Part II. His attempt to reconstruct the ground plan of the palace of

which the Beit el Khalîfah forms part, is of great interest.

[119] Ed. de Goeje, p. 256.

[120] _Lands of the Eastern Califate_, p. 53. Am. Mar., Bk. XXV. ch. vi. 4.

[121] This is marked in Viollet’s plan.

[122] Herzfeld, _Sâmarra_, p. 61, places the old quarter of Karkh at Shnâs and Dûr ’Arabâyâ at Eskî Baghdâd. Karkh is the Charcha of Ammianus Marcellinus.

[123] Mutawakkil began a new canal from the Tigris to the Nahrawân, the latter having silted up by the ninth century, but the labour of cutting through the hard conglomerate was found to be too great and the work was abandoned. I do not know whether the canal I crossed was of his making, but I fancy it was the Nahrawân itself, perhaps cleared and deepened by him. Ross (_op. cit._, p. 129) speaks of bridge foundations formed of large “artificial stones” (concrete?) “joined together by iron clamps and melted lead.” I saw nothing but brick, but Ross’s bridge may well be, as he conjectured, earlier than the Mohammadan period, since it probably spanned the Sassanian canal. I thought the artificial mound to be pre-Mohammadan.

[124] There is some doubt about this inscription. Professor Sarre copied it without noticing the date, which was covered with whitewash; he gave it to Professor van Berchem, who decided that the shape of the letters pointed indubitably to the ninth century. Professor van Berchem’s authority in such matters is not to be questioned, but the date must be accounted for. Perhaps it was a later addition, put in when the shrine was repaired.

[125] _A Residence in Koordistan_, Vol. II. p. 147. The book was published in 1836.

[126] Kal’at Abu Rayâsh, which is marked in Kiepert’s map, has almost disappeared, the high ground on which it stands having fallen away and carried the walls and towers with it.

[127] Khân Khernîna is not mentioned by Ibn Jubeir nor by Ibn Baṭûṭah, who both travelled by this side of the Tigris from Tekrît to Môṣul, the one at the end of the twelfth century, and the other in the middle of the fourteenth century.

[128] Not, I believe, by Layard, who was always careful to cover what he did not remove.

[129] Dr. Herzfeld has been so good as to send me the chapter of his forthcoming work (written in conjunction with Professor Sarre), in which he gives a further account of Sâmarrâ. When it reached me my description of the ruins was already printed, and I can do no more than acknowledge, with gratitude, his kindness.

[130] Viollet puts them ten deep to the south, four deep to the north and five deep to east and west.

[131] In Manṣûr’s mosque at Baghdâd, the roof was borne by wooden columns. See Le Strange, _Baghdâd_, p. 34.

[132] _Lands of the Eastern Califate_, p. 56.

[133] Its original name is doubtful. In the twelfth century it was called the Ma’shûk, for Ibn Jubeir alludes to it under that name in the twelfth century, and so does Ibn Baṭûṭah in the fourteenth century.

[134] Viollet has given a section of them, pl. xviii.

[135] Viollet’s plan, pl. xvii, is here more complete than mine.

[136] I give a plan of the three vaulted halls, but Viollet has made a sketch plan of the ground behind which furnishes indications of the whole scheme of the palace. The Beit el Khalîfah is perhaps the Dâr el ’Ammeh, the first palace built by Mu’taṣim upon the site of the monastery: Herzfeld, _Sâmarrâ_, p. 63.

[137] Ross distinguished in 1834 a substructure of “arches” (_op. cit._, p. 129) by which he must mean vaults like those at the ’Ashiḳ.

[138] An account of it, together with a sketch plan, was given by Ross, _op. cit._, p. 130.

[139] Viollet has given a plan of Abu Dulâf. Herzfeld did not publish it in his _Sâmarrâ_, for he had not at that time visited it, but he has since published a plan: _Zeitschr. für Gesch. der Erdkunde zu Berlin_, 1909, No. 7, pl. viii. My plan differs considerably from his, but only a re-examination of the mosque can prove which of us is right.

[140] This vestibule is present opposite the south gate of the Sâmarrâ mosque. Herzfeld has made an attempt to reconstruct the vestibule of Abu Dulâf. Viollet has given a bare indication of it, and this is all that exists. Viollet has also marked the line of an outer wall, which, as at Sâmarrâ, enclosed the precincts of the mosque.

[141] Abu Dulâf was probably built by Mutawakkil when he erected a whole new quarter three farsakhs north of Shnâs: Ya’ḳûbî, ed. de Goeje, p. 266.

[142] The spiral tower occurs also in Sassanian architecture, witness the Atesh Gah of Jur, Dieulafoy: _L’Art ancien de la Perse_, Vol. IV. p. 79.

[143] Thiersch has indicated the true relation of Ibn Ṭûlûn’s minaret both to the zigurrat of Mesopotamia and to the pharos of Alexandria. His objections to Herzfeld’s theory that the Cairo minaret is purely Hellenistic in origin are conclusive. Thiersch: _Pharos_, p. 112.

[144] I believe it is generally admitted by the learned in these matters that Nestorius was not guilty of the heresies for which he was condemned in 431, at the second œcumenical council held at Ephesus. I remember to have heard a distinguished English Catholic, who was also an acute historian, express his definite opinion that Nestorius was in the right, for all his expulsion beyond the pale of western Christianity. An excellent account of the rise of the Eastern Churches is contained in Wigram’s recently published book, _The Assyrian Church_.

[145] I am relying upon local tradition, upon comparison with churches in the country districts, and upon the character of the ornament compared with Moslem ornament in Môṣul which can be dated with tolerable accuracy.

[146] The barn church is more fully defined in _The Thousand and One Churches_, published by Sir W. Ramsay and myself, p. 309.

[147] There is a description of Mâr Tûmâ in Rich: _Residence in Koordistan_, Vol. II. p. 118.

[148] All the doors in the atrium of Mâr Tûmâ look as if they had been patched together out of older materials, but I suspect that these materials came from the church itself and that the patching is due to repair.

[149] Badr ed Dîn Lûlû, 1233-1259, according to Lane Poole: _Mohammadan Dynasties_, p. 163; Ritter, following Desguignes, makes him regent from 1213-1222, and an independent sovereign from 1222-1259.

[150] Le Strange: _Lands of the Eastern Caliphate_, p. 89.

[151] Oppenheim, _Vom Mittelmeere zum persischen Golf_, Vol. II. p. 176, gives a short description of it.

[152] De Beylié has given a good photograph of the general view: _Prome et Samarra_, p. 49.

[153] This decoration is curiously akin to some of the Buddhist Græco-Bactrian work.

[154] In the middle ages it was more numerous. Benjamin of Tudela found a colony of 7,000 Jews at Môṣul: Ritter, Vol. X. p. 254.

[155] An account of Mâr Behnâm has been published by Pognon: _Inscriptions de la Mésopotamie_, p. 132. He believes that the existing church is due to a reconstruction that took place in the twelfth century, but its original form seems to him to be the same as that of Mâr Gabriel of Kartmîn in the Ṭûr ’Abdîn, a church which I should date not later than the sixth century. The history of Mâr Behnâm would therefore offer an exact analogy to that of the churches of Môṣul, according to my theory; it is a mediæval building following the lines of a very early structure. Pognon gives a good illustration of the altar niche in the tomb (Pl. VIII), which is dated the year of the Seleucid era corresponding to 1306 A.D. The superstructure he takes to have been a baptistery.

[156] They must be dated before 1550, according to Pognon’s reasoning. He speaks of them with great contempt, and they are not very remarkable works of art, though they seemed to me to be of considerable interest. The Moslems call the monastery Deir el Khiḍr, Khiḍr being the Mohammadan counterpart of St. George. The village close at hand is known as El Khiḍr.

[157] The following notes on the decorations of the church are perhaps worth recording. S.W. door in porch: on lintel, a pair of birds on either side of a cross; over lintel, two snakes, tail to tail, with open jaws turned to what looks like a piled-up cup; in the corners, lions with tails ending in the head of a snake; band of entrelac and round it a band of Syriac inscriptions surrounding the door. N.W. door in porch: on lintel, an angel on either side of a cross; over lintel, small crosses with a boss between, two circles with a star in each; at either corner the figure of a saint; entrelac and inscriptions. Door from nave into apse; on lintel, a lion’s head forming a central boss, on either side St. George and the Dragon. Door into S.E. chapel: on lintel a cross; round door, small niches formed by an interlacing rope (_cf._ the sanctuary door of Mâr Tûmâ at Môṣul), the niches alternately filled with a saint and a decorated cross; above the door two of the niches are filled with representations of: (1) the baptism in Jordan; (2) the entry into Jerusalem, with an ass and palms in the background. The spandrils between the upper niches are filled in with dragons’ heads with open jaws.

[158] Pognon found inscriptions of the thirteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries at Ḳaraḳôsh (_op. cit._, p. 129), but the inscriptions inside the churches have not, so far as I know, been recorded.

[159] The bishop had not perhaps retained a clear memory of his facts--if facts they can be called; but Rich seems to have found the history of Mâr Mattai and Mâr Behnâm scarcely less involved than I did: _Residence in Koordistan_, Vol. II. p. 75. See, too, Pognon, _op. cit._, p. 132, note 1.

[160] I fancy that ’Abdullah’s explanation was not far from the truth. Layard, who is the best of all authorities on this country, makes the following remarks about the Shabbak: “Though strange and mysterious rites are as usual attributed to them” (_i.e._ as is usual with regard to a secret creed), “I suspect they are simply the descendants of Kurds who emigrated at some distant period from the Persian slopes of the mountains, and who still profess Sheeite doctrines. They may, however, be tainted with Ali-Illahism, which consists mainly in the belief that there have been successive incarnations of the Deity, the principal having been in the person of Ali, the celebrated son-in-law of the prophet Mohammad. The name usually given, Ali-Illahi, means ‘believers that Ali is God.’ Various abominable rites have been attributed to them, as to the Yezidis, Ansyris, and all sects whose doctrines are not known to the surrounding Mussulman and Christian population.” _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 216.

[161] A full description of the reliefs is contained in Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 207. Mr. King is so kind as to inform me that the smaller panels at Baviân were carved in the reign of Sennacherib, between the dates 689 B.C. and 681 B.C. The larger sculptures are to be assigned to Shalmaneser II (860-825 B.C.).

[162] It has been described and drawn by Layard: _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 48.

[163] In the photograph ’Alî Beg is seated and the ḳawwâl stands to the right of him. The figure on the left is the Christian secretary, and the close-shaven man behind the beg is Fattûḥ.

[164] Layard mentions that the oil for the lamps is provided out of the funds of the shrine: _Nineveh and its Remains_, Vol. I. p. 291.

[165] Layard pointed out the connection between the white bull offered annually to the Yezîdî solar saint and a similar sacrifice in the Assyrian ritual: _Nineveh and its Remains_, Vol. I. p. 290.

[166] This doctrine is, however, older than the Sûfîs; it was held by the Mandæans and is a part of the Asiatic heritage of religious ideas out of which the Yezîdî creed has been formed. The transmigration of souls, another Mandæan tenet, is also professed by the Yezîdîs.

[167] This, too, is an article of the Mandæan faith.

[168] The late Lord Percy, who visited Sheikh ’Adî in 1897, found nothing but the outer shell and the roof intact. It had been wrecked by a Turkish general who had made a resolute attempt to convert or exterminate (the two expressions are practically synonymous) the Yezîdîs: _Notes from a Diary_, p. 184.

[169] _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 83.

[170] _Nineveh and its Remains_, Vol. I. p. 280, and _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 81.

[171] _Residence in Koordistan_, Vol. II. p. 91.

[172] Layard: _Nineveh and its Remains_, Vol. I. p. 230. See, too, Perrot and Chipiez: _Histoire de l’Art_, Vol. II. p. 642.

[173] _Travels in the Track_, p. 144.

[174] Zâkhô must be the place known to the Arab geographers as Ḥasanîyeh (I see that Hartmann comes to the same conclusion: _Bohtân, Mitt. der Vorderas. Gesell._, 1896, II. p. 39), but their information is, as usual, exceedingly meagre and the castle is mentioned by none. Muḳaddasî, in the tenth century, says that it is a day’s journey from Ma’lathâyâ (Malthai) to Ḥasanîyeh (ed. de Goeje, p. 149), and notes the bridge over the Khâbûr above the town (p. 139). Yâḳût, in the thirteenth century, observes that it is two days from Môṣul on the road to Jezîret ibn ’Umar. Ainsworth conjectures it to be the spot described by Xenophon as “a kind of palace with several villages round it,” which was reached by the Greeks in five days’ march from Mespila-Nineveh, but it must be admitted that Xenophon’s description is not exactly suited to Zâkhô. Ritter thinks that a memory of the people called by Strabo Saccopodes may be retained in the name Zâkhô (Vol. IX. p. 705). With regard to the name Ḥasanîyeh it is perhaps preserved in Ḥasanah, a small village on the opposite side of the Khâbûr valley.

[175] Ainsworth thinks that it may mark the site of the village at which the Greeks camped on the second day from Zâkhô: _Travels in the Track_, p. 146. Xenophon mentions neither the Khâbûr nor the Ḥeizil.

[176] Mr. King, who has visited Jûdî Dâgh, tells me that all the reliefs are of Sennacherib and were carved in the year 699 B.C.

[177] Ritter, Vol. XI. p. 154.

[178] So said Kas Mattai, but the Arab geographers would seem to place it to the south of Jûdî Dâgh, not to the north. For example, Muḳaddasî says that Thamânîn, the village of the eighty who were saved from the flood, stand on the river Ghazil (the Ḥeizil Sû), a day’s march from Ḥasanîyeh (Zâkhô), ed. de Goeje, pp. 139 and 149. Sachau, however, speaks of Bêtmanîn as being behind Jûdî Dâgh, _i.e._ he bears out my information: _Reise_, p. 376.

[179] It has been identified with the Bezabde of Ammianus Marcellinus, the Saphe of Ptolemy (ed. Müller, p. 1005), and the Sapha of the Peutinger Tables. Ammianus Marcellinus is generally supposed to have confused Bezabde-Jezîreh with Phœnice-Finik, saying that the two names are applied to the same place. In his account of the capture of Bezabde by Sapor II, in A.D. 360, his description applies better to Finik than to Jezîreh (Bk. XX. ch. vii. 1. See, however, Hartmann: _Bohtân_, Part II. p. 98). He relates further that Constantius attempted in vain to re-capture Bezabde (Bk. XX. ch. xi.), but in this passage he must mean Jezîreh. I can find little in the history of Jezîreh except the mention of sieges: by Tîmûr for example (Ritter, Vol. IX. p. 709), and by the emirs of Bohtân (Rich: _op. cit._, Vol. I. p. 106). When Moltke visited it in 1838 it was a heap of ruins (_Briefe aus der Turkei_, Berlin, 1893, p. 251), and it was not much more when I saw it.

[180] Sachau notices these reliefs. In his opinion the inscriptions are of no great age: _Reise_, p. 379.

[181] Ibn Baṭûṭah, in the fourteenth century, mentions an old mosque in the market place, which is probably the same as the one I saw, though it has undergone many alterations and reparations since his day.

[182] _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 55.

[183] The caves are carefully excavated and I should say that they are ancient. Layard (_Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 54) speaks of them as tombs and some may have been intended as burial-places, but I do not doubt that many were from all time used by the living. The troglodyte habits of the dwellers in these mountains are still strongly marked. Above Bâ’adrî I saw an underground village; at Ḥiṣn Keif, higher up the Tigris, the people live in rock-hewn chambers.

[184] _Anabasis_, Bk. IV. ch. i.

[185] Ammianus Marcellinus, when he speaks of Izala, evidently intends the name to cover the whole Ṭûr ’Abdîn: Bk. XVIII. ch. vi. 11, and Bk. XIX. ch. ix. 4.

[186] The Jacobites and the Syrians (_i.e._ Jacobites who have submitted to Rome) have now ousted the Nestorians, who must have been the first to occupy the Ṭûr ’Abdîn. When this change took place I do not know, but the Nestorians were in possession of the monastery of Mâr Augen as late as 1505: Pognon, _op. cit._, p. 109.

[187] Pognon’s account of the churches, and his publication of the inscriptions, is the best work on the subject (_Inscriptions de la Mésopotamie_); Parry (_Six Months in a Syrian Monastery_) gives a short description of the churches and some sketch plans.

[188] Tigris ferry 9.25; Handak (Christian) 9.45; Thelailah (Moslem) 10.40; Kôdakh--marked in Kiepert--we saw at 12.15, a little to the south of our route.

[189] Our itinerary was as follows: 5.30 Azakh; 6.30 a ruined site (marked in Kiepert); 7.5 Salakûn (Kiepert: Salekon Kharabe), a small Moslem village; 8 Middo (marked in Kiepert), a Christian village on the further side of a deep gorge (here we got into the oak woods); 9 Irmez, about a mile to the south of our road; 9.25 Arba’, a Christian village also about a mile south; 9.45-10.45 Deir Mâr Shim’ûn, a ruined monastery; 11.30 Deir Bar Sauma, the first monastery of Bâ Sebrîna.

[190] Monasteria clericorum. See _The Thousand and One Churches_, p. 461.

[191] Pognon: _op. cit._, p. 108. The stela has not, as Pognon feared, been destroyed. The script is in an unknown alphabet, which Pognon believes to be the prototype of Pehlevî. He gives excellent photographs of the two inscriptions; my photograph shows the relief on the third side. The fourth side is much weather-worn.

[192] I sent the photograph to Professor van Berchem. The inscription is merely a date: 630 (= A.D. 1232-3), or possibly 639.

[193] The name itself is unintelligible.

[194] _The Buildings of Justinian_ (Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society), p. 51.

[195] I would suggest that Ḳal’at ej Jedîd may occupy the site of the Sisaurana of Procopius, which was destroyed by Belisarius. Sisaurana, however, lay three miles from Rhabdium, and even as the crow flies the distance between Ḳ. Ḥâtim Ṭâi and Ḳ. ej Jedîd must be greater. But the important position of Ḳ. ej Jedîd on one of the few passes up from the plain suggests that the spot must have been fortified in ancient times. Sisaurana is no doubt the Sisara of Ammianus Marcellinus: see Ritter, Vol. XI. p. 150 and pp. 400-401.

[196] Though tradition links these foundations with Egypt, it is quite possible that they may have had a yet closer connection with Syria, where in the fourth century monasticism and the solitary life had already taken a strong hold. Duchesne: _Histoire de l’Eglise_, Vol. II. p. 516.

[197] Kiepert marks a “Gr. Cœnobium von Izala,” which is, I imagine, intended for Mâr Augen, but its position relatively to Ḳ. ej Jedîd and Useh Dereh, as marked in the map, cannot be correct. Mâr Yuhannâ, which lies to the east of Mâr Augen, approaches more nearly to Kiepert’s site. I have published a short account of these and other monasteries and churches of the Ṭûr ’Abdîn in _Amida_ (Strzygowski and Van Berchem).

[198] Kiepert places Mâr Melko too far from Useh Dereh. My itinerary was as follows: Useh Dereh to Mâr Melko, 1 hr.; Mâr Melko to Kharabah ’Aleh, 30 min.; Kharabah ’Aleh to Kernaz, 2 hrs. 15 min.; Kernaz to Deir el ’Amr, 1 hr. 15 min. All these places are marked in the map.

[199] Niebuhr heard that Mâr Melko was famed for the curing of epilepsy: _Reisebericht_, Vol. II. p. 388. Not having penetrated into the Ṭûr ’Abdîn, he thought that the report that there were seventy monasteries in the hills must be an exaggeration, but I expect that it was not far from the truth.

[200] Deir ’Umar, 5.30; Mezîzakh, 8.15; Midyâd, 9.15.

[201] I visited inside the town Mâr Shim’ûn, which is in process of being rebuilt, and Mâr Barsauma, which has been completely rebuilt. Outside the town is the monastery of Mâr Ibrahîm and Mâr Hôbel. It has recently been repaired, but much of the masonry is ancient. The two churches, dedicated to the two patron saints, belong to the monastic type of Mâr Gabriel; the mouldings round the doors, and the cyma cornice are old. There is also a small chapel, dedicated to the Virgin; it is square in plan and covered by a dome on squinches, but it appeared to me to be of later date. I was shown in this monastery a very remarkable silken vestment. The ground is of green satin covered with a repeated pattern in gold, silver and coloured silks, representing a woman in a red robe seated in a howdah upon the back of a camel. A man naked to the waist is seated upon the ground with his head bowed upon his hands. A variety of animals and floral motives are scattered round the principal figures. The subject is no doubt taken from the story of Leila and Majnûn. The date of this brocade is probably somewhere between 1560 and 1660. A fragment showing a like pattern is in the possession of Dr. Sarre. The monastery possesses besides a small bronze thurible, of which I succeeded in procuring a counterpart. A similar thurible exists in the British Museum (No. 540 in the catalogue of Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities); it is said to have come from Mâr Musa el Habashi, between Damascus and Palmyra. The Kaiser Friedrich Museum has obtained several in Cairo and Trebizond (Wulff: _Altchristliche Bildwerke_, Teil I, nos. 967-970). These are ascribed to the sixth and seventh centuries. Mr. Dalton, to whom I owe this information, gives me references to two others, one in the Bargello collection at Florence (No. 241 in the catalogue of the Carraud Collection, published in 1898) and one published in the _Echos d’Orient_, VII., 1904, p. 148.

[202] I have published photographs and plans of the Jacobite church of the Virgin and the Greek Orthodox church of Mâr Cosmo in _Amida_: Van Berchem and Strzygowski.

[203] The Yeni Kapu differs in plan from the other three. It has square bastions, whereas they are protected on either side by massive round towers. The round towers extend all along the northern parts of the wall; on the other sides the towers are rectangular.

[204] A sketch plan, made by De Beylié, is published in _Amida_.

[205] His phrase “under the citadel but in the very heart of Amida” is difficult to understand. It does not seem to imply a spring outside the walls, yet there is no place “under the citadel” and within the walls.

[206] One is known by inscriptions to have been erected by the Ortoḳid Sultan Malek Shah in the year A.D. 1208-1209, and the other must belong to the same period. The inscriptions have been published by Van Berchem, see Lehmann-Haupt: _Materialen zur älteren Geschichte Armeniens und Mesopotamiens_, p. 140. They are more fully published in _Amida_, but that work has not appeared in time for me to make any accurate reference to it.

[207] Our itinerary was as follows: Diyârbekr, 7; Shilbeh, 8; Uch Keui, 9.5; Dereh Gechid Chai, a deep valley once noted for brigands, 10.45; Tolek, a village on the opposite side of this valley, 11. Here followed 35 minutes’ halt during which the caravan caught us up and passed us, but we came up with it again before we reached Ḳara Khân Chai, a small river, at 1 o’clock. We got to Tarmûr at 2.45. I give these hours since Kiepert’s map is frequently mistaken as to relative distances.

[208] The day’s march was Tarmûr, 6; Kayden Keui, 6.30; Shawa Keui, 6.50 (both these villages lay about three-quarters of an hour to the right of the road); Tulkhum, a mile to the left of the road by a big mound, 7.10; we climbed a low ridge and dropped into a little plain in which we crossed a stream at 8.15; Kadi Keui to the right, 8.30; road up to Arghana, 9; monastery, 10.10-10.55; crossed the Ma’den Chai by Kalender Koprüsi at 1; Khan above Arghana Ma’den, 3; the caravan had arrived a few minutes before us.

[209] The day’s march was as follows: Khân of Arghana Ma’den, 6.20; Khân of Pünoz, at upper end of gorge, 9.40 (the village of Pünoz lies up a rocky valley to the right); Ḳâsim Khân, at further side of plain, 10.55-11.30--there is no village here; Göljik, 11.55; Shabyan, a small village near the water parting, 1.40; Keghvank, 4.

[210] Mezreh is perhaps Ptolemy’s Mazara (ed. Müller, p. 945), and it bears the same name in the Peutinger Tables.

[211] The garrison consisted of 65 men and 80 beautiful ladies, a proportion of the sexes which may have contributed to Balak’s victory.

[212] Kharpût has been identified with Carcathicerta, which was the royal city of Sophene, according to Strabo.

[213] Since the outbreak of 1895 a Christian governor has been appointed in all vilayets which contain a large proportion of Armenians. The Mu’âvin Vâlîs are nominally co-rulers with their Moslem colleagues, but report, I know not with how much justice, credits them with little influence and less initiative.

[214] Mezreh, 6.5; Khân Keui, 9.25; Tell Maḥmûd, left of road, 9.45; Chaghullah, left of road, 9.55; Sapolar (left), 10.5; Harnik (right), 10.20; Melekjân (about a mile to the right), 10.35; Cholak Ushagî, where there is a khân, 11-11.45. Here we crossed a ridge into a valley which runs down to the Euphrates. Tutli Keui (left), 2.5; over another ridge and down to Kömür Khân at 3.35; Iz Oglu, 5.45.

[215] It is probably the ancient caravan road from Cæsarea and Ephesus to Babylon.

[216] Iz Oglu (on the west bank of the Murad Su), 8; Masnik, 10.15; a big chiflik of which I do not know the name, 12-12.30; we climbed a long hill, reaching the summit at 2.15, and got to Malaṭiyah at 2.45.

[217] They had been published, but not very satisfactorily. I gave my photographs to Mr. Hogarth, who published them in the _Annals of Archæology and Anthropology_, Vol. II. No. 4.

[218] Melitene does not appear to have been in existence in Strabo’s time, for he says that there were no towns in the fruitful plain, but only strongholds upon the mountains (Bk. XII. ii. 6). Procopius states that it was raised by Trajan to the dignity of a city, whereas before it had been nothing but a square fortification on low ground (Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society Edition, p. 82). Diocletian made it the capital of Armenia Secunda (Ramsay: _Historical Geography_, p. 313); it was the centre of the military roads guarding the frontiers of the Roman empire towards the Euphrates, and the standing camp of the XII Legion, Fulminata (_id._ p. 55). With this increase of importance it outgrew, according to Procopius, its former limits, so that the people built over the plain “their churches, the dwellings of their magistrates, the market-place and the shops of their merchants, the streets, porticoes, baths and theatres, and all the other ornaments of a large city.” Melitene was thus composed mostly of suburbs until Justinian surrounded it with a wall. There must, however, have been cities in the plain, of which Strabo knew nothing, long before Trajan’s time, as is proved by existing mounds, and Pliny seems to have preserved a dim memory of these when he speaks of Melitene as having been founded by Semiramis (Bk. VI. ch. iii.).

[219] Malaṭiyah Eskishehr, 9.45; Khâtûnyeh (a quarter of a mile to the left), 10.20; a chiflik (name unknown), 11.45-12.15; Saman Keui, a village near a big mound, 12.55. In a graveyard near here I noticed two fragments of round columns. At 1.25 we crossed a deep valley and saw the village of Shehna Khân about half-a-mile to the right; Elemenjik, 3.10. Not all these villages are marked in Kiepert and some are wrongly placed. There is cultivation round each village, but the plain between is usually untilled.

[220] Arga has been identified with Arca, where there was a Roman station (Arca was also the seat of a bishopric: Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 314), and with Ptolemy’s Arcala (ed. Müller, p. 888). The great road mentioned by Strabo which led from Babylon to Ephesus, crossing the Euphrates at Tomisa-Iz Oglu, passed through Arca (according to Sir W. Ramsay’s suggestion, _op. cit._, p. 273) and ran through Dandaxina and Osdara to Arabissus and thence through the mountains to Cæsarea. Kiepert places Dandaxina immediately to the south of the Tokhma Su and Osdara in the same latitude; Ramsay puts both places further south, and Sterritt’s evidence supports Ramsay’s conclusions. Between Arga and Ekrek my route did not touch the Roman road as laid down by Ramsay, but ran further to the north, and where I crossed the mountains, between Osmandedeli and ’Azîzîyeh, I saw no trace of an ancient road, nor can I think that wheeled traffic can ever have followed that line. Ainsworth travelled down the Tokhma Su from Görün to Derendeh, but he came over the Akcheh Dâgh between Derendeh and Arga, whereas I crossed it further east from Arga to Ozan. Ainsworth observes that there were never more than two roads from Derendeh to Malaṭiyah, one following the line he took, and one the valley of the Tokhma Su down to the plain (_Travels and Researches_, Vol. I. p. 247). I do not feel inclined to dispute that opinion, for though I found a third way from Malaṭiyah to Derendeh, it cannot be called a road. The mouldings and capitals which I saw at Arga pointed to a date not later than the sixth century.

[221] Ozan, 10.30; Mullah ’Alî Shehr, 11.5-40; Polat Ushagha, 12.35; Tozeli, some distance to the left, 12.55; a ruined khân marked by Kiepert, 1.20. Here we saw up a valley to the north the village of Palanga, marked by Kiepert. Above the khân the river flows through a gorge, and on the rocks above it are the ruins of a small fort, which we reached at 2.20; Kötü Ḳal’ah village, 2.45.

[222] We passed upon the way only one village, Mügdeh, where we crossed the Tokhma Su. Kiepert has suggested that Derendeh may represent the site of ancient Dalanda; for objections to this view, see Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 309.

[223] The existing ruins are probably mediæval. Ainsworth (_Travels and Researches_, Vol. I. p. 246) reports an illegible inscription, presumably Arabic or Turkish, over the gate. I do not remember to have seen it. The fortress of Ṭarandah is mentioned as early as the year A.D. 702, when it was in the hands of a Moslem garrison. In the ninth century it was held by the Paulicians, a sect of Eastern Christians whose beliefs were mingled with Manichæanism. (Le Strange: _Lands of the Eastern Caliphate_, p. 120.)

[224] Görün, 12; summit of hill, 1.15 (but we had ridden considerably faster than our usual pace); Kevak Euren, to the left, 3.10; chiflik, 4.30; Osmândedelî, 5.

[225] Osmândedelî, 6.25; Kaindîjeh, 7.10; there is a better road from here, but it makes a long circuit by Günesh and Parenk, and I declined to take it. Küpek Euren, 8.20; Bey Punar, 9.45; water parting, 11.10; Boran Dereh Keui, 5.10.

[226] ’Azîzîyeh is the ancient Ariarathia and its foundation dates from the second or third century B.C.: Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 310.

[227] ’Azîzîyeh, 10; Emergal, an Avshar village on the left, 12; Takhtalî, on the right across the river, 12.20; Ḳizil Khân, 1.35. (See Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 298. It is perhaps Strabo’s Erpa “on the road to Melitene.”) Bazaar Euren, 2.25. Between Ḳizil Khân and Bazaar Euren there is a small khân with ruins near to it, among them a carved door jamb. Ekrek, 5.

[228] Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 289, places Tsamandos at ’Azîzîyeh, but he had not seen Maḥmûd Ghâzî when he wrote.

[229] The Armenians of this district are Muhâjir, immigrants, no less than the Circassians, though their coming dates from an earlier time. They were forced out of northern Armenia in the tenth century by the Seljuks, who drove them southward into what was then still the Byzantine empire.

[230] Kavak was the name I heard given to the site of the church; Rott has published it under the name of the Panagia of Busluk Ferek (_Keinasiatische Denkmäler_, p. 188). He has also published Tomarza, p. 183.

[231] In the low ground there are remains of a theatre, a fine bit of stone wall decorated with good mouldings, and part of a vaulted brick building, possibly a gymnasium. All these are upon the left bank of the stream. The temple upon the bluff was converted at an early date into a church, which has long since fallen into decay, though it has been patched up in recent times by the Armenians (Fig. 228). Along the edge of the bluff there are remains of a columned portico. In the ruined bazaar I saw a couple of beautiful funnel capitals, cracked and broken by fire. They should probably be dated in the early sixth century. At the entrance of the valley that leads up to the Kara Bel are the ruins of a small temple with a finely carved doorway (Fig. 223).

Mr. Hogarth sends me the following note:--

Miss Bell has submitted to me five inscriptions found on a temple site at Comana Capp. They are, she thinks, unpublished, and certainly were not seen by me on either of my visits to Comana in 1890 or 1891. Miss Bell sent me good photographs of nos. 1 and 2; but for the others, I have only her hand-copies to go upon.

No. 1 is a commonplace epitaph, intended to be hexametrical; but the necessary proper names would not accommodate themselves to the metre, and the versifier has had to leave ll. 1 and 3 partly prose. In l. 2 he or the lapicide has made the mistake of leaving the ε before ἡδ unelided. The most interesting point in the inscription, the second name of the dedicator, is, unfortunately, obscured by a breakage of the surface. The lettering is very clear on the photograph except on the right edge.

No. 2 is broken top and right, and the names of the son and mother cannot be restored.

No. 3, the epitaph of a slave set up by his master, offers an instance of the distinction of slaves by the name of the master with a Roman gentile prefix. Either Αὐρ. or Αἰλι. is concealed in Miss Bell’s copy of l. 2. Another slave seems to have appropriated the grave afterwards for his wife, and added a note to that effect.

No. 4 is without points of interest. No. 5 adds to other Oriental names found at Comana _Pharnaces_ and the name of his father, which, in Miss Bell’s copy, reads _Giris_.

1. Altar-stela with wreaths in relief on the front and sides. The inscription is in careful lettering of about the 4th cent. A.D. Words are in some cases divided by points. Square and round forms are used indifferently, and ligature is frequent. Worn badly on right edge:--

2. Altar-stela with wreath in relief below the inscription. Broken top and right top. Finely-cut lettering of 3rd cent. A.D.:--

Ἀσύνκριτος: for the use of this epithet at Comana see _J. H. S._ xviii. p. 318, no. 29, and also no. 4 below.

3. Altar-stela:--

5. On a small stone with rude pediment:--

[232] “Their houses are circular,” says Marco Polo of the Tartars of inner Asia, “and are made of wands covered with felts”: Yule’s edition, Vol. I. p. 252.

[233] Mârdin, 6.30; Yamachlî, to right, 7.30; Sarî Khân, 8.45; Ispileh, to right, 10.30; Talas, 11.30.

[234] The plateau is here about 3,500 feet above sea level.

[235] It has been well published by Rott: _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_, p. 103.

[236] ’Ala ed Din reigned from 1219 to 1236, but the tomb is dated by an inscription in the year 1344.

[237] It was built in 1381-2 by the wife of ’Ala ed Dîn, Prince of Ḳaramân. See Sarre: _Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst_, p. 135.

End of Project Gutenberg's Amurath to Amurath, by Gertrude Lowthian Bell