CHAPTER VII

THE DATE OF UKHAIḌIR

There are no inscriptions by which to fix the date of Ukhaiḍir. If any record of its foundation were made, it must have been written upon the plaster which covered the walls, and in some of the more important rooms the plaster has peeled away. But it is probable that there was no such record. The laudable habit of setting the name and date of the founder upon the building which he had caused to be constructed does not seem to have been followed in the first age of Islâm, and, like Ukhaiḍir, the ḥîrahs upon the Syrian frontier have furnished us with no direct evidence as to their origin. I found in room 44 a graffito upon the plaster on the south side of the doorway which communicates with room 45. It is exceedingly ill written, and in some places the cracking of the plaster makes it almost indecipherable. The authors of _Ocheïdir_ did not notice it and no mention of it appears in M. Massignon’s text, though he certainly saw it, since it is visible in one of his photographs.[429] The original is so indistinct that I doubt whether any photograph would reproduce it satisfactorily. After an unsuccessful attempt to take a squeeze, I made a copy--scarcely more successfully (Fig. 35). When I returned to Ukhaiḍir in 1911 the plaster was still more damaged, and I abandoned the attempt to re-copy the graffito. Meantime Dr. B. Moritz had noticed the characters in M. Massignon’s photograph, and he was inclined to believe that they might be ancient, possibly Nabataean. I therefore sent my copy both to him and to Professor Littmann, and the latter was so kind as to supply me with the following notes. ‘Dr. Moritz and I combined our efforts and something like the following may be suggested:

“This water from the house (?) to ... from this water. And the declaration was pronounced that there is no God but God and Muḥammad is his Prophet. And there was present at this ... Bishr, son of ‘Âdah son of ‘Îsâ son of ‘Umar, in the year of the Hidjrah 77-.”

‘If the date is correctly read we would have to choose between the years A.H. 771 and 779 = A.D. 1369-1378. The purpose of this inscription may be to reserve the rights of watering at or near Ukhaiḍir. The Beduin put their tribe marks on ruins in the desert in order to prove that the region (water and pasture) is theirs. This is their way of annexation. The whole is very doubtful; but we have made out at least something. The words that are absolutely certain are [Illustration: Arabic], [Illustration: Arabic] and [Illustration: Arabic].’

The result, as Professor Littmann observes, is small; but we have at any rate the assurance that the graffito is not very ancient and that it is not concerned with the building or restoration of the palace. The water to which it alludes must be the well in the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ.

The name ‘Ukhaiḍir’ is not mentioned by historians or geographers. Like so many of the place-names now current in the desert it is in all probability comparatively modern. Mshattâ, Qṣair ‘Amrah, Kharâneh, are not known to history under those titles; even the word ‘Ḥamâd’, which is applied universally to the high and barren steppes of the northern Syrian desert, is not used by any mediaeval writer. But the root from which ‘Ukhaiḍir’ is derived, signifying primarily to be green and therefore easily applicable to any spot where there is water or verdure, is found in other place-names. The palace or ḥîrah of the Umayyads in Damascus was called ‘al-Khaḍrâ’,[430] and Balâdhuri mentions another Khaḍrâ, in or near Kûfah, in his description of that city.[431] It would, however, be vain to attempt to identify the Khaḍrâ of Kûfah with Ukhaiḍir, though some at least of the place-names given in Balâdhuri’s catalogue denote sites well without the limits of Kûfah itself, and even at considerable distances from the town. Khawarnaq, for example, comes into the list, and a building or village called Qaṣr al-Muqâtil, which is stated by Yâqût to be either between ‘Ain al-Tamr and Damascus, or near al-Quṭquṭâneh and Sulâm.[432] Quṭquṭâneh we know to be the modern Ṭuqṭuqâneh, and Sulâm I must connect with the well of the same name, of which I heard as lying under the Ṭâr east of Ukhaiḍir a little to the south of my path to Mudjḍah and ‘Aṭshân.[433] Qaṣr al-Muqâtil is said by Ṭabari, by Balâdhuri, and by Yâqût to have been called after a certain Muqâtil ibn Ḥasân ibn Tha’labah ibn Aus ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Ayyûb ibn Madjrûf ibn ‘Âmir ibn ‘Uṣayyah ibn Imra’al-Qais ibn Zaid Manât ibn Tamîm, who would seem to have lived during the Days of Ignorance, and in fact the Qaṣr of the Banû Muqâtil is mentioned by Ibn al-Athîr in his account of the movements of Persian and Mohammadan leaders which preceded the battle of Qâdisiyyeh.[434] From a further passage in Ibn al-Athîr it would appear to have

lain near Quṭquṭâneh, on the road from Kûfah to Anbâr.[435] Yâqût states that ‘Isâ ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdallâh (who was great-uncle to the khalif Manṣûr) demolished and subsequently rebuilt Qaṣr al-Muqâtil, and that it belonged to him: he goes on to quote a couplet of Ibn Takhmâ al-Asadi: ‘Methinks there is not in the Qaṣr, the Qaṣr of Muqâtil, or in Zûrah, any pleasant shade or a friend;’ from which I infer that the Qaṣr was not a walled palm garden, like the modern quṣûr in the vicinity of the Baḥr Nedjef, and therefore that it may well have been an isolated castle in the desert. I do not wish to suggest that there can be any certainty in identifying Ukhaiḍir with the Qaṣr al-Muqâtil, but I would nevertheless call attention to the following points:

1. It is strange that a building as important as Ukhaiḍir should not have been mentioned by historians or poets, since the district in which it stands was the theatre of much action during the first hundred and fifty years of the Hidjrah.

2. The position of the Qaṣr of Muqâtil, so far as somewhat vague indications allow it to be determined, would not accord ill with the site of Ukhaiḍir.

There is, however, another way of accounting for the silence of early records, namely, by supposing that Ukhaiḍir was not in existence at that period. In this matter we can be guided only by such deductions as can be made from the plan, structure, and decorations of the palace.

The plan of Ukhaiḍir is in many respects more closely related to that of the palace of Khusrau at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn than to the plan of Balkuwârâ. The latter palace is a further development of the scheme which is represented in a less complete form by the two other buildings. That this further development necessarily implies the lapse of any long period of time, or indeed of any appreciable period of time, between the erection of Ukhaiḍir and the erection of Balkuwârâ, I am not prepared to assert; it might be taken to denote no more than that in the one case the architects were called upon to construct a remote hunting palace in the desert, while in the other they were laying out a princely dwelling in the capital of the empire. A similar explanation might be given to account for the difference between the beautiful and varied stucco work of Balkuwârâ, wherein the influence of Hellenistic Syria and Coptic Egypt is apparent, and the limited range of the decorations of Ukhaiḍir, confined as they are to motives which had been borrowed by the Sasanians partly from Mesopotamian Hellenism, and partly from the Assyro-Babylonian tradition. But I cannot regard such reasoning as wholly convincing. The difference both in decoration and in structure between Ukhaiḍir and the buildings at Sâmarrâ are such as to place the foundation of the one considerably earlier than the foundation of the others.

As regards structure one of the most significant indications of date is the curve of the arches. Ukhaiḍir belongs to the time of transition from the round or ovoid to the pointed arch. This transition must have been accomplished in Mesopotamia during the course of the eighth century. While the Sasanian vault is invariably round or elliptical (I attach no importance to the fortuitous appearance of the pointed vault in the substructure at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn), the Sasanian arch is, so far as my knowledge goes, invariably round. The arches of Sarvistân are specifically stated to be round,[436] the arches of Firûzâbâd are also round, though where the arch is set back upon the jambs a tendency to give a curve to the angle lends to them the appearance of a horse-shoe.[437] All the arches of the Ctesiphon façade are round, and at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn the builders knew no other form. It has been contended that the pointed arch is found in the upper gallery on the interior of the east wall at Ctesiphon, but Dr. Herzfeld has shown satisfactorily that the curve assumed by those arches was dictated by their peculiar construction.[438] The pointed arch, like the pointed vault, may have been used sporadically in the pre-Mohammadan era (it is found in the church of Qaṣr ibn Wardân, which must have been built about the year A.D. 564[439]); it was latent in Sasanian architecture; but it was not until the eighth century that it passed into familiar use. In the Umayyad buildings on the western side of the desert, it appears side by side with the round arch, and at Hammân al-Ṣarakh, Ṭûbah and Mshattâ it assumes exactly the same shape in which we have it at Ukhaiḍir, a slightly stilted, pointed ovoid which bears the hall-mark of its descent from the Sasanian elliptical vault. Similarly at Ukhaiḍir it has not yet ousted all other forms; there are examples in the palace of the true ovoid arch and even of the round arch. The builders of Sâmarrâ went a step further. Their arches have shaken off all connexion with the Sasanian ellipse and have taken on the curve which was to become typical from that time forward of the Mohammadan pointed arch.[440] Of the same character are the arches of the Baghdâd gate at Raqqah, which cannot be earlier than the reign of Manṣûr and may with greater probability be assigned to Hârûn al-Rashîd.[441] It would therefore appear to be certain from the evidence which we possess that in the first half of the ninth century, and possibly as early as the close of the eighth century, the pointed arch had come into systematic use in Mesopotamia, to the exclusion of all other forms, and if that be the case, Ukhaiḍir must belong to an earlier period, more closely approximating, as I would suggest, to the period which witnessed the same transition stage on the Syrian side of the desert, a stage which falls there into the first half of the eighth century.

From the details of arch construction little help is to be derived. The double ring of brick voussoirs, the inner horizontal, the outer vertical, is common to Ctesiphon and to Sâmarrâ, as well as to the Syrian ḥîrahs of the intervening age. The system of arch-building over temporary or permanent centerings has been shown by Dr. Reuther to be practised to the present day, but so far as I am aware, arches set back from the jambs, such as those which were built over temporary centerings in the Sasanian palaces and in Ukhaiḍir, are not present in monumental buildings at a later date. There is no recorded example of this construction at Sâmarrâ.

Neither do the horse-shoe arches of the central court afford any conclusive evidence as to date. In all probability the horse-shoe arch was used in Mesopotamia long before Ukhaiḍir was built, and it is used to this day. It appears at Tâq-i-Girrâ, a monument of which the date is not determined, though the classical workmanship of its mouldings indicates a period early in the Christian era;[442] it is found in a Hellenistic vault at Chiusi,[443] and it is common in the churches of Syria. To the north of Mesopotamia there is an early example of its use in the basilica at Mayâfârqîn.[444] As for the methods of vaulting employed at Ukhaiḍir they exhibit no features which are not present in the Umayyad buildings on the Syrian side of the desert, but in some respects, for example in the use of the groin and of the fluted dome, they are in advance of Sasanian construction.

I have already called attention to the points of similarity between Ukhaiḍir and Kharâneh. They have a certain weight in the chronological problem although they do not afford decisive evidence as to identity of date. With identical requirements details of structure are apt to remain the same over long periods of time. The loophole windows at Abû Hurairah and at Raqqah,[445] in buildings which must be placed in the middle of the twelfth century, differ little, if at all, from those of Ukhaiḍir and Kharâneh. Nor is the coincidence in the latter two monuments of a decorated chamber to the right of the audience room in itself a determining factor. The same scheme may have existed in Mohammadan palaces later in date than Kharâneh, but unfortunately the later palaces have not been preserved or are not yet adequately explored. Possibly the excavations at Sâmarrâ may throw further light on the subject.

There is, however, another matter which must be taken into account. The palace of Ukhaiḍir could not have satisfied the needs of any but a very primitive society. It contains no bath, that indispensable requisite of existence in hot climates, nor any sanitary arrangements whatsoever. Moreover the seclusion of the ḥaram courts is very imperfect, a fact which points to a primitive stage of Islâm. It is true that the ḥaram courts are separated from each other and from the central court of honour, but they are overlooked by the windows of the two upper stories of the northern block, which must have belonged to the public part of the palace. Doorways open from the first floor on to a roof which is continuous with the roof of the ḥiram lîwâns, and even if low walls divided the roof spaces, the guests or guards who were lodged in the upper story had an uninterrupted view into all the courts below. When I first visited Ukhaiḍir I found it inhabited by some Arabs from Djôf. The wives and families of the shaikhs had taken possession of the rooms on the first floor, where none of my servants were allowed to penetrate. They dwelt there because, if they had occupied the lower courts, their movements could have been observed from above.

All these observations point to, or can be reconciled with, a date in the eighth century for the building of the palace, but whether it belongs to the late Umayyad or to the early Abbâsid period cannot be decided from internal evidence. The sister buildings on the western side of the desert are Umayyad, but on the other hand Ya’qûbi, writing towards the close of the ninth century, mentions the fact that the castles of the Abbâsid khalifs were situated on or near the road to Mekkah. ‘He who wishes to travel from Kûfah to the Ḥidjâz goes out along the southern road by stations which are built and halting-places which are kept in repair, among which are the castles of the Hâshimid khalifs. The first station is Qâdisiyyeh.’[446] The Arabic word which I have translated ‘castles’ is _quṣûr_; it is the word which is applied to-day to the mud-walled palm gardens of the Baḥr Nedjef. Whether in this passage it should be taken to denote palm gardens or ḥîrahs situated along the Ḥadjdj road I do not know, but it is significant that, with the exception of Ukhaiḍir, no trace of any such ḥîrahs has remained to our day. Ukhaiḍir is not upon the road that runs from Kûfah to the Ḥidjâz, but neither is it more than two days’ journey removed from it. That the khalif Hârûn al-Rashîd carried his hunting expeditions into the region near Kûfah seems probable from the fact that it was on one of these occasions that he is said to have found the grave of the khalif ‘Ali at the spot which is now occupied by the city of Nedjef.[447] The story of the finding of the grave bears every sign of having been a legend invented by the Shî’ahs, but it lends additional colour to the supposition that the early Abbâsids frequented the eastern deserts in pursuit of game, and therefore that they may have possessed palaces outside Kûfah to which they were accustomed to resort. Manṣûr, the second of the line, founded Baghdâd in A.D. 762, and removed the offices of government thither from Hâshimiyyeh near Kûfah in 763. His predecessor Ṣaffâh had lived at Hâshimiyyeh near Anbâr: it was he who had transferred the capital from Damascus to ‘Irâq. Previous to 750, when the last Umayyad khalif, Marwân II, was deposed and slain, the eastern provinces of the empire were governed by powerful viceroys, and if Ukhaiḍir is to be regarded as pre-Abbâsid it is to one of these that it must be attributed. Men like Ziyâd ibn Abîhi or Ḥadjdjâdj, who controlled the riches of ‘Irâq and Persia, were scarcely second in wealth and power to the khalifs themselves. Ziyâd’s personal austerity is attested by historians who had no desire to depict the character of Mu’âwiyah’s vicegerent in a favourable light, but his architectural activity is shown not only by the number of mosques which he founded or rebuilt, but also by the erection of palaces at Baṣrah.[448] He died in A.D. 673 after holding his high office under ‘Ali and Mu’âwiyah for a period of nearly fifteen years. Ḥadjdjâdj was governor of ‘Irâq from A.D. 695 to 713. In the khalifate of Ḥishâm, Khâlid ibn ‘Abdallâh ruled over ‘Irâq for thirteen years (724-737), and Yûsuf ibn ‘Umar, who succeeded to the post, held it for seven years. Any of these men might have built and occupied palaces in the wilderness, imitating the practice of their Umayyad masters, and also of their Nu’mânid predecessors in the very region in which the Umayyad viceroys wielded in their turn an authority far greater than that to which the Arab princes of Ḥîrah could lay claim. But the existence of a miḥrâb in the mosque fixes a date before which it is unlikely that Ukhaiḍir could have been built. According to Mohammadan writers, the first miḥrâb was that which was constructed in the mosque of Medînah between A.D. 709 and 711, and if that be so Ukhaiḍir cannot be placed earlier than the last years of Ḥadjdjâdj. I take the years 709-711 as the earliest possible date and the khalifate of Hârûn al-Rashîd as the latest possible date, and with due regard to the probable age of the Syrian palaces on the one hand, and to the architectural features of Ukhaiḍir as compared with those of Raqqah and Sâmarrâ on the other, I conclude that Ukhaiḍir must have been built towards the middle of the eighth century.

This leads me back once more to the Qaṣr of Muqâtil, which, though it was in existence during the pre-Mohammadan and Umayyad periods, was destroyed and rebuilt by ‘Îsâ ibn ‘Ali; and without insisting upon the identity of the two, I submit that the suggestion that they may be identical is not groundless. The well in the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ is the only spot in the region immediately south of the lake of Abû Dibs at which fresh water can be obtained, and for that reason it was probably always frequented. That no advantage should have been taken of it at a time when Ḥîrah and Kûfah were rich and important centres of population is difficult to suppose. But whatever habitation was in existence on the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ during the Days of Ignorance, it cannot have been the same as the palace of Ukhaiḍir, which is indisputably of Mohammadan origin. The Qaṣr al-Muqâtil was, however, rebuilt in the early part of the Abbâsid era; and that is a date (and as I have attempted to show, it is the latest date) which is consistent with the architecture of Ukhaiḍir.

SUBJECT INDEX

A

abacus, 12, 29; boss on, 135.

acanthus, 141, n. 3.

acroterion, 129.

aedicula, 127, 129, 139.

aisle of mosque, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 158, 159.

aiwân, _see_ lîwân.

Alexandrian influence, 126, 127, 136.

ancient road, Kûfah-Shethâthâ, 2, 43.

antechamber, _see_ ṭarmah.

apadana, 63.

arcade, 16, 17, 19, 23, 28, 30, 32, 35, 49, 50, 71, 125, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159; blind, 5, 6, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34.

arch, breaking into vault, 10, 20, 34; construction, 6, 12, 15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 39, 42, 113, 166; decoration, 122; horse-shoed, 8, 24, 165, 166; ogee, 40; oversailing, 9, 15, 16, 26, 27, 33, 79, 115; ovoid, 6, 26, 28, 32, 33, 34, 114; pointed, 5, 6, 9, 16, 29, 32, 34, 112, 114, 118, 165; relieving, 112, 113, 115, 118; round, 30, 39, 41, 43, 76, 112, 113, 115, 118, 165; segmental, 13; set back from jambs, 14, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, 33, 76, 79, 118, 166; stilted, 8, 29, 114, 118; transition from round or ovoid to pointed, 114, 165; transverse, 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 51, 53, 72, 73, 83, 96, 97, 112, 115, 140.

architrave, 123, 131, 135, 136; broken, 125, 128.

archivolt, 128, 129, 131, 133, 135.

armamentarium, 102, 103.

Assyro-Babylonian influence, 142, 164.

asymmetry, 51, 52, 79, 81, 93, 94; in façade, 130, 131, 132.

âteshgâh, 91, 92.

attic, 127, 128, 129, 130.

B

bâdiyah, 55, 112, 119.

bait, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 104, 105, 106, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120.

balcony, 19, 23, 25, 133.

barracks, in Roman camp, 100, 102, 105.

base, absence of, 27, 42, 134; bell-shaped, 156.

bastion, 107, 108.

bath, _see_ ḥammâm.

battering-ram, 107.

brackets, horizontal, under domes, semi-domes, and calottes, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 27, 42, 73, 97, 111, 112, 113.

brick, 13, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 40, 41, 45, 54, 69, 70, 71, 79, 82, 84, 96, 113, 115, 117, 154, 155, 160; enamelled, 122, 123, 140; sun-dried, 38, 68, 75, 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 160.

buttress, 4, 35, 71, 122.

buttressing vaults, 14, 26, 35, 74, 75, 95.

Byzantine influence, 115, 119, 143, 147.

C

calotte, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 34, 38, 73, 133, 138; construction, 13; laid in rings, 24, 42; stilted, 13.

capital, 25, 77; absent, 6, 30, 138, 140; bell-shaped, 156; Corinthian, 135, 141; impost-, of masonry and stucco, 12, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 42, 134, 135, 138, 140; Ionic, 65; wreathed acanthus, 153.

caravanserai type, 104, 106, 111 n.

casemate, 22, 107, 108, 109, 121.

castrum, Sasanian, 105.

cavetto, 12.

cella, 94, 126.

centering, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 26, 28, 30, 33 nn. 1 and 2, 45, 71, 72, 75, 76, 96, 118, 166.

centralization, 129, 131.

chapel replacing sacellum, 105.

chemin de ronde, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 73, 106, 116.

chimney, 29, 32, 82.

Christian influence, 147, 148, 149.

cloister, _see_ arcade.

closet, 83, 118.

coffering, 140.

colonnade, 84, 98, 123, 125.

column, absence of, in Babylonia and Assyria, 62, 77; clustered, 24, 131, 135, 158; double, 138; dwarf, 127, 128, 130, 133; engaged, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34, 36, 42, 46, 78, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 136; free-standing, 16, 17, 28, 29, 32, 35, 45, 47, 63, 80, 82, 123, 136, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 158, 159, 160; of wood, 148, 154, 157, 158, 160; quarter-, in antis, 127, 128, 129, 138.

concrete, 28.

cornice, 25, 34, 70, 133; broken, 128.

courts, isolation of, 31, 33, 48, 49, 83.

crémaillère, 106, 108, 109.

crenellated motive on archivolt, 14, 18, 140.

crenellation, 7, 18, 107, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 133, 134, 140, 143.

curtain wall, 7, 106 n. 8, 108.

cusp, 19, 24, 132, 133, 135, 142, 153.

D

Days of Ignorance, 56, 120, 168.

decoration, continuous niches, 123, 124, 125, 136; continuous pattern, 123, 130, 131, 135, 143; Coptic, 141, 143, 147, 164; derived from wooden structure, 123; geometric, 143; imitative architecture, 65, 77, 123, 124, 125, 127-36; in horizontal zones, 122, 124-36; of structural character, 140.

dîwân, 19, 22.

djâmi’, _see_ mosque.

dog-tooth, brick, 40, 79.

dome, 8, 10, 51, 53, 56, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 92, 97, 112, 117, 118, 152; fluted, 9, 13, 166; on columns, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78; ribbed, 7, 111; thrust of, concentrated on angle piers, 78, 96.

dragon motive, 90, 143.

dungeon, 9.

Duru, 88.

E

Egyptian fortification, 106; influence, 127 n. 1; tombs, 124.

entablature, 76, 130; broken, 127, 128; Ionic, 127.

F

façade, Babylonian and Assyrian, 122, 123; Graeco-Roman, 123; Hellenistic, 24, 25, 51, 66, 88, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126-34; of lîwân, 32, 34, 66, 78, 82, 95, 136, 137, 138; of mosque court, 143, 144, 156, 158; Roman, 124, 125; single-arched, 138, 139; towered, of khilâni, 62, 63, 75, 77, 78, 116; triple-arched, 136, 137, 138.

fillet, 8, 10, 25, 27, 51, 52, 76, 79, 115, 123, 133.

fire altar, _see_ âteshgâh.

flutes, triple, 78, 115.

fluting, 40, 41, 78, 122, 123, 133.

forum, 72, 98.

fresco, 112, 140, 142; Alexandrian, 128 n. 3; of Boscoreale, 125, 127, 128 n. 3.

frieze, broken, 128, 133.

funnel above arch, 8, 14 n. 1.

G

gangway, _see_ balcony.

gate-house, Ukhaiḍir, 8, 81, 117.

gate, monumental, 4, 7, 9, 41, 49, 51, 52, 53, 81, 84, 86, 92, 96, 116, 122, 142.

gate towers, 7, 9, 10, 41, 114; of Roman camp, 99.

gorge, Egyptian, 76, 127.

graffito, Kharâneh, 115; Ukhaiḍir, 31, 161, 162, 163.

Greek influence, 65, 66, 75, 87, 97, 119, 127, 130, 137, 139; in India, 123, 136, 140, 141, 142, 143, 152, 164.

guard-rooms, 50, 51, 81, 92.

H

ḥair, 56.

ḥammâm, 4, 37, 56, 111, 112.

ḥaram, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27, 82, 83, 122, 147, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 167.

ḥarb, 58.

Hazârbâf, 26, 138.

head wall, 19, 27.

ḥertâ, 56.

ḥîrah, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 74, 78, 81, 86, 87, 90, 97, 117, 119, 120, 161, 162, 166.

ḥîri, 58, 59, 86, 121.

horizontal decoration, 24, 79, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133.

horreum, 102, 103.

hourd, 107, 116, 121, 133, 134.

house, Arab, 145, 146, 158; Hellenistic, 65, 87, 89, 99, 120; lîwân-ṭarmah, 87, 117; Roman, 87, 89.

hypostyle pavilion over gate, 81.

I

incrusted style, 124.

inscriptions, absence of, in early Mohammadan architecture, 161.

inscription with date, Diyârbekr, 158; Ḥarrân, 152; Kharâneh, 115; Mayâfârqîn, 159; Môṣul, 160; Qaṣr ibn Wardân, 112; Raqqah, 153.

intervallum, 98, 100, 102, 103.

K

khân, 40, 41, 43, 143.

khilâni, 62, 63, 66, 75, 76, 80, 82, 84, 87-93, 116, 119, 120.

khuṭbah, 146 n. 1.

kitchen, 32, 33, 42, 47, 48, 49, 82, 83.

L

label, rectangular, 13, 27, 51.

latitudinal chamber, 45, 47, 49, 62, 65 n. 4, 78, 80, 90, 92, 93, 94.

ledge, _see_ balcony.

limes, Roman oriental, 97, 98, 100-6, 110, 111, 120; Roman western, 98, 110.

lintel, 112, 113, 115; of masonry, 16, 25, 118.

lîwân, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 104, 112, 116, 117, 119, 132, 137, 138, 142, 143, 167.

loggia, 78, 123.

longitudinal chamber, 78, 93, 94.

loophole, 6, 7, 9, 107, 115, 116, 121, 140, 166.

lozenge, 8, 17.

M

machicolation, 7, 107, 121.

madjlis, 145.

madrasah, 159.

Magi, 91, 92.

maqṣûrah, 147, 148, 149.

masdjid, 145.

masdjid al-djamâ’ah, 146, 148.

megaron, 65 n. 4, 89, 120.

miḥrâb, 16, 17 n., 18, 132, 141, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 159, 168.

minaret, at Abu Dulaf, 156; at Baghdâd, 40; at Baṣrah, 148; at Iṣfahân, 41 n. 1; at Raqqah, 153, 154; at Sâmarrâ, 156; at Ṭâûq, 40; of Ghazni, 41; of Ibn Ṭulûn, 156.

minbar, 146, 149, 150, 151.

misr, 146, 148.

Mohammadan art, 142.

mortar, bitumen, 69, 96; clay, 96; gypsum, 12, 15, 44, 96.

mosaic, 65, 147, 148.

mosque, 16, 17, 20, 21, 26, 40, 86, 117, 132, 133, 141, 142, 144, 145-60, 168.

moulding, 124, 125, 128, 133, 166; continuous, 133.

N

narthex, _see_ ṭarmah.

niche, arched, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 76, 78, 122, 123, 124, 125, 130, 131, 133, 138, 139, 142, 154, 158; architraved, 40, 126; flanked by colonnettes, 13, 24, 25, 27, 28, 42, 52, 130, 131, 139, 140; in rectangular frame, 8, 34, 40, 76, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139.

O

oecus, 87.

orientation of mosques, 150, 151.

orthostatae, 62, 122, 123 n. 1, 124.

ovolo, 29.

P

painting, Greek, 125.

palace, Achaemenid, 62-4, 140; Assyrian, 93, 94, 124, 140; Babylonian, 93; Byzantine, 121; Greek, 89; Hittite, _see_ khilâni; Mohammadan, 84-7, 110-21, 168; Parthian, 65-72, 89, 90, 140; Roman, 121; Sasanian, 44-54, 73-81, 83, 84, 90-7, 118, 119, 120, 121.

palmette, 141 n. 3; broken, 132; tree, 143.

panel, 42, 122.

pediment, 129, 139; broken, 125, 127, 128.

pendentive, 42, 73, 111.

peristyle, 65, 87, 99, 120, 136.

pier, 12, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 123, 127, 128, 152, 153, 158; heart-shaped, 46, 74.

piers, clustered, 135, 156, 158.

pilaster, 5, 6, 8, 34, 123, 126.

plan, basilical, 111, 117, 142; change of, at Ukhaiḍir, 10, 33 n. 3, 60, 81; circular city, 107, 109; conjunctive, 89; disjunctive, 89; injunctive, 89, 90, 106, 120.

plaster, _see_ stucco.

plinth, 122, 128, 134.

podium, 122, 123, 124, 125, 130; broken, 125, 127, 128.

Porta Decumana, 98, 103.

Porta Praetoria, 98, 103.

Porta Principalis Dextra, 98.

Porta Principalis Sinistra, 98.

portcullis, 7, 10.

portico, 58, 59, 126, 152.

potsherds, mediaeval, 38, 56.

Praetentura, 102.

Praetorium, 72, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 120.

prostas, 87.

pylon-like wall, 130, 131.

pylon tombs, 127, 128.

Pyraetheia, 91.

R

ramp, 12, 14, 19, 21, 45, 46, 50, 80, 86.

recess, _see_ niche.

recessed calotte, 13; ornament, 18, 27, 34, 40, 133, 140; square containing circle, on mosques, 156.

Retentura, 102.

retreating angles, _see_ crémaillère.

rinceaux, 141 n. 3.

riwâq, arûqah, 17, 20, 58, 59, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160.

rock-cut monuments, 72, 123, 126-30, 142.

Roman camp, stockaded earthwork, 97, 99, 110; stone, 97, 99, 100-4; type, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 120, 121.

Roman influence, 136, 137.

Roman temple tomb, 127.

roof, wooden, 144, 150, 152, 153, 156, 158.

rosette, 17, 18, 27, 140.

S

sacellum, 98, 101, 103, 104.

safâfîd, 149.

ṣaḥn, 17, 20, 21, 23, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160.

Sasanian influence, 59, 75, 115, 137, 141, 164.

scollop, _see_ cusp.

semi-dome, 18, 27, 28, 38, 42, 73, 79, 111, 112, 115, 139; fluted, 25, 118, 139.

serdâb, 25, 28, 35, 37, 82.

spandrel, 6, 12, 24, 27, 34, 131, 133.

spear-shaped motive, 27, 140.

spiral motive, 133.

squinch arch, 18, 23, 27, 38, 50, 51, 52, 53, 73, 79, 96, 97, 115, 140, 159; fluted, 18.

stair, 7, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 46, 82; on âtesgâh, 91, 92.

staircase motive, 127.

stela, 123, 135.

stoa, 65, 124, 126.

stone, dressed, 65 n. 1, 70, 96, 124, 126, 159; undressed masonry, 6, 24, 28, 44, 69, 76, 78, 84, 96, 113, 116, 117, 160.

stucco, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 34, 52, 86, 115, 124, 125, 134, 140, 164; oversailing bars, 18, 26, 28, 38, 51, 65, 66, 140.

stupa, 123.

ṣuffah, 146.

symmetry, 92.

T

tabernacle in votive niches and tombs, 127.

ṭâqchah, 28, 35, 51, 52, 76.

ṭarmah, 30, 32, 48, 53, 83, 84, 87, 88, 93, 94, 119, 137, 138.

temple, Assyrian, 92, 93, 94, 124; Babylonian, 92, 93, 94; fire, 90, 92, 94; in antis, 66; peripteral, 65.

tetrapylon, 98.

theatre, at Babylon, 65; at Ephesus, 125.

tholos, 128, 129.

torus, 76.

towers, à cheval, 103, 108; chamber, 7, 31; flanking, 4, 6, 7, 33, 36, 37, 41, 60, 99-110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 121, 153, 155; in Roman camp, 99; polygonal, 109; rounded and rectangular, 103, 107, 108, 109; tomb, 41 n. 1.

transept of mosque, 152, 155, 158, 159.

trifoliate apse, 117.

tubes, decoration, value of, 35, 143; imply vault, 143; in vault, 14, 19, 22, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 76, 143, 144.

U

Ukhaiḍir, absence of bath, 166; central court, 23, 24-6, 33, 34, 82, 131; corridor, 28, pp. 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33; court A, 16, 19; court B, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 82, 83; court C, 23, 30, 32, 33, 82, 83; court D, 23, 33; court E, 23, 24, 30, 33, 83; court F, 29, 33; court G, 23, 30, 32, 33, 82, 83; court H, 23, 30, 32, 33, 82, 83; east annex, 34, 35, 82; great hall (7), 12-14, 19, 24, 81; ḥammâm, 37; imperfect seclusion of ḥaram courts, 166; inner walls and towers, 33; mosque, 16-19, 150; name of, 162; north annex, 36, 37, 60; north gate tower, 9, 10, 19, 21; outer walls and gates, 4-9, 34, 78, 81; palace yard, 5, 14, 20, 32, 33, 34; passages 5 and 6, pp. 10, 14, 16, 34; room 4, p. 9; rooms 29-42, pp. 26-9, 34, 35, 82; three-storied block, 14-23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 81, 117.

underground rooms, _see_ serdâb.

‘uqûd, 148.

V

vault, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51, 72, 73, 75, 82, 83, 95, 112, 115, 143, 144, 150, 155, 160, 165, 166; at Hatra, 70-3; construction, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 43, 118; elliptical, _see_ (vault) ovoid; flattened, 22; groined, 29, 33, 35, 73, 97, 111, 112, 120, 166; history of, 68-70; intersection, avoided, 9, 17, 29, 53, 73; introduction of changes plan, 66; on columns, 71-2, 78; over inclined plane, 7, 16, 46, 97; oversailing, 9, 43, 45, 52, 70, 79, 118; --imitation of, 27; ovoid, 31, 52, 71, 76, 165; pointed, 45, 50, 165; pointed and oversailing, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17; segmental, 28; stilted, 13, 70; want of skill in Sasanian, 97.

Via Praetoria, 98, 103, 121; Principalis, 98, 121; Quintana, 98; Sagularis, 98.

Viceroys of ‘Irâq, 168.

vine motive, 141.

W

wall, buttressed, 131; construction, 6, 38, 45; outer, angle sliced off, 39, 54; unbroken face, 126, 131.

ward, 17.

water basin in mosque, 151.

windows in drum of dome, 79, 111.

wooden beams, in wall, 6, 12, 13, 95; under vault, 9, 17, 18, 21, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39.

Z

ziggurat, 92.

zigzag motive, 17, 27, 38, 40, 116, 140.

ziyâdah, 156.

ẓullah, 148, 150.

INDEX OF NAMES

A

Abbâs, Abu, 75 n.

‘Abdeh, 103, 112.

Absalom, tomb of, 128 n.

Abydos, 70 n.

‘Adhrâ, the, church of, 133 n.

‘Adi ibn Zaid, 57, 59.

Africa, 98 n., 110; North, 98, 99, 152.

Ahwâz, Djebel, 148, 149, 160.

‘A’ishah, 146.

Akbar’s mosque, 139.

Akeldama, tomb of, 72.

Alabanda, 128 n.

Aleppo, ix, x, xi, 58, 126.

Alexander, Emperor, 69, 119; his invasion, 63.

Alexandria, 125, 127, 129, 152.

‘Ali, 167, 168.

Alinda, walls of, 108.

Alkader, _see_ el-Chader.

Alyattes, tumulus of, 96.

Ammân, 118 n., 140.

‘Amr ibn al-’Âṣ, 146 n., 148, 149; his mosque, 149, 150, 151.

‘Amrah, Qṣair, 56, 111, 112, 114, 118, 142, 162.

Amrân mound, 65.

‘Ânah, ix.

Anatolia, Central, 138.

al-Anbâr, 43 n., 57 and n., 164, 167.

Anderîn, 105.

Andrae, Dr. Walther, v, 66 n., 69 n., 73 n., 90, 91, 92 n., 93 n., 94 n., 106 n., 107 and n., 137, 141 n., 143 n.

Antioch, 57, 65, 119, 120 n., 121, 124.

Anu-Adad, 93.

Aosta, 109, 128, 136.

Apamea, 98 n., 120 and n., 126.

Aqṣâ, the, mosque of, 145, 151, 152.

Arabia, vii, 127.

Arabia Petraea, 98.

Ardashir I., 74 n.

Ardeshîr Bâbagân, 91.

Argos, 96.

Asarhaddon, 62, 108.

al-’A’shâ, 145 n.

al-’Âshiq, 86, 132 n.

Asia, 65, 69, 87, 142; South-west, 126; Western, 63, 68, 123, 124, 126, 135.

Asia Minor, 73, 78, 96, 108.

‘Asîleh, wells, 1.

Aslâm, _see_ ‘Aṭshân.

Assos, 109.

Assur, 65, 66, 68, 93, 94 n., 96 n., 106 and n., 107, 140, 141 n.

Assyria, 62 n., 65, 68, 74, 78, 93, 122, 123, 140, 142.

al-Aswad ibn Ya’fur, 57 n.

Athenaeus, 128 n.

Athens, 66 n., 124.

al-Athîr, Ibn, 3 n., 162 and n., 164 n.

‘Atîl, 126.

‘Atiyyah, 58.

‘Aṭshân, Khân, viii, 2, 3 and n., 40-3, 162 and n.

Attalus, 124.

Austria, 98.

Autun, 109.

Ayyûbid Ghâzi, 159, 160.

al-Azîz ibn Marwân, ‘Abd, 149.

al-Azraq, Qaṣr, 56, 111.

B

Ba’albek, 126, 152 and n.

Bâbisqâ, 132 n.

Babylon, xi, 65 and n., 68, 69, 70, 76, 87, 93, 96, 119.

Babylonia, 64, 65, 74, 78, 94, 96, 142.

Bacon, 109 n.

Baghdâd, ix, 5, 40, 58, 66, 72, 79, 121, 141, 143 n., 150, 154, 157, 158, 167.

Baḥr Nedjef, _see_ Nedjef.

Bahrâm V Gûr, 57, 59, 74 n.

el-Baḥri, _see_ Dair el-Baḥri.

al-Baiḍâ, _see_ Khirbet al-Baiḍâ.

Bait al-Khalîfah, _see_ al-Khalîfah.

Balâdhuri, 74 n., 147 and n., 148 and n., 149, 153, 162.

Balkuwârâ, 84, 85, 86, 87, 117, 121, 138, 157, 164.

Ballu, 98 n.

Bâqirḥâ, 126.

Bashmishli, 132 n.

Baṣrah, ix, x, 58, 146, 149, 150, 158, 168.

Bassora, _see_ Baṣrah.

Baṭûṭah, Ibn, 56, 58, 75 n.

Becker, Prof., 17 n., 112 n., 146 n., 147 and n., 149 n., 150.

Beduin, tribe, 5.

Bel, temple of, 122.

Bell, Miss G. L., xi, 40 n., 56 n., 57 n., 59 n., 70 n., 71 n., 73 n., 78 n., 86 n., 132 n., 133 n., 138 n., 143 n., 153 n., 154 n., 165 n., 166 n.

Benndorf, 108 and n.

Berlin, xii, 115, 118 n.

Bethlehem, 117.

Binbirklisse, 73 n.

Bishr (son of ‘Âdah son of ‘Îsâ son of ‘Umar), 161.

Bîsutûn, 134.

Blanchet, 103 n., 109 n., 110 n.

Boghâz Keui, 93 and n., 108, 122.

Bosco, R. Velazquez, xii, 143 n.

Boscoreale, 125, 127, 128 n.

Boṣrâ, 98 n., 120.

Bostân, 41 n.

Britain, 98 and n.

British Museum, 76, 123, 132 n.

Bruce, 98 n.

Bruckmann, xii.

Brünnow, Prof., xii, 98 n., 100, 101, 102, 103 n., 104, 105, 106 n., 110 n., 117 n., 118 and n., 126 n., 127 n., 128 n., 129, 135 n.

Bruno, 56 n.

Bryas, 121.

Bshair, 103, 104.

Bulard, 124 n.

Burdân, Wâdi, 1.

Burgess, 72 n., 73 n.

Bury, 121 n.

Butler, 72 n., 98 n., 105 n., 111 n., 112 n., 126 n., 132 n., 133 n., 135 n., 138 n., 139 n., 165.

Byzantium, 97, 109, 110.

C

Cagnat, 98 n., 99 n.

Cairo, 92 and n., 141, 144, 156.

Carchemish, 122.

Caria, 108.

Carmichael, Mr., x.

Carnuntum, 100.

Carthage, 109.

Casr Chaider, ix.

el-Chader (Ukhaiḍir) Ras el-’Ain, x, xi, 58.

Chaitya Cave, 123 n.

Chaldaea, 70 n., 106, 122, 123.

Chehâr Qapû, 44, 45, 51-4, 90, 92, 94, 115.

Chipiez, 65 n., 68 n., 70 n., 75 n., 78 n., 93 n., 94 n., 106 n., 108 n., 109 n., 122 n., 123 n., 128 n., 140 n.

Chiusi, 69 n., 166.

Choisy, 68 n., 69 n., 70 n., 109 n.

Chosroës, the, 59, 80, 94, 120, 148, 149.

Chosroës II, 44.

Clarke, 109 n.

Constantine, Emperor, 117, 121.

Constantinople, vii, xi, 121, 151.

Corbett, 146 n., 149 n.

Cordova, 152.

Corinthian tomb, 128, 135.

Coste, 74 n., 76 n., 78 n., 79 n., 106 n., 107 n., 137, 165 n.

Cramer, 110 n.

Ctesiphon, vii, 57, 59, 66, 70, 75, 77, 94, 95, 115, 119, 120, 122, 129-32, 134-8, 165, 166.

Curie, 98 n.

D

Ḍaba, Djebel, 2, 3.

Da’djaniyyeh, 102, 103, 116.

al-Dair, 128 and n., 129.

Dair al-Kafh, 104.

Dair el-Baḥri, 70 n.

Dalman, 126 n.

Damascus, 55, 66, 101, 119, 120 and n., 126, 147, 151, 152, 154, 158, 162, 164 n., 167.

Dânâ, 126.

Darius, King, palace of, 63, 64, 76.

Dastadjird, 60, 107 n., 120.

Daumet, 138 n.

Dead Sea, the, 97.

De Beylié, 142 n., 143 n.

De Goeje, 3 n., 57 n., 147 n., 167 n.

Delbrück, Prof., 68 n., 69 n., 70 n., 72 n., 73 n., 96 n., 123, 124 and n., 125 and n., 127 n., 132 n., 136 n., 166 n.

Della Valle, ix.

Delos, 65 n., 68 n., 87, 124.

De Meynard, Barbier, 59 n., 167 n.

De Morgan, M., xii, 80 n., 134.

Dereh Shah, 80 n.

De Sarzec, 78 n., 87 n., 122 n., 142.

De Vogüé, 56 n., 72 n., 73 n., 84 n., 111 n.

Dibs, Abu, 1, 2, 3, 168.

Dieulafoy, M., xii, 53 n., 65 n., 68 n., 71 n., 72 n., 74 n., 75, 76 n., 77, 78 n., 79 and n., 81 n., 90, 91, 92 and n., 95, 96 n., 106 n., 107 and n., 118 n., 122 n., 130, 134 n., 140 n., 143 n., 157, 165 n.

Diocletian, Emperor, 56, 103, 109, 110, 121.

Diodorus, 69 n.

Diyârbekr, viii, 120, 132, 154, 158, 159.

Djabala ibn al-Ḥârith, 110.

Djâbiyah, 56 n.

Djaulân, the, 56.

Djôf, 5, 167.

Djôfîyîn, the, 5.

Djûr, 91, 92.

Domaszewski, 98 n., 102, 103 n., 106 n., 110 n., 117 n., 118 and n., 126 n., 127 and n., 128 n., 135 n.

Dulaf, Abu, mosque of, 144, 154, 155, 156, 158.

Ḍumair, 101, 102, 103 and n., 110.

Durm, 65 n., 66 n., 70 n., 89, 108 n., 109 n., 124 n.

Dussaud, 56 n.

E

Ebersolt, 121 n.

Ecbatana, 123 n.

Egypt, vii, 68, 70 n., 72, 96, 106, 123, 124, 127 n., 142, 146, 147.

Epaminondas, 109 n.

Ephesus, 109, 125, 132 n.

Euphrates, river, x, xi, 1, 56, 57.

Euphrates road, 43 n.

Europe, 101, 110, 142.

Evans, Sir Arthur, 70 n.

F

Fars, 79, 80, 96, 143 n.

Fatehpur Sîkrî, 139.

Ferâshâbâd, 78.

Fergusson, 41 n., 72 n., 73 n., 123 n., 139.

Firûzâbâd, 53 n., 73, 74 and n., 76-80, 82, 83, 86, 91, 95, 119, 134, 136, 137, 143, 165.

el-Fityân, _see_ Khirbet el-Fityân.

Flandin, 74 n., 76 n., 78 n., 79 and n., 106 n., 107 n., 137, 165 n.

Flavians, the, palace of, 120.

Flavius Silva, 97.

Franks, the, 110.

Fréjus, 109.

Fusṭâṭ, 146 n., 148, 149, 150.

G

Garstang, Prof., 60 n.

Gaul, 104 n., 110.

Gebhardt, Messrs., xii, 89.

Germany, 98.

Ghadaf, Wâdi, 111, 112.

Ghassânids, the, 56.

Ghazni, towers, 41.

Gsell, 98 n.

Gudea, 106, 122.

H

Ḥabbâniyyeh, 1, 2, 3.

al-Ḥadjdjâdj, 43 n., 148, 162 n., 164, 168.

Hadrian, Emperor, 97, 98.

Ḥakh, 133 n.

al-Ḥâkim, 158.

Halicarnassus, 124.

Ḥamâd, Khân, 2.

Hammâd, Bani, the, fortress of, 142.

Ḥamrath, tomb of, 126.

Hamza al-Iṣfahâni, 110.

Ḥanbal, Ibn, 55 n.

Hanging Gardens, the, 69 n.

Harbâ, 143 n.

Ḥarrân, 132, 152, 153, 158.

Ḥarûn al-Rashîd, 165, 167, 168.

Ḥasan, Bani, 3, 57, 58.

Ḥasan Kaif, 133, 143, 160.

Hâshimiyyeh, 167.

Hatra, 66, 67, 69-72, 75, 78, 82, 87, 88, 90-2, 94-6, 107, 119, 136-8, 141 n., 143.

Hatti, 60 n.

Hauqal, Ibn, 142 n.

Ḥaurân, the, 56, 98 n., 138.

Ḥaurân, Wâdi, 1.

Haush Quru, 80 n.

Haverfield, Prof., xii, 99.

Hazâr Dâr, 80 n.

Heberdey, 125 n.

Ḥedjr tombs, 127, 128.

el-Heiadîe, _see_ Ṭuqṭuqâneh.

Heraclius, 120.

Herodotus, 90, 92.

Herzfeld, Dr., xii, 58, 60 n., 62 n., 65 n., 74 n., 80 n., 84, 85, 86 and n., 94 n., 105 n., 107 n., 110 n., 117, 118 n., 121 n., 123 n., 130 n., 132 n., 134 n., 135 n., 136, 138 and n., 140 n., 141 n., 143 n., 151 n., 153 and n., 154, 155, 156 and n., 157, 159, 160 n., 165 and n., 166 n.

Hêt, _see_ Hît.

Heuzey, 78 n., 87 n., 122 n., 138 n.

Ḥidjâz, 167.

Hidjrah, the, 55.

Hilprecht, 65 n., 107 n., 122 n.

Hindiyyeh, the, 2, 39, 41, 56, 57.

al-Ḥîrah, 56-9, 86, 87, 148, 168.

Ḥishâm, 168.

Hît, x, xi, 43 n.

Hittorff, 128 n.

Ḥiyyadhiyyeh, 58.

Hogarth, Mr., 122.

Holman, Messrs., xii, 66.

el-Hossian, 58.

Housesteads, 99.

Humann, 125 n.

Hurairah, Abu, 166.

Hyginus, 98.

I

Iassos, 108.

Ibrahîm ibn Salamah, 74 n.

Inaldi, Inalid, 158 n.

India, 72, 73, 137.

‘Irâq, 162 n., 167, 168.

‘Îsâ ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdallâh, 164, 168.

Iṣfahân, 41 n., 134.

Isriyyeh, 126.

Iṣṭakhr, 107 n.

Italy, 68, 128.

Ives, x.

‘Izziyyeh, 58.

J

Jacobi, 98 n.

Jaussen, 126 n., 127 n.

Jerusalem, 72, 128, 145, 146.

John of Ephesus, 56 n.

Jordan, Dr., 122.

Joshua the Stylite, 56.

Jupiter, 91.

Justinian, Emperor, 57, 117, 119, 145.

K

Ka’bah, the, vii, 145.

al-Kahf, _see_ Dair al-Kahf.

Karkh, 94, 95, 139.

Kayder, _see_ el-Chader.

Kerbelâ, 1, 2.

Kerbelâ-Nedjef road, 2, 3 n.

Kerîm Khân, 79; his brother, 80 n.

Kerkûk, 40, 71, 134.

Kfair, 132 n.

Khader, _see_ el-Chader.

al-Khaḍrâ, _see_ al-Qabbet al-Khaḍrâ.

Khâlid ibn ‘Abdallâh, 168.

Khâlid ibn al-Walîd, 3.

al-Khalîfah, Bait, 86, 138, 144.

Kharâneh, 39, 78, 82, 111, 114-18, 120, 162, 166.

Khâṣakî Djâmi’, the, 141.

Khawarnaq, 56, 57, 75 n., 87, 119, 162.

Khazneh, the, 128 and n., 135.

al-Khernîna, Khân, 143 and n.

al-Kherr, Wâdi, 58 n.

Khirbet al-Baiḍâ, 56, 106.

Khirbet el-Fityân, 102 n.

Khodja ‘Alam, 41 n.

Khorsâbâd, 68, 81, 92, 93, 94, 106 and n., 122, 123.

Khurâsân, the, 74 n.

Khusrau I, 57, 119.

Khusrau II Parwêz, 59, 74 n., 94.

Khusrau, palace of, 44-51, 74, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, 119, 164.

Khusrau, Qal’a-i-, 60.

Knossos, 70 n.

Koepp, 97 n.

Koldewey, Prof., 61, 62 n., 65 n., 68 and n., 69 n., 76 n., 77 n., 87 n., 88, 92 n., 93 n., 94 n., 108 n., 109 n.

Kubaisah, xi.

Kûfah, x, 2, 3, 43 and n., 148-50, 158, 162, 164, 167, 168.

Kuhna, Qal’a-i-, 107 n.

L

Lagash, 106, 107.

Lambaesis, 99.

Lammens, 17 n., 55 n., 56 n., 111 n., 117 n., 145 n., 146 n., 147 n., 148 n., 162 n., 168 n.

Lanckoronski, 124 n.

Lane, 59 n.

Layard, 68 and n., 75.

Leachman, Captain, 162 n.

Ledjdjûn, 101, 102, 103 and n.

Leleges, wall of the, 108.

Le Strange, 40 n., 57 n., 58 n., 151 n., 167 n.

Littmann, Prof., xii, 161, 162.

Lixos, 109.

Loftus, 65 and n., 90, 122, 140 n.

Lyall, Sir Charles, xii, 22 n., 56 n., 57 n., 145 n.

Lyell, 98 n.

Lynch, 135 n.

Lysimachus, 109.

M

Macmillan, Messrs., xii.

Madâin Ṣâliḥ, vii, 126-8, 135, 138, 142, 145 n.

Madjḍah, _see_ Mudjḍah.

Magnesia, 124, 125 n.

al-Mahdi, 151.

Maḥmûd of Ghazni, 41.

Makhḍah, _see_ Mudjḍah.

Makrîsi, 147 n.

al-Malik, ‘Abd, 151.

Maṇsûr, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 164, 165, 167.

Mantineia, 109.

Maqrîzi, 151.

Marçais, 152 n.

Marmora, sea of, 121.

Marwân, 147, 149, 168.

Masada, 97.

Massignon, M., xi, 31 n., 38 n., 39 n., 40 n., 57 n., 58 n., 161.

Mas’ûdi, 58, 86, 87, 118.

Mau, 72 n.

Mauritania Tingitana, 109.

Maximian, Emperor, 56.

Mayâfârqîn, viii, 132, 153, 159, 166.

Media, 62 n.

Medînah, 145-52, 158, 168.

Medînat al-Zahrâ, palace of, 143.

Medinet Abu, 70 n.

Mediterranean coast-lands, the, 64.

al-Mehdiyyeh, gates of, 142.

Meissner, 56 n.

Mekkah, vii, 120, 145-8, 150, 167.

el-Melfûf, _see_ Ridjm el-Melfûf.

Memphis, 72.

Menâr, the, palace of, 142.

Merchel, 109 n.

Merkes, the, 65 n., 76.

Meshed ‘Ali, _see_ Nedjef.

Mesopotamia, 12, 16 n., 38, 66, 68, 70, 71, 75, 76, 79, 88, 96, 97, 115, 124, 130, 133, 137, 141, 143, 144, 146, 152, 156, 158, 165, 166; Northern, 71, 75, 141 n.; Southern, 28.

Mesopotamian plain, 60.

Messene, 109 and n.

Michael II, 121.

Michaelis, 122 n.

Miletus, 124, 125.

Mommsen, 101 n.

Moritz, Dr. B., xii, 111 n., 114 n., 115, 161, 167.

Môṣul, 133, 160.

Mount Eryx, 108.

Mshaiyesh, 111 n.

Mshattâ, 111, 113, 117, 118 and n., 120, 133 n., 135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 162, 165.

Mu’âwiyah, 148, 168.

Mudjḍah (Madjḍah, Makhḍah), viii, 2, 3, 39-41, 43, 162.

Mughair, 70 and n.

Muḥaiwir, 1.

Muḥammad, 145, 146, 147, 161.

Muhtadi, 165 n.

al-Mundhir, 56, 148.

Munich, 133 n.

Muntaṣir, 165 n.

Muqaddasi, 3, 58, 151, 153.

Muqâtil ibn Ḥasân ibn Tha’labah ibn Aus ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Ayyûb ibn Madjrûf ibn ‘Âmir ibn ‘Uṣayyah ibn Imra’al-Qais ibn Zaid Manât ibn Tamîm, 162.

al-Muqâtil, Qaṣr, 162, 164, 168.

Mûsâ, Abu, 148.

Muṣallâ, Khân, 57.

Mushennef, 126.

Musil, Prof., 2 n., 55 n., 58 n., 103 n., 111 and n., 112 n., 113, 114 and n., 115, 116 and n., 117 n., 162 n.

Musmiyyeh, 72.

al-Mustanṣir, 143 n.

Mustanṣiriyyeh, the, 40, 143 n.

Mustaufi, 58.

Mutawakkil, 58, 59, 86, 121, 154.

Mu’tazz, 165 n.

Muwaqqar, 110, 135.

Mycenae, 96, 108, 120.

N

Nabataean tombs, 127 n., 128.

Nâṣiri Khusrau, 159 n.

Naṣr, Banû, 58.

Nassick, 123 n.

Nebuchadnezzar, palace of, 70, 93, 96.

Nedjd, 5.

Nedjef, ix, x, 3 n., 40, 57, 58, 167.

Nedjef, Bahr, 56, 57, 58, 164, 167.

Nereids, the, monument of, 108.

Nero, Emperor, 72.

Nicephoricum-Callinicum, 153.

Niebuhr, x, 58 n.

Niederberg, 100 n.

Niederbieber, 100 n.

Niemann, 108 and n.

Niffer, 65 and n., 66, 87, 89, 107, 119, 122.

Nimrûd, 93.

Nöldeke, 56 n., 57 n., 96 n., 112 n.

Novaesium, 100.

Nu’mân III, King, 59.

Nu’mân ibn Mundhir, 56.

Nu’man ibn Imra’ al-Qais, 57.

Nu’mânid, 120.

Nûr al-Dîn, 153, 154, 158, 160 (Maḥmûd).

O

Odhruḥ, 98-103, 110.

Oppenheim, Baron, 60 n., 123.

Orontes, the, 64, 108.

Orthma, Khân, 72.

Ortokid Alpi, 159.

P

Palatitza, 138 n.

Palmyra, 101, 126.

Parwêz, _see_ Khusrau II Parwêz.

Pasargadae, 62, 63, 96, 119, 123 n.

Pergamon, 66 n., 69 n., 73 n., 89, 124, 125 n.

Perge, 124, 125.

Perrot, 65 n., 68 n., 70 n., 75 n., 78 n., 93 n., 94 n., 106 n., 108 n., 109 n., 122 n., 123 n., 128 n., 140 n.

Persepolis, 63, 64, 76 and n., 80, 119.

Persia, 65, 71, 73, 74, 110, 123, 137, 140, 168.

Persian Gulf, the, 1.

Perugia, 136.

Petra, vii, 97, 126-9, 135, 136, 138, 142.

Philon of Byzantium, 109.

Pinara, 108.

Place, 68 and n., 94 and n.

Polybius, 98.

Pompeii, 72, 87, 124; Oscan, 124.

Praeneste, 125 n.

Preusser, Dr., 152.

Priene, 87, 88, 124, 125 and n., 126.

Princeton Expedition, the, 111.

Probus, 110.

Promis, 109 n., 136 n.

Ptolemy Philadelphos, 124 n., 128 n.

Puchstein, 62 n., 93 n., 108 n., 123 n., 126 n., 127 and n., 128 n.

Pydnai, 108.

Q

al-Qabbet al-Khaḍrâ, 162 and n.

Qadesh, 108.

Qâdisiyyeh, 58, 162, 167.

Qairawân, 152.

Qalb Lôzeh, 132 n.

Qanawât, 126.

‘al-Qâsin ‘Ali, Abu, 158 n., 159 n.

Qaṭal, 103-6, 110-13, 118, 120.

Qṣair, viii, 1, 38-9.

Qṣair ‘Amrah, _see_ ‘Amrah.

al-Quṭquṭâneh, 162, 164.

Quyundjik, 75, 76, 77, 90, 93, 94, 123.

R

Raḥḥâliyyeh, 1.

Ramâdi, 2.

Rameses II, 108.

Ramsay, 73 n., 78 n., 138 n.

Raqqah, 138, 142, 153, 154, 158, 165, 166, 168.

Râs al-’Ain, 60 n., 123.

al-Rasâs, Umm, 106.

Rashîd, 167.

Reuther, Dr., xi, 6-36 _passim_, 82 and n., 83, 131, 132 n., 136-40, 166.

Rhages, 41 n.

Rḥaibeh, 112.

Ridjm el-Melfûf, 70 n.

Rimini, 128.

Ritter, xi.

Roderick, King, 112.

Rome, 72, 73, 95, 110, 126.

Rothstein, 57 n., 59 n.

al-Ruḥbân, 57.

Ruḥbeh, 58 and n.

Ruḥeimeh, 58 n.

Rûm, 120.

Ruṣâfah, 150.

S

Saalburg, the, 98 n.

Sachau, 152 n.

Sa’d ibn abi Waqqâs, 148.

al-Sadîr, 57.

Ṣaffâh, 167.

Sa’îd ibn ‘Âmir ibn Ḥudhaim, 153.

St. Petersburg, 133.

Sais, Djebel, 56, 111.

Sakcheh Geuzu, 60 n., 122.

Saladin, M., x n., 152 n.

Ṣalâḥ al-Dîn, 152, 153, 159.

Salamah, 74 n.

Salmanassar III, 106 n.

Salmon, 154 n.

Sâl Nâmeh, 58.

Sâmarrâ, 58, 70 n., 84, 87, 92, 93, 121, 132 and n., 135, 138, 140-4, 151, 156-8, 164-6.

al-Ṣarakh, Ḥammâm, 111, 112, 165.

Sardis, 96.

Sargon, palace of, 68, 81, 94, 122.

Sarre, Prof., xii, 41 n., 60 n., 65 n., 74 n., 80 n., 84, 94 n., 107 n., 130 n., 143 n., 153 n., 154 n., 160 n., 166 n.

Sarvistân, 53 n., 71, 74 and n., 78-80, 82, 84, 92, 115, 118 n., 119, 134, 136, 137, 165.

Saudâ, 146.

Savignac, 126 n., 127 n.

Sbai’i, Bir, 2.

Schefer, 159 n.

Schrader, 124 n.

Schreiber, 135 n.

Schultz, 117 n., 118, 133 n., 138 n.

Schultze, 109, 136.

Seleucia, 65, 69, 70, 119.

Selinus, acropolis of, 109.

Septimius Severus, 69 n.

Sextius Florentinus, 128 n.

Shabîb, revolt of, 164 n.

Shahbâ, 126.

Shâhnâmah, the, 22 n.

Shakhârîz, 2.

Shammar, tribe, 2.

Shamshi-Adad, 93.

Sham’ûn, Qaṣr, 59.

Shapûr I, 94.

Shapûr II, 57, 96.

Shaqqah, 73 n., 126, 139.

Shethâthâ, Shefâthâ, x, xi, 1, 2, 3 and n.

Shîrîn, Qaṣr-i-, viii, 44-54, 60, 70, 74 and n., 76, 79, 80 and n., 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 96, 105, 119, 120, 137, 164, 165.

Shirwân, 80 n., 134.

Shuhbâ, 98 n.

al-Shukâfa, Kôm, 135.

Sî’, 126, 138.

Sicily, 108, 109.

Sidi al-Ḥalwi, 152.

Sieglin, 135 n.

Sim’ân, Qal’at, 84 n.

Simbel, Abû, 108.

Sindâd, 57 n.

Sindjâr, Djebel, 143.

Sinimmâr, 57 and n.

al-Ṣinnîn, 57.

Sixtus of Bourbon, Prince, 58 n.

Ṣlaibiyyeh tomb, 165 n.

Slâm, Biyâr, 2.

Smith, George, 90.

Smyrna, 108.

Solomon’s temple, 94, 116.

Spain, 110, 143.

Spalato, 121.

Sprenger, 122 n.

Stockstadt, 100 n.

Stolle, 98 n.

Strabo, 69 and n., 91, 92.

Strzygowski, Prof., xii, 117 n., 133 n., 134 n., 135 n., 138 n., 152 n.

Studniczka, 128 n.

Ṣukhail, 5.

Ṣukhûr, the, 55, 118 n.

Sulâm, 162.

Sulṭan Khân, 78.

Sûq al-Ghazl, 40.

Susa, 63, 81 and n., 90, 96, 107.

Swaidâ, 126.

Syria, vii, 57, 66, 70, 72, 73, 97, 104, 116, 126, 133, 135, 139, 142, 143, 151, 152, 166; Eastern, 98 n.; Northern, 60, 75, 98 n., 132, 141 n.

T

Ṭabari, 57 n., 148 and n., 149 and n., 150 and n., 162.

Tâg-i-Îwân, 72 n.

Ṭahmâsgerd, Mâr, 71, 134, 140.

Takhmâ al-Asadi, Ibn, 164.

Takht-i-Mâder-i-Suleimân, 96.

al-Tamr, ‘Ain, 2, 3, 40, 43 and n., 59.

Taposiris Magna, 124 n.

Tâq-i-Girrâ, 166.

Ṭâr, the, 162 and n.

Ṭâûq, 40.

Tavernier, ix, x n.

Taylor, Major John, x.

Ṭayy, the, 59.

Teano, 56 n., 145 n., 146 n., 147 n., 148 n., 149 n., 151 n.

Teixeira, Pedro, ix, xi.

Tekrît, 140 n., 143.

Tellôh, 78, 87, 122, 142.

Texier, viii, 109 n.

Tha’labites, the, 56.

Thapsus, 109.

Theophilus, 121.

Thiersch, Prof., 92 n., 124 n., 128 n., 151 n.

Thomas, Félix, 68.

Tigris, the, 64, 69, 84.

Tilimsân, 152.

al-Tiqtaqa, Ibn, 143 n.

Tiryns, 65 n., 108, 120.

Tornberg, 3 n.

Trajan, Emperor, 69 n., 98, 110.

Trajan’s camp, 101.

Troy, 108, 120.

al-Ṭûbah, 111-14, 116-18, 120, 165.

Ṭulûn, Ibn, mosque of, 92 n., 135, 142-4, 156, 158.

Tunis, 142, 152.

Ṭaquṭqâneh (el-Heiadîe), 58 and n., 162.

Tyre, 109.

Tzâriq, 57 n.

U

al-Ubaiḍ, Wâdi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 162, 168.

Ukhaiḍir, _passim_; _see also_ el-Chader.

Ulu Djâmi’, 132 n.

‘Umar, 147-51.

‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azîz, 147.

Umtâ’iyyeh, 133 n.

‘Uthmân, 147.

al-’Uzza, ‘Abd, 57 n.

V

Van Berchem, M. Max, 133 n., 143 n., 152 n., 154, 160.

Veramîn, 41 n.

Vespasian, Emperor, 97.

Vienna, xii.

Viollet, M., 16 n., 86, 156 n.

Vitruvius, 109, 128.

W

Walîd (son of Yazîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik), 110.

al-Walîd, Umm, 106.

Walîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, 147, 148.

Wardân, Qaṣr ibn, 105, 112, 165.

Warka, 65, 90, 122, 140, 141 n., 142 n.

Wâsiṭ, 162 n.

Weissenberg, 99 n.

Wellhausen, 146.

Wetzel, Dr., 16 n.

al-Weyned, 111 n.

Wiegand, 124 n.

Wiesbaden, 99.

Willcocks, Sir William, 1 and n.

Wizikh, 2.

Wright, 56 n.

Wüstenfeld, 3 n., 147 n.

Wuswas, 122, 142 n.

X

Xanthos, 108.

Xeque Mahamed Eben Raxet, ix.

Xeres, battle of, 112.

Xerxes, 63.

Y

Yamanlar Dâgh, the, 108.

Ya’qûbi, 167 and n.

Yâqût, 3, 110, 147 n., 162 and n., 164 and n.

Yazdegerd I, King, 57.

Yazîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik (Yazîd II), 110, 117.

Yazîd III, 111, 162 n.

Yûsuf ibn ‘Umar, 162 n., 168.

Z

al-Zahrâ, _see_ Medînat al-Zahrâ.

al-Zaitûn, Umm, 73 n.

Zaitûnah, the, 152.

Zaqârît, sub-tribe, 2, 5.

al-Zebîb, Khân, 106.

Zindjirli, 60 and n., 61, 62 n., 63, 107, 109, 119, 122.

Ziyâd ibn Abîhî, 17 n., 146 n., 148, 149, 168.

Zohâb, 105, 120.

Zugmantel, 100 n.

Zûrah, 164.

* * * * *

PLATE 3

PLATE 6 Ukhaiḍir, map of site.]

PLATE 7

PLATE 8

PLATE 9

PLATE 10

PLATE 11

PLATE 12

PLATE 13

PLATE 14

PLATE 15

PLATE 16

PLATE 17

PLATE 18

PLATE 19

PLATE 20

PLATE 21

PLATE 22

PLATE 23

PLATE 24

PLATE 25

PLATE 26

PLATE 27

PLATE 28

PLATE 29

PLATE 30

PLATE 31

PLATE 32

PLATE 33

PLATE 34

PLATE 35

PLATE 36

PLATE 37

PLATE 38

PLATE 39

PLATE 40

PLATE 41

PLATE 42

PLATE 43

PLATE 44

PLATE 45

PLATE 46

PLATE 47

PLATE 48

PLATE 49

PLATE 50

PLATE 51

PLATE 52

PLATE 55

PLATE 56

PLATE 57

PLATE 58

PLATE 59

PLATE 60

PLATE 61

PLATE 62

PLATE 63

PLATE 64

PLATE 65

PLATE 66

PLATE 67

PLATE 68

PLATE 69

PLATE 70

PLATE 71

PLATE 72

PLATE 73

PLATE 74

PLATE 75

PLATE 76

PLATE 77

PLATE 78

PLATE 79

PLATE 80

PLATE 81

PLATE 82

PLATE 83

PLATE 84

PLATE 85

PLATE 86

PLATE 87

PLATE 88

PLATE 89

PLATE 90

PLATE 91

PLATE 92

PLATE 93

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Travels into East India and Arabia Deserta_, London, 1665, p. 263.

[2] _Travels from India to Italy by Land_, London, 1710.

[3] _Les Six Voyages_, t. i, liv. 2, ch. 3, p. 136, Paris, 1681

[4] M. Saladin quotes Tavernier’s words in _L’Architecture Musulmane_, p. 327.

[5] _Reisebeschreibung_, vol. ii, p. 225, note.

[6] _Journey from India to Persia_, London, 1773.

[7] _Travels from England to India_, vol. i, p. 243, London, 1779.

[8] _Erdkunde_, vol. xi, pp. 956, 1039.

[9] The height above sea-level is Sir W. Willcocks’s reduced level, arrived at by his own observations on the Persian Gulf. Sir W. Willcocks, _The Irrigation of Mesopotamia_, p. 15, Plate 2.

[10] Professor Musil, early in 1912, visited Ukhaiḍir and continued his journey south, parallel with the ṭâr which he names ṭâr al-Ṣeihed. _Proceedings of the K. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien_, No. 1, 1913, p. 10.

[11] When I was there in March 1911 many of the palm-trees had been killed, and the rest severely damaged by the snow which had fallen in January and February. In the memory of no living man had snow fallen in Shethâthâ, and the inhabitants, when they woke to find the ground covered with white, were at a loss to know what the strange substance could be. Some took it to be flour. Snow fell as far south as Nedjef, and in the desert round ‘Aṭshân, between Ukhaiḍir and the Kerbelâ-Nedjef road, it lay for some days. When I passed I saw each abandoned camping ground of the Bani Ḥasan marked by a ring of dead animals, donkeys, sheep, and goats, which had perished in the unwonted cold.

[12] Ibn al-Athîr, ed. Tornberg, vol. ix, p. 423, ‘Shefâthâ w’al ‘ain.’ Shethâthâ is a colloquial corruption for Shefâthâ, and the official maps still spell it in the latter fashion.

[13] Ed. de Goeje, p. 117.

[14] Ed. Wüstenfeld, vol. iii, p. 759.

[15] _Ocheïdir_, p. 12.

[16] Dr. Reuther gives the square as 2·85 metres. In my first account of the palace I had described this dome as oval in plan, but, as I felt very doubtful on this point, on my second visit I took particular care to re-examine the whole tract between the north gate and the door of the great hall. My second measurements gave a square of 3·10 metres to the dome. The difference between us is, however, too small to be of much importance.

[17] _Ocheïdir_, p. 3.

[18] _Ocheïdir_, p. 21.

[19] Dr. Reuther observes here the funnel leading from the bottom of the niche to the top of the arch which had been described in the outer gates.

[20] The decoration as well as the funnel had escaped my notice, but when Dr. Reuther called my attention to the former I was able to verify the correctness of his observation on one of my own photographs.

[21] _Journal of the Hellenic Society_, vol. xxx, 1910, p. 77.

[22] In the spring of 1910, I asked M. Viollet, who was then on his way to Mesopotamia, to clear away the ruins from the middle of the south wall and ascertain whether there were any sign of a miḥrâb. Upon his return he informed me that he had discovered the niche at the point which I had indicated and that he felt no hesitation as to its being in fact the miḥrâb. When I was at Ukhaiḍir in 1911, I uncovered the niche still further and photographed it carefully. Two of these photographs I sent to Dr. Wetzel for publication in the German work, and they are there reproduced, _Ocheïdir_, Figs. 22 and 23. Professor Brünnow has suggested that since prayer niches with flanking colonnettes were known to the Nabataeans, the Mohammadan niche, with its non-Arabic name, was certainly derived from pre-Mohammadan usage. (’Zur neuesten Entwicklung der Meschetta-Frage,’ _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, August 1912, p. 129.) This view is not likely to find acceptance. It is expressly stated that the miḥrâb was a feature of the mosque which was borrowed from the Christian cult and that it was not adopted until the beginning of the second century of Islâm. (See Lammens, Ziâd ibn Abîhi, _Rivista degli Studi Orientali_, vol. iv, 1911, p. 246 (94), note 1, and Becker, ‘Zur Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,’ _Der Islam_, vol. iii, 1912, p. 392.) I continue, therefore, to regard the niche at Ukhaiḍir as a clear proof that the building was originally intended for a mosque.

[23] _Ocheïdir_, p. 24.

[24] There seems to me to be an error in the reconstruction of the north façade given in _Ocheïdir_, Plate 24. Dr. Reuther makes the wall of the chemin de ronde, immediately to the west of the gate-house, stand flush with the outer edge of the vault between the gate-house and the tower. I do not think that this is correct. The chemin de ronde projected no further here than it projected between the other towers, i.e. it was flush with the face of the pilasters, and in my Plate 11, Fig. 1, its windows can be seen behind the balcony. If the wall had been flush with the edge of the balcony vault, the fall of that vault, partial to the west of the gate-house, total to the east, must have entailed the fall of the wall also. But this is not the case; the chemin de ronde is intact on either side.

[25] Aiwân is the Persian form, very commonly used in the Shâhnâmah. It has become lîwân in Arabic by the incorporation of the article al-Aiwân. (Note by Sir Charles Lyall.)

[26] _Ocheïdir_, p. 5.

[27] It appears in one of M. Massignon’s photographs; _Mission en Mésopotamie_, Plate XX

[28] Dr. Reuther observed that in No. 69 the vault at the north end had been constructed without centering, while the vault at the south end had been constructed over a centering; _Ocheïdir_, p. 43.

[29] Rooms 63 and 65 are vaulted without centering; _Ocheïdir_, p. 5.

[30] As has been mentioned on p. 10, the original intention was to carry this same wall round the fourth side (the north side) also; but when the great outer wall was added to the scheme, it replaced the smaller, less important wall of the first design.

[31] The authors of _Ocheïdir_ restore a south wall running from No. 150 to No. 152, thus converting the open space to the south of 141 into a court on the analogy of court F. I saw no trace of such a wall.

[32] Dr. Reuther gives a detailed photograph (_Ocheïdir_, Fig. 50), showing a band of rhomboids round the window frame.

[33] It was visited by Massignon and appears in his map, _Mission en Mésopotamie_, vol. i, p. 21.

[34] Cf. the crenellated motive round the archivolt of the doors of corridors 5 and 6 at Ukhaiḍir.

[35] M. Massignon heard of it under the name of Makhḍah or Madjḍah, but he did not visit it. Op. cit., p. 30.

[36] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Kaliphate_, p. 92.

[37] _Residence in Koordistan_, vol. i, p. 40.

[38] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 191. Massignon, _Mission en Mésopotamie_, vol. ii, p. 41.

[39] Tower tomb at Bostân, dated on the miḥrâb A.D. 1300-1301, _Denkmäler persischer Baukunst_, p. 116, and Plate 85. Tower tomb at Rhages, twelfth or thirteenth century, ibid., p. 57. Tower tomb at Veramîn, twelfth or thirteenth century, ibid., p. 59. Minaret of Khodja ‘Alam at Iṣfahân, probably end of fourteenth or beginning of fifteenth century, ibid., p. 76 and Plate 62.

[40] Sarre, op. cit., p. 76; Fergusson, _History of Indian and Eastern Architecture_, p. 494.

[41] M. Massignon heard of a ruined khân called ‘Aṭishân, op. cit., p. 30. He places it too far east in his map.

[42] Cf. the east, west, and south gates of Ukhaiḍir.

[43] Cf. a calotte in the central court at Ukhaiḍir, Plate 26, Fig. 2.

[44] This seems to be the road to which al-Ḥadjdjâdj alludes (_Ṭabari_, vol. ii, p. 945): ‘And if you have come opposite to Hît, leave the Euphrates road and al-Anbâr and take your way to ‘Ain al-Tamr so that you may reach al-Kûfah.’

[45] _Mission scientifique en Perse_, vol. iv, Plates 40, 42, and 46.

[46] Cf. with these passages the vaulted passages to one side of the lîwân groups at Ukhaiḍir in courts B, C, G, and H.

[47] In the photograph there seems to be a low archway on the south side of the gate; it is, however, merely a hole in the wall, and I satisfied myself that there was originally no opening here.

[48] In the palace of Firûzâbâd the dome is of stone, but at Sarvistân it is of brick. The construction of the squinches at Chehâr Qapû is not like that of the Firûzâbâd squinches, but it is exactly similar to the Sarvistân work. Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv, Plates 5 and 14. Sarvistân is much nearer in date to Chehâr Qapû, see below, p. 92.

[49] Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad III, 163, quoted by Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Ḥîra sous les Omaiyades,’ _Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de Beyrouth_, vol. iv, p. 95.

[50] Lammens, op. cit., p. 92. In this brilliant article, and in a series of studies on the Umayyad khalifs, published in the same journal, Lammens has restored to the Umayyad period, which was neglected or wilfully misrepresented by Mohammadan historians, its capital importance. See too Musil, _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 150 et seq.

[51] Lammens, op. cit., p. 106. Sir Charles Lyall me the following note: ‘I feel considerable doubt as to Lammens’s theory that the word ‘ḥîrah’ was used in the time of the Umayyads. The word is Syriac, not Arabic. See Nöldeke, _Sassaniden_, p. 25, note 1.’

[52] Ed. Wright, p. 46. See too John of Ephesus, iii, 42, where al-Mundhir’s sons are described as pitching a great ḥertâ in the desert.

[53] Nöldeke, _Die ghassanischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna’s_, p. 47.

[54] Possibly at Djâbiyah. Teano; _Annali dell’ Islam_, vol. iii, p. 928.

[55] De Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 69; Bell, _The Desert and the Sown_, p. 125.

[56] De Vogüé, op. cit., vol. i, p. 71.

[57] Dussaud, _Mission dans les régions désertiques de la Syrie moyenne_, p. 31.

[58] Bruno, Meissner, ‘Von Babylon nach den Ruinen von Ḥîra und Huarnaq,’ _Sendschriften der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, No. 2, p. 18.

[59] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Khalifate_, p. 76, n. 1.

[60] Ṭabari, ed. de Goeje, Prima Series, p. 853, Bell. _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 141

[61] Nöldeke, _Perser und Araber_, p. 79.

[62] Rothstein, _Die Dynastie der Lakhmiden in al-Ḥîra_, p. 15. Ṭabari does not mention this fact, though he quotes a poem by ‘Abd al-’Uzza in which Sinimmâr is alluded to as ‘al-’ildj’, the stranger, non-Arab. _Ṭabari_, vol. i, p. 852.

[63] Yâqût, vol. ii, p. 375.

[64] Rothstein, op. cit., p. 115. See Massignon, _Mission en Mésopotamie_, vol. i, pp. 32 et seq., for Lakhmid topography. Sir Charles Lyall calls my attention to a verse of al-Aswad ibn Ya’fur in which he gives a list of the Lakhmid buildings: al-Khawarnaq, al-Sadîr, Tzâriq, and ‘the pinnacled castle of Sindâd’.

[65] _Encyclopédie de l’Islam_, under Anbâr. The site was ancient.

[66] _Reisebeschreibung_, vol. ii, p. 236.

[67] Since this was written I learn that Ḥiyyadhiyyeh was visited in 1912 by Prince Sixtus of Bourbon and Professor Musil, see the _Vorbericht_ of the latter in the report of the K. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, 1913, No. 1, p. 11. Journeying southwards from Ukhaiḍir they passed through Ḥiyyadhiyyeh, which is described as ‘eine festungsartige kleine Ortschaft am rechten Ufer des wâdi al-Kherr’. On the way from Ḥiyyadhiyyeh to Nedjef they passed by Ṭaquṭqâneh (Niebuhr’s Tukteqâne) and Ruḥeimeh.

[68] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Khalifate_, p. 76.

[69] Massignon, op. cit., p. 41.

[70] Mentioned by Massignon under Ruḥbeh, op. cit., p. 41.

[71] _Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Sâmarrâ_, p. 40.

[72] _Mas’ûdi, Marûdj al-Dhahab_, ed. Barbier de Meynard, vol. vii, p. 192.

[73] See Lane, _Arabic and English Dictionary_, under _riwâq_.

[74] Rothstein, op. cit., p. 130.

[75] Idem, pp. 69, 74, 81.

[76] Bell, _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 139.

[77] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 237.

[78] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, pt. ii. There is some doubt as to whether Zindjirli was actually occupied by Hatti. No Hittite inscriptions have been discovered there; but further researches have shown that architecturally Zindjirli belongs to a group of settlements the Hittite origin of which it is impossible to doubt. Professor Garstang has found a khilâni palace at Sakcheh Geuzu (_Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology_, vol. v, Plate 3), Baron Oppenheim a very remarkable palace of the same type at Râs ul-’Ain, of which the plan has not yet been published.

[79] _Ausgrabungen_, p. 173, and Fig. 82, p. 184.

[80] _Ausgrabungen_, Fig. 83, p. 184.

[81] Puchstein, ‘Die Säule in der assyrischen Architektur,’ _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, 1892, p. 11.

[82] Koldewey gives a chronological series of Assyrian khilânis and shows that the development in Assyria was a faithful copy of the development which he had noted at Zindjirli, op. cit., pp. 188 et seq.

[83] Dr. Herzfeld suggests that it may have been transmitted to the Achaemenids through Media; _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 186.

[84] Dr. Herzfeld calls attention to the significant fact that the Babylonian theatre, while it exhibits a good Greek plan, is built of sun-dried brick, doubtless by local workmen, and is technically indistinguishable from local structures of an earlier age. _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 225. To a reconstruction of a later period belongs the stage, with its burnt brick foundations, wooden superstructure, and ornaments of carved stucco, and here too technique and material are of local origin. The theatre is not yet published. A very short account of the excavations is to be found in _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 21, p. 9, and No. 22, pp. 4 et seq.; a longer description in Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, p. 293.

[85] Loftus, _Chaldaca and Susiana_, p. 225. See Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 227, for a comprehensive enumeration of Parthian remains.

[86] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. v, p. 29.

[87] Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, p. 564, compares it to the ancient Greek houses at Delos, for which see Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 516. The juxtaposition of megaron and andron, each group of rooms opening into its own court, recalls irresistibly a yet older type; cf. the plan of Tiryns, Perrot-Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, vol. vi, Plate 2. It is curious to note that the audience halls at Niffer are the oriental latitudinal chambers; indeed they have the closest connexion with the old Babylonian house type, which, as Professor Koldewey has observed, postulates invariably a court with a large chamber to the south of it. The Niffer palace is little more than a reproduction of such houses as the big house in the Merkes at Babylon, plus the column, which was due to Greek influence. See Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, pp. 279 et seq.

[88] _Mitt, der D. O.-G._, No. 25, p. 39.

[89] Ibid., No. 28, p. 59.

[90] Stoae of Attalos at Athens and at Pergamon, Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 504.

[91] The Assur palace is not yet published, but see _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 42, pp. 45-50. The plan is given on Plate 4 of Andrae’s _Festungswerke von Assur_.

[92] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, Plate 6.

[93] The literature on this subject is of vast extent. See Choisy, _L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins_, p. 32; Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv, p. 14; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, pp. 143-7, 163-81, 231-46. Delbrück’s chronological _résumé_ of the history of the vault has brought order into chaos; _Hellenistische Bauten in Latium_, pt. ii, pp. 63-85.

[94] Place, _Ninive_, vol. i, pp. 176, 255.

[95] Idem, vol. i, pp. 254 et seq.

[96] Layard, _Nineveh_, vol. i, p. 127, and vol. ii, p. 260.

[97] I must refer briefly to his new work. _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, wherein the question of Babylonian vaults is fully discussed on pp. 90 et seq.

[98] Delbrück, _Hell. Bauten in Latium_, vol. ii. Table A, p. 64. The widest span is found in the cisterns of the theatre at Delos; it is 6.55 metres.

[99] Early Hellenistic barrel vaults in the Mediterranean coast-lands. Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii. Table A, p. 64. Cut stone vaults showing characteristics of brick construction, such as vaulting in concentric courses, vaults outlined by mouldings, vaults with uncentered joints, and a single example of the horse-shoe vault at Chiusi, idem, Table B, p. 67. In Egypt and in western Asia solutions were sought to further problems of stone vaulting, the intersection of stone barrel vaults, vaulting in inclined planes, the stone dome with or without voussoirs. At first these were in general confined to the East; the evolution in the West begins in the Roman Imperial period. Delbrück, pt. ii. pp. 77-80. Development of the Egyptian cut stone vault out of sun-dried brick construction, idem, pp. 80-3.

[100] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Table C, p. 70.

[101] Bridge at Pergamon, Delbrück, pt. ii, Table D, p. 72.

[102] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, p. 2, assigns it to the second century, after Trajan and before Septimius Severus; a more accurate dating is not possible without excavation. The largest of the palace vaults spans 14·80 metres.

[103] Choisy, _L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins_, p. 154.

[104] Podium of the altar and of the upper gymnasium at Pergamon, Delbrück, pt. ii, p. 104. The whole subject is admirably handled by him, pt. ii, pp. 108-11, where the accounts left by Diodorus and by Strabo of the substructure of the Hanging Gardens are examined, and the mutual interaction of India and western Asia is considered. See Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, p. 90, for a description of the vaulted substructions which he believes to have supported the Hanging Gardens.

[105] Strabo, xvi, 1, 5.

[106] Chaldaea, at Mughair, sun-dried brick; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 232. Egypt, at Dair el-Baḥri, 18th Dynasty; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. i, p. 536; and a brick dome at Abydos; Choisy, _Histoire de l’Architecture_, vol. i, p. 19. Syria, dolmenic tomb at Ridjm el Melfûf; _Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1911_, p. 9. Knossos; Evans, _Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos_, p. 139. Numerous other examples are cited by Durm in two articles in the _Jahreshefte des öst. arch. Instituts_, vol. x, 1907.

[107] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 27, p. 29.

[108] In one of these only is the springing of the vault preserved. Bell, _Amurath to Amurath_, Fig. 109.

[109] Sâmarrâ, _Amurath_, Fig. 154.

[110] Cf. the stone vaults at Medinet Abu, Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 81.

[111] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv, Fig. 10; _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 40, Fig. 10, a late Assyrian tomb.

[112] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, Plate 7.

[113] Bell, _Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭûr ‘Abdîn_, p. 100 (44).

[114] Idem, pp. 65 (9), 71 (15), &c.

[115] Mau, _Pompeii, its Life and Art_, p. 199.

[116] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Fig. 45.

[117] Idem, p. 146.

[118] Fergusson and Burgess, _Cave Temples of India_, Plates 9 and 11.

[119] De Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, Plate 7, and Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Fig. 77. The records only have survived; the buildings themselves have disappeared.

[120] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 145.

[121] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt iii, Fig. 185; de Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 47.

[122] Tâg-i-Îwân, Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. v, p. 80.

[123] Dieulafoy, ibid., vol. v, p. 80.

[124] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. i, p. 18.

[125] Pergamon, _Athenische Mitt._, vol. xxix (1904), p. 136, Plate 13; Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Table G, and p. 103.

[126] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 104.

[127] Fergusson and Burgess, _Cave Temples_, Plates 11, 15, 24, and 28.

[128] Kalybes at Shaqqah and at Umm al-Zaitûn, de Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, p. 44, and Plate 6. Two domes at Binbirklisse, Ramsay and Bell, _Thousand and One Churches_, pp. 80 and 241.

[129] As to the date of these palaces, I accept the suggestions of Dr. Herzfeld until good reasons for modifying them have been shown. Ardashir I founded the city of Firûzâbâd in A.D. 226; the palace is probably of his time. Sarvistân belongs possibly to the time of Bahrâm V Gûr, 420-438; Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn may have been built by Khusrau II Parwêz towards the end of the sixth century. Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, pp. 128-31.

[130] The Sarvistân dome rests on walls some 1·50 metres thick, and is about 5 metres in diameter, according to Dieulafoy’s plan (vol. iv, Plate 3). Flandin and Coste (_Voyage en Perse_, Plate 28) extend its diameter to the outer walls, which would give it a span of about 7·50 metres, but the section which they give on Plate 29 shows that Dieulafoy’s plan is in this respect correct, and indeed no other construction is possible.

[131] Balâdhuri (_Futûḥ_, p. 288) says that Ibrahîm ibn Salamah, one of the chiefs of Khurâsân, built the dome of the old Persian palace of Khawarnaq, in the khalifate of Abu Abbâs, and adds that previously there was no dome there. Possibly the domes seen by Ibn Baṭûṭah were due to this Mohammadan restoration.

[132] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 146, Fig. 43.

[133] Dieulafoy, op. cit., vol. ii, Plate 14 and vol. iv, Plate 15. Possibly there are earlier examples of the ṭâqchah than those at Persepolis. Room 11 in the big house in the Merkes at Babylon would seem from the plan to have possessed a ṭâqchah. Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, Fig. 236.

[134] A tube can be seen in Dieulafoy’s Plate 9, vol. iv. It runs between the inner barrel vault on the right side of the big lîwân and the domed chamber to the right of the central hall of audience. See, too, the tubes in Flandin and Coste’s sections, Plates 40 and 41 _bis_.

[135] Dieulafoy, vol. iv, Figs. 25 and 26, and Plate 14, an arched niche in the inside of the dome. According to Flandin and Coste’s sections, all the door, window, and niche arches were so treated.

[136] Idem, vol. iv, Fig. 29.

[137] Koldewey, in _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 12, p. 6.

[138] Dieulafoy, vol. iv, Fig. 30.

[139] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 17.

[140] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 140.

[141] Flandin and Coste restore the façade differently and give it the true oriental form of the lîwân façade; see below, p. 137.

[142] De Sarzec-Heuzey, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, p. 397.

[143] Ramsay and Bell, _The Thousand and One Churches_, Fig. 355.

[144] Dieulafoy, vol. iv, p. 77.

[145] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 1. In the flanking chamber to the left of the entrance lîwân the vaults of the niches oversail the wall and the same seems to be the case in the vault of the lîwân itself. Flandin and Coste draw all the door, window, and niche arches oversailing the jambs. From Dieulafoy’s picture of the dome, it would seem that the arches of the side niches there certainly oversailed the jambs. Plate 5.

[146] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 2.

[147] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 5.

[148] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 7.

[149] There are probably many more than those which we know. De Morgan has given a plan of Haush Quru, a ruin by which I passed on my return from Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. That I did not linger there was due partly to the circumstances described above, and partly to the fact that a village has grown up round and among the ruins, which renders their examination exceedingly tiresome. I was obliged to waste a large portion of my stay in a visit of ceremony to Kerîm Khân’s brother, who resides at Haush Quru. In plan the palace is very similar to the central block of Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. It is noticeable that the same rectangular area occupies the centre of the state apartments; de Morgan represents it as covered with cement--was it opened or domed? _Mission sc. en Perse_, Plates 50 and 51. He mentions other Sasanian ruins and gives a sketch plan of Shirwân, p. 362, another of Dereh Shah, p. 367, and a fragmentary plan of Hazâr Dâr, together with some remarkably interesting details of decoration. Hazâr Dâr is probably so much ruined that without excavation the distribution of the palace could not be made out; at any rate it cannot be determined from the plan given on Plate 62. For other Sasanian remains see Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 237.

[150] So too at Susa; Dieulafoy, _L’Acropole de Suse_, p. 239.

[151] Idem, Fig. 126, and p. 240.

[152] I had not realized the purpose for which these oblong rooms were intended until Dr. Reuther told me that he had seen similar kitchens in modern Arab houses. He has made a careful study of Mesopotamian domestic architecture of the present day and published an excellent book on the subject, _Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad und anderen Städten des Irak_.

[153] I suspect that the cross-shaped disposition of chambers was used in oriental palaces older than the Mohammadan era. It is found in the fifth-century church of Qal’at Sim’ân (de Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 141), for which I do not know a Western prototype.

[154] Herzfeld, _Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Sâmarrâ_, Plate 9.

[155] Herzfeld, _Sâmarrâ_, Fig. 23; Bell, _Amurath to Amurath_. Fig. 148.

[156] ‘Un palais musulman au IXe siècle,’ _Mémoires présentés à l’Acad. des Ins. et Belles-Lettres_, vol. xii, pt. ii.

[157] _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 40.

[158] Dr. Herzfeld believes the type to be based upon the Roman camp, a point to which I shall refer later, p. 120.

[159] Sarzec-Heuzey, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, Plan A, and p. 405. It must, however, be remembered that in the plan, as we have it, the dates of the various parts of the building are hopelessly confused; Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, p. 286.

[160] _Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa_, p. 14.

[161] _L’Acropole de Suse_, Fig. 264.

[162] _Hatra_, pt. i, Fig. 32.

[163] _Chaldaea and Susiana_, p. 225.

[164] _Assyrian Discoveries_, pp. 146 and 429. Photograph opposite p. 308.

[165] Bk. i, ch. 131.

[166] Bk. xv, ch. 3, 13-16.

[167] _Hatra_, pt. ii, p. 143.

[168] Ibid., pt. ii, p. 109.

[169] _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, p. 79.

[170] In the mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn at Cairo. The origin of the minaret is a vexed question which has been treated at length by Thiersch, _Der Pharos_, and continues to be the subject of controversy. Personally I subscribe to the view of Dr. Andrae and M. Dieulafoy.

[171] Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa_, p. 66.

[172] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, pp. 448-9.

[173] Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Bab. und Bor._, Plate 2; the palace has not yet been published, but the plan is given here. See, too, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_.

[174] Puchstein, _Boghaskoi_, Plates 33, 42, 44, 46, and 47. The differences are so profound that I am led to the belief that the architects of southern Hittite palaces must have been governed by cultural influences other than those which obtained at Boghâz Keui. For example, the latitudinal disposition of the chambers which characterizes the southern khilâni is absent at Boghâz Keui. Can it be that southern Hittite architecture is in truth Syrian architecture under Hittite domination?

[175] Andrae, _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_, Plate 4, is an example of the symmetrical temple. On p. 83 Andrae discusses the influences under which it arose, a subject of the highest interest and importance, for which the recent excavation of the temple of Assur has given chronological data. _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 44, p. 40. The plan of the Assur temple is given in _Die Festungswerke von Assur_, Plate 2.

[176] Koldewey, _Sendschirli_, p. 18.

[177] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 196.

[178] Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Bab. und Bor._, Plates 3, 5, 7, and 12.

[179] Place, _Ninive_, vol. i, p. 101.

[180] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 129.

[181] Nöldeke, _Geschichte der Perser und Araber_, p. 58, note.

[182] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. v, p. 79.

[183] Delbrück, _Hellenistische Bauten_, pt. ii, p. 86.

[184] For instance, the walls of Assur, _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 26, p. 35, and No. 28, Fig. 11.

[185] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 90.

[186] Koepp, _Die Römer in Deutschland_, p. 76.

[187] Brünnow-Domaszewski, _Die Provincia Arabia_, vol. iii, p. 221.

[188] Stolle, _Das Lager und Heer der Römer_, pp. 52 et seq., 105 et seq.

[189] Boṣrâ in eastern Syria, Brünnow-Domaszewski, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 2; Shuhbâ in the Ḥaurân, idem, iii, p. 146, and Butler, _Architecture and other Arts_, p. 393; Apamea in northern Syria, Butler, idem, p. 54.

[190] The material for their study is ample: _Der obergermanisch-rätische Limes des Römerreiches_, published by the Reichs-Limeskommission; _Der römische Limes in Oesterreich_, published by the K. Akad. der Wissenschaften; the great camp at Novaesium published in the _Bonner Jahrbuch_, 1904; for the Saalburg see Jacobi, _Führer durch das Römerkastell Saalburg_. For Africa, Ballu, _Les Ruines de Timgad_; Gsell, _Monuments antiques de l’Algérie_; Cagnat, _Les Deux Camps de Lambèse_. For Britain, Bruce, _The Roman Wall_; Curle, _A Roman Frontier Fort_. Lyell, _A Bibliographical List of Romano-British Architectural Remains_, gives reference to others.

[191] _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 66, Aalen, No. 65, Unterböbingen.

[192] _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 31.

[193] Cagnat, _Les Deux Camps de Lambèse_, p. 19, Fig. 2.

[194] _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 8, Zugmantel.

[195] For example Weissenberg, _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 72.

[196] There are scarcely any exceptions, but at Stockstadt, _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 33, at Zugmantel, No. 8, at Sulz, No. 61_a_, and at Niederberg, No. 34, a slight exterior salience is given to some of the rectangular towers. At Niederbieber the gate towers have a considerable salience, and the intermediate towers are also salient, a variation to which Schultze (’Die römischen Stadttore,’ _Bonner Jahrbuch_, 1909, p. 324) attaches no importance.

[197] Mommsen, _The Provinces of the Roman Empire_, vol. ii, p. 153.

[198] Cf. Khirbet el Fityân, which belongs probably to the time of Diocletian, Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 139.

[199] Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 102, Fig. 685.

[200] It must be remembered that in all these ruins only those parts which remain above ground have been recorded. Excavation is needed to show the exact relation of the interior buildings to the encompassing wall at Ḍumair and Ledjdjûn.

[201] _Revue biblique_, 1904, p. 414. and Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 118.

[202] Praetoria are occasionally found outside the walls in the fortified cities of Gaul, but there is no example earlier than the close of the third century. Blanchet, _Les Enceintes romaines de la Gaule_, p. 276.

[203] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt. ii, p. 146.

[204] Idem, Sect. B, pt. ii, Plate 8.

[205] Idem, Sect. B, pt. i, p. 26.

[206] I am aware that this view is in contravention of Dr. Herzfeld’s opinion, but I fail to discern any ground for his statement that the castrum of Qasṭal belongs to the type of the great legionary camps. ‘Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 123.

[207] Flandin-Coste, _Voyage en Perse_, Plate 213 _bis_.

[208] Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 82.

[209] Idem, vol. ii, p. 89.

[210] Idem, vol. ii, p. 65.

[211] Idem, vol. ii, p. 78.

[212] Dieulafoy, _L’Acropole de Suse_, p. 163.

[213] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 341, Gates of Balawât, and other plans, pp. 343-4.

[214] Plan of the acropolis of Khorsâbâd, Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 326; the towers have a salience of 4 metres and are placed at intervals of 27 metres. Walls of Assur, _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 32, p. 35, and plan of the western half of the mound, issued with that number. The towers are 4 metres wide, with a salience of 2 metres; the curtain walls vary in length from 24·55 metres to 29 metres--distances, remarks Dr. Andrae, which lie well within the limits of a bow-shot. See too Andrae, _Die Festungswerke von Assur_, vol. i, p. 5, where the normal proportions of Salmanassar III’s outer wall are given as follows: towers 8 metres wide, with a salience of 3 to 4 metres; curtain walls 30 metres long. Towers existed in the archaic walls (idem, p. 65), as well as great bastions standing out from 10 to 20 metres from the face of the wall (idem, p. 123).

[215] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 31, p. 28, No. 32, p. 36; and _Festungswerke_, vol. i, p. 115.

[216] _L’Acropole de Suse_, Plate 2. It is doubtful whether the towers in the plan are based upon actual observation, or due to a restoration on the part of the excavator.

[217] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, pp. 36, 39, and 53.

[218] Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, P. 559.

[219] Dastajird, Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 237; Iṣṭakhr (the walls may, however, have been Achaemenid), Flandin-Coste, _Voyage en Perse_, Plate 58; Qal’a-i-Kuhna, idem, Plate 213 _bis_.

[220] Koldewey, _Sendschirli_, pt. ii, pp. 172-8.

[221] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iv, p. 505.

[222] Puchstein, _Boghaskoi_, Plate 2.

[223] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. vi, Plate 1.

[224] Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, pp. 38 and 42.

[225] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, p. 45.

[226] Idem, vol. v, p. 321.

[227] Idem, vol. v, p. 324.

[228] _Reisen in Lykien und Karien_, p. 54.

[229] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, p. 385.

[230] Benndorf-Niemann, op. cit., p. 124.

[231] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iii, pp. 331, 338, 348, 353, and 325.

[232] Texier, _Asie Mineure_, vol. ii, Plate 108. _Investigations at Assos_, Clarke, Bacon, Koldewey, pt. i, p. 13.

[233] Merchel, _Die Ingenieurtechnik im Alterthum_, p. 425. Messene was founded by Epaminondas in 371 B.C.

[234] The town was destroyed by the Carthaginians in 409 B.C., and the walls date from after that period. Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 209.

[235] _Forschungen in Ephesos_, vol. i, p. 91.

[236] Koldewey, _Sendschirli_, vol. ii, p. 179. It was built in 320 B.C.

[237] Choisy, _Histoire de l’Architecture_, vol. i, p. 501.

[238] Promis, _Le Antichità di Aosta_, Plates 3 and 4.

[239] Blanchet, _Les Enceintes romaines de la Gaule_, pp. 211 and 14.

[240] ‘Die römischen Stadttore’, _Bonner Jahrb._, 1909, p. 293.

[241] Blanchet, op. cit., pp. 335-7.

[242] Not only were the walls of camps less strongly fortified than the walls of towns, but the defences of the gateways were not so highly developed. Cramer, _Trier_, p. 72.

[243] Brünnow-Domaszewski, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 100.

[244] Idem, vol. ii, p. 182; I think it very doubtful whether any part of the existing ruins are Roman. See too Herzfeld, ‘Genesis,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 128.

[245] Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Hîra,’ _Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de Beyrouth_, vol. iv, p. 103; and Musil, _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, pp. 155-6.

[246] Musil, idem, p. 163.

[247] Lammens, op. cit., p. 107.

[248] Moritz, ‘Ausflüge in der Arabia Petraea,’ _Mélanges de la F. O. de Beyrouth_, vol. iii, p. 432. I do not propose to consider here small buildings like Mshaiyesh (Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 313, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 115), or al-Weyned (Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 289, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 93). They are both on the caravanserai plan and differ little from the edifice which stands near Qṣair ‘Amrah. This last was probably a lodging for guards and courtiers. Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 223; _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, Plate 2.

[249] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt. ii, p. 77, and appendix, p. xix.

[250] De Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 71.

[251] _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 229, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 64.

[252] Nöldeke, _Neue Freie Presse_, March 28, 1907, and Becker, _Münchener Neueste Nachrichten_, May 28, 1907.

[253] _Revue biblique_, 1904, p. 423; Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 106, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 72.

[254] Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 75, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 65.

[255] Butler, _Ancient Arch. in Syria_, Sect. B, pt. i, Plate 4, and in the same number _Greek and Roman Inscriptions_, p. 40.

[256] Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 176, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 13.

[257] Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 290, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 97; Moritz, ‘Ausflüge,’ _Mélanges de la F. O. de Beyrouth_, vol. iii, p. 421. I give four photographs which Dr. Moritz has been so kind as to place at my disposal.

[258] _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, Fig. 135.

[259] Schultz and Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_; Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 105; Musil, _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 39.

[260] Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Hîra,’ _Mélanges de la F. O. de Beyrouth_, p. 110.

[261] ‘Genesis,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 126.

[262] _Mea culpa!_ I visited Mshattâ in the year 1900 (and to this day, though I spell its name in the accepted grammatical fashion, I cannot bring myself to speak it except as the Beduin speak it--Mshittâ), but I was so much dazzled by the splendour of the façade that I photographed nothing else. Moreover, I was not then sufficiently instructed to be on the watch for matters which would now absorb my attention. In 1905 I passed close by it again, but a regrettable sentiment prevented me from re-visiting it after it had been shorn of its glory. I never find myself in Berlin without rejoicing that the marvellous decoration has been put in safety, and in easy reach of us all, but I never think of the palace in the wilderness without congratulating myself on having seen it in 1900. It remains in my mind as the most princely of ḥirahs, wrapped round by the grass-grown Syrian desert, mild and beneficent in winter; and the flocks of the Ṣukhûr resort to it as kings resorted of old.

[263] Cf. the vaults in the side niches of a building on the citadel at ‘Ammân which I believe to be not older than the Umayyad period. Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. v, p. 98; _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 23, p. 47.

[264] Brünnow and Domaszewski, op. cit., Fig. 720.

[265] In any case the maxim laid down by Dr. Herzfeld (’Genesis,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i. p. 110) is misleading. It is too hasty a generalization and it does not cover the facts. At Ukhaiḍir door openings are sometimes wider and sometimes narrower than the arches above them, and it is doubtful whether the same is not the case at Sarvistân. See above, p. 79.

[266] _Mschattâ_, Plate 6.

[267] So it appears to me, but I am conscious that the roots may go deeper. Damascus, Apamea, and Antioch are Seleucid foundations, and we know nothing of the Seleucid city plan.

[268] Ebersolt, _Le Grand Palais de Constantinople_, pp. 162-7.

[269] Bury, _A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the fall of Irene to the accession of Basil I_, p. 132.

[270] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 33.

[271] Sprenger-Michaelis, _Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte_, 9th ed., vol. i, p. 60.

[272] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 101.

[273] Dieulafoy, _L’Acropole de Suse_, Figs. 93, 100, 132.

[274] _Chaldaea and Susiana_, p. 174.

[275] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 51, p. 71.

[276] Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, p. 483, and fig. on p. 552.

[277] Sarzec-Heuzey, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, Plate 53 _bis_, Fig. 1.

[278] The last two examples are not yet published. For the connexion of the orthostatic construction at Pasargadae with Assyria and the Hittite cultural sphere, see Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 184. The link between the two is probably to be sought at Ecbatana.

[279] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Figs. 107 and 110.

[280] _Hellenistische Bauten in Latium_, pt. ii, p. 147.

[281] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 123.

[282] Idem, vol. ii, Fig. 136.

[283] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. i, Fig. 267, and Puchstein, _Die ionische Säule_, Fig. 45, for Egypt; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 39, for Assyria.

[284] Fergusson, _History of Indian and Oriental Architecture_, p. 115, façade of the Chaitya Cave at Nassick.

[285] In the Sema of Ptolemy Philadelphos; Thiersch, ‘Die Alexandrinische Königsnekropole,’ _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts, 1910_, p. 65. See too _Der Pharos_, p. 210, for an extant example at Taposiris Magna. Delbrück’s handling of the subject is admirable; op. cit., pt. ii, pp. 99 and 139. That the lightening of the wall-face in Hellenistic architecture may be of oriental origin is borne out by the fact that it appears more frequently in the south-east regions, where Greek culture was under the influence of Egypt and western Asia.

[286] Lanckoronski, _Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens_, vol. i, p. 59.

[287] Bulard, ‘Peintures murales et mosaïques de Délos,’ _Mémoires Piot_, vol. xiv, pp. 116 et. seq.

[288] Idem, Plate 6 A; Wiegand-Schrader, _Priene_, p. 312.

[289] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 128.

[290] Wiegand, _Milet_, pt. ii, Plate 7.

[291] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 129.

[292] Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 542.

[293] Wiegand-Schrader, _Priene_, p. 268. Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 130.

[294] Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 504.

[295] For instance, in the Agora at Magnesia; Humann, _Magnesia am Maeander_, p. 113.

[296] Delbrück, pt. ii, p. 137. He cites the Ephebeum at Priene and the upper gymnasium at Pergamon.

[297] Praeneste, Delbrück, pt. i, Plates 13 and 17, and pt. ii, Plate 1. Tabularium, Delbrück, pt. i, Plate 7, and pt. ii, Plate 3.

[298] Praeneste, Delbrück, pt. i. Plates 13 and 17, and pt. ii, Plate 1.

[299] Apse at Praeneste, Delbrück, pt. i, Plate 18.

[300] Tivoli, Delbrück, pt. ii, p. 12.

[301] _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, vol. xvii, 1902; _Archäologischer Anzeiger_, p. 152.

[302] Heberdey, _Ephesos_, vol. ii, Plates 7, 8, and 9.

[303] _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, vol. xvi, 1901, p. 143, and vol. xvii, 1902, Plate 9.

[304] Butler, _Florilegium Melchior de Vogüé_, The Temple of Dhûsharâ, Plate 1.

[305] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, p. 55.

[306] Idem, pp. 67 and 77.

[307] Idem, p. 325.

[308] Idem, pp. 347 and 351.

[309] Idem, p. 327.

[310] Idem, p. 343.

[311] Idem, p. 371.

[312] Idem, pp. 380 et seq.

[313] Idem, p. 245.

[314] Idem, pp. 252 and 265.

[315] For the latter see Jaussen-Savignac, _Mission archéologique en Arabie_. A number of the tombs are dated, and the learned fathers of St. Étienne, in publishing the inscriptions, have given us a solid basis for the evolution of the Ḥedjr tomb. For the Petra tombs, Brünnow-Domaszewski, _Provincia Arabia_, vol. i; and Dalman, _Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer_, and _Neue Petra-Forschungen_. The material was brilliantly reviewed by Puchstein, _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, 1910, vol. xxv; _Arch. Anzeiger_, p 3.

[316] Egypt, as Puchstein has observed, was always the dominant influence. The form and origin of Nabataean tombs goes back to the time of the Pharaohs, _Arch. Anz._, 1910, p. 40.

[317] Jaussen-Savignac, tomb A 5, p. 357.

[318] Idem, pp. 414 et seq.

[319] Domaszewski suggested that they were the graves of Greek merchants, _Prov. Arabia_, vol. i, p. 15.

[320] Puchstein, op. cit., table, p. 35.

[321] Jaussen-Savignac, op. cit., p. 382; the tomb called Al-Ferîd.

[322] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, pp. 170, 173.

[323] Tomb of the legate Sextius Florentinus, Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. i, p. 170; Corinthian grave, idem, p. 168; No. 34, idem, p. 172. Al-Dair, idem, p. 187; the Storied tomb, idem, p. 169; the Khazneh, idem, Plate 2, and _Palestine Exploration Fund Annual_, 1911, p. 95.

See Hittorff, ‘Pompeii et Petra,’ _Revue arch._ N.S., vol. vi, p. 7.

[324] Wall paintings in Alexandrian tombs and at Boscoreale. Athenaeus gives a description of a tholos on the state barge of Ptolemy Philadelphos, and Vitruvius a description of a wall painting at Alabanda, which Studniczka compares with the Khazneh. _Tropaeum Trajani_, p. 66; Thiersch, ‘Die Alexandrinische Königsnekropole,’ _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, vol. xxv, 1910, p. 67. A free-standing tholos, placed upon a pluteum or attic, appears upon the tomb of Absalom at Jerusalem, which Puchstein dates in the first half of the first century A.D. See Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iv, p. 279.

[325] This should be compared with Dr. Herzfeld’s drawing of the façade with conjectural restorations in the north wing. Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. iii, Plate 41. I doubt whether any of the columns were furnished with bases.

[326] Delbrück, _Hellenistische Bauten_, pt. ii, p. 129.

[327] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, p. 132; east church at Bâbisqâ.

[328] Idem, p. 150; chapel at Kfair.

[329] Bronze tablet found at Ephesus and ivory diptych in the British Museum, _Mschattâ_, pp. 266 and 277.

[330] Pointing inwards on the apse at Qalb Lôzeh, and pointing outwards on a doorway at Bashmishli; Butler, _Anc. Arch._, pp. 223 and 239.

[331] _Ocheïdir_, p. 41.

[332] At Al-’Âshiq; _Amurath_, p. 238, and Herzfeld, _Sâmarrâ_, p. 40. Also round the windows of the great mosque at Sâmarrâ; _Amurath_, Fig. 142; Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, Fig. 1.

[333] For instance in a madrasah of the Ulu Djâmi’. The inscription round this madrasah is published (_Amida_, p. 87, inscr. No. 28), and I have the photographs, but these are not yet published.

[334] _Amurath_, Fig. 170.

[335] Unpublished. I have all the photographs and M. Max van Berchem has studied the inscriptions from them.

[336] It was shown at the exhibition of Mohammadan art held in Munich in 1910, and was numbered in the catalogue 2696 (_Meisterwerke muhammedanischer Kunst_, vol. ii, Plate 122).

[337] An early Syrian example, possibly Nabataean, is to be found at Umtâ’iyyeh; Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt. ii, p. 89. Cf. too the façade of the basilical hall at Mshattâ. (Schultz-Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_, Plate 4), and an interesting example on the tambour of the church of the ‘Adhrâ at Ḥakh; Bell, _Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭur ‘Abdin_, p. 84 (28).

[338] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, Plates 6 and 7.

[339] _Miss. scient. en Perse_, p. 364.

[340] Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_, p. 354; Herzfeld, ‘Genesis,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 118.

[341] Sieglin-Schreiber, _Die Nekropole von Kôm esch Schukâfa_, Figs. 214, 215.

[342] Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_, Fig. 36.

[343] Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 185, Figs. 760-5, and Plate 49.

[344] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, Fig. 5.

[345] Lynch, _Armenia_, vol. i, Fig. 74.

[346] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 9.

[347] Butler, _Ancient Architecture_, p. 130.

[348] _Circa_ 78 B.C., Delbrück, _Hell. Bauten_, pt. ii, Plate 3.

[349] Promis, _Antichità di Aosta_, Plate 7.

[350] _Die römischen Stadttore_, p. 296.

[351] Ibid., pp. 285-6. They too are Augustan.

[352] _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 34.

[353] _Ocheïdir_, p. 33.

[354] Reuther, _Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad_, p. 74.

[355] Ramsay and Bell, _The Thousand and One Churches_, Fig. 6, and _passim_.

[356] Butler, _Ancient Architecture_, Fig. 127, p. 364. See too double columns at Palatitza; Heuzey and Daumet, _Mission archéologique de Macédoine_, p. 198, where other examples are cited.

[357] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 34. As Dr. Herzfeld points out, Mshattâ offers another notable example of the three-arched façade. See Schultz-Strzygowski, Plate 4.

[358] _History of Indian and Eastern Architecture_, p. 580.

[359] Butler, _Ancient Architecture_, p. 367.

[360] Dieulafoy, vol. v, p. 99.

[361] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 31, p. 28.

[362] Loftus, _Chaldaea and Susiana_, p. 225.

[363] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, Figs. 340 and 342.

[364] Another good instance is at Tekrît; _Amurath_, Fig. 130.

[365] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Figs. 106, 116, 124, 136.

[366] _Ocheïdir_, Fig. 19.

[367] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 35.

[368] Idem, p. 23, and p. 18.

[369] The latter, though it is now at Baghdâd, was in all probability an import from northern Mesopotamia or northern Syria. Herzfeld, ‘Genesis’, _Der Islam_, 1910, Plates 1 and 2.

[370] The workmen at such a site as Warka may have been half bred with Greeks. The rinceaux on the door-jambs at Hatra, on the other hand, are better defined as combinations of the palmette and the acanthus than as modifications of the vine, and the typical Parthian decoration at Assur consists of various forms of the continuous pattern, the old oriental decorative scheme. Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, Sheet 47, and Plate 12; _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 42, Figs. 7 and 8.

[371] De Beylié, _La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad_, p. 41, quoting Ibn Hauqal.

[372] De Beylié, _La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad_, p. 41.

[373] The Wuswas ruin at Warka has furnished another example of the imitation of Babylonian decoration by Parthian builders. _Mitt. der D O.-G._, No. 51.

[374] De Beylié, op. cit., p. 63.

[375] R. Velazquez Bosco, _Medina Azzahra y Alamiriva_, Plate 17.

[376] Idem, Plate 18.

[377] _Amurath_, Fig. 161.

[378] Andrae, _Hatra,_ pt. ii, Fig. 37, Sect. _e-f_, and Fig. 152

[379] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, Plate 9. Possibly there are others; the palaces of Fars must be re-examined.

[380] _Amurath_, Fig. 133. As regards the date, M. van Berchem calls my attention to a passage in the _Fakhri_ of Ibn al-Tiqtaqa (ed. Derembourg, p. 445), in which it is stated that the khalif al-Mustanṣir built among other monuments such as the Mustanṣiriyyeh at Baghdâd and the bridge at Harbâ, khân al-Khernîna. I was therefore right in assigning it to the thirteenth century A.D.

[381] A drawing of the gate is published by Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 13.

[382] Teano, _Annali dell’ Islam_, vol. i, p. 443.

[383] Lammens, ‘Ziâd ibn Abîhi,’ _Rivista degli Studi Orientali_, vol. iv, p. 242.

[384] Sir Charles Lyall sends me the following note: “There is a masdjedâ at Medâin Ṣâliḥ. Masdjid is the “place of prostration” (sadjada) and this use of ‘sadjada’ is anterior to Islâm. See al-’A’shâ’s line: “Whoever sees Haudhah prostrates himself (yasdjud) without delay, when he puts on the crown above his turban or lays it down.”‘

[385] As, for instance, the _khuṭbah_ of ‘Amr ibn al-’Aṣ in his mosque at Fusṭâṭ (Corbett, ‘The Mosque of ‘Amr,’ _Journal of the R. Asiatic Soc._, 1890, p. 768), and the _khuṭbah_ of Ziyâd ibn Abîhi at Baṣrah (Lammens, op. cit., p. 36).

[386] Lammens, ibid., p. 31; and Becker, ‘Zur Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,’ _Der Islam_, vol. iii, p. 394.

[387] Teano, op. cit., vol. i, p. 438.

[388] Idem, vol. ii, pt. i, p. 68; and Becker, _Die Kanzel im Kultus des alten Islam_, p. 3 (Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke gewidmet).

[389] Teano, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 965.

[390] The Copts built the façade, the Greeks the side and back walls; see Becker’s very interesting note, _Der Islam_, vol. iii, p. 403.

[391] Balâdhuri, _Futûḥ_, ed. de Goeje, p. 6. Yâqût, _Mu’djám_, ed. Wüstenfeld, vol. iv, p. 466.

[392] Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 569, quoting Makrîzi, _Khiṭâṭ_, vol. ii, p. 247.

[393] Lammens, Ziâd ibn Abîhi, op. cit., p. 246; Becker, ‘Zur Geschichte d. islam. Kultus.’ op. cit., pp. 392-3. Professor Becker points out that though the architectural form was borrowed from the Christian apse, the word ‘miḥrab’ which was applied to it had had an earlier usage. It signified the princely seat of honour, which in all probability was generally niche-shaped.

[394] Balâdhuri, _Futûḥ_, p. 46.

[395] Idem, p. 350.

[396] Idem, pp. 347-8.

[397] Idem, p. 277.

[398] Ṭabari, Prima Series, p. 2489; Teano, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 857; Lammens, Ziâd, op. cit., p. 247.

[399] _Futûḥ_, p. 286.

[400] Ṭabari, Prima Series, p. 2492.

[401] _Futûḥ_, p. 277.

[402] Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 563 et seq.; Corbett, ‘The Mosque of ‘Amr,’ _Journal of the R. Asiatic Soc._, 1890, pp. 759 et seq.

[403] Becker, _Die Kanzel_, _passim_, and ‘Zur Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,’ op. cit., p. 393; Corbett, loc. cit., p. 773, n. 1.

[404] Ṭabari, Tertia Series, p. 322.

[405] ‘Zur Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,’ op. cit., p. 393.

[406] Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 567.

[407] Le Strange, _Palestine under the Moslems_, p. 90.

[408] I follow Dr. Herzfeld’s view, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 98. Professor Thiersch believes it to have been copied from the Chalce of the Augusteion at Constantinople, but his theory is based solely upon hypothesis and it appears to me to be far-fetched. Thiersch, _Pharos_, p. 214.

[409] At Ba’albek its width is strongly marked in the façade of the ṣaḥn and in the arcade next to the qiblah wall, not in the intermediate arcades. For plan see Berchem-Strzygowski, _Amida_, Fig. 271.

[410] Saladin, _La mosquée de Sidi Okba à Kairouan_, pp. 18 et seq.

[411] Saladin, _Manuel d’art musulman, Architecture_, Fig. 139.

[412] Marçais, _Monuments de Tlemcen_, Figs. 14, 49, 69.

[413] _Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmäler_, Plate 73.

[414] Cf. the narrow blind arches on either side of the lîwân in the central court at Ukhaiḍir.

[415] Sachau, _Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien_, p. 221.

[416] _Orientalische Literaturzeitung_, September 1911, p. 422.

[417] _Futûḥ_, p. 178.

[418] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 56.

[419] Balâdhuri, _Futûḥ_, p. 179.

[420] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 57; Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 4, and vol. iii, Plate 66.

[421] Salmon, _Introduction topographique à l’histoire de Baghdad d’al-Khaḷîb_, Arabic text, p. 60; Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, p. 91.

[422] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 243; Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, p. 69.

[423] It appears in M. Viollet’s plan, ‘Description du palais d’al-Moutasim,’ _Mémoires présentés à l’Acad. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, vol. xii, pt. ii. Plate 8.

[424] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 7.

[425] Idem, p. 37.

[426] A.H. 484; it is the inscription on the north wall. On the south wall of the same wing there is an inscription, which probably alludes to some reparation and gives the date A.H. 874 = A.D. 1469. The inscription on the minaret is in the name of the Inalid Inaldi (A.H. 503-536 = A.D. 1109-1141). Two decrees are built into the north wall of the wide central aisle; they are dated respectively A.H. 639 = A.D. 1241, and A.H. 731 = A.D. 1330. The east wing of the ḥaram bears an inscription on the north wall dated A.H. 550 = A.D. 1155, and another on the same wall dated A.H. 1094 = A.D. 1683, while upon the east gable there is an inscription dated A.H. 735 = A.D. 1334. An inscription on the west arcade of the ṣaḥn is dated A.H. 518 = A.D. 1124, and the eastern arcade is dated A.H. 559 = A.D. 1163, while a second inscription contains the name of Abû ‘al-Qâsin ‘Ali, who died about A.H. 575 = A.D. 1179. On the east gate there is an inscription dated A.H. 575 = A.D. 1179. The madrasah at the north-west corner of the ṣaḥn is dated A.H. 935 = A.D. 1528; the wall to the east of the north door (behind the arcade) A.H. 625 = A.D. 1228; the small madrasah court to the north of this wall A.H. 595 = A.D. 1198, and the north doorway of this madrasah A.H. 576 = A.D. 1180.

[427] _Orientalische Literaturzeitung_, September 1911, p. 399. In A.D. 1046 Nâṣiri Khusrau saw a mosque here which had marked resemblances with the existing building. Ed. Schefer, p. 28.

[428] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 17; and vol. iii, Plate 88.

[429] _Mission en Mésopotamie_, vol. i, Plate 20.

[430] Ibn al-Athîr, vol. v, p. 224. The governor of ‘Irâq, Yûsuf ibn Umar, was imprisoned in the Khaḍrâ by Yazîd III, A.D. 744. See too Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Ḥîra,’ _Mélanges de la Fac. Or._, vol. iv, p. 100.

[431] _Futûḥ_, p. 284. The palace of Ḥadjdjâdj in Wâsiṭ was called al-Qabbet al-khaḍrâ on account of its green dome; ibid., p. 290.

[432] Yâqût, vol. iv, p. 121.

[433] Professor Musil also heard the name; he writes it Aslâm and applies it to the southern end of the Ṭâr. _Proceedings of the K. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien_, No. 1, 1913, p. 10. Bir Aslâm appears in Captain Leachman’s map. _Journal of the R. Geog. Soc._, 1911.

[434] Ibn al-Athîr, vol. ii, p. 349.

[435] Ibn al-Athîr, vol. iv, p. 328. Yâqût’s alternate site, between ‘Ain al-Tamr and Damascus, must therefore be rejected. Ibn al-Athîr refers to it in this passage in connexion with the revolt of Shabîb, during the vicegerency of Ḥadjdjâdj.

[436] Flandin-Coste, _Voyage en Perse_, p. 27.

[437] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv, Fig. 26.

[438] ‘Genesis der islamischen Kunst,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 112.

[439] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. B, pt. i, p. 32.

[440] The arches of the tomb known as Ṣlaibiyyeh are the best preserved. _Amurath to Amurath_, Figs. 150 and 151, and Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, Fig. 6. Dr. Herzfeld found in it three graves, and he believes it to have been the mausoleum of the khalifs Muntaṣir, Mu’tazz, and Muhtadi.

[441] _Amurath_, Figs. 43 and 44.

[442] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, pp. 232 et seq.

[443] Third and second century B. C., Delbrück, _Hellenistische Bauten in Latium_, pt. ii, p. 68.

[444] Bell, _Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭûr ‘Abdîn_, p. 87 (31).

[445] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, Fig. 57; and vol. iii, Plate 68.

[446] Ya’qubi, ed. de Goeje, p. 311. Dr. Moritz calls my attention to a passage in _Murudj al-Dhahab_ of Mas’ûdi (ed. Barbier de Meynard), vol. viii, p. 294, in which it is related that the khalif Rashid built wells, cisterns, and castles along the Mekkah road. These castles can, however, have been nothing but guard-houses.

[447] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Khalifate_, p. 77.

[448] Lammens, ‘Ziâd ibn Abîhi,’ _Rivista degli Studi Orientali_, vol. iv, p. 232 and p. 656, note 2.