, 60 n., 122. 
Saladin, M., x n., 152 n. 
Salah al-Din, 152, 153, 159. 
Salamah, 74 n. 
1 Salmanassar III, 106 n. 
Salmon, 154 n. 
Sal Nameh, 58. 
Samarra, 58, 70 n., 84, 87, 92, 93, 121, 132 

and n., 135, 138, 140-4, 151, 156-8, 164-6. 
al-Sarakh, Hammam, in, 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. 
Sarvistan, 53 n., 71, 74 and n., 78-80, 82, 84, 92, 

115, 118 n., 119, 134, 136, 137, 165. 
Sauda, 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. 
Shabib, revolt of, 164 n. 
Shahba, 126. 
Shahnamah, the, 22 n. 
Shakhariz, 2. 
Shammar, tribe, 2. 
Shamshi-Adad, 93. 



INDEX OF NAMES 



179 



Sham'un, Qasr, 59. 

Shapur I, 94. 

Shapur II, 57, 96. 

Shaqqah, 7311., 126, 139. 

Shethatha, Shefatha, x, xi, 1, 2, 3 and n. 

Shirin, Qasr-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. 
Shirwan, 80 n., 134. 
Shuhba, 98 n. 
al-Shukafa, Kom, 135. 
Si', 126, 138. 
Sicily, 108, 109. 
Sidi al-Halwi, 152. 
Sieglin, 135 n. 
Sim'an, Qal'at, 84 n. 
Simbel, Abu, 108. 
Sindad, 57 n. 
Sindjar, Djebel, 143. 
Sinimmar, 57 and n. 
al-Sinnin, 57. 

Sixtus of Bourbon, Prince, 58 n. 
Slaibiyyeh tomb, 165. 
Slam, Biyar, 2. 
Smith, George, 90. 
Smyrna, 108. 

Solomon's temple, 94, 116. 
Spain, no, 143. 
Spalato, tax. 
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. 
Suk hail, 5. 

Sukhur, the, 55, 118 n. 
Sulam, 162. 
Sultan Khan, 78. 
Suq al-Ghazl, 40. 
Susa, 63, 81 and n., 90, 96, 107. 
Swaida, 126. 
Syria, vii, 57, 66, 70, 72, 73, 97, 104, 116, 126, 

133. 135. 139. !42, 143. 151. 152, 166; 

Eastern, 98 n. ; Northern, 60, 75, 98 n., 132, 

141 n. 

T 
Tabari, 57 n., 148 and n., 149 and n., 150 and n., 

162. 
Tag-i-lwan, 72 n. 
Tahmasgerd, Mar, 71, 134, 140. 
Takhma al-Asadi, Ibn, 164. 



Takht-i-Mader-i-Suleiman, 96. 

al-Tamr, 'Ain, 2, 3, 40, 43 and n., 59. 

Taposiris Magna, 124 n. 

Taq-i-Girra, 166. 

Tar, the, 162 and n. 

Tauq, 40. 

Tavernier, ix, x n. 

Taylor, Major John, x. 

Tayy, the, 59. 

Teano, 56 n., 145 n., 146 n., 147 n., 148 n., 149 n., 

15m. 
Teixeira, Pedro, ix, xi. 
Tekrit, 140 n., 143. 
Telloh, 78, 87, 122, 142. 
Texier, viii, 109 n. 
Tha'labites, the, 56. 
Thapsus, 109. 
Theophilus, 121. 

Thiersch, Prof., 92 n., 12411., 128 n., 15m. 
Thomas, Felix, 68. 
Tigris, the, 64, 69, 84. 
Tilimsan, 152. 
al-Tiqtaqa, Ibn, 143 n. 
Tiryns, 65 n., 108, 120. 
Tornberg, 3 n. 

Trajan, Emperor, 69 n., 98, no. 
Trajan's camp, 101. 
Troy, 108, 120. 

al-Tubah, 111-14, 116-18, 120, 165. 
Tulun, Ibn, mosque of, 92 n., 135, 142-4, 156, 
" 158. 

Tunis, 142, 152. 

Tuqtuqaneh (el-Heiadie), 58 and n., 162. 
Tyre, 109. 
Tzariq, 57 n. 

U 
al-Ubaid, Wadi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 162, 168. 
Ukhaidir, passim ; see also el-Chadcr. 
Ulu Djami', 132 n. 
'Umar, 147-51. 
'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz, 147. 
Umta'iyyeh, 133 n. 
'Uthman, 147. 
al-'Uzza, 'Abd, 57 n. 

V 
Van Berchem, M. Max, 133 n., 143 n., 152 n., 

154, 160. 
Veramin, 41 n. 
Vespasian, Emperor, 97. 
Vienna, xii. 

Viollet, M., 16 n., 86, 156 n. 
Vitruvius, 109, 128. 



i8o 



INDEX OF NAMES 



W 

Walid (son of Yazid ibn 'Abd al-Malik), no. 

al-Walid, Umm, 106. 

Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik, 147, 148. 

Wardan, Qasr ibn, 105, 112, 165. 

Warka, 65, 90, 122, 140, 141 n., 142 n. 

Wasit, 162 n. 

Weissenberg, 99 n. 

Wellhausen, 146. 

Wetzel, Dr., 16 n. 

al-Weyned, inn. 

Wiegand, 124 n. 

Wiesbaden, 99. 

Willcocks, Sir William, 1 and n. 

Wizikh, 2. 

Wright, 56 n. 

Wustenfeld, 3 n., 147 n. 

Wuswas, 122, 142 n. 

X 
Xanthos, 108. 

Xeque Mahamed Eben Raxet, ix. 
Xeres, battle of, 112. 
Xerxes, 63. 



Yamanlar Dagh, the, 108. 

Ya'qubi, 167 and n. 

Yaqut, 3, no, 147 n., 162 and n., 164 and n. 

Yazdegerd I, King, 57. 

Yazid ibn 'Abd al-Malik (Yazid II), no, 117. 

Yazid III, in, 162 n. 

Yusuf ibn 'Umar, 162 n., 168. 



al-Zahra, see Medinat al-Zahra. 

al-Zaitun, Umm, 73 n. 

Zaitunah, the, 152. 

Zaqarit, sub-tribe, 2, 5. 

al-Zebib, Khan, 106. 

Zindjirli, 60 and n., 61, 62 n., 63, 107, 109, 119, 

122. 
Ziyad ibn Abihi, 17 n., 146 n., 148, 149, 168. 
Zohab, 105, 120. 
Zugmantel, 100 n. 
Ziirah, 164. 



Map i 




1580 1 



Map 2 




tM*% a „im^' ^awr***" 1 ^ 



t^gip 



JL 

ir 



X 



"\ 



\ 



id 




£ 




3 




o 




en 




en 


3 
O 


ft. 


^ 


rJ 


a 








e 


\ 












ji 






rO 



tf 



w 
* 



Cm 

I 



01 

c . 

0i £ 

1 

u 



V 



X 



.— -v, 




tf 



>*« 



Plate 3 




1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



10 



20 



30 



40 METRES 



FlG. 1. Ukhaidir, first floor of palace. 




40 METRES 



FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, second floor of pala 



if. 



f m& 






- 



i 









m 



r rf&tk 



MM 



o 
c 



ft 



<w, 



i^ii 



r«*i 



'3** _■' 



Hi 



jm 



VB 



i 



'■'#>, 



.* 
p 



-; 



# 



i ■ 



. 



*F 



c 



o 



J580 2 



Plate 7 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, south-east angle of palace yard. 







•r 



FlG. 2. Ukhaidir. north-cast corner. 



Plate 8 




m*. 




mk 











Fig. i. Ukhaidir, south-west coiner. 



FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, detail of tower chamber. 




Fig. 3. Ukhaidir, decoration on north wall. 



Plate 9 







FlG. j. Ukhaidir, south gate, interior. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, south gate, exterior. 



Plate io 




Fig. i. Ukhaidir, chemin de ronde of east wall, looking north. 




Fu;. 2. Ukhaidir, north facade, showing loopholes of chemin de ronde 



Plate i x 




r~" ^ 



Fig. i. Ukhaidir, north facade. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, north gate. 



Plate 12 




FlG. 1. Ukhaidir, room I, looking north. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, room 88, south-wot end of vault. 



Plate 13 




FlG. 1. Ukhaidir, room 4, north-east portion of dome. 




Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 4, south-west portion of dome. 



Plate 14 













'■•', 
















■ *I 




V*5i 




■ M 




■B 1 












-^8& : * v 


M|Mm^^a • 













Fig. i. Ukhaidir, great hall, looking south. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, vault of great hall, looking south. 



1580 4 



Plate 15 



*m2T^'* ' ' I 




Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, great hall, west side. 




FIG. 2. Ukhaidir, great hall, door of south-west stair. 



Plate x6 







U 

to 



P 



o 




c 



ta 




Plate 17 



FlG. i. Ukhaidir, corridor 5. looking west. 




Vic, 



Ukhaidir, north end of corridor 20. 



Plate 18 




Fig. i. Ukhaidir, south wall of mosque. 



^ .' 



A W 



V 



WM 




^ 





v 



Platk i 9 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, east side of mosque. 







Fig 



Ukhaidir, cast side of mosque, north end. 



Plate 20 





Fig. i. Ukhaidir, south-east angle of mosque. 




FIG, 2. Ukhaidir. south west angle of mosque. 



Plate 21 




FlG. j. Ukhaidir, door of mosque. 






1l\ i*" 



■ 



]'"n;. 2. Ukhaidir, north cud of gallery 108. 



Plate 22 




Fig. i. Ukhaidir, north-east angle of court 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, corridors :8 and 102 from corridor ico. 



Plate 23 



I i I 



*£%&-¥ 






7 ¥&&/{ ' — 




**£.£ 



FIG. i. Ukhaidir, court II, north side, and north wall of mosque 




I 





Fic;. 2. Ukhaidir, second story, rooms 119, 120, and i2r, from east 



Platk 24 




FlG. 1. Ukhaidir, second story, rooms to south and east of court. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, second story, showing doors of 132, 137, and 117. 



Platk 25 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, gallery 1 34. 




Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, squinch in north-west angle of gallery 134. 



Plate 26 




Fig. i. Ukhaidir, north-west ana"le of central court 





FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, cast door and south-east end of central court. 



1.-.80 7 



Plate 37 




-o 



O 

o 



Plate 28 




<*V 




-. ■ 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, south-east angle of central court. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, fluted semi-dome, south-east angle of central court. 



Plate 29 








o * 
•S S 

- 8 



5 o 



s o 
.-' o 

5 "T3 



CO 

6 





Plate 30 




Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, vault of room 31. 











FlG. 2. Ukhaidir. room 31, .showing decoration in top of vault 



1580 8 



Plate 3: 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, south wall, cast end, of room 32. 





FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, room 40 from room 30. 



FlG. 3. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of passage 36. 




Plate 32 



F"IG. 1. Ukhaidir, room 33, north-west column. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, groin in north-cast angle of corridor 28. 



Plate 33 




-a 






3 
o 
u 







A 1 -> ' , 



M 



1 • ^W*$L" ■* 1° 








3 




"T" 



o 

c 










fc/) 






C*i. 



Plate 34 



« 



m 




o 
o 

-a 



j* 
D 



« 

o 




y bv 



o 
o 



o 

o 



1J80 'J 



Plate 35 




Fig. i. Ukhaidir, south side of court 1! 





KlG. 2. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of court II. 



FlG. 3. Ukhaidir, west end of No. ;< v . 



Plate 36 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, door between rooms 
44 and 4", from room 44. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, court C, south door of room 55. 



Plate 37 





Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, door from court c 
into palace yard. 



Fit;. 2. Ukhaidir, south-west corner of court E. 




Fie;. 3. Ukhaidir, soutli side of court II. 



m 



IW 



» as 



o 
u 






^ 






'*^r 



s 




C38 



u 
<*- 



5 




1 






w»- 



g 
o 



*£&} 









P 






Plate 39 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, south-west angle of court G. 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, cast annex, north-cast end. 




FlG. 3. Ukhaidir, east annex, from north. 



Plate 40 



I 



£* 



** 



...» 



.*5?V 



* r 



• • 



Xj*i _ >«i '. ^X~* . 




JhM^ks 



FlG. i. Ukhaidir, remains of stair. 




Fig. 2. Ukhaidir, room 140. 



Plate 41 




j V 



. V 



~- * 



Fig. 1. Ukhaidir, room 141, north-west corner of groin. 




.; 



«f Wfr!!*Hlt'£Sa££ 




FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, east annex, from south. 



Plate 42 




o 
o 




o 

o 







. - 5 



O 2 



1580 11 



Plate 43 




tJ3 



;-> 




i* 



6 



Plate 44 



wr 




FlG. i. Ukhaidir, north annex, from west. 



f MJJ.ttf 




■ft 






Eh 



HHHMM 

FlG. 2. Ukhaidir, from north-west. 






Hi 



Plate 45 





Fig. i. Qsair, interior, showing apse. 



FlG. 2. Qsair, detail of apse. 



• •_ 






I 







FlG. 3. Qsair, exterior from south. 




Plate 46 



< 4-35 > 

O 5- 

I — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — I METRES 

Fig. i. Mudjdah. 




I ' 1 1 t I 



IO 



Fig. 2. 'Atslian. 



15 



METRES 



Plate 47 




3 
§ 



a 





Plate 48 



i'< 





Fig. i. Tauq, minaret. 




FIG. 2, 'Atshan, from north-cast. 



Plate 49 









1 r 



A 



*& 






VV, » 

V- » 



a! 
fcfl 



e 

< 



<v 



« 

M 




Plate 50 




s 



Fx 




"H 




FlG. i. 'Atshan, rooms 2, 3, and 5, from north. 




FfG. 2. 'Atshan, rooms 5 and 8, from north. 



1580 n 



Plate ^i 







o 
o 



o 

o 



4-1* 




Plate 52 



.-.*, ■ 




a 




FlG. 1. 'Atshan, room 8, from west. 




FlG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, vault of room 71. 



Plate 55 




FlG. i. Palace of Khusrau, east end of hall 3. 




FlG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, west end of hall 3. 



1580 n 



Plate 56 




FlG. i. Palace of Khusrau, vaulted ramp in corridor 12. 




FlG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, court M, south antechamber, 
showing door leading into corridor 42. 



Plate 57 




Fig. 1. Palace of Khusran, south-west corner of court M, showing corridor 42. 




FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, east side of courts O and Q. 



Plate 58 




Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, west side of courts Q and S. 




FlG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, south- west corner of court S. 



Plate 59 




o 



o 
o 



CO 



o 

-a 



o 



o 

U 

Oh 







CO 



o 
z 



3 

> 



« 



as 
Oh 



1580 15 



Plate 60 




Fig. i. Palace of Khusrau, court V, looking west. 




FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, gateway between courts U and v, west arch. 



Plate 6i 







O 

3 



c 



c 



o 






3 

O 
O 




Plate 62 






O 

o 



a 

o 
u 



3 



O 
(J 



Plate 63 




FlG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, eastern double ramp. 




I'"l<;. 2. Palace of Khusrau, north buildings. 



Plate 64 




-- o 



o 







% 



o 

n 




3 





Oasr-i-Shirin, Chehar Qapu. 



Plate 65 




FIG. i. Chehar Qapu, interior of east gate. 





Fig. 3. Chehar Qapu, squinch in room 6. 



FIG. 2 Chehar Qapu, niche in room H. 



Plate 66 




o 
o 



<3 



U 







ra 



u 



Plate 67 







cj 






Plate 68 




Fig. i. Chehar Qapu, vault of room 31. 





FIG. 2. Chehar Qapu, squinch in room 39. 



Plate 69 




Fig. i. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, south-east corner. 




FIG. 2. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, «q«i» dl in south-west corner. 




Plate 70 



FlG. 1. Chehar Qapu, hall 54, exterior of south door. 




FlG. 2. Chehar Qapu, hall ,",4, interior of south door. 



Plate 71 




3 
O 



"re 



a, 

re 







Plate 72 



"c3 






u 



Plate 73 












a 
















«*> 






v_y 




Ibad. 
Flandin 



0, 





e* 


*«i 










O 


^J 






>— 1 








l-^( 


-0 


^^L 






£ 



£?'*& tv-'i ' &?'& — ' '- :; % 




,- 


Cm 


W 


■a 1 


• — 


^; 


rn 


■5* 


~~- 








O' 1 


»^ 




^ 






C 




— 


^ 


»C 


^ 


U) 




•- 


<o 


55 ■ 

rt 


1 








s. 






g^MMMm^mM^M^-Mtd 




Plate 74 



FIG. i. Sarvistan, small domed chamber. 
(/'row 'I.'. lit antique de la Perse', by kind permission of M. Dienlafoy) 








«#■» 






MM 



t 




!••[(,. 1. Hatra, oversailing vault in main palace. 



Plate 75 




o 

Oh 



T3 













t/3 









1560 l(p 



Plate 76 



EST 



NOHI) 




A • 



SUD 



: : m\ 



Sarvist&n. 
(From • Voyage en Perse' : Flandiu & Costc.) 



Plate 77 




Sargon's Palace at Khorsabad. 
(From ' Niuive' : Place.) 



Plate 78 




Fig. i. Gate at Khorsabad. 
(From ' Ninivc ' : Place.) 




FlG. 2. Dumair. 
[From' Provincia Arabia", by kind permission of Professor Briinnow.) 



Plate 79 




Fig. i. Kharaneh. 
{Phot, by Dr. Moritz.) 







-*s. 




* 



^^*"^--- a ^»-il-^'^--. ~ ate 



FlG. 2. Kharaneh, gateway. 
{Phot, by Dr. Moritz.) 



Plate 80 




Fig. i. Kharaneh, interior of court. 
(Phot, by Dr. J fonts.) 




FIG. 2. Kharaneh, interior of audience hall. 
(Phot, by Dr. Morits.) 



Plate 8i 



Mshatta. 
(From ' Mschatta' ', by kind permission of Professor Strzygowski.) 



Plate 82 




Fig. 1. Pctra, Corinthian tomb. 




FlG. 2. Petra, al-Dair. 



Plate 83 







^ 

^ 



^ 



"<3 



o 



V 



a, 



<i 



Plate 84 




Fig. 3. Mayafarqin, north facade of mosque. 



Plate 85 



4. 
i 







O. 



fO— 



O. 



to— 



O— 



IT)_L 



o 
u 



c 

<L> 
U 



-a 



o 
o 
I) 






Plate 86 




FlG. t. Parthian decoration, Assur. 




FlG. 2. Sasanian silver dish (Hermitage, St. Petersburg, No. 2969). 
(Phot. F. Bruckmann A.-G., Munich.) 



Plate 87 




Details of decoration from Medinat al-Zahra. 
(By kind permission of M. Velazquez Bosco.) 



Plate X8 




Flu. i. Ujcbcl Sindjar, khai 




FlG. 2. Hasan Kaif, mosque. 



Plate 89 








FlG. i. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Tulun. 



I 





AM 



FlG. 2. Mosque of Abu Dulaf. 



Plate 90 




u 



^^^ t.* ,^_ . ^* _^ ?-3S i-5i l?7 !-*5 2-35 I-M.H5 g- 1 1 I' _ Z-12 1-91 212 1-89 Z-l 



b-M" H9 " ' " 4-45 I1E 4-46 H» 4-45'-> i- 5-ng K» 5 v 



■?:: ■ 



lv H6 4-38 1-47 4;b 1-5 1-08-69 



"■$311-39 4-68 H6 4-7? "16 4-69 H4 4-7 "| H6 <-7 1-48 




Diyarbekr, Ulu Djami'. 




Plate 91 



FIG. i. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Tulun. 




Fig. 2. Samarra, mosque. 



Plate 92 



x 
< 

Si 

CO 



53 

< 5 



Q 

O 

t- 
q: 
O 



£ 

3 



o 



CO 

E 

DQ 

O 

Q: 
q. 




Q 
O 

o: 

u 

Q. 



s 



Q 

Z 

o 

u r 2 

CO I- 3 



Q 
C£ 




CO 

u 
a: 

l- 

LJ 

O 



o 



_. o 



55 

a! 

s 

c 

5 






O 



JL O 



Plate 93 




o 

Er 

IS] 

O 

a 










2 
'o 



o 
S 
to 



n 



OXFORD : HORACE HART M.A. 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 



A ,f> 



NA Bell, Gertrude Lowthian 

1471 Palace and mosque 

U5B4 



PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET 



UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY 




SHSHxjiHHi 




















^:SrHrrfS3? 



tH^r::