Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr in Greater Syria 9781407357232, 9781407357225

Citation preview

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Qusūr in Greater Syria GIUSEPPE LABISI

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 4

2020

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Qusūr in Greater Syria GIUSEPPE LABISI with a preface by Alastair Northedge B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 4

2020

Published in 2020 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3004 Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr in Greater Syria isbn isbn doi

978 1 4073 5722 5 paperback 978 1 4073 5723 2 e-format

https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407357225

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Giuseppe Labisi 2020 cover image

Qaṣr al-Kharāna (Jordan, about 710)

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK email [email protected] phone +44 (0)1865 310431 fax +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Of Related Interest The Architectural Form of the Mosque in the Central Arab Lands, from the Hijra to the End of the Umayyad Period, 1/622-133/750 Thallein Antun Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2016

BAR International Series 2790

Water and Technology in Levantine Society 1300-1900: An Historical, Archaeological and Architectural Analysis Charlotte Schriwer Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2015

BAR International Series 2728

The Road Inns (Khans) in Bilad al-Sham Katia Cytryn-Silverman Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2010

BAR International Series 2130

The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule AD 600-1600 Andrew Petersen Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2005

BAR International Series 1381

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com

Acknowledgements The work published here is the reworking of the joint-doctoral thesis ‘I tipi di unità abitative del Bilād al-Shām nel periodo omayyade’ (‘La Sapienza’ University of Rome and Paris 1 PanthéonSorbonne University of Paris 1) defended in September 2017. It was developed over several years and several people assisted in that development. First of all, I would like to express my warmest thanks to Professor Maria Vittoria Fontana, my thesis supervisor, who has supported me throughout my work to whose professional and friendly guidance this work owes so much. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, Professor Alastair Northedge for the time, support and wise advice he kindly offered me. I thank the members of the jury, Professors Pierfrancesco Callieri, President of the jury, Anna Caiozzo, Michelina Di Cesare and Vito Messina for their valuable suggestions. I am grateful to Professor Anna Caiozzo for her comments and suggestions to improve the content, and her usual warm and helpful support in the period following defence of the thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Michelina Di Cesare again for checking my translations and helping me choose the Arabic technical words. My sincere thanks go to Professor Giovanni Uggeri for his support and valuable advices and recommendations. I would also like to thank Valentina Cocciolo who provided me with information and authorised me to publish her photographs. I thank Paul Beston who has kindly revised the English text. This is frequently a pro-forma expression, but more necessary than ever, all the errors and inaccuracies in this study are attributable exclusively to the writer. Finally, I would like to warmly thank my wife Sareh Gheys for her unconditional support and words that motivate me to continue in my research, my parents, who have always encouraged me, and my aunt Véronique Ottenwelter.

v

Contents Preface................................................................................................................................................................................ xix Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Part 1: The early Islamic settlement phenomenon and its origins 1. The early Islamic settlement phenomenon................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Origins of the early Islamic settlement models......................................................................................................... 5 1.2. The early Islamic settlement models......................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. The territory and the history of Bilād al-Shām......................................................................................................... 6 1.4. Dwelling types in the Umayyad Bilād al-Shām........................................................................................................ 7 1.5. The origin of ‘five room units’ and banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs: pre-Islamic models.................................................................. 9

Part 2: Dwellings in madāʾin and quṣūr 2. Dwellings in madāʾin..................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1. ʿAnjar...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1.1. Previous research............................................................................................................................................. 19 2.1.2. Historical context............................................................................................................................................ 19 2.1.3. Site description................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.1.3.1. The main palace....................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.3.2. The secondary palaces............................................................................................................................. 21 2.1.3.3. The congregational mosque..................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.3.4. The bath complex.................................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.3.5. The insulae.............................................................................................................................................. 24 2.1.4. The ʿAnjar settlement models......................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.4.1. The palaces ............................................................................................................................................. 25 2.1.4.2. The extra-palatial dwellings ................................................................................................................... 26 2.1.4.3. The ‘five room units’............................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 29 2.2. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī............................................................................................................................................ 32 2.2.1. A brief history of research............................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.2. Historical context............................................................................................................................................ 32 2.2.3. Site description................................................................................................................................................ 32 2.2.3.1. The Small Enclosure or Palace................................................................................................................ 32 2.2.3.2. The Large Enclosure or madīna.............................................................................................................. 32 2.2.3.3. The Baths................................................................................................................................................. 34 2.2.3.4. The Northern Settlement......................................................................................................................... 34 2.2.3.5. The Southern Buildings........................................................................................................................... 34 2.2.4. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī’s settlement model..................................................................................................... 34 2.2.4.1. The madīna’s dwellings........................................................................................................................... 35 2.2.4.2. The palace’s dwellings............................................................................................................................. 35 2.2.4.3. The Northern Settlement’s dwellings...................................................................................................... 36 2.2.4.4. The ‘five room units’............................................................................................................................... 36 2.2.5. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................... 36 2.3. ʿAmmān.................................................................................................................................................................. 37 2.3.1. A brief history of research............................................................................................................................... 37 2.3.2. Historical context............................................................................................................................................ 37 2.3.3. Site description................................................................................................................................................ 38 2.3.3.1. The governor’s residence......................................................................................................................... 40 2.3.3.2. The bath complex.................................................................................................................................... 42 2.3.3.3. The courtyard-market.............................................................................................................................. 42 2.3.3.4. The mosque.............................................................................................................................................. 42 2.3.3.5. The extra-palatial dwellings.................................................................................................................... 44 vii

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 2.3.4. The ʿAmmān settlement model....................................................................................................................... 44 2.3.4.1. The palace................................................................................................................................................ 44 2.3.4.2. The extra-palatial dwellings.................................................................................................................... 49 2.3.4.3. ‘Pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’ and ‘five room units’ in ʿAmmān houses and living units................................ 49 2.3.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 50 3. Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām and ‘five room units’ ........................................................................................... 51 3.1. Qaṣr al-Kharāna...................................................................................................................................................... 51 3.2. Khirbat al-Minya .................................................................................................................................................... 52 3.3. Jabal Says ............................................................................................................................................................... 52 3.4. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī ........................................................................................................................................... 52 3.5. Al-Qasṭal ................................................................................................................................................................ 52 3.6. Al-Ruṣāfa ............................................................................................................................................................... 52 3.7. Khirbat al-Mafjar ................................................................................................................................................... 54 3.8. Bālis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54 3.9. Al-Fudayn ............................................................................................................................................................... 54 3.10. Qaṣr al-Ṭūba ......................................................................................................................................................... 54 3.11. Mshattā ................................................................................................................................................................. 55 3.12. The ‘five room units’ of quṣūr: dimensions and dating ....................................................................................... 56

Part 3: Final remarks 4. The Umayyad residential context of Bilād al-Shām.................................................................................................. 63 4.1. Vestibules................................................................................................................................................................ 63 4.1.1. Vestibules of madāʾin palaces......................................................................................................................... 63 4.1.2. Vestibules of the extra-palatial madāʾin dwellings......................................................................................... 63 4.1.3. Quṣūr vestibules.............................................................................................................................................. 63 4.2. Courtyards............................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.1. Courtyards of madāʾin palatial dwellings....................................................................................................... 63 4.2.2. Courtyards of madāʾin extra-palatial dwellings.............................................................................................. 64 4.2.3. Quṣūr courtyards............................................................................................................................................. 64 4.3. ‘Five room units’ and hybrid models of ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’........................................................................... 65 4.3.1. ‘Five room units’ and hybrid models of madāʾin palaces............................................................................... 66 4.3.2. ‘Five room units’ of madāʾin extra-palatial dwellings.................................................................................... 66 4.3.3. Quṣūr ‘five room units’ and hybrid models of ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’........................................................... 67 4.4. Audience halls......................................................................................................................................................... 69 4.4.1. Audience halls of madāʾin palaces.................................................................................................................. 69 4.4.2. Audience halls of the quṣūr............................................................................................................................. 69 5. The residential contexts of the Umayyad period: readapting the tradition............................................................ 73 5.1. Other examples of Umayyad madāʾin and quṣūr dwellings of Bilād al-Shām....................................................... 73 5.2. Kūfa......................................................................................................................................................................... 74 5.3. Tulūl al-Shuʿayba.................................................................................................................................................... 75 5.4. The Umayyad house: readapting the tradition........................................................................................................ 77 Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix 1.......................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix 2.......................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix 3. Madāʾin Dwellings....................................................................................................................................... 100 1. ʿAnjar, palace Dwellings.......................................................................................................................................... 100 1.2. ʿAnjar, extra-palatial Dwellings....................................................................................................................... 109 2. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī............................................................................................................................................. 214 3. ʿAmmān................................................................................................................................................................... 220 3.1. Palace’s Dwellings........................................................................................................................................... 220 3.2. ʿAmmān, extra-palace Dwellings..................................................................................................................... 238 Appendix 4. Quṣūr dwellings........................................................................................................................................... 266 viii

Contents 1. Qaṣr al-Kharāna....................................................................................................................................................... 266 2. Khirbat al-Minya...................................................................................................................................................... 268 3. Jabal Says................................................................................................................................................................. 270 4. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī............................................................................................................................................. 272 5. Al-Qasṭal.................................................................................................................................................................. 274 6. Al-Ruṣāfa................................................................................................................................................................. 276 7. Khirbat al-Mafjar..................................................................................................................................................... 284 8. Bālis......................................................................................................................................................................... 286 9. Al-Fudayn................................................................................................................................................................. 288 10. Qaṣr al-Ṭūba........................................................................................................................................................... 290 Appendix 5. Models of Umayyad madāʾin dwellings of Bilād al-Shām.......................................................................... 296 ʿAnjar........................................................................................................................................................................... 296 Appendix 6. Other Umayyad dwellings............................................................................................................................ 302 Madāʾin contexts.......................................................................................................................................................... 302 1. Madīnat al-Fār, ‘Bayt mansion’ .......................................................................................................................... 302 2. Kūfa, Dār al-Imāra............................................................................................................................................. 304 Quṣūr contexts............................................................................................................................................................. 314 3. Tulūl al-Shuʿayba................................................................................................................................................ 314 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................... 322 Abreviations................................................................................................................................................................. 322 Sources......................................................................................................................................................................... 322 Studies.......................................................................................................................................................................... 322 Index................................................................................................................................................................................. 334

ix

Dates and Transliterations All dates are given in years or centuries AD both for the Roman and early Byzantine periods and for the Islamic period. Transliteration into English of names, toponyms and Arabic words was done according to the system of the Encyclopedia of Islam, third edition.

xi

List of Figures Figure 1. a) Athens, ‘Palace of the Giants’; b) Epidaurus, ‘house in the sanctuary of Asclepius’; b) Phthiotic Thebes, ‘episcopal palace’............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2. The banāʾ al-Ḥīrī as described by al-Masʿūdī.................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Sketch plan of the Khawarnaq Palace in Iraq...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Examples of megaron dwellings (a) Nippur, Arsacid palace; (b) Ai Khanoum, dwelling.................................. 15 Figure 5. Hatra, dwelling A, detail of the īwān and the two side rooms............................................................................. 15 Figure 6. Hatra, ‘houses next to the Temple XI’: detail of the houses with īwān and two side rooms.............................. 16 Figure 7. Barz-i Qawāla or Ramāvand, Building 1............................................................................................................ 16 Figure 8. Map of Bilād al-Shām and sites mentioned: the madāʾin in bold, quṣūr in italica............................................. 20 Figure 9. ʿAnjar (Lebanon), satellite image of the site....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 10. Site map of ʿAnjar............................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 11. Map of the main palace of ʿAnjar...................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 12. The courtyard of the main palace of ʿAnjar, detail............................................................................................ 23 Figure 13. Plan of the minor palaces of ʿAnjar................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14. Plan of the congregational mosque of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 23)........ 25 Figure 15. Plan of the bath complex of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 22)....................... 25 Figure 16. The dwellings of the models A1 and A2 of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography................................... 27 Figure 17. The dwellings of the model B of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography................................................... 28 Figure 18. The dwellings model C1 of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography........................................................... 29 Figure 19. The dwellings models C2-C3 of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography.................................................... 30 Figure 20. The dwellings of model D of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography......................................................... 31 Figure 21. Foundation inscription of the madīna of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī...................................................................... 32 Figure 22. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Syria), satellite image of the site................................................................................. 33 Figure 23. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Syria), satellite image of the Large and Small Enclosures and of the baths............... 33 Figure 24. Topography of the territory of ʿAmmān............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 25. Satellite image of the citadel of ʿAmmān.......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 26. The Umayyad phases of the citadel of ʿAmmān............................................................................................... 39 Figure 27. Plan of ʿAmmān governor’s residence.............................................................................................................. 41 Figure 28. Reception hall of the governor’s residence of ʿAmmān.................................................................................... 42 Figure 29. Proposed reconstruction of the reception hall of the governor’s palace of ʿAmmān in the Umayyad phase... 43 Figure 30. The apodyterium of the baths of the citadel of ʿAmmān................................................................................... 43 Figure 31. The courtyard-market and mosque of the citadel of ʿAmmān.......................................................................... 44 Figure 32. The courtyard-market and the mosque of the citadel of ʿAmmān..................................................................... 45 Figure 33. The qiblī wall of the citadel mosque of ʿAmmān.............................................................................................. 45 Figure 34. The extra-palatial dwellings of the citadel of ʿAmmān .................................................................................... 46 Figure 35. The extra-palatial dwellings B and M of the citadel of ʿAmmān...................................................................... 46 xiii

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Figure 36. The large īwān of the governor’s residence of ʿAmmān................................................................................... 47 Figure 37. The sections of the ʿAmmān palace.................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 38. Southern part of the ʿAmmān palace................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 39. The extra palatial Dwelling F of the citadel of ʿAmmān................................................................................... 50 Figure 40. Qaṣr al-Kharāna, room 18................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 41. Al-Qasṭal, south-western part of the courtyard.................................................................................................. 53 Figure 42. Khirbat al-Mafjar, the ‘pseudo īwān’................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 43. Chronological and dimensional subdivision of the central rooms of the Umayyad ‘five room units’.............. 57 Figure 44. ‘Five room units’ dated to the reign of al-Walīd I............................................................................................. 57 Figure 45. ‘Five room units’ dated to the first ten years of the reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik.................................. 58 Figure 46. ‘Five room units’ dated to the reign of al-Walīd II............................................................................................ 58 Figure 47. Umayyad ‘five room units’ dated to the first half of the eighth century............................................................ 59 Figure 48. The rectangular vestibule and rooms a, b and c of the extra-palatial dwelling I of ʿAmmān........................... 64 Figure 49. Pre-vestibule and vestibule of Khirbat al-Mafjar.............................................................................................. 64 Figure 50. Central courtyard of Qaṣr al-Kharāna............................................................................................................... 65 Figure 51. Satellite image of the eastern qaṣr of Umm al-Walīd....................................................................................... 66 Figure 52. ‘Five room unit’ of the secondary palace of ʿAnjar.......................................................................................... 67 Figure 53. The hybrid model between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ of living unit 2 of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence............................................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 54. The ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ of living unit 3 of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence........................................... 68 Figure 55. Hybrid models between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’: on the left Khirbat al-Mafjar............... 69 Figure 56. The audience room of ʿAnjar secondary palace, southern side......................................................................... 70 Figure 57. Southern façade of the reception hall of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence.................................................... 70 Figure 58. The cruciform audience hall of ʿAmmān governor’s residence, eastern side................................................... 71 Figure 59. The audience hall of Qaṣr al-Kharāna............................................................................................................... 72 Figure 60. The complex of the audience hall of Mshattā .................................................................................................. 72 Figure 61. Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa, structures of layer 2...................................................................................................... 75 Figure 62. Details of the plans of the living unit ‘a’ of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa (Iraq, a) and the living unit 2 of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence....................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 63. The complexes of the audience halls and correlated living units of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa and the palace of ʿAmmān.................................................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 64. The plans of the quṣūr of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba and Bālis, first half of the eighth century................................... 78 Figure 65. Reconstruction of Bilād al-Shām’s Umayyad house: in evidence ‘five room units’ (from ʿAnjar dwellings)...... 78 Figure 66. Reconstruction of Bilād al-Shām’s Umayyad quṣūr equipped with a central courtyard: in evidence ‘five room units’ (from Jabal Says)..................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 67. Reconstruction of Bilād al-Shām’s Umayyad quṣūr equipped with secondary courtyards: in evidence ‘five room units’ (from Qaṣr al-Ṭūba)............................................................................................................. 80 Figure 68. Dwellings of the southwestern quadrant of ʿAnjar.......................................................................................... 109 Figure 69. Dwellings of the northwesternern quadrant of ʿAnjar..................................................................................... 164

xiv

List of Tables Table 1. Extra-palatial dwellings of madāʾin equipped with courtyards............................................................................ 89 Table 2. Extra-palatial dwelling of madāʾin without courtyards showing internal subdivisions....................................... 91 Table 3. Extra-palatial dwellings of madāʾin with courtyards showing internal subdivisions........................................... 91 Table 4. ‘Five room units’ of quṣūr..................................................................................................................................... 93 Table 5. Dimensions of central rooms of quṣūr’s ‘five room units’.................................................................................... 95 Table 6. Synopsis of Umayyad ‘five room units’ of quṣūr................................................................................................. 98 Table 7: Hybrid models between ‘Five room units’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’................................................................ 99

xv

xvi

Preface Alastair Northedge Professeur émérite, Université de Paris I The subject of how one lived in the earliest Islamic palaces and castles is one that has not been much addressed, but it is one that has much to say about the beginning of Islamic society.

added later, in the Islamic period. That is not to say that the plans of the individual room groups or apartments were new. They were not. As our author has well shown, ancestors for the plans of the five room groups existed in Roman Syria, and the īwān of the banā’ al-Hīrī begins in Parthian Mesopotamia in the 2nd century AD.

The problem is of course that ways of life in early Islam is a subject not easy to access, because most of the Arabic texts which describe the period were written or at least finalised in the 3rd century of Islam (9th century AD) and later, in a world that had much changed from the first and second centuries (7th- 8th centuries AD). One can never be certain to what extent those texts are delivering a real experience, or to what extent an idealised vision of the past, seen from a world that had changed from some two centuries earlier, while non-Muslim textual sources had not much knowledge of, or interest in, the differences of Muslim society.

The division of the plan of palaces into apartments certainly represented a societal change, as it lasted a long time. Emerging in early Umayyad architecture, the last known case is the Château Sud at Lashkari Bazar in Afghanistan (388-421/998-1030). At the greatest extent, in the Ja‛farī palace of al-Mutawakkil (245/859-247/861) at Samarra’, there are circa ninety apartments extending 600m from the audience hall, though not of the same plan as those discussed in this work, leaving aside the apartments dependant on the workshops and service buildings, no doubt intended for their staff.ii2

The subject of the earliest Islamic society is one that has provoked much debate in the last decades. The difficulties of the textual sources evidently lead us to archaeology as an alternative, as we find here. Archaeology is a contemporary source, free of human prejudices. Only it can be difficult to understand its significance. In 2003, Jeremy Johns published an article ‘Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: the first seventy years’.i1This article, which suggests that there is little to find from archaeology on the question of the origins of Islam, is the typical work of a historian, framing the issue as the historians have always framed it: if the source does not precisely speak of events in a limited time frame, it is irrelevant, and it is true that there are few dated archaeological remains from the first seventy years of Islam. However, in archaeological evidence you can compare the before and after, to see what has changed in the longer perspective, and that is what we have in this work. What in the life of the society does archaeological evidence tell us was new at the beginning of Islam, at least for the elites?

Although there is little in the texts to illuminate the use of these apartments, other than the statement that the crown prince al-Muntaṣir possessed an apartment (bayt) in al-Ja‛farī,iii3we do have the evidence of the ribāṭ of Sousse, with its reuse of the plan of the Umayyad qaṣr for a different, non-familial purpose, without apartments, as mentioned in our author’s work below. It is evident that Umayyad princes, as their Abbasid successors, bearing in mind that not all these buildings belonged to the caliphs themselves, were faced with an accommodation problem – large retinues of close family dependants, each of whom was thought to deserve their own living space. Of course, what we see in the archaeological remains is the architects’ interpretation of how to settle this retinue, an architectural tradition which developed slowly, and represented a requirement that was elsewhere, and later, resolved in other ways – the history of the Islamic palace is long and complex.iv4

The division of the plan of early Islamic, mainly Umayyad, elite residences into apartments – the five room groups or banā’ al-Hiri – surrounding one or more audience halls, with a bath attached or not to a further audience room, was certainly new. There is nothing like it in Roman-Byzantine palatial architecture. There is one example in Sasanian palatial architecture, ‛Imārat-i Khusraw at Qasr-i Shirin, attributed to Khusraw Parviz (591-628). It is an isolated case, and one wonders about the plan and dating of the mainly unexcavated site – perhaps the apartments were

Evidently, the material in this work speaks also to the history of the Harem, that is the closed familial residence. Evidently, in the Umayyad period, as in the time of the Prophet, a closed residence for the family of the prince did not exist. The castles and palaces of early Islam were indeed familial, with large numbers of apartments ii  Northedge, A, 1999, ‘The Ja‛fari palace of al-Mutawakkil’, Damaszener Mitteilungen 11, 345–64. iii  Evidently the bayt of a crown prince would not be as small as the apartments described here. Normally the eldest son would have a separate establishment, as did al-Mahdī at al-Rusafa in Baghdad. iv  See the special number of Ars Orientalis 23, 1993, for a variety of approaches to the history of the pre-modern Islamic palace.

Johns, J., 2003, ‘Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: the first seventy years’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 46,4, 411-435.

i 

xvii

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria surrounding the reception hall - the majlis or sitting space of the men. But it was not to the exclusion of the outside world. There is no indirect entrance into the residence before the middle of the 3rd/9th century – one could walk or look straight in. The Harem, as the world of the Caliph and his innumerable concubines, belongs to the world of Abbasid Iraq This work is certainly a fascinating introduction to ways of looking at this vital period, and is much to be welcomed.

xviii

Introduction are grouped in buyūt; and also the Umayyad buildings located outside Bilād al-Shām which can be compared with Bilād al-Shām’s examples. Finally, the Umayyad housing model is discussed, along with its conceptual origins and application in the Umayyad context, taking into account the traditions of early Islamic Arabia, the dictates of Islamic apartments norms and the Late Antique domestic tradition. A catalogue of the analysed living units is presented in the Appendices.

The proclamation of Muʿāwiya ibn Abū Sufyān as caliph in 661 marked the creation of the Umayyad dynasty. Muʿāwiya, former governor of Bilād al-Shām, moved the capital to Damascus and this province thus became the centre of the caliphate’s power from 661 to750. During this period, the region saw the creation of extra-urban aristocratic settlements (qaṣr, pl. quṣūr) and newly-founded ‘cities’ (madīna, pl. madāʾin) sponsored by the Umayyad elite and their entourage. The objectives of this study are threefold: to identificaty Umayyad architectural and living models in Bilād al-Shām; to understand the origins of these models and the influence of Islamic tradition on the Umayyad housing concept; and, finally, to understand the articulation within buildings and the function of ‘five room units’ or ‘Syrian bayt’v1and the banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs or ‘Persian bayt’.vi2In order to achieve these objectives, all the material published on the Umayyad houses of Bilād al-Shām built in madāʾin and quṣūr has been collected, noting, the presence of the above-mentioned architectural models. This work is in three parts: the first is dedicated to the apartments, the architectural models and their origins. The second cover the madāʾin apartments of ʿAnjar, Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī, and ʿAmmān, and the quṣūr of Khirbat al-Minya, Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Jabal Says, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr alGharbī, al-Ruṣāfa, al-Qasṭal, Khirbat al-Mafjar, Bālis, al-Fudayn, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba and Mshattā.vii3The third part includes two chapters: the fourth chapter is a compendium of the architectural models identified during this study. The fifth chapter discusses the housing models of the region that re-elaborate the plan of ‘five room unit’ or that

v  In this study, the term ‘five room unit’ is preferred to ‘Syrian bayt’, theorised and used by Creswell (19792, I, 516-518); see also here Chap. 1.5. vi  In this study the term ‘banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ is preferred to ‘Persian bayt’ (the latter theorised by Creswell, see here Chap. 1.5). The quṣūr that are not included in the examples mentioned above are: Rasm al-Shaʿar (Schlumberger 1951), Qaṣr al-Ṣwāb (Genequand 2012, pp. 186-187), Qaṣr ʿAyn al-Sil, Qaṣr al-Mushāsh (Bisheh 1989), Maʿān/al-Ḥammām (Parker 1986), Maʿān/Khirbat al-Samrāʾ, Maʿān/al-Mutrāb (Genequand 2012, 214), Jabal Says – residences T, G, M, P, L (Schmidt 2012, 74-96), Quṣayr ʿAmra (Almagro et al. 2002, 25-28), al-Ḥumayma (Oleson et al. 2002). vii  Dwellings in pre-existing cities have been excluded as they do not fall into the two categories of madāʾin and quṣūr and would therefore require a different methodological approach. These are, namely, the sites of Qayṣariyya (Stabler – Holum 2008); Jerash (Gawlikowski 1986); al-Fiḥl (Bourke 1992; Eastwood 1992; Walmsley 1992b; Walmsley 1997); Jerusalem (Mazar 1969, Ben-Dov 1971, Rosen-Ayalon 1989); al-Ramla (Luz 1997); Ayla / ʿAqaba (Whitcomb 1987, 1988a,1988b, 1989a, 1989b, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 2006, 2010 and Damgaard 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013a, 2013b); Buṣrā (Sauvaget 1941, Seeden 1983, Sartre 1985, Piraud-Fournet 2003, 2016); Palmyra (Genequand 2012, 45-67); Aleppo (Herzfeld 1954-5, Sauvaget 1990 and Gonnella 2001); Qinnasrīn (Rousset 2012 and related bibliography).

1

Part 1 The early Islamic settlement phenomenon and its origins

1 The early Islamic settlement phenomenon The early Islamic settlement phenomenon in the Near East is part of a process that had begun in Late Antiquity. During it, the great colonnaded road axes and the grids of streets were progressively invaded by shops and houses,1 and in a closely related process of great importance to Near Eastern society, transport by cart was abandoned in favour of that by camels.2

of the unit of the Prophet’s House and Mosque. Until the first half of the seventh century, the residential typology of Medina consisted of the central courtyard apartment,10 and of ʿuṭum (pl. ʿāṭām), the fortified tower-houses that represented the second most widespread architectural type in Medina at that period.11 According to the most recent studies on the subject, the ‘House of the Prophet’ in Medina, clearly distinct from the Prophet’s Mosque,12 consisted of a dār on central courtyard with rooms (‘chambers’, sing. ḥujra, pl. ḥujarat) arranged around it.13

The arrival of Muslims in the Near East in the first half of the seventh century, certainly caused a substantial political change, but the settlement phenomenon developed according to different priorities. Only for some of the existing cities would there be continuity of life according to the model described above.3 In other cases, it was necessary to build new settlements that corresponded to the needs of the population and soldiers from Arabia, which led to the birth of the amṣār (sing. miṣr), newlyfounded settlements established by members of the state and closely dependent on them.4

1.2. The early Islamic settlement models Following the conquest of Syria (634-636) and Iraq (637), the need to allocate troops in the occupied territories was created. It was therefore decided not to allocate them in the already existing settlements, but in proximity to the latter, thus creating settlements developing out of the armed encampments (miṣr, pl. amṣār) that would remain in contact with the caliphs then resident in Medina. The first two amṣār were those of Baṣra and Kūfa in Iraq (both founded in 638) and their reconstruction is possible in large part solely through to the reports of historical sources. Baṣra was divided into five tribal districts and the congregational mosque was in a central position. Kūfa, again best known from historical sources, is located immediately north of pre-Islamic al-Ḥīra;14 according to Northedge, the plan of the site was not orthogonal because the settlement had to reflect the scattered typology present at al-Ḥīra, with the sole exception of the central ceremonial part, composed of the congregational mosque and the Dār al-Imāra.15 The third miṣr is that of al-Fusṭāṭ, not far from which al-

1.1. Origins of the early Islamic settlement models It is commonly accepted that the origin model of the early Islamic settlement is to be found in central and northern pre-Islamic Arabia. This model seems to have emerged in the second century AD when we hear of a crisis in the incense trade. This model envisages the presence of a ‘castle’ or ‘fort’ occupied by tribal elites and several buildings clearly and widely separated from each other and unfortified. The model, distinctly different from the southern Arabian one consisting of buildings on several levels which continued until more recent times,5 is in fact traceable in many pre-Islamic Arab settlements, such as ad-Dur in Umm al-Qaiwain (UAE) and Mleiha in Sharjah (UAE),6 or, outside the Arabian Peninsula, in the settlement of Umm al-Jimal in Transjordan7 or in the Naṣrid site of al-Ḥīra.8 A variant of this model is represented, in Arabia, in the site of Qaryat al-Faw composed of an unfortified settlement that developed around the ‘castle’ and consists of a temple, reception halls, and royal tombs.9 A similar conformation must have existed in Yathrib, Madīnat Rasūl Allāh, an oasis shared by different tribal groups, but without a central government, established instead by the Prophet, upon his arrival in the city through the realisation

Caetani 1905, I, 437; Creswell 19792, I, 6-8; Johns 1999, 80 and 87; Santi 2017, 211-212; Santi 2018b, 100-102. 11  Bisheh 1979, 80-81; Santi 2018b, 217; Santi 2019, 107. 12  The first scholar to address the issue was L. Caetani, who, relying on the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Bukhārī and some verses of the Quran, restored the mosque and the apartments of the Prophet as a single complex composed of a 2500 m2 courtyard, three entrances, a portico in the north side built with palm trees and another access in the southwest side built for beggars; the houses of the Prophet and his wives opened directly onto the courtyard and leaned against the outside of the courtyard wall (Caetani 1905, I, 337-339). K. A. C. Creswell follows Caetani’s proposed reconstruction and integrates it with Masālik al-Abṣār of al-ʿUmarī, Khoulāṣat al-Wafāʾ of al-Samhūdī and Taʾrīkh al-Khamīs of al-Diyārbakrī. Unlike Caetani, Creswell reconstructs the houses of the Prophet and his wives outside the southeast walls of the courtyard, which were open to the courtyard, but not aligned with it (Creswell 19792, I, 6-8). In 1999 Johns elaborated a critical compendium and rejected Caetani’s and Creswell’s theories by reconstructing the ḥujārat in the south, north and east of the mosque, but outside it and unassimilable in a single dār. According to Johns only the ḥujra of ʿĀʾisha was built against the qiblī wall of the mosque (Johns 1999). The pars construens of Johns’ theory is developed by Aila Santi (2017, 2018, 2019); see also following footnote. 13  For the development of these theories in the context of this study see here Chap. 5.4. 14  Djaït 1986. 15  Northedge 2017, 158. 10 

Kennedy 1985. Northedge 2017, 155. 3  See also Walmsley 2007, 126-130. 4  Idem, 157-159. 5  Fontana et al. 2000; Schiettecatte 2009. 6  Lecomte 1993. 7  De Vries 1993. 8  See below. 9  Ansary 1982; Northedge 2009. 1  2 

5

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria of the Umayyad caliphate some madāʾin were abandoned, such as ʿAnjar; others continued to be occupied and organized as cities, such as Aqaba and Ramla, both built near existing settlements. In fact, the settlements that managed to survive their founder were transformed into cities, otherwise they were wholly abandoned.28

Qāhira would rise: investigated several times by different research teams, it is thanks to the excavations conducted by Gayraud that it has been possible to reconstruct part of the settlement of Isṭabl ʿAntar articulated in narrow irregular lanes.16 However, the great difference with respect to the encampment-settlements of other historical contexts is in the characteristic social element of the amṣār: the armies were composed of men of the Arab tribes and families and, consequently, also their internal organization responded to their existing needs and social arrangements. Unfortunately, the archaeological data at our disposal are insufficient to be able to reconstruct the settlement patterns in detail.17

1.3. The territory and the history of Bilād al-Shām Bilād al-Shām has been so named since the beginning of the Islamic era and constitutes Greater Syria, which today includes the political entities of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and the Turkish provinces of Hatay and Şanlıurfa.29

Another kind of settlement that appeared during the first century of the hijra is the madīna (pl. madāʾin), which can be translated today as ‘city’. However, the term had a different meaning in the most ancient times. In fact, in the Lisān al-ʿArab of Muḥammad ibn Manẓur (d. 1312) ‘madīna’ means a ‘fortified unit (ḥiṣn) built in the best developed (ustummah) part of the land.’18 Consequently, scholars have attributed to the Umayyad madāʾin a ‘quasiurban’ function.19 From the architectural point of view, the madāʾin derive specifically from the Roman-Byzantine architectural typology,20 but their concept originates from the typical settlement pattern of pre-Islamic centralnorthern Arabia, thus following a ‘quasi-tribal’ model.21

Bilād al-Shām was the political-governmental base of the banū Umayya, who ruled from 661 to 750.30 The reasons for this choice must be sought in the region’s historicalcultural heritage and its rich economic potential. Even if for centuries Syria as a region was part of the Hellenistic and Roman cultures, the substratum of the population was Semitic. During the period of the Prophet’s life, Bilād al-Shām was under Sasanian control and was only reconquered by the Byzantines in 630, two years before the Prophet’s death. At the time of the Islamic conquest, which began during the Caliphate of Abū Bakr, Byzantine control of the region was not effective;31 moreover, the Monophysite population was often opposed to Byzantine religious policy and passively accepted the arrival of the Muslim army and the victory of Islam.32

A direct source on the use of the term ‘madīna’ in the Umayyad period is the foundation inscription of the Large Enclosure of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī,22 interpreted by Grabar and Northedge in the sense of ‘quasi-urban’ settlement.23 The term madīna is also used in a text that refers to ʿAnjar.24 Also to be interpreted as madāʾin of the Umayyad period are Madīnat al-Far (identified with the residence of Maslama ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (d. 738), named ‘ḥiṣn Maslama’ in the sources), Aqaba, and the citadel of ʿAmmān, also named ‘ḥiṣn’ in a qaṣīda of the Umayyad poet Aḥwaṣ al-Anṣārī (d. 705) which refers to ‘ḥiṣn ʿAmmān’.25

The arrival of Islam in the region brought great social changes; historical sources indicate that the Byzantine elites left Syrian-Palestinian territory, allowing the Arab tribes and especially the Quraysh to take power.33 At the time of the Islamic conquest, urban properties abandoned Idem, 163. Bosworth 1997, 261. The word ‘al-Shām’ can be translated as ‘left’ or ‘north’ (al-Muqaddasī 1906). The territory can be divided into four areas: the first is bounded by the Mediterranean Sea, a flat and well-cultivated area, characterized by rising and hilly ranges that include several depressions and have a temperate climate. The second is mountainous (rich in forests, water sources and cultivated fields), subdivided into a mountainous north-eastern part that turns into a plateau to the north and a steppe to the east; this second area is naturally delimited by the Taurus mountains to the north and it is crossed in the northeast by the Euphrates and Khabur rivers; its western part is crossed by the Orontes Valley. The third area includes the Jordan Valley and is characterised by the valley of the like-named river that has its sources in the Anti-Lebanon chain: the river crosses the Houle and Tiberias lakes and then flows into the Dead Sea; one of its main tributaries is the Yarmuk River. The fourth zone corresponds to the semi-arid steppe region of Ḥawrān, which borders the desert to the east and is characterized by basaltic mountain ranges (Sourdel 1986, 15-16 and 292). 30  The territory was the ‘special reserve’ of the Quraysh (McGraw Donner 1981, 248). 31  During the sixth century the Christian religion was predominant in the region, although there were many Jewish and some polytheistic communities. Despite this, Syrian Christians were not a homogeneous group, but they were divided into Duophysites (representatives of Constantinopolitan politics) and Monophysites (representatives of the Syrian-Palestinian substrate; Kennedy 2007, 66-70; see also Evans 2000, 105-119). 32  McGraw Donner 1981, 248. 33  Hasson 1995, 16-39 and Kennedy 2004, 71. A group of the population from Arabia (al-ʿarab) was settled far from towns and villages, according 28  29 

The function performed by these madāʾin was not merely urban in the traditional sense of the term. They were complexes that could play administrative, agricultural, symbolic,26 and military roles. Another phenomenon of Umayyad madāʾin is the close correlation between patrons, ‘vassals’ (mawālī) and soldiers who often supported their lord during periods of insurrection or fitna.27 With the end Gayraud 1998; see also Harrison 2016. See Northedge 1994, 231-232. 18  Lisān al-ʿArab 12: 286; 13: 402-403 (transl. from Grabar et al. 1978, I, 80). 19  Northedge 2017. 20  Hillenbrand 1999. 21  Northedge 2017, 163. 22  Rousseau 1899, 146-154. 23  See also Genequand 2012, 95-159. 24  Brooks 1898, 51. 25  Northedge 2017, 161. 26  Cf. Grabar et al. 1978, I, 80. 27  Northedge 2017, 161. 16  17 

6

The early Islamic settlement phenomenon by the Byzantines were gradually occupied by Muslims.34 The Arab population of Umayyad Bilād al-Shām, except for the Umayyad elite, was divided between the Qays and Yaman tribal confederations.35 Conflicts between these two confederations, in Arabic fitna,36 occurred on several occasions; however, the third fitna was one of several factors leading to the end of the Umayyad dynasty. Other determining factors were the Abbasid revolution,37 and the great earthquake that struck the region in 749, reported by the Chronographia of Theophanes,38 and recorded in all the archaeological sites of the region.39

where in some cantonments (qaṭāʾiʿ) a main residence and a large number of houses are attested, while in others only the large residences are attested.40 In order to have a better understanding of the Umayyad houses and living-units and the residence terminology of Bilād al-Shām,41 and to understand what architectural conception was in use in the early Islamic period, we must consider the relevant terminology. The term ‘dār’ (pl. ‘dūr’), for example, means a ‘large house’ or ‘residential housing’, but the word is also used for the public palace of a ruler or governor; these residences are usually occupied by the Umayyad elite. The term derives from dāra, ‘to surround’, and suggests a space surrounded by walls, buildings, or nomadic tents, placed more or less in a circle.42 It must be said, the definition of ‘palace’ is rather complex: for example, medieval Islamic sources use the terms qaṣr, dār and qaṭīʿa for larger residences in Samarra.43 However, the word ‘dār’ will be used here to indicate the madāʾin residences.44 In any case, in this study a building is considered as a ‘palace’ if a representational function is clearly distinguished by its architectural characteristics. The palaces are generally equipped with a vestibule, central courtyard with portico (finaʿ) – around which the rooms (ḥujra, pl. ḥujarāt) are arranged – and an upper floor. The governors’ urban palaces (Dār al-Imāra) are equipped with an audience hall and are often connected to the congregational mosque.

1.4. Dwelling types in the Umayyad Bilād al-Shām The components of the architectural complexes of madāʾin and the Umayyad country residences (the socalled ‘desert castles’) are palaces or main elite residences, mosques, baths, and houses and/or living units. However, as noted by Northedge, there are different balances in the proportion of buildings: in the madāʾin there are more houses and/or living units than in the Umayyad country residences, a pattern also found in Abbasid Samarra, to the orders of the caliph ʿUthmān to the governor of Syria Muʿāwiya (McGraw Donner 1981, 248). 34  Historical sources refer, for example, that Abū Sufyān, father of the caliph Muʿāwiya, owned land in the district of al-Balqāʿ (McGraw Donner 1981, 249). At al-Ḥomṣ the properties were subdivided into districts (khiṭaṭ), as were all abandoned urban areas. After the fall of Damascus (634) and the battle of al-Fiḥl (635) Tiberias was occupied by the military leaders. An additional effect of this process was the acquisition by Muslims of lands (qaṭāyi, singular qaṭīʿa) or dūr in the Syrian-Palestinian cities (McGraw Donner 1981, 247-248). 35  The main difference between the two confederations during the Umayyad period was their location in Bilād al-Shām: the Qays were located in the northern part of the region and to the north in Jazīra; the Yaman occupied instead the areas around Ḥomṣ, the Palmyra region, Palestine and the areas east of the Jordan River. In addition, some Yaman tribes such as the Kalb, Tanūkh, Judhām, Taghlib and Ghassān were in Syria even before the arrival of Islam (Kennedy 2004, 90-91). 36  Kennedy 2004, 90-91. The first fitna occurred during the last years of the Caliphate of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and was the result of the assassination of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān. During this fitna were opposed the caliph ʿAlī and the Syrian governor Muʿāwiya; the latter was a member of the Umayyad clan and his power was based on the resources of the rich province that managed it. The first fitna decreed the end of the period of the al- rāshidūn caliphs and the beginning of the dynastic caliphate of the Umayyads and also accentuated the contrast between the ahl al-Shām and the ahl al-ʿIrāq, and also between Sunnis and Shiites and was the origin of future conflicts: this contrast, would become the main element of the third fitna and the end of the dynasty almost a century later, but one of the main causes of the conflicts arose in the period of the conquests, since many Yaman tribes (Monophysite Christians) were allied with the Byzantines and suffered heavy losses in the battle of the Yarmuk (636; Kennedy 2004, 76-78). 37  One of the factors that eventually led to the end of the Umayyad dynasty was caused by a revolt that broke out in Khurāsān by September 747 led by Abū Muslim, a Persian mawlā. In October 749 Abū ‘l-ʿAbbās al-Saffāḥ was appointed at Kūfa as the first Abbasid caliph (750-754); Marwān ibn Muḥammad (744-750) opposed the Abbasids with the support of the Qays, but his army was defeated in the battle of the Great Zāb on February 750. The last Umayyad caliph was abandoned by the ahl al-Shām and was killed in August 750 near al-Fusṭāt (Kennedy 2004, 114-116). 38  ‘On the 18th day of the month of January at the 4th hour, a great earthquake occurred in Palestine and Syria, to such an extent that many innumerable and countless people perished in its power, and churches and monasteries collapsed, and all around the greatest of holy places there were deserted cities’ Theophanes apud Russell 1985, 48 (transl. I. Classen). 39  Russel 1985, 49; Tsafrir – Foerster 1992.

The word ‘qaṣr’ (pl. quṣūr) means a palace, castle, or a princely residence and, in the context of Samarra, means a private residence of the caliphs.45 In the Umayyad residential complexes they are normally found with a mosque, baths and agricultural and irrigation complexes.46 In this study, quṣūr is considered to mean the Umayyad princely residences of Bilād al-Shām.47 According to Sauvaget, the Umayyad quṣūr were designed for the agricultural exploitation of their territories.48 Scerrato, following to the theories of Monneret de Villard and Sauvaget, interpreted the quṣūr as the ‘direct descendants’ of the fortified villae rusticae of the Late Roman Empire.49 For Gaube, the quṣūr were the places where the Umayyad Northedge 2017, 161-162. For greater detail, refer to the corresponding articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd Edition, Leiden 1954-2003. 42  Marçais 1991, 8. 43  Northedge 2001, 29. 44  For the definition of dār see also Marçais 1991. 45  Northedge 2005, 362. According to Lawrence Conrad the word ‘qaṣr’ means ‘a permanent specific and stable building’ (Conrad 1981, 12, see also 7-11). 46  The mosque can be located inside or outside qaṣr; in the latter case it is normally located near qaṣr; the bath is usually located outside qaṣr. 47  For a synthesis of the main theories about quṣūr see Monneret de Villard 1968, 232-248 and, more recently, Genequand 2012, 2; a theory that is now rather obsolete is that of R. Hillebrand, who, considering the Abbasid historical sources relating to the last Umayyad caliphs, saw the quṣūr as places for ‘la dolce vita’ (Hillenbrand 1982). A more recent theory on quṣūr has been developed by D. Whitcomb, who considers these buildings as the result of the urbanization of territories controlled by the Umayyad caliphs (Whitcomb 2001, 505-506). 48  Sauvaget 1939c, 1967. Sauvaget was in fact the first to correlate monumental architecture with water and agricultural installations. 49  Scerrato 1972, 26. 40  41 

7

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria princes resided to maintain political relations with the great Arab tribes who lived in the territories east of the great Syro-Palestinian urban centres.50 Northedge considers that they were consumers rather than productive parts of the economy, as shown by their environments, insufficient to support a palatial residence.51 A recent reclassification was finally proposed by Genequand according to which the quṣūr played an independent role in the production and the consumption of agricultural products.52 In some cases the Umayyad quṣūr were not built ex-novo, but used existing structures.53

median semi-circle towers,62 in most cases full. The access is through a vestibule. The rooms of the quṣūr are arranged around a central courtyard with a portico, including the audience hall, the mosque, the apartments, the service rooms and the latrines, the latter being in some instances within the towers. Some quṣūr had an upper floor (left only at Qaṣr al-Kharāna), often evidenced by staircases located in the courtyard. This typology would seem to derive from the castra of the Roman-Byzantine limes in terms of its external appearance, with the exception of the shape of the towers, which would derive from Sasanian architecture.63 According to A. Northedge the plans of the third and fourth century Arabian forts64 – buildings with angular and median towers arranged around a central courtyard – could be the ‘ancestors’ of the Umayyad residences of the eighth century.65 As far as the internal level is concerned, it is possible to assume an origin from the aristocratic residences of the Roman-Byzantine tradition.

The quṣūr therefore proved indispensable for the legitimisation of Umayyad power and would meet the following requirements: to establish links, contain and act as an intermediary between Arab tribes in ‘peripheral’ and urban areas.54 The qūṣūr would have been seasonal meeting and gathering points for nomadic groups, facilitated by the presence of the Umayyad elite and by the oases where the quṣūr were held.55 They would therefore seem to reflect a ‘movable exercise of power’.56 As Scerrato observed, the Umayyad quṣūr have several affinities with villae rusticae:57 the Umayyad princes inherited the concept of the Late Antique villa rustica as an ‘instrument of power, displaying to visitors the status and wealth of its owner’.58 Although the plan of the quṣūr is fundamentally similar to that of the villae rusticae, the objective that led the Umayyads to build their palaces was the form of power exercised over their clients: this relationship was based mainly on the consensus of the tribal chiefs and the ‘oath of allegiance’ (in Arabic bayʿa), which usually took place in the congregational mosques.59 The most effective instrument for the Umayyads to express their power to the tribe leaders was the construction of sumptuous buildings within paradeisoi, baths in semi-desert areas and the use of a rich iconographic repertoire to enhance their power.60 The place par excellence dedicated to the expression of the power within the quṣūr was the audience hall (in Arabic majlis),61 where Umayyad princes met their clients or tribal leaders.

Another possible typological origin for the Umayyads quṣūr can be found in Sasanian daskart (or dastgird).66 The term, attested in several direct Sasanian sources, corresponds to the Arabic qaṣr, the Greek κάστρον and the Latin castrum, and in the sources is distinguished from the deh, village. At the beginning of the Sasanian period, the daskart corresponded to a parcel of land cultivated by a single slave; later, finally, it was used to designate the large fortified estates (landed gentry’s residence) where a castle was built and where the nobles or the shāhs lived; it was therefore a rural estate comprising a dwelling house, various buildings, canals, wells.67 The word also became a proper noun and was used both as an honorific and as a toponym.68 As for the identification of the buildings, the ‘Daskarta de Malka’ or ‘Daskarat al-Malik’, the ‘royal estate’, was located about 100 km northeast of Ctesiphon. The complex, probably built by Khusraw II, who lived in it for more than 20 years and sacked by the Byzantine army in 625-626,69 was preliminarily identified and described by Sarre and Herzfeld: the daskart, of which one wall remains, was 500 metres in length and strengthened with twelve surviving and four destroyed round towers.70 As far as the Iranian plateau is concerned, an example of daskart is attested by the inscription discovered in the site of Bandiyān (Khurāsān)71 dated to the end of the Sasanian period and which corresponds, according to Callieri, to a single group of various complexes, now separated from

The plan of the quṣūr is normally quadrangular and within the perimeter there are three-quarter circle towers and Gaube 1979. Northedge 1992, 51. 52  Genequand 2012. 53  Monneret de Villard 1968, 244 et 247. 54  Cfr. Gaube 1979 and Genequand 2012, 392. 55  Genequand 2012, 393. 56  As suggested by Antoine Borrutt (2011). 57  Scerrato 1972, 26; see also Genequand 2006, 25. 58  Ellis 2007, 20. 59  For the ritual of succession, consensus and ‘oath of allegiance’ in the Umayyad period see Marsham 2009, 82-180. 60  A possible comparison would be the quṣūr of pre-Islamic Arabia (abandoned during the fourth century) whose function, according to Northedge, ran from ‘refuge, residence, and a public function of administrative building that was scarcely to be separated from princely residence’. The scholar also highlights the correspondence between the birth of pre-Islamic quṣūr, the Arabic language and the tribal system (Northedge 2008, 249). For the influence of al-Ḥīra in the development of the Arabic language see also Toral-Niehoff 2014, 114-120. 61  Northedge 2000, 51-52 and Genequand 2012, 392. 50  51 

The only example with square towers is at Bālis (see here Appendix 4.8). 63  Scerrato 1972, 26-27. 64  Qaryat al-Fāw, Qaṣr al-Radum, Dūmat al-Jandal, the quṣūr located in the Khaybar oasis (now in Saudi Arabia) and Mleyḥa (now in the Arab Emirates). 65  Northedge 2008, 249. 66  Parallel also proposed in Kennedy 2011, 54. 67  Pigulevskaja 1963, 150-153. 68  Gignoux 1994. 69  Kennedy 2011, 55-56. 70  Sarre – Herzfeld 1920, II: 76-93. 71  Bashshash 1997, 33; Rahbar 2004, 8 and 18. 62 

8

The early Islamic settlement phenomenon and the ‘Persian bayt’ in the Mesopotamian-Iranian territories.83

each other by a few tens of metres.72 Another example of a landed gentry residence is Ḥājjīābād, near Dārābgird (Fārs);73 the complex shows areas of different functions within a single building, comparable to Building II at Kish in Iraq.74 Other buildings falling into the category of residences of the landed gentry, probably daskart, are Barz-i Qawāla or Ramāvand in Luristān,75 and, in the Bozpar Valley (Bushehr region), the building known as ‘Kushk-e Bālā’ or ‘Banā-ye Zendān’.76 As Kennedy noted, the information we have on the large estates of the Sasanian Empire is too scant to be definitive, but it suggests that much of the agricultural economy was dominated by landowners and that the ruling classes lived on these estates.77

However, as Alastair Northedge has clearly demonstrated, the repetition of the ‘Syrian bayt’ is a prerogative of the Umayyad period, as is their use: we have no documentation of ‘five room units’ in the post-Umayyad period,84 unlike banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs. As for the origin of the early Islamic housing models, Creswell sees the prototype of the ‘Syrian bayt’ in the northern rooms of the ‘episcopal palace’ at Buṣrā,85 most recently analysed by P. Piraud-Fournet.86 This researcher assigns to the rooms of the ‘five room unit’ a function of ‘salles d’apparat et de réception, mais aussi […] un espace privé au sein d’un espace public ou encore un espace à caractère exclusivement privé comme une chambre à coucher’.87 The rooms of the ‘five room unit’ would belong to the first phase of the building, which would have been a sumptuous apartment built before 490; the second phase of the building, which is characterised by a triconch, could be dated between the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century.88

1.5. The origin of ‘five room units’ and banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs: pre-Islamic models Within the Umayyad palaces and quṣūr have been identified living units, in Arabic bayt (pl. buyūt, literally ‘small house’ or ‘apartments’).78 ‘Bayt’ is, properly speaking, the covered shelter where one may spend the night.79 The apartments can be equipped with courtyards, around which the rooms are arranged, and can also be equipped with an upper floor; furthermore, the entrance of the apartments is in some cases provided with a vestibule.

Nevertheless, the example of Buṣrā is not the only prototype because the origin of the ‘five room units’ can probably be traced back to the type of rectangular audience halls characteristic of Late Antique domestic architecture:89 this model is composed of a larger rectangular central room and one or more lateral rooms (quadrangular or rectangular) arranged, in some cases, symmetrically with regard to the central room.90 The model is documented in Sicily, Greece, Syria and Mesopotamia, with dating between the second and sixth centuries91 and found either in palatia or domus. The model is also in constant continuity with the peristyle court and its function is as an audience or banquet hall.92

The buyūt of the early Islamic period can be classified according to housing models consisting of a group of rooms; the latter are conventionally known as ‘Syrian bayt / Fünfraumgruppen / five room unit’80 and ‘Persian bayt / Iraqi-Persian bayt / Samarra bayt / bayt al-Ḥīrī / T-Plan bayt’ or, more precisely, ‘banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’.81 The ‘five room unit’ is composed of five adjacent rooms arranged along a single axis: the large central room is flanked by two pairs of rooms on each side.82 The banāʾ al-Ḥīrī is composed, on the contrary, by a central īwān and two lateral spaces, one for each side, preceded by a portico that opens onto the courtyard which is always attested in both the designs. According to K. A. C. Creswell the ‘Syrian bayt’ is used in the Syro-Palestinian territories

See Creswell 19792, I, 516-518. Northedge 2008, 244. 85  Creswell 19792, I, 515-516 and fig. 564. 86  Piraud-Fournet 2003 and 2016. 87  Eadem, 15. 88  Eadem, 24. 89  Baldini Lippolis 2001, 57. 90  Eadem, 59. 91  Examples of rectangular audience halls that are similar to the Umayyad ‘five room units’ are: Giarratana (Ragusa), villa ‘contrada Orto Mosaico’ (second-third century; Di Stefano 1997, 765-771); Apamea, ‘house with consoles’ (second century, phases of occupation until the ninth century; Baldini Lippolis 2001, sheet ‘Apamea 2’ and related bibliography); Doura-Europos, palace of the dux ripae (221-223; Downey 1991); residences in Ḥawrān : ‘Sheikh’s house’, Nawā, houses 1 and 2, Umm al-Zaytūn, house 2, al-Brayka, house I, Jamarīn, villa, Inkhil, palace (dated between the second and fourth centuries; Villeneuve 1997); Palmyra, house n. 35 (second-fourth century; Gabriel 1926, 15); Athens, ‘Palace of the Giants’ (410-425, Ćurčić 1993, 70-71 and fig. 16); Epidaurus, ‘house in the sanctuary of Asclepius’ (second quarter of the fifth century; Baldini Lippolis 2001, sheet ‘Epidauro 1’ and related bibliography); Phthiotic Thebes , ‘episcopal palace’ (late fifth-early sixth century, Baldini Lippolis 2001, sheet ‘Tebe di Ftiotidae 1’ and related bibliography). 92  A reception or audience hall function was proposed by Villeneuve for the quadrangular rooms of the residences at Ḥawrān (Villeneuve 1997, 278). A similar function can also be traced in the dwellings of Dura Europos: the reception or banquet hall has been identified by the 83  84 

Callieri 2014, 69. Azarnoush 1994. 74  Callieri 2014, 69-70. 75  Geravand – Zeinavand 1393/2014, 480-481; Karamian 1394/2016, 4951. For the description of the site see below. 76  The building, briefly described by Vanden Berghe (1964, 245) and Askari Chaverdi (2014, 164), is currently being studied in the project ‘Dynamics of Development and Transformations of Ownership in Western Fars: The Bozpar Valley (Bushehr Region, Iran)’ (Prof. S.R. Hauser, University of Konstanz). 77  Kennedy 2011, 58. 78  Northedge 2005, 359. 79  Marçais 1991, 8. 80  The term ‘Fünfraumgruppe’ is widely used in German scientific literature (see, for example, Schmidt 2012). 81  See below. 82  A variant of the ‘five room unit’ could be the ‘proto-bayt’ (as named by H. Gaube, 1974), i.e. a central room connected with a room for each side, as in Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ and Umm al-Walīd; according to A. Vernet (2016, 461) in some homes in Jerash and ʿAmmān are said to be ‘[...] small scale reproduction of the ‘bayt’. See also here, Chap. 5.2. 72  73 

9

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria As regards access and connection between the rooms, only a few examples could be considered as prototypes of the Umayyad ‘five room units’. The only pre-Islamic examples whose function is probably similar to the ‘five room units’ are found in the ‘Palace of the Giants’ in Athens (410-425, fig. 1a),93 in the ‘house in the sanctuary of Asclepius’ in Epidaurus (second quarter of the fifth century; fig. 1b),94 and in the ‘episcopal palace’ of Phthiotic Thebes (end of the fifth-early sixth century; fig. 1c).95 The three examples would seem to be part of a single model since in all cases two side-rooms are only connected to the central room (the latter being bigger) and not to the exterior; this element would therefore demonstrate a willingness to isolate the side-rooms, which can be considered as ‘alcoves’, in a similar way as the Umayyad examples. It is interesting to note, again, that all three examples were commissioned by members of the elite of the Late Antiquity society resident in Greek cities during the fifth century.96

Qaṣr-i Shīrīn103 and Ukhayḍīr.104 The typological origin of the ‘Persian bayt’ provided by Creswell should however be re-examined since the examples of Sarvistān and Qaṣr-i Shīrīn could be dated between the late Sasanian period and the beginning of the Islamic period. Again, the ‘Persian bayt’ terminology proposed by Creswell would be imprecise because, following a more careful analysis, this housing model would seem to originate from Mesopotamia (still part of the Iranian empires) and, according to al-Masʿūdī, exactly from al-Ḥīra:

،‫وأحدث المتوكل في أيامه بناء لم يكن الناس يعرفونه‬ ‫ وذلك أن‬،‫وهو المعروف بالحيري والكمين واألروقة‬ ‫بعض ُس َّماره َح َّد ثه في بعض الليالي أن بعض ملوك‬ ‫الحيرة من النعمانية من بني نَصر أحدث بنيانا ً في‬ ‫ على صورة الحرب وهيئتها‬،‫ وهي الحيرة‬،‫دار قراره‬ ‫للهج ِه بها وميله نحوها لئال يغيب عنه ذكرها في سائر‬ ، ‫ فكان الرواق فيه مجلس الملك وهو الصد ُر‬،‫أحواله‬ ‫ ويكون في البيتين اللذين هما‬،‫والكمان ميمنه وميسرة‬ ‫ وفي اليمين منهما‬،‫الكمان من يقرب منه من خواصه‬ ،‫ وفي الشمال ما احتيج إليه من الشراب‬،‫خزانة الكسوة‬ ‫والرواق قد عم فضاؤه الصدر والكمين واألبواب‬ ‫ فسمي هذا البنيان إلى هذا ال َو ْقت‬،‫الثالثة على الرواق‬ ‫ واتبع الناس‬،‫ إضافة إلى الحيرة‬،‫بالحيري والكمين‬ ‫ واشتهر إلى هذه الغاية‬،‫المتوكل في ذلك ائتماما ً بفعله‬.

It should also be noted that the typological distinction of proto-Islamic dwellings between qaṣr and dār can be compared to the distinction between palatium and domus.97 The middle-high part of the population of Late Antiquity society, residing in the domus, was therefore inspired by the social elite ‘by adopting elements of aristocratic architecture in their houses’.98 Moreover, as far as the housing pattern in Late Antique Syria is concerned, the influence of village architecture on traditional urban housing forms can be seen as early as the fifth century; this influence was interpreted by Ellis as a process of exchange and standardisation of housing that previously characterised the distinction between countryside and city; the economic prosperity – and consequently housing development – of the Syrian context of cities and countryside also continued until the sixth century, meeting its turning point only in the seventh.99

And al-Mutawakkil established in his time a construction that people had not known about. And it is known as ‘al-ḥīrī’ and ‘the two wings (lit. ‘sleeves’) and the porticoes (al-kummayn wa-l-arwiqa)’. And this is because one of his courtiers told him one evening that one of the kings of al-Ḥīra, of the family of alNuʿmān of banī Naṣr, introduced a building into his house [of residence] (dār qarārihi), and it was at alḤīra, according to the formation of the army in battle since he was fascinated by it, so that the memory of the latter was always close to him. There was the portico (riwāq), where the king’s seat (majlis) was located. That was the front (ṣadr) and the two wings were the right and left wings [of the army]. And in the two rooms that constituted the two wings (kummayn) would be the closest attendants and in the room on the right his dressing room (khizānat al-kiswa) and in the room on the left everything that is necessary to drink (min al-

With regard to the Islamic period, Creswell documents ‘Syrian bayts’ at Khirbat al-Minya100 and at Qaṣr alKharāna, Jabal Says, Mshattā and ʿAnjar.101 As for the ‘Persian bayt’, the scholar identifies the prototype in the Sasanian palace at Fīrūzābād (eastern part) and identifies its evolution in the buildings at Sarvistān,102 archaeologists who have excavated the site as ‘dīwān’, although in a papyrus found in the same site, dated 88-89 AD, it is called ‘andron’ (see Allara 2002, 43). See also the contributions in Clauss-Balty 2008. 93  Frantz 1988: 103-104 and pl. 54;  Ćurčić 1993, 70-71 and fig. 16; Baldini Lippolis 2001, sheet ‘Atene 20’ and related bibliography. 94  Baldini Lippolis 2001, sheet ‘Epidauro 1’ and related bibliography. 95  Eadem, sheet ‘Tebe di Ftiotide’ and related bibliography. 96  See the related data in Baldini Lippolis 2001. 97  For the distinction between palatium and domus see Baldini Lippolis 2001, 29-52. 98  Ellis 2007, 6. 99  Idem, 6-7; 13-15. See also here, Chap. 5.4. 100  See Appendix 4.2. 101  Creswell 19792, I, 516-518 and fig. 565-566. 102  The building of Sarvistān has long-been identified as a Sasanian palace of the Shapūr II era (310-379; Reuther 1938-39, 536-537 and fig. 151-152); however, in a 1986 study Lionel Bier interprets the building as a Zoroastrian fire temple built in the ninth century rather than a Sasanian palace (Bier 1986, 2002). Recent archaeological research by Ali-Reza

Askari-Chaverdi has shown that the construction of the building began in the late Sasanian period and that the main phases of occupation date back to the Buyid period (tenth-eleventh centuries; Askari-Chaverdi 2010, 63-64; see also Djamali et al. 2017). Recently Pierfrancesco Callieri suggests that ‘il pourrait s’agir d’un temple du feu qui continua à être utilisé à l’époque islamique, à moins qu’il n’ait été adapté à de nouvelle exigences’ (Callieri 2014, 61). 103  The building of Qaṣr-i Shīrīn has also been identified as a Sasanian palace built at the time of Khusraw II Parwīz (590-628; Reuther 193839, 539-542 and fig. 154); recent archaeological excavations would date the complex to the Abbasid period, either through thermoluminescence analyses carried out on baked brick samples or through the absence of Sassanid ceramics in the stratigraphic layers (Moradi 2012, 332-333); a ‘strong Abbasid flavour’ of the building had already been suggested by Lionel Bier (1993, 59). See also Callieri 2014, 60-61. 104  Creswell 19792, I, 516-518 and fig. 565-566.

10

The early Islamic settlement phenomenon sharāb). And the portico dominated the space of the front (ṣadr) and the wings and three doors that were open to the portico. And these two buildings are now called ‘al-ḥīrī’ and ‘al-kummayn’ in reference to alḤīra. And people follow al-Mutawakkil for this, which

is why he became famous (translation from al-Masʿūdī 1966, IV, 4-5).105 As for the terminology suggested by al-Masʿūdī it can be noted that the term ‘bayt’ is not used to describe the architectural device,106 preferring to use the term ‘banāʾ’. Consequently, the term ‘banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ will be used in this study to describe this type of construction.107 From the excerpt from al-Masʿūdī we can also see that the banāʾ al-Ḥīrī was composed of three rooms fronted by a portico (fig. 2); the central room was the place of honour and the side rooms were reserved for courtiers: the room on the right housed the changing room, that on the left everything needed for drinking.108 Many researchers have associated ‘Persian / Iraqi / Samarra / T-Plan bayt’ with the extract from al-Masʿūdī, but the difference from Creswell’s definition is essentially the presence of the portico in front of the three rooms. A remarkable detail provided by alMasʿūdī concerns the pre-Islamic origin of the banāʾ: the latter is said to originate from the residences of the Naṣrid Arab rulers of al-Ḥīra, allies of the Sasanians. The extract is also useful since it describes the functions of the rooms, associating them with the ‫صورة الحرب وهيئتها‬ ‫( على‬lit. ‘according to the image and forms of war’).109 Consequently, the banāʾ al-hiri, as described by alMasʿūdī, can be connected to a representational function, and only partially residential. The Naṣrid kings,110 allied with the Sasanians111 resided in al-Ḥīra on the Euphrates;112 their kingdom covered the northern Arabian Peninsula and southern Mesopotamia and was the predominant force in the Arab political, military and cultural context, opposed to Jafnids. Its most famous king, al-Mundhir III, was ruler of the Arab tribes and ‘vassal’ of the Sasanian king Khusraw Anūshirwān (531-579); during the period of his kingdom the Sasanian Empire extended its sphere of influence over the Arabian Peninsula. Al-Mundhir III was also a leader in the war against Byzantium of 534-544. The last Naṣrid ruler was I would like to thank Prof. Michelina Di Cesare (Sapienza University of Rome) for her fundamental help in translation. 106  Harrison 2016, 96-97. 107  Herzfeld 1912; Bell 1914; Ibrahim 1984, n. 32; Mathews – Christine – Daskalakis 1997; Leisten 2005, 382-384. Recently Matthew Harrison studied in his doctoral research project the Fatimid dwellings of al-Fusṭāt equipped with banāʾ al-Ḥīrī (Harrison 2016). 108  See also Harrison 2016, 95-96. 109  The excerpt is translated by E. Herzfeld as belonging to the military camp (Herzfeld 1912) and by G. Bell ‘after the model of an army in battle’ (Bell 1914, 58). Recently Toral-Niehoff translated it ‚der an die Schlachtreihen eines Heeres erinnerte‘ (Toral-Niehoff 2014, 82). 110  The terms ‘Jafnids’ and ‘Naṣrids’ have recently been used in the scientific literature to distinguish between the population (‘Ghassānids’ and ‘Lakhmids’) and the elite who commanded them (respectively ‘Jafnids’ and ‘Naṣrids’); see, for example, Fisher 2011, 2015 and Genequand – Robin 2015. 111  A Naṣrid ruler, ‘Amr king of the Lakhm’ (ʿAmrw laḫmʾdyn mulkʾ), was mentioned in one of the epigraphs of the Paikuli monument in Iraq (Hoyland 2009, 377). 112  The site of al-Ḥīra was excavated from the early twentieth century onwards; the archaeological context has demonstrated a cultural relationship to the Sassanian context (see for example, Meissner 1901 and Talbot Rice 1934). A German archaeological mission has recently re-started research activities (Müller-Wiener et al. 2015). 105 

Figure 1. a) Athens, ‘Palace of the Giants’ (Greece, 410-425; reworked after Frantz 1988, pl. 54, detail); b) Epidaurus, ‘house in the sanctuary of Asclepius’ (Greece, second quarter of the fifth century; reworked after Baldini Lippolis 2001, fig. a, p. 200, detail); b) Phthiotic Thebes, ‘episcopal palace’ (Greece, late fifth-early sixth century; reworked after Baldini Lippolis 2001, fig. a, p. 306, detail)

11

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Another building related to al-Ḥīra is the legendary palace of Khawarnaq, one of the wonders of the world described by Arab and Persian poems. According to several Muslim historians the building was commissioned by an unspecified Naṣrid sovereign al-Nuʿmān and planned by the Greek architect Sinimmār; the building was associated with the Sasanian ruler Bahrām Gūr (420-438) who grew up there under the protection of al-Nuʿmān.119 The building, although it has been located, has never been excavated. The only description of the ruins was provided by Musil (fig. 3): the building would measure 50 × 80 m and would probably be divided into two parts, the northern part of which would appear to have an apse.120 Other legendary palaces linked to the kings of al-Ḥīra were Sadīr and Qaṣr Ṣinnīn, of which, however, no archaeological evidences are preserved.121 It is impossible to provide, given the present state of our knowledge, hypotheses on the Naṣrid origin of early Islamic models. However, a more detailed analysis allows us to recognise the origin of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī in the examples built in the territories under the control of the Persian empires. One of the first evidences of a house with an īwān flanked by two rooms opening onto a courtyard is in Seleucia on the Tigris and dates back to the Arsacid era.122 Another example of the same period can also be identified in Mesopotamia at Nippur123 (fig. 4, a); this model reveals, in turn, similarities with Hellenistic megaron living units located in Mesopotamia and Central Asia: this housing model has two columns in antis and in the Hellenistic houses of Seleucia it is preceded by a vestibule, while in the apartments of the same period in Ai Khanoum it is preceded by a courtyard (fig. 4, b).124 In addition, at the time of the Arsacid era the megaron was replaced by the īwān in the territories east of the Euphrates.125 At the same period, we find at Hatra (in house A, fig. 5, and in the ‘houses next to the Temple XI’, rooms 15-27-43 and 24-33-47, fig. 6) apartments equipped with īwān, preceded by a courtyard.126 In general, the domestic architecture of Hatra is characterised by apartments arranged around one or more courtyards facing one or more īwān. Most of the houses were one storey and only the wealthiest buildings had a second floor.127 As for the peristyle house, a residential typology typical of the Eastern Roman world, this is attested exclusively at Palmyra; the only exception archaeologically documented is the palace of the dux ripae of Dura Europos, a typical example of Late Antique palatial architecture.128

Figure 2. The banāʾ al-Ḥīrī as described by al-Masʿūdī (© G. Labisi, 2018)

al-Numʿān, son of al-Mundhir IV, who was deposed and killed by Khusraw Parwīz (579-590); the death of the Naṣrid ruler decreed the end of their power and, above all, the destruction of the buffer state that protected the Sasanian Empire from Arab tribes. The Byzantines had already done the same by removing political power from their Jafnid allies.113 The archaeological remains of alḤīra, the capital of the Naṣrid Arab kingdom, could be useful for understanding early Islamic housing models; the site, which covers an area of about 25 km2, is composed of different tulūl and is now located near Najaf airport.114 The site was probably occupied from the third century AD and became the Naṣrid capital during the sixth century; in the seventh century the site was without walls and it made up of isolated quṣūr.115 In the 1930s, David Talbot Rice excavated several tulūl and identified two churches (sixth century) and several residential buildings. One of the latter, Building I, would belong to the category of quṣūr described by historical sources: according to Talbot Rice, the building had three phases of occupation, the latest of which was dated to the eighth century on the basis of numismatic and ceramic data.116 It is interesting to note that inside Building I there is a banāʾ al-Ḥīrī without portico; another banāʾ al-Ḥīrī without portico has been excavated in the apartment III D.117 The stucco decoration found in the buildings of the site was also attributed to the last quarter of the eighth century.118

Würsch 2013. Musil 1927, 104-106 and fig. 34. 121  Toral-Niehoff 2014, 81-82. Other buildings of the tribes of al-Ḥīra are mentioned in Islamic sources such as Qaṣr Banū Buqayla, Qaṣr Banū Māzin, Qaṣr Liḥyān known as Qaṣr al-Abyaḍ all belonged to Christian families; Qaṣr al-ʿAdasīyīn of the banū Kalb; or finally Qaṣr ʿAwn, Qaṣr aṭ-Ṭīn and Qaṣr al-Firs (Eadem, 76-77). 122  Hopkins 1972, pl. VII. 123  Azarnoush 1994, 77 and fig. 54; see also Allara 2002, fig. 169. 124  Allara 2002, 211. 125  Eadem, 215. 126  Venco Ricciardi 1988, 1990, 1992 and 1996. 127  Foietta 2018, 422-424. 128  Allara 2002, 215-219. 119 

120 

Shahid 1986, 632-633. A recent field survey in the site was carried out by a German team (Müller-Wiener et al. 2015). 115  Genequand 2015, 208. 116  The use of large ceramic forms for the drainage of water dated to the eighth century and which were placed inside the filling of the previous phase makes this dating irrefutable (Talbot Rice 1934, 51-52). 117  Idem, 54 and fig. 4 118  Idem, 51-52, 61 and fig. 1. 113  114 

12

The early Islamic settlement phenomenon

Figure 3. Sketch plan of the Khawarnaq Palace in Iraq (after Musil 1927, fig. 34)

As far as the Sasanian period is concerned, a banāʾ alḤīrī without a portico is located in the palace of Fīrūzābād, already mentioned by Creswell,129 where the side elements are arranged, contrastingly, on the long side rather than on the court, differently to the Islamic banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs. Other apartments with Sasanian occupation phases were discovered at Susa.130 As outlined above, an example of a residence of the landed gentry was recently found in Barz-i Qawāla or Ramāvand (Luristān). The partiallyexcavated site is composed of a series of buildings, the main one (Building 1; fig. 7) being composed of a main īwān and two porticoes, to the south and north; to the east and west of the main īwān there are two other īwāns, each

129  130 

flanked by two rooms131 and, below the northern portico, an underground room.132 The function of Building 1 is probably representational and probably residential, given the typological parallel with the banāʾ al-Ḥīrī of the Islamic period. The archaeologists who have excavated the site have attributed it to the Sasanian period, thanks to stylistic comparisons of the stuccoes133 and to thermoluminescence analyses conducted on ceramic samples134; however, it is not unlikely that the building was occupied during the Sasanian-Islamic transition period, as evidenced by the ceramics and glass found in the stratigraphic layers.135 Geravand – Zeinavand 1393/2014, 480-481; Karamian 1394/2016, 49-51. 132  Karamian 1394/2016, 99-104. 133  Idem, 55-64. 134  Karamian 1394/2016, 136-140 135  Idem, 53-54. 131 

See above. Ghirshman 1952.

13

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Nevertheless, the importance of the site in the context of domestic architecture in the Near and Middle East is considerable since it is one of the few buildings that has been discovered in Iran that was dated to the Sasanian period which displays the plan of the banāʾ al-Ḥīrī.136 However, the chronological and functional attribution of the site and, consequently, the cultural context must be the subject of further work. Other banāʾ al-Ḥīrī are attested in the houses Maʿariḍ IV and Umm al-Saʿātir in Ctesiphon (sixth century),137 and in the small courtyard building of Tell Abū Shaʿāf near Jalawlāʾ, northeast of Baghdad.138 However, even if the characteristics of Sasanian palatial architecture have been codified, such as the presence of the square room, covered with a dome, the īwān, the columned or pillar hall or the courtyard,139 the housing typology of the Sasanian period is only partially known. In fact, despite the classification proposal by O. Reuther, who saw in the model of a house with one or more īwān on central courtyard the housing type of Sasanian tradition,140 there are few archaeological examples that could allow a typological classification. As for the palaces, Huff suggests that the private rooms of Sasanian palaces were on the upper floors.141 However, Callieri betrays some doubts in identifying in the narrow rooms of the upper levels the location of the private residence of the king and his family; suggesting instead that the private residences of the Sasanian ruler in Fīrūzābād, as well as the Tāq Kisrā, were elsewhere in an unidentified location.142 As far as the royal palace of Ctesiphon is concerned, Erdmann speculates that the residential area was located on the north and south sides of the hypothetical courtyard,143 Hoffmann on the upper floor.144

St. Sergios near Nitl (10 km east of Madaba),149 at Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (pre-Umayyad monastic complex),150 at al-Ruṣāfa / Sergiopolis in the square-plan building with apse,151 in the eastern church of Tall al-ʿUmayrī (11 kilometres south of ʿAmmān),152 in a house at alḤayyat (Ḥawrān)153  and finally, on the sites of Sammāʾ, al-Nuʿmān, al-Burj and Nitl.154 The qaṣr of Khirbat alBayḍāʾ, initially considered a Jafnid building,155 was dated by Gaube and Genequand to the Umayyad period with convincing arguments;156 an Arabic graffito recently discovered by Robert Hoyland and dated to 743-4 would support this dating.157 Consequently, these archaeological testimonia reveal both the intervention of the Jafnid leaders in the ecclesial policy of the provincia Arabia and in the surrounding regions, and as the relationship with the cult of St. Sergius, particularly common among the Arab Christian tribes158 who would become part in the Umayyad period of the Yaman confederation. In general, the Jafnid evidences reveal the willingness of the latter to participate in the political and religious life of the Late Roman Empire and also the willingness to consolidate the relations between the State and the Arab tribes inhabiting the region, by showing a good level of political and diplomatic autonomy.159 The Jafnids’ role in the region should not be overestimated, however, and it would be misleading to consider the Jafnids’ political role as an inspiration for the Umayyad one.160 Nevertheless, Jafnid evidence shows that the Late Antique society of the Near East was already in contact with an Arab elite and, probably, some members of the Arab tribes played a considerable political and social role in this period.161 Another interesting strand is the relationship between Umayyad and Jafnid structures since three Jafnid inscriptions are found within the Umayyad quṣūr thus revealing a similar conception in the construction of structures in areas that facilitated the interaction between Arab tribes (nomads and

The other pre-Islamic Arab tribal confederation that played an important role in the political and military environment of the Late Antique Near East was the Jafnid confederation. The Ghassānid tribe and their Jafnid leaders came from Yemen;145 they were settled in the Roman provinces of Arabia, Phoenice Libanensis, Syria Secunda, Euphratesia, Palaestina Secunda and Tertia and acquired a considerable political role in the sixth century up to 582.146 Monophysites, they did not have a fixed capital, but their power was exercised between alJābiya in Palaestina Secunda (Ḥawrān) and Jilliq, near Damascus.147 The Jafnid archaeological examples are attested at Jabal Says,148 in the ecclesiastical complex of

Here is preserved an inscription in the southern church that attests to a dedication for ‘Eretha son of al-Aretha’ (Genequand 2015, 193-197). 150  See here Appendix 4.4. In the complex two inscriptions attest the name of al-Ḥārith (Chaniotis et al. 2006, Supplementum Inscriptionicum Graecum 56-1867). 151  It is preserved here the inscription ‘νικᾷ ἡ ύχη Ἀλαμ{ι} υνδάου’ (Hondius 1934, Supplementum Inscriptionicum Graecum 7-188). Researchers are not unanimous on the function of the building: J. Sauvaget interprets it as praetorium (Sauvaget 1939d), G. Brands as church (Brands 1998), E. Fowden (1999) and M. Konrad (2015) as principia cum praetorio. 152  Preserved there is an inscription on mosaic that invokes ‘ὁ Θ(εò) ς τοῦ ἁγίου Σεργίου’ for the protection of the ‘μεγαλαπρ(επέστατον) Ἀλμούνδαρον κόμ̣[̣ ητα ·]’ (Bevan – Fisher – Genequand 2015, 54). 153  We find here an inscription of Flavius Seos, ‘ἐπίτρ(οπος)’, who builds the house with the son Olbanos ‘ἐπὶ τοῦ πανευφ(ήμου) Ἀλαμουνδάρου [al-Mundhir] πατρ(ικίου)’ (Bevan – Fisher – Genequand 2015, 61). 154  In all three sites, there are documented inscriptions attesting the names of Jafnid family members (Bevan – Fisher – Genequand 2015, 62-63). 155  Gaube 1974. 156  Gaube 2004; Genequand 2015, 184. Consequently, it is not possible to attribute a direct Jafnid origin of the Umayyad quṣūr (see below). 157  Hoyland 2018, 327-330. 158  Idem, 60. 159  Fisher 2011, 125. 160  Idem, 210. 161  Fisher 2011, 210; the Ghassanid tribe and their Jafnid leaders fought for the Byzantines at the Battle of the Yarmuk (635-636; Monneret de Villard 1968, 41). 149 

The dating and plan of Qaṣr-i Shīrīn are uncertain (see above). Reuther 1938-39, 547-548. 138  Hoffmann 2008, 95-97; see also Ritter 2019, 53. 139  Callieri 2014, 49-72. 140  Reuther 1938-39, 547-550. 141  Huff 2005, 375-377. 142  Callieri 2014, 70-72; see also Hoffmann 2008, 138. 143  Erdmann 1969, p. 32. 144  Hoffmann 2008, 138. 145  Monneret de Villard 1968, 38 146  During this year they were removed from the role of phylarchs by Emperor Tiberius II (Genequand 2015, 186). 147  Idem, 39. 148  In a inscription that attests the activities of a certain Raqīm or Ruqaym sent to Says by al-Ḥārith al-mulk (l-Ḥrth l-mlk; Bevan – Fisher – Genequand 2015, 61). 136  137 

14

The early Islamic settlement phenomenon

Figure 4. Examples of megaron dwellings (a) Nippur, Arsacid palace (late first century AD); (b) Ai Khanoum, dwelling (first half of second century AD; reworked after Azarnoush 1994, figs. 52 and 54, detail)

Figure 5. Hatra, dwelling A, detail of the īwān and the two side rooms (second half of the second century, first half of the third century AD; reworked after Venco Ricciardi 1988, pl. V, detail)

15

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 6. Hatra, ‘houses next to the Temple XI’: detail of the houses with īwān and two side rooms (late second-early third century AD; reworked after Venco Ricciardi 1996, fig. 7, detail)

semi-nomads) and the central authority, and in which the interaction between the two powers has been documented over centuries.162 In the present state of our knowledge, it is impossible to identify a Jafnid domestic architecture and, therefore, to recognise pre-Islamic Jafnid prototypes for the Umayyad buyūt: our knowledge is related, as has been demonstrated, to architectural examples that belong to the Romano-Byzantine and Sasanian traditions.

Figure 7. Barz-i Qawāla or Ramāvand (Iran, Sasanian period), Building 1 (reworked after Karamian 1394, pl. 1)

162 

16

Genequand 2015, 186-188.

Part 2 Dwellings in madāʾin and quṣūr

2 Dwellings in madāʾin 2.1. ʿAnjar

claims that the water source of ʿAyn al-Jarr is located between Baalbek and Damascus in the al-Biqāʿ valley, but the historical understanding of the site had clearly been lost.176 Lastly, Abū-l Fidāʾ (d. 1331) reports the presence of huge ruins one mile south of Baalbek and that the river al-Līṭānī springs forth near ʿAyn al-Jarr.177

The first madāʾin to be analysed in this study is ʿAnjar, located in the southeastern part of the al-Biqāʿ valley, southwest of Jabal al-ʿAnjar. The toponym derives from ʿAyn al-Jarr.163 The valley is crossed by the river al-Līṭānī, the former Λέοντες.164

Information on the construction of the madīna is provided by the Aphrodito papyri,178 where it is stated that at the time of al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik the madīna was built using the quarries of al-Kāmid in the al-Biqāʿ valley (17 km southwest of ʿAnjar).179 Syriac inscriptions have been found in these quarries, along with one in pahlavī and another in Greek (five Syriac inscriptions are dated 714-715).180 Since the inscriptions refer to work in quarries during the reign of alWalīd but not to his own account, Northedge suggests that the madīna’s patron was ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd rather than the caliph himself;181 later, ʿAbbās was governor of al-Ḥimṣ,182 and chief of the jund located 130 km northeast of ʿAnjar.183

2.1.1. Previous research ʿAnjar (fig. 9) was first recorded by J. Sauvaget in 1939.165 Between the 1950s and 1970s, archaeological excavations and restorations were carried out by the Lebanese Department of Antiquities166 and S. Ory published some of the graffiti from the site.167 Descriptions and interpretations of ʿAnjar have been given by K.A.C. Creswell168 and R. Hillenbrand,169 but archaeological work was only resumed in early 2000 by a German team led by B. Finster.170 Recently, a French archaeological mission led by Apolline Vernet has conducted excavations in extra-palatial houses.171

The absence of exhaustive records of the excavations carried out by Chehab impedes us from knowing the exact period of the abandonment of the madīna and the post-Umayyad phases.184 Thanks to the plan published by Finster185 and to field observations,186 we can see that three of the four minor palaces were not completed and also that a church, whose date is unknown, was built between apartments B and F in the northeastern quadrant. The madīna was abandoned around the middle of the eighth century, only to be reoccupied from the twelfth to the fifteenth.187

2.1.2. Historical context The background to the foundation of the madīna is provided by two Christian sources. The first is the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor (written between 810 and 814), which tells us that in 709-710 ʿAbbās ibn alWalīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, after looting Byzantine territory and taking many prisoners, founded Gara in the Heliopolis region (Baalbek).172 The second is an anonymous source dated 846 which refers to the Umayyad caliph al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik building a city and named it ʿIn Gero.173

According to Yaʿqūbī the foundation of the madīna went back to the biblical episode of Noah (Yaʿqūbī 1861, III, 760; see also Le Strange 1890, 386). 177  Abū-l Fidāʾ 1840, 230; see also Le Strange 1890, 386. 178  The papyri of Aphrodito were discovered in 1905 in the village of Kom Ishgau in Egypt: written in Greek, they comprise a mix of literary works dated from the classical to the Byzantine period and bureaucratic and governmental documents of Egypt from the early Islamic period (see Bell 1908). 179  Sourdel-Thomine 1986, 787. 180  Mouterde 1939, 1968. The inscriptions bear the names of Nestorian Christian workers from Iraq: it is therefore plausible to suggest that they contributed to the construction of the madīna. In all likelihood, among the madīna’s builders were the Byzantine prisoners captured by ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd, son of al-Walīd, during his military campaigns. For the biography of ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd see Zetterstéen – Gabrieli 1986, 12-13. 181  Northedge 1984, I, 218-219. See also Northedge 2017, 162. 182  Crone 2003, 126. 183  However, the site administratively fell under the jund al-Dimashq (Kennedy 2002, pl. 20). 184  Finster 2003. 185  Finster 2003, fig. 1. 186  Personal communications from A. Santi. 187  ‘ʿAnjar was inhabited in medieval times; its houses were refurbished as needed and even accommodated some small industry. A glance at the heaps of potsherd scattered all over the ruins reveals that Umayyad ceramic can be found and especially glazed ware from the 12th to 15th centuries’ (Finster 2003, 210). 176 

Arab sources note the battle that took place at ʿAyn al-Jarr (18 November 744) between the troops of Sulaymān ibn Hishām (732-747),174 on behalf of Ibrāhim ibn al-Walīd I, and those of Marwān II.175 Also, al-Yaʿqubī (ninth century) 163  See Le Strange 1890, 386. For the toponyms cited here see the Geonames database (http://www.geonames.org). 164  The source of the al-Līṭānī is south of Baalbek and the river debouches 170 km north of Tyre; its annual water flow is 750 m3 (hydrological data according to the site: http://www.litani.gov.lb/en/; last access 24/06/2017). 165  He provides a summary description of the site (Sauvaget 1939a). 166  The mission was guided by Mr. Chehab who provided a summary description of the results (Chehab 1963). 167  Ory 1964. 168  Creswell 1979. 169  Hillebrand 1999. 170  Finster 2003, 2005 and 2008. 171  Personal communication of Apolline Vernet. 172  Theophanes Chronographia 1885, I, 377; see also Chehab 1993, 44. 173  Brooks 1897, 581. 174  Sulaymān ibn Hishām was an Umayyad general son of the Caliph Hishām (723-743) and opponent of Marwān II. 175  Caetani 1905, V, 1617.

19

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 8. Map of Bilād al-Shām and sites mentioned: the madāʾin in bold, quṣūr in italica (© G. Labisi, 2018)

2.1.3. Site description

The two main streets divide the settlement into four quadrants:

ʿAnjar (fig. 28-29) has an irregular rectangular shape (347.72 × 308.53 m), it is surrounded by a wall with four near-circular hollow corner towers, ten rounded solid towers on each curtain and a pair of towers located flanking each of the four main entrances. The latter provide access to the two main orthogonal streets that cross at a tetrapylon; onto these streets the two hundred and twenty-one shops of the sūq open. Near the gates there are also stairs that lead to the wall-walk.188 The orientation of the madīna and all the buildings is N-NE / S-SW, towards Mecca. 188 

• The southeastern quadrant containing the madīna’s main palace and the congregational mosque. • The southwestern quadrant, divided into insulae by orthogonal secondary streets. • The northeastern quadrant containing the remains of a minor palace, the foundations of another minor palace and the bath complex. • The northwest quadrant, where the foundations of the other two minor palaces are located, their dimensions similar to the palaces of the northeast quadrant. And, to the north of the palaces, insulae divided by secondary

See Finster 2003, 210-212.

20

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 9. ʿAnjar (Lebanon), satellite image of the site (Orion-Me Digital Globe ©2014 Google)

streets;189 in this quadrant was found another bath complex, of smaller dimensions than that of the northeastern quadrant.190

‘five room unit’, with a rectangular room located on each corner and a vestibule.193 The central courtyard of the palace is quadrangular (32.84 × 33.37 m) and has a portico.194 An opening at the northeast of the northern apsidal hall provides access to the congregational mosque via a street.195 The structures of the palace are built in opus vittatum mixtum of limestone and baked bricks arranged in alternating rows.196 Columns, capitals and aedicules are spolia.197

2.1.3.1. The main palace The main palace (fig. 11-12) has a rectangular plan (59.68 × 70.87 × 59.46 × 71.11 m). The main gate, decorated with ornamental friezes, is connected with the street through a three-portalled arch. The entrance proper to the courtyard was through a gate decorated at the pilaster bases with ornamented reliefs, which had two aediculae inside the courtyard either side of the entrance (fig. 17).191 A secondary entrance to the palace’s central courtyard is located on the eastern side.

2.1.3.2. The secondary palaces Four palaces (fig. 13) are located in the northern quadrants and their access is along the main E-W road; the palaces have a similar plan but only palace 3b appears to have been completed.198

All the rooms of the palace are arranged around a central courtyard. In the centre of each short side is an apsidal room flanked by three rectangular and one square rooms.192 The long sides of the palace are occupied by two groups of rooms for each side, arranged according to the plan of the

The plan resembles that of the main palace, although on a reduced scale and without the apsidal rooms: the building has a square plan (46.77 × 47.21 m) with a central square courtyard (23.44 × 23.54 m) with portico. The north and south sides are arranged according to the plan of the ‘five

189  Each insula includes between two and six dwellings (Eadem, 212216). 190  Eadem, fig. 1. 191  Finster 2003, 219. 192  The southern apse room is divided into three naves by two rows of columns, the median of which is wider.

193 

The rooms next to the vestibules are not connected to them. Finster 2003, 222. 195  Eadem, 229. The street is about 3 m wide. 196  The joints are filled with stones (Eadem, 222). 197  Finster 2005. 198  The description of the palaces will therefore be based on the latter. 194 

21

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 10. Site map of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1)

Figure 11. Map of the main palace of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 11)

22

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 12. The courtyard of the main palace of ʿAnjar, detail (Lebanon, 712-715; © Bdx, 2017, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, ommons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Umayyad_city_of_Anjar,_ March_2017_02)

Figure 13. Plan of the minor palaces of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1)

23

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria room unit’ and are mirrored: in the southern part there is a vestibule, in the northern part a probable reception room. In in the eastern and western ranges there are two ‘five room units’ and a rectangular room for each end, arranged in a symmetrical manner. All of the rooms communicate directly with the central courtyard.199 The fabric of this palace, like the main palace, is in opus vittatum mixtum of limestone and baked bricks.200

were reworked here after the plan published by Finster in 2003.207 2.1.4. The ʿAnjar settlement models ʿAnjar, like Ramla, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī, Madīna al-Far, Aqaba, and the citadel of Amman, belongs to the category of madāʾin of the first Islamic period. However, the layout of the settlement resembles that of the legionary castra of the eastern Roman limes, with the substantial difference that the Roman castra are composed of alignments of individual rooms, perhaps barracks.208 As far as the internal composition of the structures at ʿAnjar is concerned, we can notice the analogy with quṣūr and, specifically, with Jabal Says however (the presence of main and secondary palaces, mosque, baths and dwellings), revealing an ‘urban’ aspect with fortifications and an orthogonal plan.209

2.1.3.3. The congregational mosque The mosque (fig. 14; about 29 × 57 m), which features a rectangular courtyard, is accessible through four entrances: the main entrances are to the north and to the west, and two to the south, which connect the building to the main palace (including one directly connected to the maqṣūra).201 The mosque’s prayer room is divided into two aisles by a row of columns parallel to the wall qiblī;202 the miḥrāb has a semicircular inner profile. A portico is located along the north side, while a double portico stands before the east and west sides.203

Useful sources helping us to understand the type of population of ʿAnjar are the sixty Umayyad graffiti210 partially published by S. Ory.211 Only the inscription n. 1 is dated at 123 H. (741), three years before the battle of ʿAyn al-Jarr.212 Also, many ansāb are engraved in the graffiti of ʿAnjar, of which the nisba al-Taymī is the most frequent.213 One could therefore deduce that al-Walīd,

2.1.3.4. The bath complex The bath complex (fig. 15; 30.15 × 18.55 m) is composed of seven rooms: entrance/apodyterium (a), cold room (b), tepidarium (c), calidarium (d), praefurnium (e) and two rooms connected to the apodyterium. It belongs to a typology attested in other Umayyad baths.204 According to Finster, the bath complex was for the exclusive use of the Caliph and his entourage.205

See here fig. 71-72 and Appendix 3.1.2; see also Finster 2003, fig. 1, 25-32. 208  Northedge 1994, 240-242. 209  Northedge 2017, 161. 210  According to Finster (2003, 225) ‘sgraffiti on the north and west walls [of the Small Palace] with personal names in widely spaced Kufic of Umayyad ductus prove that the walls have been preserved in their original state’. 211  These are inscriptions n. 1, n. 2 (Ory 1967, 105), the latter interpreted by Ory as an inhabitant of the Palestinian madīna of al-Ramla (Ory 1967, note n. 2), as described by Nāṣir-i Khusraw (1004-1078; for a recent biography on Nāṣir-i Khusraw see Tiddia 2015): Ramla was founded in the Umayyad period by the caliph Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (715717), as reported by al-Balādhurī (ninth century; al-Balādhurī 1916, 121122; see also Northedge 1994, 241-242). The other inscriptions are n. 4 (Ory 1967, 106), n. 8 (Eadem, 110), whose nisba is linked by Ory to the toponym of the quarries of al-Kāmid, n. 24 (Eadem, 122), n. 32 (Eadem, 126), n. 41 (Eadem, 129) – the latter of probable Iranian origin, n. 44 (Eadem, 131-132), n. 45 (Eadem, 132) – graffiti in the second row of the north wall inside of the ‘five room units’ of palace 3B, and n. 52 (Eadem, 137). 212  Ory 1967, 100-101. 213  ‘Taym’ is a pre-Islamic Arabic word that describes the state of slavery in a matter-of-fact, unemotive way (synonymous with ʿabd). The nisba al-Taymī is documented in inscriptions 1, 10, 40, 40, 46, 46, 49, 50; it is also found on a tombstone, inscription n. 55. According to Ory, the taymī tribe could be either the Taym ibn Murra tribe of the Quraysh (to which either the first caliph Abū Bakr belonged, or one of the first Companions of the Prophet, Ṭalḥa ibn ʿUbaydallāh), the Taym Allāh ibn Thaʿlaba of the Bakr ibn Wāʾil, or the Taym Allāh the Qaḥṭānīya; however, the scholar makes no hypotheses about belonging to any of these tribes (Ory 1967, 107-108). One could suggest here that the taymī of ʿAnjar were the Taym Allāh ibn Thaʿlaba of the Bakr ibn Wāʾil since pre-Islamic historical sources refer to the latter as allies of the banū Qays (Levi della Vida 2000, 400), a tribe loyal to the Caliph al-Walīd I (705-715), whose mother was Qaysī (Kennedy 2004, 104); it is likely that the Caliph or his son ʿAbbās had chosen to allocate their loyal troops in the settlement they founded; also, a toponym of the Taym Allāh is attested in a Wādī al-Taym, 15 km southeast of ʿAnjar, on the slopes of Jabal al-Shaykh (Levi della Vida 2000, 400-401. It is likely that members of this tribe moved from the Wādī al-Taym area to ʿAyn al-Jarr). Finally, S. Ory sees a certain superficiality in the Islamization of the populations of the region (Ory 1967, 145). 207 

2.1.3.5. The insulae The western half of the site is occupied by thirteen insulae (four in the northwest quadrant, nine in the southwest quadrant) accessible by secondary orthogonal streets. The insulae preserve fifty-one living units: only eleven of them can be described with certainty through being well-preserved and/or excavated.206 The apartments plans Finster 2003, 224. Eadem, 225. 201  Eadem, 225. The northern entrance to the mosque has a vestibule and is flanked by shops; the western entrance is located inside a courtyard with a portico along which other shops are located. The mosque retains one of the first archaeologically documented examples of a maqṣūra (internal measurements: 9.18 × 8.75 m; external measurements: 10.99 × 9.82 m). 202  Finster 2003, 229. 203  In a post-Umayyad period, a minaret was added in the northwest corner of the courtyard, asymmetrically in relation to the Umayyad structures (Finster 2003, 231). 204  The room is divided into three aisles by two rows of pillars and on the eastern side there is a niche (thickness: 4.02 m, depth: 2.80 m; Finster 2003, 227). The ‘cold room’ (b) is a rectangular room (4.11 × 5.62 m) connected to the west with the apodyterium. There are marble slabs for wall paintings. The tepidarium (c; 5.40 × 5.38 m) is connected to the cold room to the east; an apsidal niche (width: 1.70 m) with a basin is located in the centre on the eastern side, and the room has a hypocaust. Calidarium (d) has a similar plan to the tepidarium (5.44 × 5.37 m), but the niches (with pools) are two, located in the centre of the east and west sides. The praefurnium (e) is rectangular (12.30 × 4.89 m; Finster 2003, 227-229). 205  Finster 2003, 229. 206  The provisional nature of the record is due to the absence of a comprehensive final publication on the excavations; however, six of the eleven dwellings mentioned above have been completely excavated by Finster (see Finster 2003, 233-235, fig. 30). For housing data see below. 199  200 

24

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 14. Plan of the congregational mosque of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 23)

or his son ʿAbbās, granted the population of ʿAnjar214 agricultural concessions or, through them, the salaries of the troops, whose Taym element could be predominant.215 Although no specific archaeological or historical proof is available, this theory is plausible. Certainly, in the first Islamic period, the armies were composed of the men of the Arab tribes led by the ashraf:216 this element could be reflected in the social order of the ʿAnjar settlement.217 2.1.4.1. The palaces The palaces of ʿAnjar have been classified according to the surface area occupied, the type of the plan and the number of ‘five room units’. Figure 15. Plan of the bath complex of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 22)

The main palace occupies an area of approximately 3100 m2, it has a central courtyard with portico, fifty-two rooms, two vestibules, two apsidal audience halls and four ‘five room units’ (which occupy an area of 140-150 m2).

Each minor palace occupies an area of approximately 1500 m2; all the palaces have a central courtyard with portico, thirty-seven rooms, a vestibule, an audience hall arranged according to the ‘five room unit’ scheme and five ‘five room units’ (which occupy an area of 120-130 m2).

214  It is likely that the population of ʿAnjar, or a large part of it, cultivated the land around the madīna. According to the practice of the Umayyad period, it can be assumed that the land was granted to the tribal population (qaṭāʾi) by al-Walīd itself or by his son ʿAbbās (for the concept of qaṭāʾi see Balādhurī 1968, 128 and Kennedy 2001, 82). Indeed, as Hillenbrand clearly demonstrated, in the aerial photograph of the 1930s published by Chehab (1963, fig. 5), traces of drainage and field subdivisions outside the madīna can still be seen (Hillenbrand 1999, 68); according to Finster, the drainage carried water in the southeast and northeast of the city (Finster 2003, 216). 215  It can be assumed that at ʿAnjar, as in other early Islamic settlements, some of the tribal men were soldiers, thus receiving the attribution and salary of muqātila (see Kennedy 2001, 82-84). 216  Northedge 1994, 243-244. 217  See below.

The palaces of ʿAnjar therefore belong to a unique palatial model, but reveals considerable variations in terms of the surface area occupied (and, consequently, the number of rooms): the main palace covers an area almost double that of the minor palaces and is equipped with two apsidal rooms, corresponding to the audience halls. The plan of the minor palaces repeats that of the main palace with the exception of the accesses and audience halls: the minor 25

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria palaces have a single vestibule and a single audience hall (composed a of ‘five room unit’).218 The official character can also be noted by the excellent construction technique and by the presence of two aediculae with lions and eagles located in the courtyard of the main palace.219

The dwellings studied, all rectangular, have a perimeter of approximately 15-19 × 23-25 m.233 In particular, all living models, with the exception of Model A, have a vestibule and a courtyard measuring 8 × 9 m.234 In addition, models A and B have one ‘five room unit’, C and D have two .

2.1.4.2. The extra-palatial dwellings

It is also possible to provide considerations on housing models and their topographic relationship within the urban fabric of ʿAnjar.

Data from the classification of extra-palatial living units (fifty-one classified dwellings)220 reveal the presence of a central courtyard221 with only one access.222 Forty-one dwellings have a vestibule and a housing function is uncertain for seven of them.223

Quadrant NW The two dwellings of model A (fig. 16) are located in the northwest quadrant along the west side of the site, grouped into two insulae and separated by a street about 3.5 m wide; the layout and dimensions of the dwellings seem to be the result of a unitary planning of the site.

The ‘five room units’ have been documented in twentythree dwellings.224 Of these, seventeen dwellings include a single ‘five room unit’, six dwellings include two. Also, sixteen dwellings include most of the ‘five room units’.225 The dwellings with seventeen rooms number four and226 seem to belong to a single model since the total internal surface area is of 350-400 m2 and they always include two ‘five room units’. Of the six dwellings with fourteen rooms,227 five have an internal surface between 350 and 400 m2,228 and one dwelling occupies an area between 500 and 550 m2.229 Finally, it can be noted that the ‘five room units’ are found either in palaces or in private dwellings, which suggests that the dwellings with ‘five room units’ were intended for the ashraf of the tribes living in the madīna, who adopted this model to affirm their status.230

The two dwellings of model B (fig. 17), also located in the NW quadrant, but along the east side, are located opposite each other and are located in two different insulae separated by the same street that also separates the dwellings of models A1 and A2. The two dwellings of model C1 (fig. 18) are in the NW quadrant in two different insulae, but they are located in the same relative position. Quadrant SW The two dwellings of models C2 (fig. 19, Dwelling A) and C3 (fig. 19, Dwelling B) are located in the SW quadrant and form a single insula; they are mirrored and share their respective back wall (wall N for dwelling A, wall S for dwelling B).

The most widespread type of housing without the ‘five room unit’ would seem to be the one with a total area of 250/300-400/450 m2. Another way of classifying the living spaces of ʿAnjar is according to their internal articulation.231 In total, four living models (A-D and subtypes)232 can be distinguished.

The two dwellings of model D (fig. 20) are in the southwest quadrant of the same insula; they are adjacent and share a side wall (west wall of Dwelling N, east wall of Dwelling R).

Finster 2003, 227. Eadem 2003, 224. 220  See here Annex 3.1.2. 221  The average size of the courtyard is between 8 and 10 m2. 222  With the exception of Dwellings A and B, with three accesses, in the SW quadrant: connected to each other, they have one main access (the two dwellings belong to the category of dwellings with a total internal surface area of between 350 and 400 m2); by contrast, dwelling D in the NW quadrant has one main access and another connecting it to a cistern (in the latter case the housing function is not certain). 223  These are dwellings X in the SW quadrant and D, L, M, M, N, N, SW quadrant and dwelling T in the NW quadrant. The dwelling function is not given where traces of production activities have been found (see Finster 2003). Finally, the dwellings occupy areas of 50/100–550/600 m2 (we can note here the absence of dwellings whose surface area is of 100-200 m2). 224  Out of twenty-three dwellings, sixteen occupy an area of 350-400 m2. 225  Internal surfaces of 350-400 m2. 226  These are Dwellings A and B in the SW quadrant and Dwellings E and G in the NW quadrant. 227  These are Dwellings I, K, M, M, N and T in the SW quadrant and N in the NW quadrant. 228  Two dwellings include a ‘five room unit’ and one dwelling includes two ‘five room units’. 229  This house includes two ‘five room units’. 230  See below. 231  A similar approach was adopted by Finster (2003, 232-236 and fig. 25-32); see her study for the researcher’s various conclusions. 232  See here Annex 5. 218  219 

The patrons of the Umayyad period created a personal entourage composed of mawālī and the military (jund) who could fight if necessary, for the patrons, as in the fitna of 744. In addition, in the Umayyad settlement models a variation in the dimensions of the settlements and the number of the junds and mawālī (varying between 150 and 3000) has been noted. This factor was determined by the strictly personal relationship between leader and follower: in fact, it took priority in the provision of accommodation and, consequently, the choice of settlement location and type.235 Al-Balādhurī’s account of Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd Dwellings E, G, I in the NW quadrant and Dwellings A, B, N and R in the SW quadrant occupy an area of between 350 and 400 m2. Dwellings B and C in the NW quadrant occupy an area of between 200 and 250 m2 and Dwelling H in the NW quadrant occupies an area of between 300 and 350 m2. Finally, the dwellings of models A and B occupy an area between 200 and 250 m2 and 250 and 300 m2. 234  However, in models A and B there are ten rooms, in models C and D between twelve and nineteen rooms. 235  Northedge 2017, 162. 233 

26

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 16. The dwellings of the models A1 and A2 of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

would be found in all the Umayyad madāʾin. An element that typifies ʿAnjar is in all probability the planning by the architect and the patron of all the living units of the settlement, thus demonstrating a direct dependency of the inhabitants on their patron.

al-Malik’s foundation of Ramla (before being appointed caliph) provides the example: after Sulaymān built the madīna and all its components, ‘he gave permission to the people for construction, and they built’.236 The case of ʿAnjar would be different, however, because the presence of the living units and topographical models described above would lead us to think that the patron of the madīna, ʿAbbas or al-Walīd, ordered his architects to build a settlement on a Roman model, but adapted to the requirements of the early Islamic period, an element that

236 

2.1.4.3. The ‘five room units’ The ‘five room units’ are attested both in palaces and in extra-palatial dwellings; the total area occupied can be categorised as follows: from an area between 65-70 m2 up to a maximum between 140-150 m2; the area occupied by the central room can also be categorised from an area between 25-30 m2 up to a maximum of 60-70 m2.

Al-Baladhuri 1866: 143 apud Northedge 2017, 162.

27

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 17. The dwellings of the model B of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

The ‘five room units’ can be subdivided therefore into three groups by considering their area:

• Between 40-50 m2: three ‘five room units’ of the extrapalatial living units, and a ‘five room unit’ of the minor palace 2. • Between 50-60 m2: fourteen ‘five room units’, of the minor palaces. • Between 60 and 70 m2: four ‘five room units’ in the main palace.

• Between 65-110 m2: twenty-nine ‘five room units’ of extra-palatial living units. • Between 110-130 m2: fifteen ‘five room units’ of the minor palaces. • Between 130-150 m2: four ‘five room units’ of the main palace. • The ‘five room units’ can also be subdivided into four groups according to the area occupied by the central rooms: • Between 20-40 m2: twenty-six ‘five room units’ of extra-palatial living units.

Beyond the considerations regarding the size of the ‘five room units’, the presence of the latter in the extra-palatial living units could indicate the presence of ashraf: in fact, if, as is plausible, the ‘five room unit’ is the typical residential model of the Umayyad elite,237 the ashraf of ʿAnjar, loyal to 237 

28

See here Chap. 4.3 and 5.4.

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 18. The dwellings model C1 of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

2.1.5. Conclusions

ʿAbbas or al-Walīd, wanted to underline their status through the use of an architectural pattern typical of the Umayyad patrons. However, one question that remains open is whether the ‘five room units’ were designed by the architects at the behest of the patron or whether the internal planning depended on the ashraf. As noted in the previous paragraph, it is very likely that the settlement process of ʿAnjar was different from that of Ramla: in the latter example, in fact, Sulaymān, after having all the buildings of the madīna built, allowed people to build their living units. At ʿAnjar the presence of topographic and architectural models suggests the possibility that the patron, and consequently the architect, had already planned the topographic and internal layout of the living units according to predefined models.

The settlement of ʿAnjar is part of the typology of the newly founded Umayyad madāʾin, displaying an architectural scheme of classical origin (deriving in part from Roman castra), but adapted to the Umayyad exigencies (main building and four secondary buildings, congregational mosque and baths). The type of settlement present in the Umayyad period in Ramla (reconstructed only through historical sources), Aqaba, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī, the citadel of ʿAmmān and Madīnat al-Far, is not dissimilar to that present in the complexes of the Umayyad quṣūr. In fact, as noted, ʿAnjar illustrates the same elements existing at Jabal Says, but in an urban form derived from 29

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 19. The dwellings models C2-C3 of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

prototypes of the Classical period. The foundation of the Umayyad madāʾin and therefore of ʿAnjar also had a military function, and was in fact built by ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd, the son of Caliph al-Walīd I and commander in the Byzantine wars at the time of the construction of the settlement. However, ʿAnjar does not fall within the miṣr type and we must also consider that the military personnel of ʿAnjar did not reside in military barracks, but that they lived with their families.

More broadly, it is likely that the settlement of ʿAnjar also played an economic and agricultural role, since the establishment of a madīna devoted to the oversight and management of agricultural lands could meet the requirement of achieving a topographical settlement model, built under Umayyad supervision. An interesting element of the topographic study of ʿAnjar is the presence of living models arranged according to 30

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 20. The dwellings of model D of ʿAnjar in relation to the urban topography (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

internal topographic patterns. As we have seen, in this madīna there are four architectural models (with their subcategories) of extra-palatial dwellings. Moreover, within the latter, we have noted the presence of ‘five room units’, a dwelling form also attested in the palaces and, a residential model linked to the Umayyad elite. A

comparison with the source relating to the foundation of Ramla by Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (when he was still governor of the jund al-Filasṭīn) suggests that at ʿAnjar it is likely that the dwellings were not built by the ‘people’ (al-nās), but that they were designed by the architect (and consequently by the patron). 31

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 2.2. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī consists of a series of monuments covering an area of 10 km2. The site is located 110 km northeast of Palmyra and about 60 km southwest of alRuṣāfa on the road between Palmyra and the Euphrates. The site, contained within a large enclosure, belongs to the category of newly founded settlements or madīna. 2.2.1. A brief history of research One of the first mentions of the site came in 1808 when Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, the French consul in Aleppo, recorded his discovery of the now-lost foundation inscription (fig. 23).238 The first systematic architectural study of the site was begun by Albert Gabriel in the 1920s,239 subsequently completed by K.A.C. Creswell.240 In the 1960s an archaeological mission led by Oleg Grabar investigated various parts of the site;241 later systematic investigation was carried out from 2002 to 2011 by a Syrian-Swiss mission under Denis Genequand.242

Figure 21. Foundation inscription of the madīna of Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī (after Clermont-Ganneau 1900)

2.2.2. Historical context

with spaces arranged around it, six of which are consist of ‘five room units’. The building had an upper floor, the evidence for which is negative at the walls of the building and the presence of access stairs. A rich decoration in stone, brick and stucco covered the facade of the building.245

There are no direct historical sources for the site. The only historical mention of the Umayyad period that could refer to Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī mentions a site named al-Zaytuna, owned by Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, who resided there before moving to al-Ruṣāfa on being named caliph. However, the non-palatial settlement consisted exclusively of a small rural estate related to olive growing which included a house (manzil) and not of the complex of buildings built in 728-9.243

The building was interpreted by Jean Sauvaget, K.A.C. Creswell and Alastair Northedge as the main palace or residence, located outside the Large Enclosure or madīna.246 Oleg Grabar’s interpretation of it as a caravanserai is no longer sustainable.247

2.2.3. Site description

2.2.3.2. The Large Enclosure or madīna

The site of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī comprises several parts (figs. 22-23): the Small Enclosure or palace, the Large Enclosure or madīna, baths, Northern Settlement, and Southern buildings. A complex irrigation system has also been built inside the site.244

The Large Enclosure has a quadrangular perimeter (dimensions approximately 167 × 167 m), three-quarter round and half-round solid towers. It has four entrances located in the middle of each side connect via four streets to a central courtyard with portico, twelve living units, a mosque in the southeastern corner, a manufacturing area and baths (the latter probably built in a post-Umayyad period). The living units are in turn composed of a ‘vestibule’ (with the exception of units VI and VII, which can be accessed directly through the main courtyard), a courtyard with a portico and rooms located around it, each including a ‘five room unit’. The presence of an inscription that expressly mentions the foundation of a madīna (fig. 23) has led scholars to different interpretations, although in this study, we accept the interpretation advanced by Northedge, namely that the Large Enclosure represents a newly founded city or madīna.248

2.2.3.1. The Small Enclosure or Palace The Small Enclosure is located 40 m east of the Large Enclosure, and together with it and the baths, forms the site’s group of monumental buildings. The perimeter of the structure (quadrangular, dimensions about 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter round and half-round solid towers. The interior is divided into an entrance with a vestibule to the west, two rectangular rooms to the east and west of the vestibule, probably stables and a courtyard with a portico 238  Rousseau 1899, 146-154. The inscription was published in 1900 by Charles Clermont-Ganneau (Clermont-Ganneau 1900, 285-293). 239  Gabriel 1927. 240  Creswell 19792, I, 522-544. 241  Grabat et al. 1978. 242  Genequand 2012, 95-159. 243  Genequand 2008, 270. 244  Genequand 2012, 95-159.

Grabar et al. 1978, I, 29. Sauvaget 1939c, 7; Creswell 19792, I, 525-528; Northedge 1994, 235236. 247  Grabar et al. 1978, I, 32. 248  See below. 245  246 

32

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 22. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Syria), satellite image of the site (reworked after CNES / Airbus ©2019 Google)

Figure 23. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Syria), satellite image of the Large and Small Enclosures and of the baths (reworked after CNES / Airbus ©2019 Google)

33

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 2.2.3.3. The Baths

level to the north (above the ‘five room unit’), consists of about thirty arches or windows, each consisting of two engaged columns supporting a tympanum, an archivolt and a spandrel, all decorated with floral motifs. The third group is composed of about twenty rectangular panels (50 × 70 cm) that can be divided into two subgroups, one of which is composed of geometric elements and the second of human figural decoration. The stuccoes with human subjects can be dated stylistically to the Umayyad period and reveal a very marked Oriental inspiration, specifically from Sasanian and early Islamic Iraq and Iran. The iconography (courtesans, falconers, royal figures) is closely related to the symbolism widely used by the Umayyad elite, an aspect that places the edifice – together with the architectural type – in the category of aristocratic buildings.253

The baths are located 80 m north of the entrances to the two enclosures. The structure belongs to the Late Antique and early Islamic typology of baths, comprising a bath basilica or reception hall, an apodyterium, latrines, a warm room and two caldaria with hypocausts. The basilica hall, typical of Umayyad baths, is divided into three aisles and includes two basins of cold water at its extremities.249 2.2.3.4. The Northern Settlement The Northern Settlement is located 400 m north of the Large Enclosure and composed of a number of isolated buildings covering an area of over 30 hectares.250 Between 2004 and 2009, the Syrian-Swiss archaeological mission excavated three houses (A-C and F) and an aristocratic residential building (E). Geophysical prospection has revealed a high concentration of isolated living units.251

2.2.3.5. The Southern Buildings The southern ‘buildings’ are located 2.6 km south of the palace and the Large Enclosure and consist of two quadrangular enclosures (65 m side) with a central courtyard – built of unbaked bricks – each with four three-quarter and eight half-round solid towers. However, the two buildings have different internal layouts: the northern building is composed of two rows of rooms with a square plan (4 m per side; 26 rooms in all). The southern has a long room on three sides, and the vestibule and two other rooms on the entrance side. Genequand interprets the northern building as a storehouse; the southern building, can be interpreted as a stable, also bearing comparison with the ‘khān’ of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī.254 Archaeological data have shown that both buildings date back to the Umayyad period and were abandoned in the second half of the eight century.255

Excavation of living units A-C and geophysical survey has revealed that a large number of people lived in the site and were not necessarily members of the Umayyad elite, though they lived in a condition of adequate comfort (as demonstrated by the finds assemblage). With the exception of Dwelling E, the architecture of the living units is simple, consisting of rooms built around a central courtyard. They are associated with workshops related to agricultural production, whose occupation phases last until the first half of the ninth century. These data led Genequand to argue that in the early Islamic period the site of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī was extensively populated and permanently occupied until the beginning of the Abbasid age.252 Dwelling E

2.2.4. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī’s settlement model

Dwelling E was interpreted by Genequand as an aristocratic structure consisting of two adjoining buildings. The residential part has a rectangular perimeter (about 20 × 30 m). A three-quarter round and a half-round solid tower were added about the middle of the eighth century outside the dwelling’s northwest corner. The latter is divided into an ‘L-shaped’ access located to the south, a central courtyard without a portico but fringed by rooms, with a ‘five room unit’ attested to the northwest. The presence of a second floor, no longer preserved, is evidenced by stairs located to the north and in the courtyard.

The settlement model of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī is a composite because several topographical and urban features are present in the site. The presence of a foundation inscription in the Large Enclosure, found on a stone in a pier of the mosque, which expressly mentions that Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik ‘ordered the construction of this madīna […] in the year one hundred and ten [AH] (728-9 AD)’256 has led scholars to offer different interpretations of the building. Oleg Grabar, considering the presence of the term ‘madīna’, defines the Large Enclosure as a ‘quasi-urban’ settlement and defines the Sector VI house as a Dār al-Imāra.257 Alastair Northedge also interprets the Large Enclosure as a madīna, i.e. as a ‘quasi-urban’ settlement, but sees the Sector VI house not as a palatial residence, but as a larger house of the same type found at Iṣṭabulāt at Samarra.258 Denis Genequand,

Several panels and fragments of sculpted or moulded stucco decoration have been found in different parts of the building and can be grouped in three. The first group, found in the southern part of the vestibule and near the main entrance of the building, has a relatively simple decoration of lozenges and columns. The second group, originating in the collapse of the facade of the upper

Genquand 2011b; Genequand 2012, 130-137. Schlumberger 1986, 5-6. 255  Genequand 2012, 142-149. 256  Grabar et al. 1978, I, 191. 257  Grabar et al. 1978, I, 32 and 79. 258  Northedge 1994, 235-236; Northedge 2000, 65; Northedge 2017, 159. 253  254 

Grabar et al. 1978, I, 90-97; Genequand 2012, 106. Genequand 2012, 106-137. 251  Idem, 107. 252  Idem, 137. 249  250 

34

Dwellings in madāʾin following Northedge’s theory, suggests that the term madīna is applicable to the whole settlement of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr alSharqī.259 Of these, Northedge’s interpretation seems to be the most plausible: the Large Enclosure reveals an internal arrangement of the structures similar to ʿAnjar or the citadel of ʿAmmān (a large central courtyard, a mosque, courtyard houses, open yards and service units), but arranged according to the Umayyad quṣūr model.260 The palace (or the main residence), unlike the other Umayyad madāʾin, is located outside the perimeter of the madīna and has, like the Large Enclosure, the typical quṣūr shape,261 even if the palace is a ‘quasi-urban’ building (fig. 23). However, the latest research on the site carried out by the Syrian-Swiss archaeological mission has shown that Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī is an extensive settlement covering an area of 10 km2. How can we therefore interpret it? The madīna derives, from the architectural point of view, from the Roman-Byzantine architectural typology,262 but the settlement as a whole originates in the typical settlement pattern of pre-Islamic central-northern Arabia, thus following a ‘quasi-tribal’ model.263 In addition, the settlement location was interpreted by Alastair Northedge as a consequence of the personal nature of the relationship between leader and followers, being the responsibility of the amīr or qāʾid to provide accommodation and to choose the location of the settlement.264

As mentioned above, the function of Units III, VI, VII, IX, X and XII is most probably residential. However, Oleg Grabar, based on the connection to the mosque, the absence of latrines, the above-mentioned exceptions relating to the units’ components and the absence of a strictly ‘public’ building, interprets Units VI and VII as ‘official units’. The scholar also believes that Unit VI should be interpreted as a Dār al-Imāra.268 Alastair Northedge, however, believes that the Unit VI can be interpreted as a larger house of the same type found at Iṣṭabulāt at Samarra. A housing function has also been proposed by Denis Genequand.269 In conclusion, the living units of the Large Enclosure or madīna of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī reveal all the characteristics of the elite dwellings of the Umayyad aristocracy, such as the central courtyard with portico, the presence of ‘five room units’ and a rich decoration. 2.2.4.2. The palace’s dwellings The Small Enclosure is composed, as seen above, of a central courtyard with portico and surrounding rooms, a vestibule connected to two rooms and two long rooms that can be interpreted as stables. The building had an upper floor, which is not preserved, but which has to have had a similar layout to the ground floor and was equipped with a marble colonnade.270 The rooms of the building are grouped into apartments or buyūt composed according to the scheme of the ‘five room unit’, four of which are connected to latrines;271 there are six ‘five room units’ in all, two of which, the buyūt 31-33 and 34-36 are composed of three rooms respectively and are connected to the stables.272 The residential function is certain only for the four eastern buyūt, connected with the latrines.

2.2.4.1. The madīna’s dwellings Inside the Large Enclosure are some apartments or buyūt in units I, III, VI, VII, IX, X and XII, which can be interpreted as living units; the latter are connected to the central courtyard of the Large Enclosure, but not to the road axes. The living unit consist of an ‘L-shaped’ entrance through a long rectangular room (except for dwellings VI and VII, which are directly linked to the courtyard); a central square courtyard with a portico on which there are six quadrangular rooms (three on either side) and a rectangular room, except for units VI and VII; a bayt composed of a ‘five room unit’265 connected to latrines (the latter arranged around a central courtyard, lacking in Unit VI) and one or more service rooms.

The classification of the buyūt of the ‘quasi-urban’ building of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī reveals that the latter, with the exception of the buyūt 31-33 and 34-36, occupy an area between 170 and 245 m2.273 Moreover, the area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt ranges from 60 to 85 m2.274 The building is commonly interpreted as the main palace or residence of the madīna, located outside it and arranged according to the qaṣr’s layout.275 Moreover, considering that the patron of the madīna is the caliph Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, as reported in the foundation inscription, it is not entirely unlikely that the Small Enclosure is the palace

Classification of the dwellings shows that the ‘five room unit’ occupy an area between 160-165 m2 and 215-220 m2.266 The area occupied by the central rooms ranges from 70 to 85 m2.267 Genequand 2008, 272-273; Genequand 2012, 157-159. Northedge 1994, 235. 261  Northedge 2000, 65; Northedge 2017, 159. 262  Hillenbrand 1999. 263  Northedge 2017, 163. See also here, Chap. 1.1. 264  Northedge 1994, 223-224. 265  The bayt of Unit III consists of four rooms, with one central room. 266  The dimensions of the Large Enclosure’s ‘five room units’ are as follows: Unit III: 160-165 m2; Unit VI: 170-175 m2; Unit I: 190-195 m2; Unit X, XII: 200-205 m2; Unit VII: 215-220 m2. 267  The dimensions of the central rooms of the Large Enclosure’s ‘five room units’ are as follows: Unit III, IX, X: 70-75 m2; Unit I, VI, XII: 7580 m2; Unit VII: 80-85 m2. 259 

Grabar et al. 1978, I, 71-72 and 79. Genequand 2012, 105. 270  Grabar et al. 1978, I, 18 and 28. 271  Idem, 17. 272  See here Appendix 3.2. 273  The dimensions of the palace’s ‘five room units’ are as follows: bayt 26-30: 170-175 m2; buyūt 1-5, 16-20: 180-185 m2; bayt 11-15: 190-195 m2; bayt 21-25: 205-210 m2; bayt 6-10: 240-245 m2. 274  The dimensions of the central rooms of the palace’s ‘five room units’ are as follows: bayt 21-25: 60-65 m2; buyūt 1-5, 26-30: 70-75 m2; buyūt 11-15, 16-20: 75-80 m2; buyūt 6-10: 80-85 m2. 275  See above.

260 

268  269 

35

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria of Hishām:276 the building can be interpreted, therefore, as a caliphal Umayyad palace arranged according to the scheme of the ‘five room unit’.

both enclosures were designed directly by caliphal will, thus demonstrating a similar planning as regards their occupied surfaces. The architect or the patron wanted to build the caliphal palace, residence of the caliph Hishām, according to the model of the ‘five room unit’: this means that this residential model was perceived by the patron and his architects as an aristocratic model of reference. In fact, that this type of architecture was also used for the construction of the apartments located inside the living units of the Large Enclosure or madīna reinforces this hypothesis.

2.2.4.3. The Northern Settlement’s dwellings The Northern Settlement is composed of several isolated living units located to the east and west of a road axis, four of which have been excavated and others identified through geophysical prospecting. The living units consist of a central courtyard around which the rooms are arranged.277 Inside Dwelling E, the only building that can be interpreted as an elite residence, it was possible to identify a bayt organized according to the scheme of the ‘five room unit’.

Another interesting element is the presence of a ‘five room unit’ inside Dwelling E of the Northern Settlement, the only bayt of its kind among the buildings of the Northern Settlement. In fact, the other living units excavated in this part of the site have revealed the presence of dwellings arranged around central courtyards, but not the presence of ‘five room units’. The classification of Dwelling E among the type of aristocratic residences proposed by Genequand would confirm what was previously suggested: the patrons and their architects conceived the ‘five room unit’ as an architectural model of the apartments or buyūt to be allocated to the Umayyad elite.

The classification of the bayt of Dwelling E reveals that the latter occupies an area of between 140 and 145 m2, and that the area occupied by the central room is between 50 and 55 m2. Within the Northern Settlement group of living units, only Dwelling E can be ascribed to aristocratic residence, both for its rich decoration and for its architectural layout.278 In general, the settlement model of the Northern Settlement reflects the typical pattern of pre-Islamic Central-Northern Arabia, both as regards the layout and the internal arrangement of the rooms.279

Another element seen in the plan of the ‘five room units’ is their axial alignment with respect to the entrances or vestibules found in the buyūt of Units VI and VII of the Large Enclosure and in the eastern buyūt of the Small Enclosure.

2.2.4.4. The ‘five room units’

2.2.5. Conclusions

The apartments or buyūt of the different buildings of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī have revealed the presence of ‘five room units’ inside the Large and Small Enclosures and Dwelling E of the Northern Settlement.

The settlement of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī belongs to the category of newly founded cities with a ‘quasi-urban’ or madāʾin character, both for the architectural and topographical conformation and for the inscription. In fact, the site is an Umayyad madīna commissioned by the caliph Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik in 728-9.

The comparison between the areas occupied by the buyūt reveals that the bayt of Dwelling E occupies a smaller size than the other apartments. The other thirteen apartments (seven in the Large Enclosure and six in the Small), on the other hand, reveal similar dimensions and it is therefore impossible to define a typology based on the areas occupied by the ‘five room units’. Exceptions to the size of the buyūt can be found in the Large Enclosure’s Unit III apartment and in the buyūt 31-33 and 34-36 of the Small Enclosure. The first is composed, in fact, of four rooms since the northwestern room is directly connected with the large central courtyard and not with the rest of the Unit; the buyūt 31-33 and 34-36 are instead composed of a central room and two lateral rooms of which, respectively, the closest to the large central courtyard is in communication with the stables, but not with the latter.

The madīna mentioned in the inscription is to be identified with the Large Enclosure and the Small Enclosure with the caliphal palace of Hishām; this stands as an exception with respect to the other contexts of the Umayyad madāʾin because the palace would be outside the perimeter of the madīna and shows the typical form of the Umayyad quṣūr. The settlement character of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī is also exceptional compared to the other Umayyad madāʾin and this can be interpreted as the effect of the direct and dependent relationship between the patron and his followers. The most recent research on the site has identified a northern settlement area and two ‘buildings’ located in the southern part of the site. The Northern Settlement is composed of a series of scattered living units and at least one aristocratic residence and seems to belong to the settlement typology of pre-Islamic Central-Northern Arabia, although the architectural model belongs to the Roman-Byzantine tradition. The southern ‘buildings’ can be interpreted,

In any case, the data deduced from the research carried out on the site allow us to affirm that the apartments of See Genequand 2012, 97. See above. 278  Genquand 2011b; Genequand 2012, 130-137. 279  See also Northedge 2008. 276  277 

36

Dwellings in madāʾin 2.3.1. A brief history of research

instead, as service buildings: the northernmost of the two buildings can be interpreted as a place of storage and the second as a ‘stable’.

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries several Western travellers visited ʿAmmān,283 but it was C. R. Conder who was the first to notice the presence of the northern complex of the palace area,284 and who also described the Umayyad mosque in the lower part of the city.285 The first archaeological excavations in the citadel of ʿAmmān were undertaken from 1927 to 1938 by an Italian archaeological mission led by R. Bartoccini,286 and from 1950 onwards several research teams worked on the site.287

The analysis of the living units of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī revealed the presence of several apartments or buyūt arranged according to the plan of the ‘five room unit’. These have been identified within the living units of the madīna, the palace and the Dwelling E of the Northern Settlement. Inside the madīna the living units consist of an ‘L-shaped’ entrance hall, a courtyard with a portico around which other rooms are arranged and a bayt with ‘five room unit’. The caliphal palace or Small Enclosure is composed of a vestibule connected to two rooms, two other rectangular rooms interpreted as stables, a large central courtyard around which six buyūt are organized according to the model of the ‘five room unit’. In addition, some of the ‘five room units’ were richly decorated with stucco. As for the size of the apartments, it has been noted that those of the madīna and the palace are of similar dimensions, whereas the ‘five room unit’ of Dwelling E of the Northern Settlement is smaller.

2.3.2. Historical context Al-Balādhurī (ninth century) tells us that ʿAmmān was conquered by Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān Sufyān between 634 and 635 and that the conquest was easy (fatḥ yasīr).288 AlYaʿqūbī describes ʿAmmān as the capital of the district of al-Balqāʾ,289 and al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) claims that it was the capital of the sub-governorate of Damascus,290 but the The first to visit the site was U. von Seetzen in 1806, who published his travel report in 1854 (Seetzen 1854). J. L. Burckhardt visited ʿAmmān in 1812 and published the report in 1822; he was the first to analyse the monuments of the citadel, with the exception of the northern part (Burckhardt 1822). J. L. Buckingham was at ʿAmmān in 1821 and was the first to describe the reception hall of the Umayyad palace (Buckingham 1821). F. De Saulcy carried out a survey and made a plan of the site (De Saulcy 1865). In 1905, R. E. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewki published the reports of their surveys of 1897 and 1898 (Brünnow–Domaszewski 1905, 216) and in 1909 H. Crosby Butler, F. A. Norris and E. R. Stoever published their reports for Princeton University (Butler 1909, 6-8). 284  Conder 1881. 285  Idem, 57-59. The Umayyad congregational mosque was destroyed during the last century. 286  For a report on Italian activities see Anastasio – Botarelli 2015. 287  In 1950 G. L. Harding excavated the area of the current museum (Harding 1951a, 7-16 and Harding 1951b, 30-33). Between 1964 and 1967 A. Hadidi excavated the Roman forum in the lower part of the city and restored the theatre (Hadidi 1974, 71-91). In 1969 R. Dornemann excavated the Temple of Hercules, part of the northern fortifications of the Iron Age and a Roman domus in the lower terrace (Dornemann 1983). From 1975 to 1977 F. Zayadine excavated the Byzantine church (Zayadine 1977, 20-56) and from 1975 to 1978 a British archaeological team, led by C.-M. Bennett and with the collaboration of A. Northedge, opened three trenches on the upper terrace (areas B, C and D; Bennett 1975, 131-142; Bennett–Northedge 1978, 1-9 and 172-179; Bennett 1979, 151-176; Northedge 1980, 172-176). In 1974, Spanish architects carried out a photogrammetric survey campaign in the reception hall and excavations from 1978 to 1981 (Almagro 1983). From 1991 to 2001 another Spanish team carried out excavations, consolidations and structural reconstructions of Umayyad buildings (Almagro et al. 2000; Almagro – Arce 1996, 467-472). In 1998 a team from the Department of Antiquities and the French Biblical and Archaeological School of Jerusalem undertook surveys and excavations in the lower terrace (Zayadine et al. 1989). In 1991 an ACOR team completed excavations at the Hercules Temple and carried out the anastylosis of the pronaos (Koutsoukou et al. 1997, 8-16). Finally, between 1995 and 1996, architect A. Ostraz restored the Ayyubid tower located in the southern part of the upper terrace (Ostraz 1997, 395-402). 288  Al-Balādhurī 1968, 129; see also Northedge 1992, 47-48. 289  Yaʿqūbī 1861, 113; see also Le Strange 1890, 391. 290  Al-Ṭabarī 1879, II, 1975: this information is provided in the context of the arrest near Ḥumayma of the imam Ibraḥīm ibn Muḥammad, a member of the Abbasid family, by Marwān II (744-750). See also Northedge 1992, 48. By the time of al-Muqaddasī (d. 991) the administrative function was already forgotten, since the geographer refers to a ‘Goliath fortress’ on the hill and located there the tomb of Uriah on which a mosque had been built (al-Muqaddasī 1906, 175; the information is also mentioned by alYāqūt, 1866, III, 760. See also Le Strange 1890, 392). 283 

The overall analysis of the settlement model of Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī leads us to consider how the patron, who in this case was the same caliph Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, and/or the architects planned the aristocratic buildings such as the caliphate palace, the madīna’s living units and Dwelling E according to models belonging to the Roman-Byzantine tradition, but adapted to architectural concepts typical of the Arabian; in addition, the patron and/or the architects made a precise choice in choosing the ‘five room unit’ as the architectural and residential model identifying the elite: this model is clearly employed exclusively in the apartments or buyūt related to the Umayyad aristocracy. 2.3. ʿAmmān The citadel of ʿAmmān (Jaba al-Qalʿa; fig. 26-27)280 is a two-tiered limestone hill overlooking the modern lower city,281 bounded (fig. 26) to the east by Wādī Shāriʿ alSalṭ and to the west by Wādī al-Ḥaddāda. The main water source is Rās al-ʿAyn, located 1 km from the site.282

According to al-Muqaddasī (d. 991; al-Muqaddasī 1906 apud Le Strange 1890, 393), ʿAmmān is located one day’s walk from the River Jordan, bayt al-Ram, Maʿab and al-Zariqa and two days’ walk from Jerusalem (Le Strange 1890, 393). Finally, Abū-l Fidāʿ (d. 1331) points out that at that time ʿAmmān was located along the pilgrims’ way from Damascus to Mecca (Abū-l Fidāʿ 1840, 247; see also Le Strange 1890, 393). 281  The area occupied by the citadel is 89.980 m2; the dimensions of the terraces are: upper 330 × 150 m, middle 330 × 100 m and lower 350 × 80 m. The citadel has an elevation variation between 824 and 848 m above sea level (Northedge 1992, 19). 282  The spring has a water flow rate of 3.8 million m3 per year (Idem, 19-21). The citadel is bounded by Jabal al-Ḥusayn, Jabal Ashrafiyya, Jabat al-Jawfa. Jabal al-Qalʿa is linked to Jabal al-Ḥusayn through a pass (Northedge 1992, 19). 280 

37

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 24. Topography of the territory of ʿAmmān (in red the site; © G. Labisi, 2018)

names of only three Umayyad governors of al-Balqāʿ are known.291 ʿAmmān was the centre of the rich governorate of al-Balqāʾ,292 the region chosen by the Umayyad family and the Arab aristocracy as their place of residence.293 The city was administratively owned by the jund al-Dimashq,

which is also evidenced by the numismatic data.294 The urban economy was rich and the city exported wheat, lambs and honey.295 Abū-l Fidāʿ describes the city again in 1321 as being in the centre of very fertile lands.296

The Umayyad governors were Abān ibn Marwān (unknown date of government), brother of the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (686-705) and also known as governor of al-Filasṭīn; Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī (685-705), brother of Yūsuf ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī – the famous governor of Iraq under the caliph Hishām (724-744) – governor during the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik; Ḥārith ibn ʿAmr al-Ṭāʾi (717-720), under the caliphate of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (717-720), was later governor of Armenia. For a complete list of governors see Northedge 1992, pl. 3 at p. 168. 292  At the end of the Umayyad period the local garrison, the jund alBalqāʾ, probably included the cavalry sent to Ḥumayma at 750 and, at the same time, it is mentioned a local treasure. Al-Ṭabarī (1879-1901, II, 1776) refers, in fact, that in 744 general Sulaymān ibn Hishām (732-747) was imprisoned at ʿAmmān – probably in qalʿa – by the caliph al-Walīd II (743-744) and that when the third fitna (744-747) exploded, he escaped with ʿAmmān’s amwāl (Northedge 1984, 44). 293  Several Umayyad caliphs had residences in the governorate of alBalqāʾ, such as Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (720-724) who lived in alMuwaqqar, Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (715-717) who lived in a mashāris al-Balqāʾ before being appointed caliph or al-Walīd ibn Yazīd (743-744) who lived, before being appointed caliph, in al-Aghdaf, alZīzāʾ, al-Azraq and Quṣayr ʿAmra (Northedge 1992, 50-52). Other important figures lived in the governorate during the Umayyad period who were not members of this family, but had residences in al-Balqāʿ: Yūsuf ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī (governor of Iraq and the eastern regions from 738 to 744) and the poet Khālid ibn ʿAbbād (Ibid.). The Abbasid family also lived in the region before the revolution of 750 (Yaʿqūbī 1861, 326; Northedge 1992, 50-52; al-Salah – al-Azzawi 1997; Carfì 2014, 61-65).

The Umayyad citadel of ʿAmmān (fig. 25-26) is divided into the governor’s palace complex (a),297 baths (b),298 a great courtyard-market (c),299 mosque (d)300 and extrapalatial living units (e).301 The site is crossed by roads

2.3.3. Site description

291 

Bates 1989, 218-219. However, according to the author, the coins struck at ʿAmmān would demonstrate an administrative separation from the jund, otherwise unknown (Idem, 227-228). 295  See here the al-Muqaddasī’s description: ‘Ammān, lying on the border of the desert, has round it many villages and cornfields. The Balkā district, of which it is the capital, is rich in grain and forks; it also has many streams, the waters of which work the mills. In the city near the marketplace stands a fine mosque, the court of which is ornamented with mosaic. We have heard said that it resembles that of Makkah […] Living here is cheap, and fruit is plentiful […] the city is even as a harbour of the desert, and a place of refuge for the Badawin Arabs’ (al-Muqaddasī 1906, 175, transl. Le Strange 1890, 391-392); always al-Muqaddasī refers that among the metallurgical products iron was extracted (al-Muqaddasī 1906, 180; see also Le Strange 1890, 18-20). 296  Abū-l Fidāʾ 1840, 247; see also Le Strange 1890, 393. 297  Northedge 1992, 74-104; Almagro et al. 2000, 105-168. 298  Almagro et al. 2000, 79-89. 299  Idem, 27-38. 300  Idem, 39-59. 301  Arce 2008; Northedge 2012. 294 

38

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 25. Satellite image of the citadel of ʿAmmān (reworked after DigitalGlobe ©2019 Google)

Figure 26. The Umayyad phases of the citadel of ʿAmmān (724-744; reworked after Northedge 1992, fig. 28; Almagro et al. 2000, fig. 2; Arce 2008, fig. 4)

39

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria converging towards the courtyard-market. The city’s water supply was guaranteed by the large reservoir to the southeast of the palace complex,302 from which the city’s water channels were distributed.303

has already suggested.312 This thesis is supported by a drawing made by Schulz in 1904313 and two photos, respectively taken by Brünnow in 1894314 and Kondakov in 1904,315 where no traces of a roofing system are visible. Furthermore, the excavations carried out by Bartoccini in the 1930s did not record any architectural elements belonging to a dome or even squinches or pendentives.316 A possible comparison could be made with the cruciform room of Bīshāpūr, which modern scholars consider was originally open.317 Otherwise Almagro envisages a stone dome318 in the Sasanian tradition,319 that is a dome on squinches, like those in the cross arms.320 Nevertheless, a cursory comparison with the Syrian architecture from the Roman321 to the Umayyad period322 and with the

Taking into account the numismatic finds in the excavations, Northedge suggests a dating of the Umayyad citadel to between 724 and 744; a ‘pre-citadel’ Umayyad phase is documented in the excavations of the Byzantine church and in some extra-palatial living units.304 With regard to the foundation of the citadel’s structures, he claims that they were built by an Umayyad prince deputy governor during the caliphate of Hishām (724-724), because ‘any other person would not have had access to the resources necessary for the construction’.305

The stone carved decoration of the inner façades may suggest that these decorative elements were planned for an open space (Northedge 1992, 81); and that ‘[the] facades at ‘Ammān fit well into the known sequence of early external īwān facades’ (Northedge 1992, 81-82). 313  Schulz – Strzygowski 1904 (illustration between p. 352, and p. 353). 314  This photograph is reproduced by Northedge (Northedge 1992, pl. 16). 315  Kondakov 1904, fig. XXIX. 316  See Anastasio – Botarelli 2015, 109-122, 141-162. 317  See Keall 1989, 287-289. 318  Almagro 1983, 86-87. According to Almagro the square is converted into a circular plan by a drum with four angular squinches (Almagro 1983, 96), as suggested by his interpretation of two thresholds found on the top of the eastern inner façade as dome windows (Almagro at al. 2000, 72). Instead, we believe that the window thresholds were architectural elements reused after the earthquake of 747-8 (I take here the opportunity to thank Prof. Northedge for his invaluable opinion) or that they belonged to the windows of the post-Umayyad covering system (Northedge 1992, 88). 319  Almagro 1983, 96. 320  Although Creswell had already recognized that these squinches are not structural elements (Creswell 19792, II, 113-114), Almagro did not mention this in his thesis (cf. Almagro 1983, 86-87; Almagro et al. 2000, 72-73). Most recently Ignacio Arce suggests that ‘The failure and collapse of the main dome of the Amman Citadel Vestibule, was due to the inadequate translation into stone of the shape of a squinch to support it: instead of being built with gypsum mortar and stones or bricks, following the original Sasanian building system, this shape was literally sculpted onto several courses of horizontally projecting ashlars. By doing this, the base of the dome was deprived of the much needed perimetral constrain to counteract the tensional thrust which exists at the base of a dome. This lack of a perimetral tying was the reason of its collapse. The two lateral semi-domes, built with the same system (see fig.6g), did not collapse thanks to the perimetral support offered by the surrounding walls of the building which counteract those thrusts’ (Arce 2016, note 16). For a recent examination of the squinches related to the semi-domes and, specifically, those in the reception hall of ʿAmmān, see Labisi 2019, 6-7. 321  The most representative monuments of the Roman period are: Qaṣr al-Nūwayjīs (a small mausoleum near ʿAmmān; Creswell 19792, I, 460461, fig. 504) and two rooms of the western baths of Jerash (Kraeling 1938, 23, pls. VI.b, XXVII). 322  The Umayyad monuments of the region exhibit the same covering system used in the Roman period. They are the vestibule of Khirbat alMinya (Schneider 1952, 31-33), the calidaria of Quṣayr ʿAmra (Creswell 19792, I, 393-394, fig. 452) and Ḥammām al-Ṣarakh (Creswell 19792, I, 501), and the dīwān of the Bath Hall at Khirbat al-Mafjar (Hamilton 1959, 64-66, figs. 25-26). A particular exception could be found at Qaṣr al-Kharāna (Urice 1987). The vestibule of Khirbat al-Minya is a square room (with two niches at north and south) with a dome on pendentives and no windows. The cupola of the calidarium at Quṣayr ʿAmra is supported by pendentives, with a painted circular cornice and a window for each side. The calidarium of Ḥammām al-Ṣarakh is covered by a dome, slightly less than a hemisphere, resting on spherical-triangle pendentives of four courses of stone. The dīwān of the Bath Hall at Khirbat al-Mafjar was covered by a drum with four decorated pendentives (all made of local limestone) supporting a dome of backed bricks. Also the eastern gateway of the thermae was covered by a dome on pendentives. Instead, the roofing system of the upper rooms of Qaṣr al-Kharāna could be 312 

2.3.3.1. The governor’s residence The governor’s residence (fig. 27) is divided into reception room (fig. 28),306 living units distributed symmetrically between the two Roman temenoi307 and the northern area composed of a large īwān (fig. 36) and a cruciform room and other living units.308 The reception hall has an almost square outer perimeter (24.4 × 26.1 m) and two entrances to the north and south.309 It was the principal gate of the palace, and also the most important structure of the complex considering both its rich decoration and function.310 As far as the typology of the internal plan is concerned, the reception hall reproduces the Mesopotamian-Iranian plan of the four īwān on a central courtyard.311 The inner square area of the building was probably open during the Umayyad period, as Northedge

The reservoir has a diameter of about 17.5 m, a depth between 6.5 m and 8 m and a water capacity of about 1020 m3 (Almagro et al. 2000, 8994; Anastasio – Botarelli 2015, 97). 303  Almagro et al. 2000, 163-168. 304  Northedge 1992, 155-156. 305  Northedge 2000, 37. 306  Almagro 1983, 60-107; Northedge 1992, 75-82; Almagro et al. 2000, 67-78. 307  Almagro 1983, 115-153; Northedge 1992, 82-84; Almagro et al. 2000, 105-150. 308  Almagro 1983, 153-179; Northedge 1992, 85-87; Almagro et al. 2000, 151-162. Inside the first temenos were built a courtyard, a colonnade street and nine living units and, inside the second temenos, four living units, two courtyards (one opening towards the large īwān – fig. 38 – and the other to the north of the cruciform room), a large īwān flanked by two side rooms, a cruciform room and five rooms located laterally to the latter (Almagro 1983, 153-164; Northedge 1992, 84-85; Almagro et al. 2000, 151-157). For the function of the Northern area see below. 309  The inner plane is cruciform and the arms of the cross measure 6.2 × 5.4 m; in the semi-domes located in the arms of the cross there are ‘counterfeited’ angular squinches. In the corners of the structure there are three rooms and a staircase. The internal stone decoration is well preserved, but not the exterior (Almagro 1983, 64-76; Northedge 1992, 77-79 and 89-93). The three internal decorative bands reveal a relief carved decoration with niches and frames distributed in horizontal bands (Northedge 1992, 89). 310  The internal stone decoration is well preserved, but not the exterior (Almagro 1983, 64-76; Northedge 1992, 77-79 and 89-93). The three internal decorative bands have relief-carved decoration with niches and frames distributed in horizontal bands (Northedge 1992, 89). See also Northedge 1992, 99-100. 311  Northedge 1992, 81-82. 302 

40

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 27. Plan of ʿAmmān governor’s residence (724-744; reworked after Northedge 1992, fig. 36; Almagro et al. 2000, fig. 40, detail; Anastasio – Botarelli 2015, fig. 226)

Sasanian architectural tradition323 shows, firstly, that the possibility of a dome on squinches, as in the Iranian tradition, is less likely at ʿAmmān; secondly, that the only recorded covering system of square buildings in Roman and Umayyad Syria is the dome on pendentives; thirdly,

considered a unicum in the Umayyad architecture: both Creswell and Urice affirm that the Kharāna squinches have a structural function; in any case, at Kharāna only the squinches of room 59 could have a structural function as ‘receding back to the intersection of the two walls’ (Jones–Michell–Martin 1972, 12), but their structural function could not be confirmed for certain. The squinches of room 51 are clearly different if compared to the previous ones: they form an arch that apparently transfers loads to the intersecting walls but, as it is possible to see in the north-eastern squinch, the void replaces the keystone. A structural arch surely would not have displayed it (I wish to thank Prof. Alessandro Jaia – Sapienza University of Rome – for discussing this problem with me; see also Labisi 2019, 5-6). The origin of squinches related to semidomes can be dated to the transitional period between the late Sasanian and the early Islamic era and was a characteristic of Iranian architects and masons. The use of this squinches can be interpreted as the result of a structural need and/or an aesthetic feature (Labisi 2019, 11-12).

The Sasanian architectural tradition shows a covering system consisting of an ovoid dome placed on a drum with four angular squinches: see the examples of covering system at Qalʿa-yi Dukhtar (Huff 1971, figs. 5-6; Huff 1993, 50-51), Fīrūzābād (Creswell 19792, II, 102, figs. 83-84) and Qaṣr-i Shīrīn (Reuther 1938, 553, figs. 154, 158); the same covering system is recognizable in the palace of Sarvistān, dated by Lionel Bier to the ninth century (Bier 1986, 48-53; Bier 2002). 323 

41

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 28. Reception hall of the governor’s residence of ʿAmmān (724-744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

2.3.3.3. The courtyard-market

that these Syrian examples of domes on pendentives have architectural details that disprove the Almagro theory. On the basis of the observations made on the site is also possible to propose here a first 3D reconstruction of the building during the Umayyad period (fig. 29).324

The main courtyard (figs. 31-32) is the urban centre of the Umayyad citadel;328 indeed, all the most significant buildings of the citadel are accessible through this courtyard, such as the governor’s residence, the baths and the mosque; the main courtyard was also the citadel’s market since various shops open on the latter.329

2.3.3.2. The bath complex The bath complex of the citadel of ʿAmmān (fig. 27) was excavated in the 1990s and is located to the west of the reception hall.325 It is composed of an apodyterium, which has stone seats and most likely had a function as an audience room (fig. 30),326 and a ‘cold room’; both calidaria and hypocaust have been reconstructed since the excavations.327

2.3.3.4. The mosque The mosque of the citadel of ʿAmmān (figs. 26; 31-32) is located south of the main courtyard,330 and shows a square plan.331 The miḥrāb is semi-circular and, to the west of it, The large courtyard connects the buildings and roads of the southern part of the upper terrace with those of the northern part, along a northsouth axis (Almagro et al. 2000, 27; Arce 2016a, 123-125). 329  The large courtyard has a trapezoidal plan (the northern side measures 34.1 m, the southern side 39.1 m, the eastern side 53.9 m and the western side 37.8 m; Almagro et al. 2000, 27) and on the eastern and western sides there are eleven rooms for each side. These rooms have an almost square plan, and each has a portico in front of each entrance (the rooms measure 3.56 × 3 m). On the southern side is a monumental staircase leading to the mosque (the length of the staircase is 33.2 m; Idem, 31-32). 330  The building was destroyed over the centuries (Almagro et al. 2000, 39; Arce 2016a, 125-140) and in the 1970s the Jordanian army occupied the citadel and destroyed part of the structures (for the layout of military establishments in the citadel see Northedge 1992, fig. 28). 331  Almagro et al. 2000, 39; the mosque is oriented N-S towards Mecca, offset from other structures. 328 

The topic is under elaboration and it will be presented in the form of an article, in which the data collected at Amman (2012) will be developed; reconstruction theories on the different parts of the site will also be proposed. 325  The bath complex shows the typical layout of the Umayyad baths (Almagro et al. 2000, 79-89 and fig. 22; Arce 2015) and it has an access with two entrances. 326  To the south of the latter is a similar room, but of reduced dimensions 327  Almagro et al. 2000, 79-89, fig. 22 and pl. 37-42. To the south of the baths there is a service room, a latrine and a shop from the market of the big courtyard (Idem, 80). 324 

42

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 29. Proposed reconstruction of the reception hall of the governor’s palace of ʿAmmān in the Umayyad phase (© G. Labisi, 2015)

Figure 30. The apodyterium of the baths of the citadel of ʿAmmān (724-744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

43

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria some of which have been partially excavated (fig. 35).335 All have a vestibule336 and a central courtyard, with the exception of Dwellings K and K’, which are adjacent; Dwelling C is composed of two living units, I and II.337 2.3.4. The ʿAmmān settlement model The Umayyad settlement of the citadel of ʿAmmān belongs to the typology of the new city foundations or madāʾin of the first Islamic period. The settlement is in fact composed, like the other Umayyad madāʾin, of a fortification (with square towers), palace, mosque, streets, shops, bath, and a group of houses. The fortifications of ʿAmmān are irregular because of its location on the citadel hill.338 2.3.4.1. The palace The citadel palace has been interpreted by several scholars as a Dār al-Imāra339 or as the public palace where the governor gave his audience. However, in the early Islamic period, the location of the Dār al-Imāra was behind the qiblī wall of the congregational mosque,340 which is located at ʿAmmān in the lower part of the city. For this reason, the citadel palace can be interpreted as the residence of the governor of al-Balqaʾ and the jund alBalqaʾ: the palace was built, in fact, in a later period than the mosque and it was probably the location of the public audience341 or majlis al-ʿāmm (‘unrestricted audience’) which took place in the southern building of the complex. As described here in paragraph 3.1, the northern part of the palace is composed of a monumental īwān (fig. 36), a cruciform hall, and several rooms around the latter: this part of the palace, whose architectural model lies in Sasanian buildings,342 can be interpreted as the majlis alkhāṣṣ or ‘private audience chamber’.343

Figure 31. The courtyard-market and mosque of the citadel of ʿAmmān (724-744; reworked after Almagro et al. 2000, fig. 9 and 40, detail and Arce 2008, fig. 2, 10 and 11b)

As reported in the Kitāb al-Aghāni this was intended already in the Umayyad period for the ‘people of the house of the caliph, his mawalī, his poets, and those who had a specific need’.344 Moreover, after a careful analysis, it is possible to distinguish in the dīwān al-khāṣṣ two distinct architectural models: an īwān flanked by two lateral rooms fronted by a portico and a cruciform room. The first could be included in the category of the ‘banāʿ al-Ḥīrī’ described by al-Masʿūdī,345 where it is explicitly

there is an opening that connects the mosque to the extrapalace living unit F (fig. 33). It is unlikely that the mosque was a jāmiʿ332 since, as Northedge demonstrated, the Umayyad congregational mosque was located in the lower part of the city:333 the citadel mosque should be considered an urban model of a ‘palatial mosque’,334 intended for the use of the Umayyad governor and his entourage. 2.3.3.5. The extra-palatial dwellings

See here Annex 3.3.2 (Northedge 1992, 140-144, fig. 126, 128; Arce 2008, 189-192, fig. 10a; Northedge 2012, 636-638, fig. 1-3). ‎ 336  The living units can be distinguished according to their dimensions and subdivided in the following groups: the smallest includes dwellings with an area between 10 and 50 m2 and the largest between 500 and 550 m2 (it should be noted here that there are no dwellings with an occupied area between 450 and 500 m2). 337  Northedge 1992, 146-147. 338  Northedge 2017, 159-161. 339  See Gaube 1977, Northedge 1992, 161. 340  See for example Scerrato 1972, 18. 341  Northedge 2000, 39 and Northedge 2017, 162. 342  See Fontana 2015. 343  Northedge 1992, 99. 344  Al-Iṣfahānī 1868, IV, 81 apud Grabar 1955, 56. 345  See here Chap. 1.5. 335 

The extra-palatial living units are located around the mosque (fig. 34). At least fourteen can be identified,

This hypothesis was put forward by Arce (2008, 189-191). Creswell–Allan 1989, 217-218, citing Northedge’s thesis (1984); Northedge 1992, 63-69. 334  See the palatial mosques of Khirbat al-Minya (Creswell 19792, I, 383-384), Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Idem, 522-544) and Khirbat al-Mafjar (Idem, 545-577). 332  333 

44

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 32. The courtyard-market and the mosque of the citadel of ʿAmmān (724-744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

Figure 33. The qiblī wall of the citadel mosque of ʿAmmān (724-744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

mentioned that the king’s majlis is flanked by two rooms whose functions were khizānat al-kiswa (‘dressing room’) and min al-sharāb (‘everything that is necessary to drink’) respectively, all preceded by a riwāq. As far as the cruciform room is concerned, it is likely that this was the room dedicated exclusively to the governor, a member of the Umayyad family, who, during the performance of the majlis al-khāṣṣ, sat in this room separated by a curtain, as reported in a passage of the Kitāb al-Tāj:

‘Moʿawiya, Marwan 1er, ‘Abd al-Malik, al-Walid 1er, Solaiman, Hicham et Marwan II ibn Mohammad étaient séparés de leurs familiers par un rideau de sorte qu’aucun d’eux ne pouvait voir les mouvements du Calife lorsque, transporté de la joie et de la volupté par la musique, il se renversait, marchait […]’ (al-Jāḥiẓ 1954, 59) The model of the cruciform hall also derives from Sasanian architecture, such as the palace of Ardashīr I in 45

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 34. The extra-palatial dwellings of the citadel of ʿAmmān (724-744; reworked after Northedge 1992, figs. 126, 128 and 145; Almagro et al. 2000, figs. 9 and 40, detail; Arce 2008, figs. 2, 10 and 11b)

Figure 35. The extra-palatial living units B and M of the citadel of ʿAmmān (first half of the eighth century; © G. Labisi, 2012)

46

Dwellings in madāʾin

Figure 36. The large īwān of the governor’s residence of ʿAmmān (724-744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

areas: one public or majlis al-ʿāmm corresponding to the section 1; one private or majlis al-khāṣṣ corresponding to the section 3. Finally, living units are included in the second section, and living units 10-13 are accessible from the third.

Fīrūzābād;346 the dome room of the ʿAmmān palace has a square cruciform plan which is not to be found in the palaces certainly attributable to the Sasanian period, but rather in the religious architecture of the same period’s fire temples.347 Consequently, in the present state of our knowledge of the Sasanian architecture, it is evident that the first model can be attributed with certainty to the preIslamic palatial typology described by the sources, while the second finds precise comparisons only in religious architecture. In any case, the example of ʿAmmān would therefore be one of the first archaeological examples of the Islamic concept of public and private audience.348 Furthermore, the adoption of plans from the Sasanian tradition would demonstrate the willingness of the Umayyads to adopt a political message ‘also employing a visual approach’.349

The living units of the governor’s residence (fig. 38) belong to a single model, except for living unit 14 which is related to the majlis al-khāṣṣ. The living units are composed of a rectangular courtyard with rooms arranged around it. Inside each housing unit there are buyūt arranged according to the model of the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’, considering the absence of the ‘T’ portico: we can see in fact the presence of a ‘pseudo īwān’350 and of two lateral rooms connected to the latter and to the central courtyard. An exception can be found in living unit 2 where two buyūt were found, composed of two ‘pseudo īwān’ and two rooms for each side: this architectural model is a hybrid between the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ attested in the other living units of the palace and the ‘five room unit’.

An analysis of the palace’s architectural model allows us to identify three distinct sections (fig. 37), considering the functions of the different parts of the governor’s residence. The first section is composed of the reception hall; the second is composed of courtyard 1 and living units 1-13; the third is composed of courtyard 2, the great īwān, the cruciform hall and living unit 14. The sections of the ʿAmmān Palace include therefore two ‘representational’

It is also interesting to note that the living units are completely independent from the other structures of the palace as they are connected to the it exclusively through a vestibule; in all the examples we can notice the remains of two doorways located each towards the interior but

See Callieri 2014, 48-50. Fontana 2015. 348  See also Northedge 1992, 99. 349  Fontana 2015. 346 

We define them as ‘pseudo-īwān’ because in all the examples the central rooms are not at all open on a short side, but have internal buttresses.

347 

350 

47

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 37. The sections of the ʿAmmān palace (724-744; reworked after Northedge 1992, fig. 36; Almagro et al. 2000, fig. 40, detail)

Figure 38. Southern part of the ʿAmmān palace (724-744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

48

Dwellings in madāʾin outside of the living unit. In addition, each vestibule communicates both with the central courtyard of the living unit and with a room. The latter could have the function of access for guests whose access to the apartment is prohibited, a characteristic found in the examples of the following periods.351

a residential function, it is difficult to offer any further interpretation of the function of Dwelling F, especially considering the absence of comparisons dating back to the Umayyad period: it is unlikely that the building was a ‘dār al-imām’ or ‘al-khaṭīb’355 because in the Umayyad period it was the prerogative of the caliphs and governors to give the sermon from the minbar of the congregational mosque.356

Within the courtyards of the living units 2-3, 6 and 9, arches of rubble-and-gypsum-mortar piers and a pair of piers in the entrances of īwāns have been found; moreover, rubble-and-mortar double engaged piers can be traced in the entrance of the great īwān. These pillars have a square plan and correspond typologically to the pillars found in the Sasanian and early Islamic structures of Iraq and Iran; the building technique is unusual in Jordan and in the other buildings of the citadel, where we find full pillars and columns in limestone. However, since the construction of the pillars is consistent with the plan and the use of the building it is possible to assume that their construction occurs in an immediate post-Umayyad phase that could correspond to the early Abbasid period.352

2.3.4.3. ‘Pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’ and ‘five room units’ in ʿAmmān houses and living units ‘Pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’ and ‘five room units’ are attested in the Umayyad living units of the citadel of ʿAmmān. The first are known exclusively in the palatial complex; as noted above, a ‘five room unit’ is attested in the extrapalatial Dwelling F,357 while in living unit 2 of the palace complex there is a hybrid model between the ‘five room unit’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’.358 In addition, the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ of the palatial complex can be divided into two groups according to the occupied surface area. The first group is composed of eleven ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ (Dwellings 1 and 3-11) occupying an area between 65 and 110 m2; the second group is composed of two hybrid models between the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ and the ‘five room unit’ (Dwelling 2) occupying an area between 130 and 135 m2. The same subdivision can be proposed considering, instead, the surface occupied by the central rooms of the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’: the first group is composed of Dwellings 1 and 3-11 that occupy an area between 20 and 50 m2; the second group is composed instead of the two hybrid models of Dwelling 2 that occupy an area between 60 and 65 m2. On the basis of archaeological data it is therefore possible to classify the living units of the palatial complex into the two macro groups described above, the characteristic of which depend on the presence or absence of hybrid models between the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ and the ‘five room unit’. It is also possible to note that within the first group there are always two ‘pseudo īwāns’, one of which is located in an axial position with respect to the vestibule, and another in the centre of the long side; the ‘īwāns’ of the second group are not in an axial position with respect to the vestibule, but are located in the southern side.

As regards the dimensions occupied by the living units, they occupy an area between 650 and 900 m2, with the exception of unit 14 (connected to the majlis al-khāṣṣ) which occupies an area of about 230 m2. 2.3.4.2. The extra-palatial dwellings The extra-palatial living units of the citadel of ʿAmmān are located around the citadel mosque and are connected with the main and secondary road axes. All the living units belong to a single architectural model: they are equipped with a central courtyard and a rectangular vestibule, with the exception of Dwellings 1, K, K’ and L (the latter posseses a central courtyard but not a vestibule). Five living units occupy an area between 200 and 250 m2; the number of rooms is between seven and nine. Furthermore, internal parcelling traces have been traced in Dwelling B,353 and probably in Dwellings K and K’. As far as the presence of ‘five room units’ is concerned, the latter can only be traced in Dwelling F (fig. 41) which occupies an area between 500 and 550 m2, and it has fourteen rooms. It also shows a vestibule axial to the mosque’s entrance on the qiblī wall and to the ‘five room unit’. The presence of the ‘five room unit’ and the entrance in correspondence with the qiblī wall of the mosque are architectural features typical of aristocratic buildings. In addition, in the early Islamic period several buildings are attested which are connected to the qiblī wall of the mosque that function as Dār al-Imāra.354 However, as mentioned above, the Dār al-Imāra of ʿAmmān had to be located in the lower part of the city in connection with the congregational mosque. As a result, beyond it having

Finally, the presence of these architectural elements of Sasanian origin reveals the intention to adopt a ‘Persianizing imagery’ by the patron of the palace359 even in living units, where we find the ‘counterfeited’ squinches Arce 2008. See Pedersen 1997. 357  The ‘five room unit’ of the extra-palatial Dwelling F occupies an area between 150-155 m2; the central room occupies an area between 50 and 55 m2. 358  The latter is characterized by the presence of a central ‘pseudo īwān’ flanked by two rooms for each side (the portico in front of the īwān is absent in this model), while the ‘five room unit’ is marked by a central rectangular room and two square rooms for each side (see here Chap. 1.4). 359  Northedge 1992, 100-104. 355  356 

See here Chap. 5.4. See Northedge 1992, 88. 353  Northedge 2012, 638. 354  See Milwright 2010, 54. 351  352 

49

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 39. The extra-palatial Dwelling F of the citadel of ʿAmmān: below and to the right three rooms of the ‘five room unit’ (first half of the eighth century; © G. Labisi, 2012)

used in the semi-domes of the reception halls.360 The extrapalatial living units of the citadel, on the other hand, have architectural features typical of other Umayyad contexts in the Near East, an element that would confirm a local provenance for the workers, as attested in the palace.361

living unit. Finally, the ʿAmmān Umayyad palace has been designed in accordance with ‘Persianizing imagery’ of Sasanian origin that can be found both in the decoration and in the architectural models of the three sections. The extra-palatial living units, on the other hand, belong to an architectural model consisting of a central courtyard and a rectangular vestibule, except for Dwellings 1, K, K’ and L. Furthermore, we can see the presence of a ‘five room unit’ inside Dwelling F which is connected to the citadel’s mosque by an access obtained through the qiblī wall.

2.3.5. Conclusions The madīna of the citadel of ʿAmmān belongs to the model of the Umayyad madāʾin composed of a fortification, palace, mosque, streets, shops, baths and a group of houses. The palace can be interpreted as the residence of the governor of al-Balqaʾ; it can be divided into three sections considering the different functions: a reception hall for the majlis al-ʿāmm, the living units and the northern part for the majlis al-khāṣṣ. Both audience halls belong to architectural models of Sasanian origin: the plan of the southern audience hall (dīwān al-ʿāmm) from the type of the four īwān on a central court; the plan of the northern audience hall (dīwān al-khāṣṣ) derives from the type of the dome room preceded by an īwān with rooms around the latter. The living units of the palace belong to a single architectural model consisting of a rectangular courtyard and rooms located around it. Inside each living units there are ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’, with the exception of living unit 2 where there is a hybrid architectural model between the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ and the ‘five room unit’. Moreover, the living units have been planned to be completely independent from the other structures of the palace thanks to the construction of a vestibule in each 360  361 

Idem, 101-102. Idem, 102.

50

3 Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām and ‘five room units’ to the south of the walls. The inner plan of the quṣūr is normally quadrangular and within the perimeter there are three-quarter-circle towers and semi-circular interval towers,370 in most cases solid. The entrance is through a vestibule. The rooms of the quṣūr are arranged around a central courtyard with a portico; they include the audience hall or majlis, the mosque, the apartments, service rooms and latrines, the latter being in some instances within the towers. Some quṣūr had an upper floor (surviving only at Qaṣr al-Kharāna), often evidenced by staircases located in the courtyard.

Quṣūr can be considered as the Umayyad princely residences of Bilād al-Shām. Indeed, quṣūr were indispensable for the legitimisation of Umayyad power and were necessary to establish links, contain disorder and act as an intermediary between the Arab tribes.362 Quṣūr would also have been seasonal meeting and gathering points for nomadic groups, facilitated by the presence of the Umayyad elite,363 and would therefore seem to reflect a ‘movable exercise of power’.364 As noted by Umberto Scerrato, the Umayyad quṣūr reveal several affinities with villae rusticae:365 the Umayyad princes inherited the concept of the Late Antique villa rustica as an ‘instrument of power, displaying to visitors the status and wealth of its owner’.366 Although the quṣūr plan is fundamentally similar to that of the villae rusticae, the objective that led the Umayyads to build their palaces was the form of power exercised over their clients, a relationship based mainly on the consensus of the tribal chiefs and the ‘oath of allegiance’ (in Arabic bayʿa).367 The most effective instrument for the Umayyads to obtain the consensus from tribal leaders was the construction of sumptuous buildings within paradeisoi, baths in semidesert areas and the use of a rich iconographic repertoire to enhance their power.368 The place par excellence dedicated to the acquisition of the consensus within the quṣūr was the audience hall or majlis,369 where Umayyad princes met their clients or tribal leaders.

The external architecture would seem to derive from the castra of the Roman-Byzantine limes, with the exception of the shape of the towers, which comes from Sasanian architecture.371 According to Alastair Northedge, the plans of the third and fourth century Arabian forts372 – buildings with angular and interval towers arranged around a central courtyard – could be the ‘ancestors’ of the Umayyad residences of the eighth century.373 In order to have a better understanding of the living model of the ‘five room unit’ a short description of seventeen of the twenty-eight Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām where the latter model is attested will be provided. For a detailed architectural description, we refer to the corresponding catalogue sheets. 3.1. Qaṣr al-Kharāna

With a few exceptions, the sites are generally composed of varied types of buildings. The components of some other groups are variable: in some cases, such as at Qaṣr Kharāna and Khirbat al-Minya, the palace is isolated. At Khirbat al-Mafjar extensive enclosures exist, with no indication of irrigation for cultivation. At Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī there is a rectangular garden, where traces of irrigation pipes are visible. The largest of these complexes is the residence of the caliph Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (724-743) at al-Ruṣāfa, composed of four palaces and about thirty other buildings scattered on the grounds

Qaṣr al-Kharāna (fig. 40) is located some 65 km eastsoutheast of ʿAmmān. The perimeter of the palace is quadrangular (about 35 × 35 m) and shows angular three-quarter circle towers and lateral semi-circular solid towers. The palace is divided into two levels: the first is composed of an access and central courtyard originally with a portico, two stables, three groups of ‘five room unit’, four rooms communicating with the latter and two stairs. The second level is composed of five ‘five room units’, four rooms communicating with the latter, and an audience hall or majlis.374

Cfr. Gaube 1979 and Genequand 2012, 392. Genequand 2012, 393. 364  As suggested by Antoine Borrutt (2011). 365  Scerrato 1972, 26; see also Genequand 2006, 25. 366  Ellis 2007, 20. 367  For the ritual of succession, consensus and ‘oath of allegiance’ in the Umayyad period see Marsham 2009, 82-180. 368  A possible comparison would be the quṣūr of pre-Islamic Arabia (abandoned during the fourth century) whose function, according to A. Northedge, was from ‘refuge, residence, and a public function of administrative building that was scarcely to be separated from princely residence’. The scholar also highlights the correspondence between the birth of pre-Islamic quṣūr, the Arabic language and the tribal system (Northedge 2008, 249). 369  Northedge 2000, 51-52 and Genequand 2012, 392. 362 

The qaṣr is at present one of the earliest Umayyad residences in the Near East: a graffito inscription in room 51 shows the dating to 92 A.H./ A.D. 710, an element that

363 

370 

4).

The only example with square towers is at Bālis (see here Appendix

Scerrato 1972, 26-27. Qaryat al-Fāw, Qaṣr al-Radum, Dūmat al-Jandal, the quṣūr located in the Khaybar oasis (now in Saudi Arabia) and Mleyḥa (now in the Arab Emirates). 373  Northedge 2008, 249. 374  Urice 1987, 24-35; see also Arce 2016b. 371  372 

51

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria provides the terminus ante quem for the construction of the building.375

courtyard equipped with a portico. The building was also equipped with an upper floor, which is not preserved. Furthermore, according to Schmidt, the ‘five room unit’ 6-10 can be interpreted as an audience hall because of the axial position in relation to the main building entrance.384

3.2. Khirbat al-Minya The qaṣr of Khirbat al-Minya is in the north-eastern shore of Lake Tiberias. The perimeter of the palace is quadrangular (about 70 × 70 m) and it shows three-quarter circle angular towers and semi-circular solid towers in the curtain (except for the central tower on the north side where a latrine is located). The main entrance is located to the east through a vestibule, originally covered by a dome. The palace rooms are arranged around a central courtyard with portico. The palace is composed of service rooms, the palace mosque, the audience hall, two ‘five room units’, and service rooms.376

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī is located about 60 km west of Palmyra. The site, dated by Creswell to 727,385 is composed of a rectangular enclosure of 46 ha, a qaṣr connected to the baths and another building that Schlumberger has identified as khān,386 but whose interpretation is not unequivocal.387

According to the commonly accepted hypothesis, the site would date to the reign of al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, precisely between 712 and 715.377 Markus Ritter recently proposed reinterpreting the dating of the building since the inscription does not explicitly mention al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik.378 However, considering the archaism of the plan of the palace,379 and the connection between the audience hall and the mosque,380 it remains likely that the qaṣr was built between 712 and 715.

3.5. Al-Qasṭal

3.4. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

The perimeter of qaṣr is quadrangular (about 70 × 70 m) with angular three-quarters towers and lateral semicircular solid towers. There are four ‘five room units’ and all the rooms are arranged around a central courtyard with a portico; the entrance is to the east through a vestibule. The audience hall was probably located in the upper floor.388

Al-Qasṭal is located 25 km south of ʿAmmān. The site consists of a palace and a mosque, which is located a few meters west of the palace. There is no certain date for the latter, which was dated by Heinz Gaube between 720 and 744.389

3.3. Jabal Says

The perimeter of the qaṣr is quadrangular (about 70 × 70 m) which shows angular three-quarters towers and semi-circular lateral solid towers. The qaṣr is composed of a vestibule, a central courtyard with a portico (fig. 41), and six ‘five room units’ connected to service rooms and latrines.390 It is likely that an audience room was located on the upper floor, above the entrance.391

The site of Jabal Says is located 105 km south-east of Damascus. The site consists of two groups of buildings, of which the qaṣr, the baths C, the dwellings G, L, M, P, T and 20 date from the Umayyad period.381 The ‘five room units’ were built exclusively in the qaṣr, which is articulated according to the latter architectural scheme. The qaṣr was dated by Brisch to 727;382 Creswell dates instead it to the reign of al-Walīd I, between 712 and 715.383

3.6. Al-Ruṣāfa

The perimeter of the palace is quadrangular (around 70 × 70 m) with three-quarter circle angular towers and semicircular lateral solid towers. The main access is to the north through a vestibule, communicating with adjacent rooms. The eight ‘five room units’ are arranged around a central

Al-Ruṣāfa is located in Northern Syria, about 25 km south of the Euphrates, on the edge of the Syrian desert steppe. In the fifth and sixth century the settlement was an important pilgrimage destination, due to the worship of St. Sergius; at that time a walled city complex of approximately 400 m × 600 m with important churches, public and private buildings was built. In the Umayyad period Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik took up residence in the southern environs of the city and built four palaces and about thirty other buildings built in an area of 3 km2.392

Abbott 1946; Urice 1987, 6-7, 87-88. Schneider 1952; Grabar et al. 1960; Creswell 19792, 381-389; Ritter 2016. 377  This hypothesis is based on an inscription bearing the name of alWalīd as amīr al-muʾminīn and by the presence of a concave miḥrāb: considering that the first evidence of a concave miḥrāb for 707-9 (Medina mosque) and that in the Near East the first evidence is in the Great Mosque of Damascus (705-15) the scholar dates the construction of the mosque and the palace between 712 and 715 (Creswell 19792, I, 388). 378  Therefore – according to the researcher – it should not be excluded a dating to the reign of al-Walīd ibn Yazīd (6 February 743 – 17 April 744; Ritter 2016). 379  Such as the absence of secondary courtyards and the presence of rooms around the central courtyard. 380  For a different and later example see, for example, Mshattā (Creswell 19792, I, 578-641) where the audience hall is located far from the mosque. 381  Schimdt 2012, 5-96. 382  Brisch 1963a, 147; Brisch 1963b; 1965. 383  Creswell – Allan 1989, 121. 375  376 

Qaṣr 105A shows an almost quadrangular perimeter (about Schmidt 2012, 50. Creswell 19792, I, 512-514. 386  Schlumberger 1986; Creswell – Allan 1989, 135-142. 387  Northedge 2000, 47-48. 388  Genequand 2012, 163. 389  Gaube 1977, 52-63. 390  Creswell – Allan 1989, 173-174. 391  Cf. Northedge 2000, 52. 392  Gussone – Müller-Wiener 2012; Siegel 2015. 384  385 

52

Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām and ‘five room units’

Figure 40. Qaṣr al-Kharāna, room 18 (central room of the ‘five room unit’, upper floor; Jordan, about 710; © G. Labisi, 2012)

Figure 41. Al-Qasṭal, south-western part of the courtyard: on the left the vestibule, on the right room 6 (central room of the ‘five room unit’; Jordan, first half of the eighth century; © G. Labisi, 2012)

53

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria al-Ḥīrī’ (fig. 42), and service rooms; below the last is a rectangular underground room (sirdāb) with a basin on the west side. The palace was equipped with an upper floor.

36.5 × 38 m) with one angular three-quarter-circular tower and one semi-circular solid interval tower. The qaṣr is divided into a central courtyard, one ‘five room unit’ and other rooms arranged around the courtyard.393

3.8. Bālis

Qaṣr 106 has been interpreted by Katharina Otto-Dorn as one of the two residences of the caliph Hishām.394 The perimeter of the qaṣr is quadrangular (about 70 × 70 m) and shows three-quarter-circular angle towers and semi-circular solid interval towers. The palace is composed of a vestibule, a central courtyard with portico, five ‘five room units’ around secondary courtyards, with the exception of the ‘five room unit’ 6-9, which is connected directly to the main courtyard.395

The site of Bālis is located 5 km east of Maskana, a small town between Aleppo and Raqqa. Thomas Leisten suggests three phases of construction, all within the Umayyad period: in the first phase, the central ‘pavilion’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ were built. The construction of the ‘five room units’, the enclosure and the other rooms followed in the second. Finally, the last building phase consisted of structures related to production activities.402

Qaṣr 109 has a rectangular perimeter (about 55 × 70 m) with three-quarter circle angular towers and semi-circular lateral solid towers. The qaṣr is composed of a vestibule and four groups of rooms arranged around secondary courts, each group having a ‘five room unit’.396 Qaṣr 220 was interpreted by Christoph Konrad as the ‘official’ palace of the caliph Hishām.397 The palace shows a quadrangular perimeter (about 70 × 70 m) with threequarter-circular angular towers and semi-circular solid interval towers. The qaṣr is composed of a vestibule adjacent to the external perimeter of the palace, a central courtyard most probably with a portico, secondary courtyards with ‘five room units’ and rooms located around it; furthermore, according to Konrad, the room opposite the vestibule was the audience hall of the palace or majlis.398

The qaṣr has a quadrangular plan (about 70 × 70 m) with square solid angle and interval towers, and two, U-shaped, solid towers at the entrances. There are two accesses, east and west, and the rooms are arranged around several courtyards. The western courtyard has a ‘pavilion’ before it composed of a portico with two pillars, a hybrid model between the ‘five room unit’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ alḤīrī’ composing the ‘T’ device, and service rooms. These structures would belong to the first phase. The southern side of the palace is composed of secondary courtyards, three ‘five room units’ and six service rooms. The northern side of the qaṣr has not been excavated, but it is likely that the rooms were arranged in a similar way to those on the southern side. These structures would belong to the second phase of the building.403

3.7. Khirbat al-Mafjar

3.9. Al-Fudayn

Khirbat al-Mafjar is located near Jericho; the site consists of a two-storey qaṣr, a mosque, a bath, and a pavilion surrounded by a wall accessible by two gates.399 Recent excavations have discovered the northern gate, a large grape press with white mosaic floors, two other residences dating to the Umayyad and Abbasid period, and stables.400 The complex was built during the reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, by the amīr al-Walīd ibn Yazīd.401

Al-Fudayn is located 70 km northeast of ʿAmmān. During the Byzantine period the ruins of an Iron Age ‘stronghold’ were reused, and a monastic compound was built. In the Umayyad period two residential units were erected and the Byzantine complex was probably reused.404 The perimeter of the palace is quadrangular (about 38 × 38 m), with two accesses: a main entrance to the west through a vestibule and another located in the qiblī wall of the mosque. The qaṣr is composed of a central courtyard, a ‘five room unit’ in the northwestern side, a mosque in the southwestern and, in the other parts, there are service rooms. The palace communicates to the northeast with baths, and to the west with the monastic complex.405

The qaṣr has a quadrangular perimeter (about 70 × 70 m) with three-quarter-circular angle towers and semi-circular solid interval towers, except for the southern interval tower which has a square plan, into which a niche has been inserted (probably a miḥrāb). The palace is composed of a vestibule fronted by a monumental gate, rooms arranged around the central courtyard with a portico, a room in the northern side divided into two parallel aisles by a row of pillars, a hybrid model between the ‘five room unit’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ

3.10. Qaṣr al-Ṭūba Qaṣr al-Ṭūba is located about 96 km south-east of ʿAmmān. It is composed of two mirror-image quṣūr, and it is dated to the period of the caliphate of al-Walīd II (743-4).406

393  Most of the structures of the qaṣr have been detected by geomagnetic surveys (Siegel 2015, 13-15). 394  Otto-Dorn 1957, 129-130. 395  Otto-Dorn 1957, 119-127; Sack – Sarhan – Gussone 2010, 112-113. 396  Siegel 2010; 2015. 397  Konrad 2015, 528-529. 398  Idem, 529-530. 399  Hamilton 1959. 400  Whitcomb – Taha 2013, 60-63. 401  Hamilton 1959, 104-105; 345-346.

Leisten 2008, 377. Idem, 378-381. 404  Labisi 2015, 66-67. 405  Idem, 67-69. 406  Creswell 19792, I, 638-640. 402  403 

54

Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām and ‘five room units’

Figure 42. Khirbat al-Mafjar, the ‘pseudo īwān’ (Palestine, 724-743; © V. Cocciolo, 2012)

The plan of both the quṣūr is quadrangular (the perimeter of each qaṣr is about 70 × 70 m) with three-quarter circle angular towers and semi-circular lateral solid towers. The vestibule of each qaṣr is flanked by two quadrangular rooms, accessible through secondary courtyards; the latter are connected to the central courtyard of each qaṣr. Among the rooms of the secondary courtyards there are four ‘five room units’ and service rooms. The central room of the ‘five room units’ corresponds in this case to a courtyard.407

According to Denis Genequand, Mshattā retains a very marked palatial character, and precedes some of the great Abbasid monuments of the second half of the eighth and ninth centuries.410 Most probably, the building was destroyed by the earthquake of 854.411 The plan of the qaṣr is quadrangular (about 150 × 150 m) with angular three-quarter-circular towers, semi-circular solid interval towers and two hexagonal solid towers by the entrance. The palace is composed of a vestibule, a courtyard with niches and a large central courtyard. To the north of the latter there is a īwān with a three-bay arch divided into three aisles by two rows of columns; to the north of the īwān there is the audience hall and to the north of that there are three rooms, one of which is connected to a tower latrine. To the east of the hall there are four ‘five room units’ around two secondary courtyards; also, two rooms of the ‘five room units’ are connected to two latrines within the towers. Other rooms equipped with ‘five room units’ were traced out in the Umayyad period around four secondary courtyards, two on each side, but they were never completed. A richly carved ornament decorated the southern facade of the perimeter, which is now housed in Berlin’s Museum für Islamische Kunst.

3.11. Mshattā The palace of Mshattā is located near the International Airport of ʿAmmān. Recent researches have, reconstructed two phases of the entire complex: in the first phase the outer perimeter, part of the carved stone decoration, the southern central zone, the reception room and related rooms, and the foundations of the western apartments (the eastern apartments were only traced on the ground) were partially completed; the work drastically ceased, according to the excavators, when al-Walīd II died in 744.408 We would expect completion in the early Abbasid period (between 752 and 762) of the structures already initiated, but the apartments seem never to have been completed.409 Idem, 608-613. Cramer et al. 2016, I, 278-280 et fig. 305. 409  Idem, 282-283. 407  408 

410  411 

55

Genequand 2012, 206. Cramer et al. 2016, I, 278-283.

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 3.12. The ‘five room units’ of quṣūr: dimensions and dating

al-Minya,430 al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 106,431 Mshattā,432 and Qaṣr al-Ṭūba.433

As regards the size of the buyūt and the dating of the quṣūr, it is possible to assume that the dimensions of the ‘five room units’ increase over time. Indeed, to take the surface area of the ‘five room units’ we have, in increasing order, the Qaṣr al-Kharāna,412 Bālis (first half of the eighth century),413 Jabal Says (712-715),414 al-Fudayn (first half of the eighth century),415 Khirbat al-Minya (712-715),416 Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (727),417 the quṣūr 105A, 220, 109 and 106 of al-Rusāfa (724-743),418 al-Qasṭal (first half of the 8th century),419 the quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba (743/44)420 and Mshattā (743/44).421

Based on the above data, it is possible, therefore, to identify from this classification a chronological evolution of the ‘five room units’ that can be categorised into three phases (fig. 43):434 • phase 1: 705-715, the reign of al-Walīd I (fig. 44); • phase 2: 724-734, the first ten years of the reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (fig. 45); • phase 3: 743/4, the reign of al-Walīd II (fig. 46). It is interesting to note that this chronological classification of quṣūr based on the space occupied by the ‘five room units’ confirms, in most cases, the dating already suggested by different scholars for individual architectural contexts. In fact, basing the considerations on the data available to us, it can be noted that the chronological ranges suggested for the housing suites fall in the periods of greater building activity by Umayyad patrons, themselves corresponding to the periods of greater stability of the caliphate.435 The only case in which the dimensions of the ‘five room units’ do not map to the suggested date of qaṣr is Khirbat alMinya (712-715): the dimensions of the living units, between 165 and 190 m2, and the central rooms, between 70 and 80 m2, can be compared with the buyūt of alRuṣāfa and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī quṣūr, which are dated to the caliphate period of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik. However, based on the elements available to us, it is difficult to suggest a chronological attribution of the qaṣr of Tiberias, for which, as explained above, we prefer to suggest an earlier chronological attribution here considering the most archaic architectural components of the building.436

It is also possible to propose a further classification considering the surface area of the central rooms of the ‘five room units’. This gives us, in ascending order, Qaṣr al-Kharāna,422 Bālis,423 al-Ruṣafa, qaṣr 105A,424 Jabal Says,425 al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 109 and qaṣr 220,426 alFudayn,427 al-Qaṣtal,428 Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī,429 Khirbat

The buyūt of Qaṣr al-Kharāna occupy areas between 135 and 140 m2 and 150 and 155 m2 (see here Appendix 4.1). 413  Leisten 2008. The ‘five room units’ of Bālis occupy areas between 90 and 100 m2 (see here Appendix 4.8). 414  The buyūt of Jabal Says occupy areas between 135 and 140 m2 and 150 and 155 m2 (see here Appendix 4.3). 415  Labisi 2015. The bayt of al-Fudayn covers an area of between 135 and 140 m2 (see here Appendix 4.9). 416  The ‘five room units’ of Khirbat al-Minya occupy an area between 165 and 170 m2 and 185 and 190 m2 (see here Appendix 4.2). 417  Schlumberger 1939, 198; Elisséeff 1997, 726. The areas occupied by the ‘five room units’ range from 155 to 160 m2 and 220 to 225 m2 (see here Appendix 4.4). 418  The quṣūr are dated to the reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (OttoDorn 1957, 132-133; Siegel 2010; Konrad 2011; Gussone – MüllerWiener 2012) and the areas occupied by the buyūt are qaṣr 105A between 105 and 110m2, qaṣr 220 between 140 and 145 m2, qaṣr 109 between 110 and 115 m2 and 135 and 140 m2, qaṣr 106 between 170 and 175 m2 and 200 and 205 m2 (see Appendix 4.6). 419  The buyūṭ of al-Qasṭal occupy areas between 215 and 230 m2 (see here Appendix 4.5). 420  Creswell 19792, I, 623-64; the ‘five room units’ occupy areas between 265 and 270 m2 and 420 and 425 m2 (see here Appendix 4.10). The courtyard corresponding to the central room of the ‘five room units’ is considered here as part of the architectural model. 421  For a summary of the dating theories from Mshattā see Cramer et al. 2016. The ‘five room units’ occupy areas between 200 and 205 m2 and 225 and 230 m2 (see here Appendix 4.11). 422  The area occupied by the central rooms of Qaṣr al-Kharāna ranges from 30 to 35 m2 and 45 to 50 m2. 423  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of Bālis is between 40 and 45 m2. 424  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of qaṣr 105A of al-Ruṣāfa is between 45 and 50 m2. 425  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of Jabal Says’ qaṣr is between 55 and 65 m2. 426  The area occupied by the central room of the buyūt of qaṣr 109 of alRuṣāfa is between 50 and 60 m2; that of the central room of buyūt of qaṣr 220 is between 55 and 60 m2. 427  The area occupied by the central room of the bayt of al-Fudayn ranges from 55 to 60 m2. 428  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of al-Qasṭal ranges from 65 to 70 m2 and from 90 to 95 m2. 429  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī ranges from 65 to 70 m2 and from 70 to 75 m2. 412 

It is also possible to suggest a chronological attribution of the living devices, and the related quṣūr, whose dating is uncertain, considering the areas occupied by the ‘five room units’. As far as the buildings under study are concerned, the quṣūr of Bālis, al-Fudayn and al-Qasṭal are generally dated between the second and fourth decade of the eighth century (fig. 47). The ‘five room units’ of Bālis occupy an area of between 90 and 100 m2, the central rooms between 40 and 45 m2; these dimensions sit, specifically, between those of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, dated around 710, and those of the quṣūr of al-Ruṣāfa, dated to the period of the reign of Hishām. Consequently, the apartments of Bālis would chronologically fall between the reigns of al-Walīd I and The area occupied by the central rooms of the Khirbat al-Minya buyūt is between 70 and 80 m2. 431  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of qaṣr 106 of al-Ruṣāfa ranges from 75 to 80 m2 and 85 to 90 m2. 432  The area occupied by the central rooms of Mshattā’s buyūt ranges from 90 to 95 m2 and 150 to 155 m2. 433  The area occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt of the two quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba, which are indeed courtyards, ranges from 135 to 140 m2 and 165 to 170 m2. 434  See here Appendix 3.6. 435  Monneret de Villard 1968, 236-248. 436  See above. 430 

56

Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām and ‘five room units’

Figure 43. Chronological and dimensional subdivision of the central rooms of the Umayyad ‘five room units’, considering the larger central room of each chronological category (© G. Labisi, 2020)

Figure 44. ‘Five room units’ dated to the reign of al-Walīd I (705-715; © G. Labisi, 2020)

for three of the four ‘five room units’ since one of them is composed of four rooms; the three ‘five room units’ of alQasṭal occupy an area between 215 and 260 m2, the central rooms an area between 75 and 95 m2. These dimensions can be compared with the buyūt’s dimensions of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī, al-Ruṣāfa, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba and Mshattā quṣūr, thus suggesting a dating of al-Qasṭal’s apartments between the caliphates of Hishām ibn ʿAbd alMalik and al-Walīd II.

that of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik. Al-Fudayn’s ‘five room unit’ occupies an area between 135 and 140 m2, the central area between 55 and 60 m2: in both cases, the dimensions of al-Fudayn’s ‘five room unit’ are between those of the quṣūr of al-Ruṣāfa and those of the qaṣr of Jabal Says, suggesting, again, a dating of the al-Fudayn ‘five room unit’ to between the caliphates of al-Walīd I and Hishām. As far as ‘five room units’ of al-Qasṭal are concerned, the proposed dating of the living devices can only be suggested 57

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 45. ‘Five room units’ dated to the first ten years of the reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (724-743; © Giuseppe Labisi, 2020)

Figure 46. ‘Five room units’ dated to the reign of al-Walīd II (743-744; © G. Labisi, 2020)

58

Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām and ‘five room units’

Figure 47. Umayyad ‘five room units’ dated to the first half of the eighth century (© G. Labisi, 2020)

59

Part 3 Final remarks

4 The Umayyad residential context of Bilād al-Shām 4.1.3. Quṣūr vestibules

Here we look at the architectural models of our palatial and non-palatial areas as a route to have a deeper understanding of the architectural and residential devices that compose the Umayyad buildings of madāʾin and quṣūr. We shall omit the palace mosques, the study of which is not directly related to residential architecture and requires its own treatment.

Most of the Umayyad quṣūr with a residential function have a vestibule,439 which is always located between two half interval towers and has a quadrilateral shape; a square pre-vestibule is present in nine examples,440 two of which have a dome.441 Also, the vestibules of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr alGharbī, Khirbat al-Mafjar (fig. 49) and Mshattā are richly decorated. Most are connected to service rooms442 and eight have stone seats.

4.1. Vestibules These are characteristic architectural elements of Umayyad living units of Bilād al-Shām and are attested in both madāʾin and quṣūr.

The aristocratic character of the quṣūr is also underlined by the presence of a pre-vestibule, in some cases originally covered by a dome, and by the rich architectural decoration. It is interesting to note that in the quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, al-Qaṣtal and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī the audience hall was above the vestibule. Finally, the typological difference in the vestibules of the Umayyad quṣūr does not depend on their chronology, but rather on the different architectural characteristics of the buildings.

4.1.1. Vestibules of madāʾin palaces Among madāʾin palaces there are monumental vestibules at ʿAnjar; the architectural type belongs to the Near Eastern tradition of Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period. In the main palace of ʿAnjar there are two vestibules showing the plan of the ‘five room unit’; however, the plan is adapted according to a functional requirement: the vestibules here taking the place of the central room of the ‘five room unit’, and the western device was fronted by a monumental three-bay arch decorated with ornamental friezes that connects the palace to the main N-S road axis and has no connection to other rooms. A similar plan is found in the vestibule of the minor palaces; however, the group of rooms is preceded by a pre-vestibule connecting the palace to the main E-W road axis.

4.2. Courtyards These are characteristic elements of the living units built in the region during the Umayyad period. However, it is possible to notice some differences between palaces, living units and quṣūr. 4.2.1. Courtyards of madāʾin palatial dwellings The courtyards of the madāʾin palaces have a quadrilateral shape and always have a portico, save for the courtyards of the living units of the ʿAmmān palace where the portico was probably added during the early Abbasid period. Further, secondary courtyards are attested only in this palace. The porticoed courtyards in madāʾin palaces are otherwise attested in the seventh century only in the imperial architecture of Constantinople,443 suggesting

The vestibule of the madīna palace of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr alSharqī (identified with the ‘Small Enclosure’),437 located inside the walled enclosure, consists of a rectangular room communicating with a room on each side. Inside the vestibule, on the south wall, a niche has been introduced, perhaps a miḥrāb.438 4.1.2. Vestibules of the extra-palatial madāʾin dwellings

439  Twenty-eight quṣūr in total; we believe, in fact, that the residential function is suggested by ‘five room units’; so, we can identify this function also in buildings showing an ‘official’ character. Three quṣūr do not have a vestibule: Bālis, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – dwelling A, and alFudayn – building II (Genquand 2012, 110-115; Labisi 2015, 71). 440  The pre-vestibule is attested in the quṣūr of Khirbat al-Minya, Jabal Says, al-Qasṭal, al-Ruṣāfa – qaṣr 220, Khirbat al-Mafjar, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba quṣūr A and B, Umm al-Walīd eastern qaṣr and Shuqayra al-Gharbiyya (for Umm al-Walīd see Genequand 2012, 203-205; for Shuqayra alGharbiyya see Shdaifat – Ben Badhann 2008; for the others quṣūr see here the related catalogue sheets). 441  The dome is attested in the pre-vestibules of Khirbat al-Minya (Creswell 19792, I, 382-383 and fig. 447) and Khirbat al-Mafjar (Hamilton 1959, 25-27); two domes were probably present in the rooms above the vestibule of al-Qasṭal (Carlier – Morin 1984, 347). 442  As far as the connection with other rooms is concerned, three vestibules are connected to one room, ten to two. 443  Cf. Baldini Lippolis 2001, 29-46; Ellis 2007.

Vestibules are widely attested in the living units of extra-palatial contexts (sixty out of seventy living units reveal in fact a vestibule). The most common form is the rectangular plan (fig. 48); the ‘L’ shape is attested only in Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī’s living units of both madīna (four out of six units reveal this type of access) and Dwelling E. In most of the cases, the vestibule directly connects the exterior of the structure to the central courtyard of the living unit. 437  438 

See here Chap. 2.2. Grabar et al. 1978, I, 16.

63

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 48. The rectangular vestibule and rooms a, b and c of the extra-palatial dwelling I of ʿAmmān (724-743; © G. Labisi 2012)

Figure 49. Pre-vestibule and vestibule of Khirbat al-Mafjar (Palestine, 724-743; © V. Cocciolo, 2012)

4.2.3. Quṣūr courtyards

a parallel. However, the presence of courtyards, albeit without porticoes, is also attested in Sasanian palatine architecture.444

Courtyards, both main and secondary, are attested in all Umayyad quṣūr and all have a quadrilateral shape (figs. 50-51).

4.2.2. Courtyards of madāʾin extra-palatial dwellings

Twelve quṣūr out of twenty-eight show secondary courtyards:445 in most of the cases the rooms are accessible only through secondary courtyards and are thus grouped into independent units arranged around the latter. It is possible to discern the presence of private courtyards

Quadrangular courtyards are attested in all the extrapalatine madāʾin dwellings. The living units of ʿAnjar, ʿAmmān and Dwelling E of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī have neither porticoes nor secondary courtyards. The latter architectural elements are attested only in the architectural units of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī madīna.

Secondary courtyards are attested in the quṣūr of al-Ruṣāfa, quṣūr 106, 109 and 220, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba, quṣūr A and B, Mshattā, Umm alWalīd, eastern, central and western quṣūr, and Khān al-Zabīb, eastern and western quṣūr. 445 

444 

Callieri 2014, 67.

64

The Umayyad residential context of Bilād al-Shām

Figure 50. Central courtyard of Qaṣr al-Kharāna (Jordan, about 710; © G. Labisi, 2012)

it is interesting to note that the courtyards of Qaṣr alKharāna and Khirbat al-Minya are connected to the ‘five room units’, thus confirming the ‘official’ aspect of the living model.450

within the ‘five room units’ of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba: these in fact correspond to the central rooms of the architectural device. The earliest example of secondary courtyards in the Umayyad corpus are in the quṣūr of al-Ruṣāfa (quṣūr 106, 109 and 220), dated to the reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (724-743). In addition, secondary courtyards are attested at Umm al-Walīd (fig. 51) and Khān alZabīb:446 these sites are characterised by four or five secondary courtyards obtained through the fragmentation of the central courtyard. Considering both the plan and the construction techniques of the walls that delimit the secondary courtyards,447 it could be suggested that they were built in a period subsequent to the construction of the central courtyard.448

4.3. ‘Five room units’ and hybrid models of ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’ The ‘five room units’ and the hybrid models between the latter and the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’ are architectural models attested in both Umayyad madāʾin and quṣūr. As for the functions of the rooms, it is possible to assume, thanks to the comparison with the pre-Islamic examples and the extract from al-Masʿūdī referring to the banāʾ alḤīrī,451 that the central room of the devices was probably the room for banquets and the reception room, and that the side rooms were private rooms or ‘alcoves’.452

Porticoes are known in fourteen quṣūr out of twentyeight449 and found either in the central or the secondary courtyards. Regarding the connection between the rooms,

220, al-Qasṭal, Khirbat al-Mafjar, Umm al-Walīd, eastern, central and western quṣūr, Khān al-Zabīb, eastern and western quṣūr. 450  The audience halls of Jabal Says, and qaṣr 220 of al-Ruṣāfa (see here Appendixes 4.3, and 4.6) are connected to the central courtyards. The audience hall of Khirbat al-Minya is not directly connected to the palatial mosque, but to a service room adjacent to the mosque. At Mshattā the mosque is located, by contrast, opposite to the audience hall. 451  See here Chap. 1.5. 452  See here Chap. 5.

Genequand 2008, 125-132. Idem, 130. 448  In any case, in the current state of our knowledge it is impossible to advance this hypothesis with certainty. 449  The portico is attested in the quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Khirbat alMinya, Jabal Says, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī, al-Ruṣāfa, quṣūr 106 and 446  447 

65

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 51. Satellite image of the eastern qaṣr of Umm al-Walīd (Maxar Technologies ©2019 Google)

4.3.1. ‘Five room units’ and hybrid models of madāʾin palaces

the central courtyard and to service rooms, and only the buyūt opposite the entrance are equipped with latrines; however, there are no connections between the buyūt. In addition, two devices are axial to the entrance.

‘Five room units’ are only recorded in the palaces at ʿAnjar (fig. 52) and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī. In the first example, there are in total twenty-five ‘five room units’, five for each palace; in the palace of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī there are six. All the palaces are arranged according to a plan of ‘five room units’.

The palace of ʿAmmān is equipped with buyūt arranged according to the plan of the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’ (fig. 53): we find here eleven devices and a hybrid model between the latter and the ‘five room unit’ (fig. 54). All the buyūt are located within secondary courtyards. The buyūt of the ʿAmmān palace are, to date, the only residential devices that can be associated with the Persian architectural tradition: in fact, this comparison shows some similarities in other sections of the building, where a ‘Persianizing imagery’ can be found.454

It is probable that the ‘five room units’ of the palatial contexts of ʿAnjar had a residential and private function. Access to the ‘five room units’ of the main palace is only possible through a secondary room, and the central rooms – usually accessible through the central courtyards – are in this case accessible only through a lateral corridor. By contrast, the ‘five room units’ of the minor palace 1 are accessible only through the central rooms, except for the device axial to the vestibule.453

In conclusion, it is possible to attribute a residential function to the buyūt by considering the comparison with the other apartments in the region.455 The private character of all madāʾin palaces is therefore ensured by the architectural layout.

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī’s palace is planned according to a model of ‘five room units’. There are in total six buyūt in the ground floor, and probably the upper floor was also arranged according to the ‘five room unit’ plan. The apartments on the ground floor are directly connected to

4.3.2. ‘Five room units’ of madāʾin extra-palatial dwellings In the madāʾin extra-palatial dwellings there are thirty-one ‘five room units’; twenty-three at ʿAnjar, one at ʿAmmān, and seven at Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī.

453  In addition, in the main palace, each ‘five room unit’ has two alcoves; the minor palace 1 shows instead four alcoves in one ‘five room unit’ and two alcoves are attested in the other buyūt. As for the other rooms, those of the main palace are connected either to the central courtyard or to the lateral corridors and they are not directly connected to the ‘five room units’; the other rooms of the Minor Palace 1 are connected to other rooms and to the central court.

For a wider discussion see here Chap. 5.2; for the sheets see here Appendix 3.3. 455  For a more detailed discussion see here Chap. 5.4. 454 

66

The Umayyad residential context of Bilād al-Shām

Figure 52. ‘Five room unit’ of the secondary palace of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 705-715; © Bdx, 2017, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Umayyad_city_of_Anjar,_ March_2017_02, reworked)

4.3.3. Quṣūr ‘five room units’ and hybrid models of ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’

At ʿAnjar twenty-three of the fifty-one living units reveal one or two ‘five room units’,456 which are located in living units with central courtyards and vestibules. Most of the devices are connected to the courtyard only through the central room, and fourteen ‘five room units’ are axial to the entrance. In most of the examples, the presence of alcoves and the connection to the central courtyard exclusively through the central room reveal the residential aspect of the device.457

The ‘five room unit’ is most probably the living model of the Umayyad quṣūr.459 It model is attested in fifteen of twenty-six quṣūr; the total number of ‘five room units’ is fifty-six and there are also two hybrid models combining elements if it with the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’.460 In some cases, the whole internal plan of quṣūr is arranged according to the plan of the ‘five room units’.461 Furthermore, some ‘five room units’ show an axial position in relation to the vestibule, and are directly connected to the audience halls. Other ‘five room units’ can be interpreted instead as audience chambers. All these elements are architectural features which may have been planned directly by the Umayyad aristocracy and/or their architects. All central rooms are directly connected to courtyards (main or secondary), with the exception of the central room of the Khirbat al-Minya ‘five room unit’ 1-5 and the ‘five room units’ on the upper floor of Qaṣr al-Kharāna.462 Five ‘five room units’ are in an axial position with respect to the vestibule,463 five are connected to a second floor and only the ‘five room units’ of Khirbat al-Minya (1-5) and those on the upper floor of Qaṣr al-Kharāna are connected

‘Five room units’ are attested in the madīna and in Dwelling E of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī. In the madīna there are six units arranged around secondary courtyards. Access is through a vestibule in four cases; the units located near the southern entrance (units VI and VII) are accessible from the latter entrance and unit VI from the corridor that connects the latter unit to the mosque of the madīna and from the central courtyard. The units are planned according to a single scheme: the rooms are arranged around secondary courtyards with porticoes and on the opposite side of the entrance is the ‘five room unit’ which is connected to service rooms and to latrines; the latter are also arranged around other courtyards. A residential function is more likely for the central and northern units. The rooms of Dwelling E are arranged around a central courtyard without a portico; a ‘five room unit’ is located on the side opposite the entrance and, in all probability, another device must have been on the upper level, of which a very rich stucco decoration has been found.458

See here Chap. 5.4. They are recorded in total ninety ‘five room units’ in the quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Khirbat al-Minya, Jabal Says, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī, al-Qasṭal, al-Ruṣāfa – quṣūr 105A, 106, 109 and 220, Bālis, al-Fudayn, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba – quṣūr A and B, Mshattā. A ‘proto-bayt’ is attested at Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ (see here Chap. 5.1). 461  These are Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Jabal Says, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī, and al-Qasṭal (see here Appendix 4). 462  Urice 1987, 31. The latter assumed a correlation between the ‘five room units’ 31-35 and 37-41 (a theory that was recently taken up by Arce 2016b, 335 and note 4); in reality the room located between this two buyūt and which would put them in communication is not part of the ‘five room units’ since it is the audience room. 463  The ‘five room unit’ 6-10 of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, the ‘five room unit’ 6-10 of Jabal Says, the ‘five room unit’ 1-5 of qaṣr 106 of al-Ruṣāfa. 459  460 

456  Seventeen dwellings reveal one and six dwellings two ‘five room units’. 457  For the examples see here Appendix 4. 458  Genequand 2011b.

67

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 53. The hybrid model between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ of living unit 2 of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence (724-743; © G. Labisi, 2012)

Figure 54. The ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ of living unit 3 of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence (724-743; © G. Labisi, 2012)

In the Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām there are no banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs. However, hybrid models between the latter and the ‘five room units’ can be found at Khirbat al-Mafjar and Bālis (fig. 55).469 The models are axial to the main entry, and are not connected to a second floor, but to the central courtyard. The bayt of Bālis is connected to four service rooms; the bayt of Khirbat al-Mafjar is connected to three service rooms and to the sirdāb.

to audience halls.464 Thirty-eight ‘five room units’ are connected directly to the central courtyard,465 thirty-two directly to a secondary courtyard,466 forty-two to service rooms,467 two to the stairway,468 and sixteen to latrines. The buyūt are directly connected through flights (Qaṣr al-Kharāna, first floor, ‘five room units’ 1-5 and 11-15). 465  Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Khirbat al-Minya, Jabal Says, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr alGharbī, al-Qasṭal, al-Fudayn, Bālis, Khirbat al-Mafjar, al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 106 and qaṣr 220. Among the latter: fifteen communicate through one room, thirteen through two rooms, ten through three rooms. 466  These are the buyūt of Bālis, Mshattā, quṣūr 106, 109 and 220 of alRuṣāfa and both quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba. Of the latter eleven are connected to a secondary courtyard with one room (al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 106, ‘five room units’ 10-14 and 20-24, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba and that 6-10 of Mshattā), fiftyeight through two rooms (al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 106, ‘five room units’ 1-5 and 16-19, the ‘five room units’ 6-10 of Mshattā), two through three rooms (11-15 and 16-20 of Bālis). For the other ‘five room units’ of quṣūr of alRuṣāfa it is impossible to establish what the connection relationship with secondary courtyards was. The central rooms of the ‘five room units’ of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba correspond to a courtyard. 467  Of these last twenty-seven communicate through one room, thirteen through two rooms, two through three rooms. 468  These are buyūt 1-5 and 11-15 of Qaṣr al-Kharāna. All ‘five room units’ communicate with the stairs through a single room. 464 

It is plausible to assume that the aforementioned models constitute an official space reserved for the owner of the See here Appendix 4.7 and 4.8. The bayt of Khirbat al-Mafjar, a site dated to the reign of the caliph Hishām (724-743) but built under the supervision of his nephew amīr al-Walīd (Hamilton 1959, 42 and 345346; Hamilton 1969, 61-66; Whitcomb – Taha 2015, 10-11), covers an area between 150 and 155 m2, the ‘pseudo īwān’ covers an area between 75 and 80 m2. The bayt of Bālis, dated in the first half of the eighth century (Leisten 2008, 381-382), occupies an area between 120 and 125 m2, the ‘pseudo īwān’ occupies an area between 55 and 60 m2; the ‘T’ device of the bayt of Bālis is the only one attested in the Bilād al-Shām (Leisten 2008, 379). For a comparison of Bālis building with the Iraqi qaṣr of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba see here Chap. 5.3. 469 

68

The Umayyad residential context of Bilād al-Shām

Figure 55. Hybrid models between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’: on the left Khirbat al-Mafjar (720-744), on the right Bālis (first half of the eight century; © G. Labisi, 2018)

qaṣr.470 As far as the ‘five room units’ are concerned, it is possible to distinguish both a residential and a ‘representational’ function: the latter would be highlighted by the direct connection to the audience halls,471 by the architectural decoration,472 and by the axial position with respect to vestibules or reception halls.473

plan, it is possible to set the audience halls within the Roman-Byzantine architectural tradition.476 In the palace of the citadel of ʿAmmān it is possible to identify by contrast two models of audience halls: the hall for the public audience or majlis al-ʿāmm (‘unrestricted audience’) which corresponds to the southern cruciform building (fig. 57); and the hall for the majlis al-khāṣṣ or ‘private audience’ (fig. 58), which corresponds to the northern reception hall. The dīwān al-ʿāmm has a square exterior plan and a cruciform interior plan, while the dīwān al-khāṣṣ is composed of a monumental īwān with two lateral rooms fronted by a portico, a cruciform hall located behind the īwān, and service rooms. The first model derives from the type of the four īwān on a central courtyard, while the second from the model of īwān connected to a dome room: both models belong to the Sasanian architectural tradition.477

4.4. Audience halls Audience halls are attested in madāʾin and quṣūr palaces, although substantial differences can be noted between the two categories. As for the function, the audience hall was fundamental to the Umayyad elite because it was the place where the private and public majlis took place.474 4.4.1. Audience halls of madāʾin palaces Audience halls are attested in ʿAnjar and ʿAmmān palaces.475 At ʿAnjar there are two symmetrical audience halls, which are not connected to the other rooms of the palace, but which are accessible from the central courtyard through a single access (fig. 56). Each audience hall is composed of a rectangular apse room divided into three naves by two rows of columns and four rooms for each side (three rectangular and one square, the latter located next to the apse). It is worth noting that the southern audience hall is connected to the mosque through the northeastern square room next to the apse. Also, considering their inner

The issue of the possible representation function of the ‘five room unit’ device in Unit VI of the madīna of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī remains an open question.478 4.4.2. Audience halls of the quṣūr The model of quṣūr’s audience hall is the simple rectangular hall and, in some cases, the audience hall corresponds to the central room of the ‘five room units’.479 Most probably some audience halls were located in the upper floor of the

See also Ritter 2019. ‘Five room units’ 1-5 from Khirbat al-Minya and 31-35 and 37-41 from the upper floor of Qaṣr al- Kharāna. 472  ‘Five room units’31-35 and 37-41 of Qaṣr al-Kharāna. 473  ‘Five room units’ of Qaṣr al-Kharāna and Jabal Says. For a more detailed discussion see here Chap. 5. 474  See Grabar 1955; Northedge 2000, 51-52; for majlis’ function see also here Chap. 5.4. 475  See here Chap. 2.1 et 2.3. 470 

See here Chap. 2.4. See also paragraph 4.1 of Chapter 2.3. For a wider discussion of the audience halls see here Chap. 5. 478  See the discussion here in Chap. 2.4.1. 479  These are quṣūr from Kharāna, Jabal Says, and probably al-Ruṣāfa 220. Contrastingly, the Khirbat al-Minya audience hall is composed of a rectangular room divided into three aisles by two rows of pillars (see here Appendix 4.2).

471 

476  477 

69

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 56. The audience room of ʿAnjar secondary palace, southern side (Lebanon, 705-715; © Rabih Omeiri, 2011, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Umayyad_city_of_Anjar.jpg, reworked)

Figure 57. Southern façade of the reception hall of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence (724-743; G. Labisi 2012)

70

The Umayyad residential context of Bilād al-Shām

Figure 58. The cruciform audience hall of ʿAmmān governor’s residence, eastern side (724-743; © G. Labisi, 2012)

quṣūr, above the vestibule. As for the location within the qaṣr, the audience halls can be axial to the vestibules480 or located above them,481 and these would seem to belong to the Roman-Byzantine architectural tradition, although at Qaṣr al-Kharāna we can see an Iranian and Mesopotamian influence in the decoration (fig. 59).482

probably at Mshattā;489 this could suggest a representational function for these rooms, whose origin model could be the Qubbat al-Khaḍrāʾ of Damascus.490 Furthermore, the topos of the dome above the audience hall is quoted in an account of al-Shafīʿi Shams al-Dīn (late fourteenth century) mentioning that a visitor of the caliph Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik found the latter in his palace a Damscus ‘in a splendid salon, seated under a pavilion of red silk surmounted by a dome of yellow brocade, attended by two female slaves of beauty unsurpassed, each holding a crystal ewer of wine.’491

The only monumental example of an audience hall within a qaṣr is that of Mshattā: indeed, the latter is composed by a triconch room preceded by a monumental īwān divided into three aisles by two rows of columns; the façade of the complex consists of a three-portalled arch (fig. 60). The complex is one of the most recent Umayyad quṣūr, and is dated to the caliphate of al-Walīd II (743/4),483 although some parts of the building were completed in the early Abbasid period (between 752 and 762).484 Finally, the audience hall of the qaṣr 220 of al-Ruṣāfa was also associated by Katharina Otto-Dorn with the Qubbat al-Khaḍrāʾ quoted by Ibn ʿAsākir, below which Hishām ibn ʿAbd al- Malik gave audience.485 Indeed, examples of domes in the audience halls can be reconstructed at Qaṣr al-Kharāna,486 al-Qasṭal,487 Khirbat al-Mafjar,488 and

As in the quṣūr of Jabal Says and al-Ruṣāfa qaṣr 220 (see here Appendixes 4.3 et 4.6). 481  Like at Qaṣr al-Kharāna (see here Appendix 4.1); the audience hall was probably located above the vestibules at al-Qasṭal and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (see here Appendices 4.6 and 4.4); in Khirbat al-Mafjar it was also located on the upper floor of the qaṣr, but on the northern side (see Hamilton 1959, 37). 482  Urice 1987, 78-79. 483  Creswell 19792, I, 641. Grabar suggested an early Abbasid dating (Grabar 1987, 245-247), but the most recent research on the site has shown two phases of occupation, the oldest been dated to the late Umayyad period and the most recent to the early Abbasid period (see above). Also, Lammens, quoting an extract from Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, interpreted the building as an unfinished city (Lammens 1930, 340-341). Recent research confirmed the building construction to the reign of al-Walīd II, although they have revealed some early Abbasid phases (Cramer et al. 2016, I, 278-280 et fig. 305). 484  Cramer et al. 2016, I, 282-283. 485  Otto-Dorn 1957, 132. 486  Arce 2016, 345-350. 487  Carlier – Morin 1984, 348-349. 488  Hamilton 1959, 36-37. 480 

489  According to the reconstructions of Brünnow – von Domaszewski 1905, II, 126 and Schulz 1904, 218; Creswell proposes, on the contrary, the presence of a pyramidal cover (Creswell 19792, I, 616). 490  Flood 2001, 148. It is also interesting to note the presence of semidomes in the audience halls of Qaṣr al-Kharāna and Mshattā (see here Appendices 4.1 and 4.11). 491  Muḥammad ibn Hasan al-Shafīʿi Shams al-Dīn, Halbat al-Kumayt, quoted by Lane 1883, 119.

71

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 59. The audience hall of Qaṣr al-Kharāna (Jordan, about 710; © G. Labisi, 2012)

Figure 60. The complex of the audience hall of Mshattā (Jordan, 743/744; © G. Labisi, 2012)

72

5 The residential contexts of the Umayyad period: readapting the tradition The residential architecture looked at so far relates to Umayyad buildings in Bilād al-Shām that can be grouped in madāʾin and quṣūr and have ‘five room units’ or banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs. We can add to this group other residential units in the same region that adapt the plan of the ‘five room unit’, as for example the ‘bayt mansion’ of Madīnat alFār;492 or have ‘proto-buyūt’, as in the quṣūr of Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ, Umm al-Walīd and Khān al-Zabīb. In addition, in order to have a better understanding of living spaces in Umayyad palace architecture it will be useful to compare the housing units of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa and of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba with what we see in Bilād al-Shām. Finally, in our concluding discussion, the Umayyad living units will be evaluated both in the context of the pre-Islamic Arab and Near Eastern traditions and according to Islamic domestic heritage.

flanked by two long rooms. As far as the comparison with the Umayyad ‘five room units’ is concerned, it is useful to compare here the surface area occupied by the central rooms: those of Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ occupy an area of 35-50 m2; these dimensions are comparable to those of the central rooms of quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Bālis, Jabal Says and al-Ruṣāfa. Based on this comparison, the central rooms of the ‘proto-buyūt’ of Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ would therefore fall within the chronological range of the central rooms that can be dated between the caliphate of al-Walīd I and that of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik. This chronological attribution could be in line with the one suggested by Gaube at the beginning of the Marwanid period497 and be supported by the important finding of a graffito in Arabic bearing the date 743-4498 which, although it does not offer definite evidence on the construction date of the building, offers an interesting detail about the period of frequentation of the building, close to that suggested by the plan comparison of the central rooms of the ‘proto-buyūt’.

5.1. Other examples of Umayyad madāʾin and quṣūr dwellings of Bilād al-Shām

The quṣūr of Umm al-Walīd and Khān al-Zabīb are composed of several secondary courtyards, probably built in a second architectural phase.499 As far as the internal layout of the rooms is concerned, the five quṣūr of the two sites are composed of a series of consecutive rectangular rooms arranged along the sides of the building, some of which are organized according to the ‘proto-bayt’ scheme consisting of two rooms, the largest of which can be regarded as the main room.500 The central rooms of the ‘proto-buyūt’ of the eastern qaṣr of Umm al-Walīd occupy an area of 60-65 m2; those of the western qaṣr 25-35 m2.501 As far as the quṣūr of Khān al-Zabīb are concerned, only the western qaṣr has ‘proto-buyūt’; moreover, the area occupied by the central rooms is 45-65 m2. As regards comparisons with the other central rooms of the buyūt of Umayyad quṣūr, we can see that the central rooms of the ‘proto-buyūt’ of the eastern qaṣr of Umm al-Walīd are comparable with those of Jabal Says while the central rooms of the western qaṣr can be compared with the central rooms of Qaṣr al-Kharāna. The dimensions of the central rooms of the ‘proto-buyūt’ of the western qaṣr of Khān

Among the various works found at Madīnat al-Fār there is a ‘bayt mansion’ whose plan adapts the ‘five room unit’ scheme.493 The house, richly decorated in stucco, occupies an area of about 485 m2; the central room, consisting of four recesses on each side with benches, occupies an area of about 168 m2. The building, generally dated to the Umayyad period, is not comparable with any of madāʾin’s Umayyad living units as far as the surface area occupied by it is concerned; therefore, it is impossible to suggest a comparison based on the size of the building’s rooms. As for other Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām, ‘protobuyūt’ are identifiable in the buildings of Khirbat alBayḍāʾ, Umm al-Walīd and Khān al-Zabīb. The reconstructed plan of Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ qaṣr,494 for which a dating to the Umayyad period has recently been suggested,495 has an internal organisation according to the ‘proto-bayt’ scheme consisting of four rooms496 and having an isolated room in the middle of the north, south and east sides. The entrance is flanked by two smaller rooms, which in turn are 492  Haase 2008. The housing function of the other structures presented in this latest publication is uncertain; it was therefore decided to include in this study the dwelling defined as ‘bayt mansion’. For the classification see here Appendix 6.1. For Madīnat al-Fār see Haase 1991; 1994; 1996; 2001. 493  ‘The first documented example of a major single Arab bayt building’ (Haase 2008, 399). However, the side rooms of the house, unlike the other examples of ‘five room units’ in the region, do not seem to be totally separate one from the other. 494  Gaube 1974, 51-60. 495  Genequand 2015, 184. The qaṣr, was initially considered a Jafnid building (Gaube 1974); see also here, chap. 1.5. 496  This ‘proto-bayt’ consists of a central room and a room on each side; another room is attached to one of the side rooms, thus forming a device developing in length.

Specifically, Gaube is leaning towards a dating between the era of ʿAbd al-Malik and the Jafnid period (Gaube 2004, 345-346); however, it is more likely that the building can be dated to the Umayyad period, as suggested more recently by Genequand (2012, 204 and note 24) and by the graffito recently discovered on the site (see below). 498  Hoyland 2018, 327-330. 499  As suggest here in Chap. 4 (see also Genequand 2008, 125-132). In addition, Genequand has convincingly proposed to chronologically attribute the quṣūr of Umm al-Walīd and Khān al-Zabīb to the first half of the eighth century (Idem, 130, 132). 500  This feature is unusual for Umayyad quṣūr (Idem, 126). 501  It is not possible to reconstruct rooms arrangement of the central qaṣr of Khān al-Zabīb and, consequently, the inner arrangement according the ‘proto-bayt’ (cf. Genequand 2008, 127 and fig. 9). 497 

73

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Umayyad palatine contexts and madāʾin do not allow us to suggest chronological interpretations for the architectural device of Kūfa’s Dār al-Imāra, for which it is impossible to state whether it had a residential or representative function, unlike the housing device of ʿAmmān for which both functions are plausible.

al-Zabīb, on the other hand, can be compared with those of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Bālis, Jabal al-Says and al-Ruṣāfa. On the basis of these comparisons, Umm al-Walīd’s quṣūr can be grouped with those dating to the caliphate of alWalīd I; the western qaṣr of Khān al-Zabīb, on the other hand, would fall into the category of quṣūr dating to the caliphates of al-Walīd I and Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, i.e. between the second and the beginning of the fourth decade of the eighth century.

A representational function is rather plausible for the architectural device located on the eastern side of the central courtyard of Kūfa palace. It is, specifically, a banāʾ al-Ḥīrī whose portico overlooks the central courtyard of the palace.509 The importance of the device in the perspective of early Islamic architecture is remarkable because, although the debate on the dating of the second phase of the Kūfa Palace is still ongoing, the banāʾ alḤīrī of Kūfa would be one of the first devices of this type attested in the early Islamic architecture.

5.2. Kūfa The only archaeologically attested example of a palace belonging to a madīna featuring housing units, but located outside of Umayyad Bilād al-Shām, is the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa. The building, excavated in the middle of the last century,502 shows three layers of occupation whose dating is still controversial and oscillates between the beginning of the Islamic and the early Abbasid periods.503 The analysis of the structures of the second layer (fig. 61) reveals the presence of probably five architectural or living units.504

In addition, it is possible to highlight other parallels in plan for the architectural devices located around the audience halls of ʿAmmān and Kūfa buildings (fig. 63). In both examples there is a courtyard with rooms around it. Further, around the audience halls there are three living units on each side.510 However, ʿAmmān’s īwān falls typologically into the latter architectural category, since it was originally equipped with a barrel vault; Kūfa’s room, on the other hand, falls into the type of pillar room typical of late Sasanian palatial architecture.511 Both palaces’ īwān and columned halls are connected to the audience halls, although Kūfa’s hall is larger in size than ʿAmmān’s īwān. However, the two facing courtyards reveal strong architectural differences: Kūfa’s courtyard is larger and corresponds to dār’s central courtyard; ʿAmmān’s courtyard corresponds to the northern courtyard of the palace. Further, in ʿAmmān living units, two pseudo-īwān can be reconstructed for each housing device, unlike the architectural units of Kūfa, which have rectangular rooms, not belonging to a planimetric scheme. In addition, in Kūfa unit ‘c’ there is a pseudo-īwān (room 36) that precedes a rectangular room (room 45), an architectural type non attested at ʿAmmān.

The architectural units of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa have central courtyards and only a hybrid model between the ‘five room unit’ and banāʾ al-Ḥīrī is found in the unit ‘a’,505 which can be compared to the living unit ‘2’ of Dār al-Imāra of ʿAmmān.506 However, even if the arrangement of the two devices is similar, differences can be observed in the number of hybrid models, their dimensions and their connections to other palace rooms (fig. 62). At Kūfa there is only one hybrid model, while at ʿAmmān the models are two. The Kūfa model is more monumental than those of ʿAmmān507 and Kūfa living unit is connected to the central courtyard of the palace and outside the latter,508 unlike ʿAmmān living unit. In conclusion, even if the two architectural hybrid models are similar in shape, substantial architectural and functional differences can be observed. Moreover, the aforementioned characteristics and the absence of other archaeological examples of See Mustafa 1963 and Creswell 19792, I, 48-64. Creswell 19792, I, 48; Creswell – Allan 1989, 14-15. Recently Aila Santi re-examined the building phases and proposed to attribute the second stratigraphic layer to the Umayyad period and, more precisely, during the caliphate of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (Santi 2018, 93-96, note 87). Anyway, considering the architectural characteristics, close to late Sasanian architecture, such as the pillared hall and only round arches, the absence of the pointed arches of the late Umayyad period, particularly in the supposedly later outer enclosure, it is difficult to attribute the first phase of the Marwānid period. In this regard, Michelina Di Cesare supports the dating proposed by the archaeologists who investigated the site: the first two layers would be attributed between the fourth and fifth decade of the seventh century (Di Cesare 2020, spec. 114-116 and 131). 504  The archaeologists that excavated the site indicate as living units those around courtyard 35 (Mustafa 1963, 48) and courtyard 102 (Idem, 42). However, the analysis of the plans leads us to consider as living units those highlighted here in fig. 61. For building sheets see here Appendix 6.2. 505  See here Appendix 6.2. 506  See here Appendix 4.1; Di Cesare (2020, 112-113) defines it as a ‘Syrian bayt’. 507  It should be noted, however, that the palace of Kūfa occupies a larger area compared to the palace of ʿAmmān. 508  The dating of the phases of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa is not certain; therefore, the relationship with the other rooms of the palace could be dated to different periods (see above). 502 

In concluding, we can say it is possible to see that the plan of the audience halls and the living units located around them belongs to a single model, although the planning of ʿAmmān is more regular than that of Kūfa; this characteristic may be the result of the multi-layered occupation of the Iraqi site. Also, although both devices are audience halls, is quite possible that ʿAmmān’s device corresponded to the dīwān al-khāṣṣ or private audience hall.512 As for their architectural origins, as recently outlined by M.V. Fontana,513 both sites adopted elements from both Sasanian religious and civil architecture, such as the ‘cruciform’ plan, characteristic of Zoroastrian architecture, and the axial location between the courtyard

503 

See also Ritter 2019, 52-53. See also Ritter 2019, 48. 511  Callieri 2014, 62-67. 512  See here Chap. 2.3. 513  Fontana 2015. 509  510 

74

The residential contexts of the Umayyad period

Figure 61. Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa, structures of layer 2 (Iraq, 724-744; reworked after Mustafa 1963, fig. 2)

and the pillared room. The motivation that led patrons – and consequently the architects – to adopt architectural typologies in a single building that were clearly distinct in the Sasanian period still remains obscure. That said, an interesting element emerges from the study of the housing units of both buildings: around the īwān complex/pillar hall and dome ‘cruciform’ hall of the two buildings there are five residential units on a central courtyard, of which probably the one immediately behind the ‘cruciform’ hall could be for the exclusive use of the governor, considering the layout and the planimetric ratio. This architectural type can also be found in the Iraqi qaṣr of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba, where the audience hall clearly corresponds to the device of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī described by al-Masʿūdī but is instead

surrounded by three living units. Taking into consideration the three buildings mentioned above, we suggest that they belong to a single early Islamic palatial model – though used in the two contexts of madāʾin and quṣūr – which, however, has redeveloped elements characteristic of Sasanian architectural traditions, both religious and civic. 5.3. Tulūl al-Shuʿayba Tulūl al-Shuʿayba (30 km west of Baṣra)514 offer marked architectural parallels to Bālis qaṣr. In fact, as has been

514 

75

Majhul 1972; Creswell - Allan 1989, 222.

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 62. Details of the plans of the living unit ‘a’ of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa (Iraq, a) and the living unit 2 of the ʿAmmān governor’s residence (b; 724-744. Redraw after Mustafa 1963, fig. 2 and Almagro et al. 2000, fig. 30 respectively)

Figure 63. The complexes of the audience halls and correlated living units of the Dār al-Imāra of Kūfa and the palace of ʿAmmān (a; 724-744; b, Iraq; 724-744. Reworked after Mustafa 1963, fig. 2 and Almagro et al. 2000, fig. 30 respectively)

76

The residential contexts of the Umayyad period noted recently by Ritter, the two quṣūr seem to adopt the architectural model of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī (fig. 64).515

īwān on central courtyard, one of which is the model of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī, a model that, to date, does not seem to be attested in the palatine Sasanian model.520 Bālis’ qaṣr, apparently adopting the reception room model described by al-Māsʿūdī, reveals to careful scrutiny the typical architectural features of Bilād al-Shām such as the adaptation of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī according to the ‘five room unit’ scheme and the presence of other ‘five room units’ on the sides of qaṣr, probably built in a second phase;521 moreover, the influence of the Near Eastern tradition can be seen in the paintings preserved in the walls of ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ reproducing marble slabs surrounded by a floral frieze and a pictorial decoration reproducing a polychrome mosaic.522 However, the adoption or reelaboration of a Mesopotamian-Iranian palatine model in Umayyad Bilād al-Shām is an interesting feature for the understanding of Umayyad palatine architecture because it testifies the elite’s willingness to acquire palatine models of Sasanian tradition by re-elaborating the palatine models in the architectural context of the Near East, a phenomenon already highlighted by Grabar for the Umayyad ceremonial;523 this phenomenon is also part of the process of cultural influences characteristic of the Syro-Mesopotamian area.524 Another useful comparison in order to understand the phenomenon of acquisition of Sasanian models in a Near Eastern context can be found in the palace of the citadel of ʿAmmān: it is likely that in both cases the building’s patrons requested the creation or reworking of an architectural model belonging to the Sasanian architectural tradition – the ‘Persianizing imagery’ suggested by Northedge525 – and that the available architects and masons, working in the architectural tradition of Bilād al-Shām, have translated this model into the typical architectural language of their own tradition. The comparison between Tulūl al-Shuʿayba and Bālis quṣūr is therefore important in the early Islamic palatine context as it testifies the gradual acquisition of palatial models from the Mesopotamian-Iranian tradition, even in a Near Eastern context, which will see the period of greatest development in the Abbasid architecture.

The qaṣr of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba is dated to the Umayyad period by stylistic comparison of stucco decoration;516 it has a central courtyard overlooked by rooms,517 among which there are four īwān: the one opposite the entrance (southeast side) is fronted by a corridor with two pillars in antis, forming with the īwān the ‘T’ device or banāʾ al-Ḥīrī. Laterally and behind the latter there are, as we already mentioned, three courtyards with service areas and īwān. However, a careful analysis shows that the Bālis device is composed of a pseudo-īwān and two rooms on each side: here there is in fact a column in antis and semipillars in the intercolumn, similar to the other examples of Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām; moreover, the device is a hybrid model between the ‘five room unit’ and banāʾ al-Ḥīrī, unlike the Iraqi model which fully belongs to the latter model. Moreover, as far as the central room of the architectural device is concerned, Tulūl al-Shuʿayba’s īwān occupies an area of about 25 m2, while Bālis’ pseudoīwān occupies an area of 121 m2. Another difference is the location of the ‘T’ device compared to the plan of quṣūr. The Iraqi example is preceded by a square courtyard of 35 m per side and is part of the typical Mesopotamian-Iranian model of the four īwān palace on a central courtyard. The example of Bālis, on the other hand, is behind a rectangular courtyard of approx. 12 × 28 m, overlooked only by the ‘T’ device and the adjoining rooms and is a hybrid between the ‘five room unit’ and banāʾ al-Ḥīrī. Nor is it the only pseudo-īwān attested in qaṣr. Another substantial difference can be seen in the connection between the central and the lateral rooms: Bālis’ pseudoīwān is connected to the side rooms, in a similar way to the ‘five room units’ attested in Umayyad Bilād al-Shām; Tulūl al-Shuʿayba’s īwān is connected only with the front portico; if therefore the function of the audience room is highly probable for the central rooms of the two devices, considering the connection between the pseudo-īwān of Bālis with the side rooms, it is not possible to exclude a possible residential function for the latter, as it could be plausible for other ‘five room units’ in the region.518

5.4. The Umayyad house: readapting the tradition

In sum, although the two quṣūr occupy a similar area of about 4100 m2, they differ in their internal articulation and in the functional interpretation of some rooms: although the internal articulation of the Sasanian daskarts is unknown to date,519 the Iraqi example falls fully within the model of the Mesopotamian-Iranian palaces with four

The analysis of the Umayyad housing units presented in this study allows us to reconstruct a possible model of Umayyad madāʾin’s house: this was probably composed of a vestibule, central courtyard with rooms around it, among which there may be one or two ‘five room units’ (fig. 65). In quṣūr equipped with a central courtyard (fig. 66) the individual living unit can be composed, in most cases, of a ‘five room unit’ as the living unit itself, which in some

Ritter 2019, 49-50. Creswell – Allan 1989, p. 222. 517  The rooms facing the courtyard are preceded by small anterooms. A comparison is possible with the building of Azdud (Raphael 2014), located on the Mediterranean coast. In reality, the combination of antechambers with the rooms facing the courtyard is also reflected in the Iranian context; unfortunately, however, due to the absence of archaeological data referring to a contemporary Iranian palatial architecture, the first example that can be proposed is the Ghaznavid palace of Ghaznī, in Afghanistan (twelfth century; Scerrato 1959). 518  See below. 519  See here Chap. 1.5. 515  516 

520  An exception would be the building of Barz-i Qawāla or Ramāvand which has been dated to the Sasanian period, although the building and its dating deserve more attention (see here Chap. 1.5) 521  Leisten 2008, 378. 522  Idem, 379-380. 523  Grabar 1955, 49-55. 524  David – Rousset 2008, 63. 525  Northedge 1992, 102.

77

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 64. The plans of the quṣūr of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba (Iraq; top) and Bālis (Bilād al-Shām; bottom), first half of the eighth century (reworked after Majhul 1972, fig. 1 and Leisten 2006, fig. 3)

Figure 65. Reconstruction of Bilād al-Shām’s Umayyad house: in evidence ‘five room units’ (from ʿAnjar dwellings; © G. Labisi 2020)

the vestibule is certified only for the qaṣr, but not for the independent living units, whose entrance is not however in axis with the rooms of the living unit.

cases can be connected to secondary rooms. On the other hand, in quṣūr equipped with a central courtyard and several secondary courtyards (fig. 67) the living unit – completely independent from the rest of the qaṣr – can be composed, in addition to the secondary courtyard, of a ‘five room unit’ with rooms connected to it; in this model

The identification of these Umayyad housing models of Bilād al-Shām now allows us to frame the Umayyad living 78

The residential contexts of the Umayyad period

Figure 66. Reconstruction of Bilād al-Shām’s Umayyad quṣūr equipped with a central courtyard: in evidence ‘five room units’ (from Jabal Says; © G. Labisi 2020)

units both in the context of Islamic housing and in the Late Antique dwelling tradition.526

finally, hospitality (Quran 2: 215, 4: 36, 11: 69, 46: 15).530 In other words, privacy, modesty and hospitality are the principles identified by various scholars as those through which the ‘traditional Islamic house’ is structured.531 As far as privacy is concerned, four levels are defined:

As far as Islamic tradition is concerned, several Quran verses regulate the legal principles of domestic architecture; in particular the permission that believers must obtain to enter into living units (equally, they must leave if asked; Quran 24: 27-28);527 the protection of women from nonmaḥram men (Quran 33: 59);528 the need to create intimate spaces through the presence of a place dedicated to guests so that, if not maḥram, they do not come into contact with the ḥarim (Quran 24: 27-33, 58-62 and 5: 13-16);529

• Privacy between neighbours’ apartments, achieved through the creation of entrances located out of line with each other, mashrabiyas, windows that prevent one from looking inside the house and vestibules for guests whose access to the house is prohibited.532

example, Djamalzadeh 1985). For ḥarim concept see also Lewis et al. 1986. 530  Mortada 2003, 118-119; Amir-Moezzi 2007, 36, 503, 617 et 865; see also Hoffman 2001. 531  Summaries and collected in Othman – Aird – Buys 2015; see also Mortada 2003, 94-125; Noori Almulla Hwaish 2016. 532  Memarian – Brown 2006, 38-39.

The absence of complete archaeological data for all the dwellings studied makes it impossible for us to adopt a sociological approach useful to identify the different housing components. 527  Campo 2001, 460. 528  Mortada 2003, 78 et 96. 529  Idem, 104-105; in the Persian domestic tradition the part of the house dedicated to guests is named bīrūnī, the private part andarūnī (see for 526 

79

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

Figure 67. Reconstruction of Bilād al-Shām’s Umayyad quṣūr equipped with secondary courtyards: in evidence ‘five room units’ (from Qaṣr al-Ṭūba; © G. Labisi 2020)

• Privacy between males and females, and between family members inside a home, respecting the concept of ḥarim through the creation of gender spaces divided and articulated around one or more courtyards and separated by circulation spaces and corridors.533 • Finally, individual privacy through the creation of private spaces, defined by tradition as ‘sacred’.534

spaces’ and related meetings depends on the presence or absence of maḥram men.536 The traditional Islamic house is therefore conceived as a space for personal and family privacy; a modest space for religious activities that shows humility towards neighbours; and a basis for extending hospitality and strengthening social relations.537 However, while ‘neither the Quran nor sunnah provided detailed codes of house design and construction’ acknowledging ‘that cultural customs change from time to time and from one place to another’ and that Islamic tradition ‘produce a set of principles that guide the architectural design of housing’,538 this approach risks crystallising the principle of the ‘traditional Islamic house’ without recognising the varying chronological and social contexts.539

Modesty is expressed through the interior decoration of the house, which must not show off the wealth of the owner and must follow the Islamic principle of using non-idolatrous decoration or artefacts; and the creation of private spaces for religious and educational activities, veritable prayer rooms that correspond in traditional houses to the men’s majlis, the only part of the house directly accessible from the outside and indicating ‘a place of sitting’.535 The majlis also has as its main function to welcome male guests; female hospitality takes place in ‘semi-public’ places, while the location of ‘family

Othman – Aird – Buys 2015, 20-21. Othman – Aird – Buys 2015, 21; Mortada 2003, 124-125. 538  Mortada 2003, 95. 539  As Harrison also rightly pointed out, the traditionalist approach risks ‘conflating disparate eras and peoples into a single, possibly romanticised, concept of a “traditional” Muslim or Arab society’ (Harrison 2016, 70). The same principles of ‘Islamic house’ just described are applied by James Lindsay to the house of the Medieval Islamic World (Lindasy 2005, 122-126). 536  537 

Othman – Aird – Buys 2015, 12-17. Mortada 2003, 105-106. 535  Othman – Aird – Buys 2015, 17-20; Mortada 2003, 120-121. 533  534 

80

The residential contexts of the Umayyad period Although it is difficult to identify with certainty the prototype of the ‘Islamic house’, the most recent studies on the Prophet’s house, a probable model of the Islamic domestic conception, have reconsidered its original form and its relationship with the Prophet’s Mosque starting from the studies of Bisheh and Johns,540 by questioning Caetani and Creswell’s theories.541 Recently Santi has convincingly reconstructed, through a careful and precise reinterpretation of the sources, the shape of the first phases of the Prophet’s Mosque and the articulation of the residential area that developed around it from the period of the Prophet Muḥammad’s lifetime. In fact, Santi assumed that the dār of the Prophet, located 10 cubits (about 5 m) east of the eastern wall of the Mosque of the Prophet, initially consisted of the ʿAishāʾ ḥujarāt (inside which the Prophet would be buried and whose burial chamber resumes the perimeter of this ḥujra) and Sawda, the first wives of the Prophet and whose dimensions were respectively 6-7 cubits per side (about 3.5 m). The ḥujarat of Fāṭima and ʿAlī, perhaps composed of two or three rooms as they also housed the children alḤasan and al-Ḥusayn, were located within the Prophet’s dār, along with the ḥujarāt of Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Khuzayma and Zaynab bint Jaḥsh, the Prophet’s wives married by the time of the Hegira. All ḥujarāt, each of about 12 m2, thus formed a single building complex with the rooms on a single central courtyard. As for the houses of the other wives of the Prophet, the ḥujra of Ḥafṣa ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb was located, again according to Santi, within the dār belonging to ʿUmar. The ḥujarāt of the Prophet’s wives married after 628 had to be about 30 m north of the mosque in a single dār.542 Continuing the analysis of the residential area developed around the Prophet’s Mosque up to the beginning of the caliphate of ʿAlī, Santi reconstructs for the residences of the first caliphs the type of housing with rooms arranged around a central courtyard. This would be the living model of the most important area of early Islamic Medina, having been the Anṣār’s ʿuṭum destroyed by ʿUthmān.543 Concerning the Umayyad residences in Medina, Santi reconstructs the building process that took place during the Umayyad caliphate, highlighting the monumentality of the family’s buildings. Specifically, the location of the residences in semi-urban areas and the monumentality of the buildings leads him to typologically juxtapose the Medina buildings located in the Banī Ḥudayla district to the Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām.544 As a result, we can assume that the main housing model of Medina in the early Islamic period was the dār on central courtyard,545 a model which, as we have seen, is attested in the dār of the Prophet. The term ‘dār’ itself is an aid to understanding the concept of Islamic living units: derived from dāra, ‘to surround’, it indicates a space surrounded by walls, buildings, or nomadic tents,546 a description that fully fits the concept of the Prophet’s dār as reconstructed

by Santi. Considering this understanding of the possible Islamic housing model, is it possible to understand what the Umayyad patrons’ conception of domestic and residential space was through the material collected in this study? Which models did the architects and the masons adapt at the request of their patrons? Finally, is it possible to identify in the Umayyad residential models the characteristics of the ‘Islamic house’? In order to answer these questions, it is useful to first analyse the urban living units of the elites connected to the Byzantine administration, who fled after the Islamic conquests and were occupied by the Muslims who arrived in Greater Syria.547 An important example is the ‘Byzantine-Umayyad palace’ of Damascus investigated by Nassib Saliby: built between the fifth and sixth century, it is composed of a central courtyard, apparently without portico, and rooms arranged around it richly decorated with floor mosaics; considering the richness of the decorative apparatus and the scroll bearing a Greek inscription of a religious character, Saliby suggests the attribution of the palace to a Byzantine notable. The building also revealed occupation phases attributable to the beginning of the Islamic period, as well as consolidation works carried out in the Umayyad period.548 If on the one hand the building reveals the high status of the patron during the Byzantine era, on the other hand it bears witness to Byzantine-Umayyad continuity in the future capital of the caliphate. Moreover, although this is only one of several examples of Umayyad reoccupation of existing living units,549 the consolidation activities that took place in the Umayyad era – which did not alter the building’s planimetric layout – could be a witness to both the process of acquisition of dūr abandoned by the Byzantine notables and the process of adaptation to the Medina social model according to the language of Near Eastern domestic architecture. The latter, widely documented between the third and sixth centuries, reveals a rather ‘palatial’ character. In addition, combined elements of the Roman peristyle mansion and the Syrian village settlements have been found in urban living units in southern Syria.550 These combined elements were part of a process of exchange and standardisation of housing that previously marked the distinction between countryside and city; the economic prosperity – and consequently housing development – of the Syrian milieu of cities and countryside however, declined in the seventh century.551 In this century, we no longer find evidence of peristyle houses, except from the imperial palaces of Constantinople. A new element present in the houses of the seventh century is the presence of a piano nobile, a characteristic probably inherited in the

For the housing acquisition process see, for example, McGraw Donner 1981, 247. 548  Saliby 1997, 192-194. 549  This topic was in fact addressed in Apolline Vernet’s doctoral thesis; the scholar argues that ‘archaeological data can give us access to the transformations of everyday life from the end of the Byzantine period to the Islamic period. It also gives us new evidence about how urban society transformed after the Islamic conquest in the Near East’ (Vernet 2018, abstract) 550  Uytterhoeven 2007, 85-88. 551  Ellis 2007, 6-7; 13-15. 547 

Bisheh 1979; Johns 1999. Caetani 1905, I, 337-339; Creswell 19792, I, 6-8. 542  Santi 2017, 212-215; Santi 2019, 89-97 and related sources. 543  Santi 2017, 215-220; Santi 2019, 116-120 and related sources. 544  Santi 2019, 150-152 2 and related sources. 545  Caetani 1905, I, 437; Creswell 19792, I, 6-7. 546  Marçais 1991, 8. 540  541 

81

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria In madāʾin, these are attested in the living units of ʿAmmān palace and in those of the madīna of Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī; as for quṣūr, twenty-eight show secondary courtyards.558 It is also interesting to note that the size of the secondary courtyards is in all cases smaller than the main courtyards.559 Access to the secondary courtyards is possible from the central courtyards of the buildings or from connecting ‘corridors’: on the basis of the analysis carried out in this study, it is worth observing that the secondary courtyards, which make the individual living units completely independent of the rest of the building, are a prerogative of the palaces of the Umayyad elite, of both madāʾin and quṣūr. The introduction of these architectural elements in building planning from the period of the caliphate of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (724-743) could therefore reflect a willingness to create spaces reserved for the family of the owner of the building by clearly separating the ‘private’ and residential space of the building from the ‘public’ space, such as the audience hall or the central courtyard. Although it is impossible in the present state of our knowledge to speculate about the presence of gendered spaces in the architecture under study, it is nevertheless possible to suggest that the introduction of secondary courtyards inside the buildings had already taken place in the Umayyad era, probably reflecting the desire to create a space reserved for the ḥarim. An element that eludes understanding within the Umayyad modus vivendi is the planimetric articulation of the residential units located on the upper floor – the piano nobile of the Late Antique aristocratic residences – which could guarantee the family unit’s privacy. While an upper floor can be reconstructed in several quṣūr and in the palace of the madīna of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (the ‘Small Enclosure’), an example is preserved solely in the qaṣr of Qaṣr al-Kharāna which reveals an arrangement according to ‘five room units’ of which the one located above the entrance has been identified as the audience room. In general, the presence of secondary courtyards seems, so far, to be a prerogative of the architecture of the elite because in the extra-palatine living units of madāʾin, as for example in Dwelling B of the citadel of ʿAmmān, several family units lived in one house sharing the central courtyard of the building.560 If the Islamic tradition foresees the presence of secondary courtyards in order to guarantee the ḥarim’s privacy, these are nevertheless not an exclusive feature of Umayyad residential architecture since we find evidence for them in Late Antique residences such as, for example, the Villa del Casale of Piazza Armerina561 or in other Near Eastern examples562 and in Asia Minor.563

Near East from the houses of Syrian villages;552 these are attested, for example, in the ‘episcopal palace’ at Buṣrā, where the ground floor resembling local Syrian village architecture is topped by an upper floor with an imposing triconch triclinium553 which faces one of the prototypes of ‘five room units’. If the characteristics of Late Antique living units have been well identified and codified, up to the present study there has been corresponding no global understanding of Umayyad living units; the same Simon Ellis himself questioned ‘whether the housing at Pella should be seen as ‘urban’ or ‘rural’, and whether ‘Arab’ or linked to local traditions from before the Arab Conquest.’554 As we have seen, the canon of ‘traditional Islamic house’ is expressed through privacy, modesty and hospitality. This canon has been observed, for example, in traditional houses of the Ottoman and earlier periods in Aleppo.555 In general, the privacy of Umayyad residences is ensured by the presence of a vestibule whose shape is generally quadrangular (with prevestibule in eight quṣūr); moreover, in the buildings of ʿAnjar and in the qaṣr of Jabal Says the vestibule corresponds to the central room of a ‘five room unit’. As far as entrances to the houses are concerned, Islamic tradition suggests that they should be located away from the main streets and not directly facing the neighbours opposite.556 In the realm of Umayyad madāʾin, this precept seems to be respected in most of the extra-palatial houses of ʿAnjar (the entrances of only seven out of fifty-one houses face each other). The same concept of privacy is guaranteed by the vestibules of the houses of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī because they all interdict the view of the housing unit from the outside; moreover, as far as the madīna is concerned, five out of seven architectural units have an ‘L-shaped’ entrance with a vestibule (the only units of the madīna for which it is possible to suggest a residential function) and the same type of entrance is attested in Dwelling E. Even the entrances of the extra palatine houses of ʿAmmān do not face each other; the only exception is house F, facing the entrance to the mosque from the qiblī wall, for which a representative function has been proposed in this study. The concept of privacy seems to be also applied in quṣūr because all the living units (probably the ‘five room units’) are not directly accessible or are not axial with the vestibule of the qaṣr; privacy and access control are also underlined by the presence of nine pre-vestibules. However, while the vestibule is one of the prerogatives of the ‘traditional Islamic house’, the presence of vestibules or rooms at the entrance that regulate entry to the building is an architectural feature already widely attested in the Late Antique houses of the region.557 Islamic tradition also provides for gendered spaces that ensure the privacy of ḥarim from non maḥram men through the creation of private or secondary courtyards.

Secondary courtyards are attested in the quṣūr of al-Ruṣāfa, quṣūr 106, 109 and 220, Qaṣr al-Ṭūba, quṣūr A and B, Mshattā, Umm alWalīd, eastern, central and western quṣūr, and Khān al-Zabīb, eastern and western quṣūr. 559  A feature already noted, for example, by Özgenel for Late Antique dwellings in Anatolia (Özgenel 2007, 248). A particular example are ‘five room units’ of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba whose central rooms correspond to private courtyards. 560  See Northedge 2012, 638. 561  See, for example, Sfamemi 2016 and the related bibliography. 562  Sodini 1997, 481-514; Gawlikosky 1997, 161. 563  Özgenel 2007, 248-249. 558 

Tate 1992, 15-64. Ellis 2007, 14-15. 554  Ibid. We should recall that Pella’s houses, as well as those of the other pre-Islamic foundations, have not been included in this study because they do not fall into the categories of madāʾin and quṣūr. 555  David – Rousset 2008, 56. 556  Othman – Aird – Buys 2015, 15. 557  See Ellis 2007. 552  553 

82

The residential contexts of the Umayyad period As we have shown, the only example of a completely preserved upper floor that is useful for understanding the visual interaction with the outside through windows is Qaṣr al-Kharāna. The building is fitted with two rows of narrow arrowslit-shape openings necessary to ventilate the building, each located 3 m above floor level; rectangular openings of slightly larger dimensions are located on a higher level. Larger windows, on the other hand, face the inner courtyard, but are all located above the entrance of the rooms to prevent any view from the exterior.564 This characteristic would seem to be reflected in the other Umayyad palaces in the region with an upper floor; therefore, although window remains are preserved for only one architectural example, these elements would seem to following the requirements of tradition through the construction of windows which, although they do not correspond to the mashrabiyas of later periods, by their location ensure privacy inside the building through blocking the view from outside.

period was addressed both to the Arab-Muslim tribes and to the Syrian-Arab nomadic tribes through the architectural and iconographic language evoking the Sasanian and Roman-Byzantine traditions,570 which underwent a shift from west to east in the late Marwānid period.571 However, it is possible to note that where no monumental audience hall is present it is likely that the ‘five room unit’ also had a representational function, as attested in the upper floor of Qaṣr al-Kharāna; moreover, it is possible to advance this function for the architectural devices of the ‘five room units’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ of quṣūr located axially to the entrances or vestibules.572 A testimony that could confirm this hypothesis is the above mentioned passage of al-Masʿūdī in which the central device room of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī is expressly identified as a ‘majlis’.573 Although, as we have seen, in the Umayyad residences of Bilād al-Shām the ‘five room unit’ is widely attested, considering the correspondence between the two architectural models mentioned above, it is possible to suggest that in some examples the ‘five room units’ had a similar function to banāʾ al-Ḥīrī of the post-Umayyad periods. As regards, instead, the presence of a ‘private majlis’, as suggested by the Islamic tradition, in order to be able to identify this device in the context of the Umayyad palatine architecture of madāʾin and quṣūr it is necessary to identify inside the buildings the presence of private and residential spaces: based on the analysis of the palatial plans it is not unreasonable to suggest that this corresponded to the ‘five room units’ that can be identified as the ‘bayt’, literally ‘the covered shelter where one may spend the night’.574 Archaeological evidence for the family function of the Umayyad ‘five room units’ may be some examples of the later periods, that reuse the typology of Umayyad palace architecture: that is, the ribāṭ of Sousse (first half of the ninth century), where we find an internal arrangement of the spaces in individual rooms or ḥujarāt with the mosque located in a priority position;575 and large houses in Samarra, where it is still possible to discern the internal organisation in apartments,576 although not according to the ‘five room unit’ scheme. The buyūt exist therefore only in residential buildings; this identified function can be supported by the connection between the rooms inside the device: many of the side rooms are in fact communicating exclusively with the central room of the device and can therefore be interpreted as ‘alcoves’, the private ‘sacred space’ suggested by tradition. Therefore, if the hypothesis that the ‘five room units’ correspond to the buyūt is confirmed, it is possible to interpret the ‘five room units’ of the palatial and extra-palatial contexts as the living spaces of Umayyad families or their clientes residing there.

Two other fundamental aspects of the ‘traditional Islamic house’ are hospitality and modesty; these two principles find their ideal expression in the majlis, a space that can form either the guestroom or a space for the daily prayers or ṣalāt. Moreover, it is the only part of the house that is directly accessible from the main entrance and towards the main façade, and ‘represents the masculinity and honor of a Muslim home’.565 According to Mortada, it is also the family living room.566 The word is a noun of the verb ‘jalasa’, ‘to sit’ and ‘to hold a session’; moreover, the semantic field of the term ‘majlis’, as well as its applications in the architectures of Islamic societies, is very extensive indicating ‘a meeting place’, ‘meeting, assembly’, ‘reception hall’, ‘a session which is held there’, ‘a hall in which a judge’s sentences delivered’, ‘praetorium’, ‘council’.567 As for the context of analysed Umayyad residences, the majlis seems to be identifiable both in palatial and extra-palatial residences. In the architecture of the first type, the internal plan is often organised according to the ‘five room unit’ scheme, to which are added in some cases, besides the service rooms, an audience hall and, in quṣūr, a mosque. If the historical sources unfortunately do not furnish sufficient data to establish the presence of a Dār al-ʿĀmma (public audience hall) as early as the Umayyad period,568 archaeological evidence has shown the presence of audience halls in the palace contexts of madāʾin at ʿAnjar and ʿAmmān and in quṣūr of Khirbat al-Minya and Mshattā; audience halls also seem to be a feature of the bath complexes such as at Quṣayr ʿAmra and Ḥammām alSarākh.569 As we discussed in the previous chapter, is not improbable to suggest for these audience halls a ‘public’ and representational function, the ceremonial being an exercise in political communication that in the Umayyad

Cf. Marsham 2009, 141-142. Grabar 1955, 49-55. 572  Specifically, in the quṣūr of Qaṣr al-Kharāna, Jabal Says, Qaṣr alḤayr al-Gharbī, Khirbat al-Mafjar, Bālis, the quṣūr 106 and 220 of alRuṣāfa and Mshattā. 573  See here, Chap. 1. 574  Marçais 1991, 8. 575  Creswell 19792, II, 167-170. 576  See the examples in Northedge – Kennet 2015. 570  571 

Urice 1987, 29-30. Othman – Aird – Buys 2015, 19-20. 566  Mortada 2003, 161. 567  Bosworth – van Donzel – Lewis – Pellat 1986, 1031. 568  The presence of a Dār al-ʿĀmma is attested in the sources from the Abbasid period (Marsham 2009, 274-275). 569  Creswell 19792, I, 390-340; 498-502. 564  565 

83

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Returning to the question of the domestic majlis, it is not entirely beyond bounds to suggest that the central room of the ‘five room unit’ corresponds to the majlis of the Islamic domestic tradition. With regard to the function of a prayer room theorised for the majlis of the ‘traditional Islamic houses’ it is interesting to note that all the structures analysed in this study are oriented towards Mecca.577 This suggests the possibility that the central rooms of the ‘five room units’ and/or one of the side rooms connected to them could have been used as a room for daily prayer, responding to the requirements of Islamic tradition. An emblematic case would be the central spaces of the southwestern ‘five room units’ of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba: these in fact correspond to secondary courtyards and are also equipped with side niches which Creswell interprets as miḥrābs.578 It is therefore interesting to note that the architectural devices of this qaṣr conform to the function of the majlis suggested by the Islamic tradition. With regard to the dimensions occupied by the side rooms or ‘alcoves’ of the device of the ‘five room unit’ it is possible to note that only the rooms of the extra-palatial living units of ʿAnjar and of Qaṣr al-Kharāna and Bālis quṣūr occupy an area of about 12 m2, corresponding to the 6-7 Medina cubits that can be reconstructed for the ḥujarāt of the dār of the Prophet. However, an element suggested by tradition, but not detected in the above examples, is the location of the majlis, which in none of the cases is directly accessible from the outside or from the entrance of the building.

tradition strongly reflecting the concept of dār as a ‘space surrounded by walls’ on central courtyard within which there may be buyūt. The only innovative element of Umayyad domestic architecture – which can find comparisons in the ‘traditional Islamic house’ – could be the orientation of the buildings towards Mecca and the presence, attested with certainty at present only at Qaṣr alṬūba, of a prayer space that can correspond to the majlis of tradition. More generally, the process of acquisition and re-elaboration of pre-Islamic architectural models can be seen as part of the in the mechanisms of persuasion that operated in the Umayyad period which resume the traditional channels of Arabian politics, transposed to the new, imperial context: the face-to-face politics of the wufūd (‘delegations’), majlis and khuṭba (‘public speech’, ‘sermon’). Considering both the ideological effects of the early Islamic conquests and that the centre of Umayyad power was the post-Byzantine Near East and because the armies were recruited from both the nomadic population of the region and the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, it is likely that the new ruling class acquired and reworked the symbolism and modus vivendi of the Byzantine and Sasanian imperial authorities, the regal and social elements of the Arab tradition and the notions of a monarchy that was based on Semitic cultures and the Quran.579

We would desire now to offer some concluding thoughts regarding the architectural and living devices we have here analysed. The new interpretation of the Prophet’s living unit in Medina allows us to suggest some innovative considerations of the origin of the Islamic domestic model, since it is probable that this was the social and household model that the patrons of the early Islamic period wanted to adopt in the construction of their apartmentss and housing units of madāʾin and quṣūr in the area of Greater Syria. It likely follows that the architects and local craftsmen who built these structures reworked, driven by their patrons, the architectural and residential models that existed in the eastern Mediterranean region in the Late Antiquity according to the scheme just described; among these models is the ‘five room unit’ that in Umayyad residential architecture seems to have been a multipurpose architectural model: mainly used for the construction of ‘apartments’ or buyūt, it was also used in the internal planning of Umayyad residences, but also as a vestibule and public audience room. It is therefore possible to see the Umayyad house of Bilād al-Shām in its wider historical and cultural context: it is indeed not entirely unlikely that the architects and the masons readapted the residential model already existing in the Near East, such as the vestibule, the courtyards or the alcove room for multiple apartments in the residences of madāʾin and quṣūr. However, the architectural expression of the Umayyad houses is purely Arab-Islamic and probably originates from the Medina 577  578 

Although the orientation shows some errors in certain examples. Creswell 19792, I, 612.

579 

84

Cf. Marsham 2009, 10 and 91.

Conclusions characteristics of a ‘quasi-urban’ settlement. Although the available data are preliminary to a full understanding of the site, it was possible to identify fifty-one extra-palatial living units, all based on a central courtyard. In most of them there is a vestibule and at least one ‘five room unit’, in six cases two. the identification of five housing models for twelve of the houses, located in the two northwestern and southwestern quadrants, is another interesting feature. ʿAnjar is therefore one of the most fascinating archaeological examples of housing and topographical models in an Umayyad madīna, and its characteristics have been discussed more extensively in the fifth chapter.

This study has now collected all the available architectural data on housing units built in the Umayyad period in newly-founded architectural complexes of Bilād al-Shām which can be identified as madāʾin or quṣūr . To begin with, it was useful to identify the settlement and residential models of the pre-Islamic societies of Arabia and the Byzantine and Sasanian empires. It seems clear that the settlement model characteristic of the Umayyad period was derived from the pre-Islamic Arabian pattern, although the architectural form was inherited from the two pre-Islamic imperial traditions. While Creswell codified both ‘Syrian bayt’ and ‘Persian bayt’, we have preferred the terminology ‘five room units’ and ‘banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ respectively. This is because, as far as the ‘five room unit’ is concerned, it has been possible to propose an original comparison with the triclinia devices attested in the eastern Mediterranean region in Late Antiquity, particularly in the ‘Palace of the Giants’ in Athens, the ‘house in the sanctuary of Asclepius’ at Epidaurus and the ‘episcopal palace’ of Phthiotic Thebes, all situated in the Hellenic peninsula and datable between the fifth and sixth centuries. Another possible origin for ‘five room units’ can be found in the alcove rooms of the Ḥawrān region. Another reason for considering the use of the term ‘banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ to be more appropriate is that this is the name alMasʿūdī offers in his famous passage. The comparison offered here with the building of Barz-i Qawāla or Ramāvand (Luristān), consisting of a ‘T-shaped’ device and two smaller īwān having respectively a room on each side, is interesting; but the building, needs further analysis to allow a better understanding of its chronological context. Other examples of banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs are attested in Sasanian Mesopotamia (such as the houses of Maʿariḍ IV and Umm al-Saʿātir in Ctesiphon). However, if the analysis of the structures from the orbit of the Jafnids and Nasrids did not allow us to identify prototypes of the Umayyad housing models, we can assume that the banāʾ al-Ḥīrī is part of the domestic tradition of the Mesopotamian-Iranian area, finding its origin both in the houses with īwān and in those with a megaron.

Our knowledge of the important madīna built during the caliphate of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik at Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī has been vastly improved by the work carried out in recent decades by the Swiss-Syrian mission. Covering an area of 10 km2, the settlement’s architectural features are drawn from the Roman-Byzantine tradition, although the settlement pattern follows a ‘quasi-tribal’ model typical of pre-Islamic Arab societies. Living units have been identified in the two enclosures and in the Northern Settlement. The living units of the Large Enclosure comprise an independent architectural unit with an ‘L-shaped’ entrance through a long rectangular room, a central square courtyard with a portico opening off which there are six quadrangular rooms, and a ‘five room unit’ connected to latrines. The Small Enclosure is composed of a vestibule, a central courtyard with a portico and surrounding rooms arranged according to the scheme of the ‘five room unit’; there was also an upper floor, although the interior plan is unknown. The Northern Settlement is composed of several isolated living units; among which Dwelling E possesses a ‘five room unit’ and central courtyard and surrounding rooms. The madīna of Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī is an important example of caliphal architecture: therefore, although the two enclosures have revealed ‘official’ features, the new data on the Northern Settlement and the analysis of the housing model have allowed us to suggest the intention of the patron and his architects was to use the ‘five room unit’ as the distinctive living model of the Umayyad aristocracy.

In the second part of the study we examined the Umayyad madāʾin and quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām, that is ʿAnjar, ʿAmmān and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī.

Extensively studied over the last decades, the citadel of ʿAmmān – whose monumental phase would date back to the caliphate of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik – belongs to the settlement model of the Umayyad madīna. In this study we have proposed subdividing the governor’s palace of ʿAmmān into three sections according to functions: the two areas containing audience rooms (public to the south, private to the north) and a section consisting of independent living units. Analysis and reconstruction of the latter allowed us to identify the presence of a single architectural

The Umayyad madīna of ʿAnjar, datable to the last years of the caliphate of al-Walīd I, echoes the architectural scheme of Roman castra with the addition of early Islamic architectural models such as the congregational mosque, baths, and secondary palaces. We also observed how the settlement of ʿAnjar reveals interesting similarities with the contemporary qaṣr of Jabal Says, although it has the 85

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria room units’ for the quṣūr of Bālis, al-Fudayn and al-Qasṭal whose dating is generally attributed to the first half of the seventh century: the first two examples would thus fall into the categories of quṣūr dating between the caliphates of al-Walīd I and Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik; the qaṣr of al-Qasṭal would fall into the group of quṣūr dating between the caliphates of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Walīd II.

model consisting of a rectangular courtyard (whose portico was probably added in the Abbasid period) with rooms arranged on three sides, including a rectangular vestibule and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ and, in house 2, a hybrid model between the ‘five room unit’ and banāʾ al-Ḥīrī. As for extra-palatial living units, we have presented in this work the first attempt at an overall study. While the palatial and extra-palatial models do have similarities, we have to note in the extra-palatial model the absence of ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ or ‘five room units’; these are attested only in the house located south of the citadel mosque (unit F), whose entrance is in axis with the opening made in the qiblī wall of the mosque and for which a ‘representational’ function has been suggested. In the other living units there are also no porticoes, and, in some examples, there is evidence of internal subdivision of the unit into several family groups. Therefore, if the housing model attested in the madīna of ʿAmmān reveals the presence of a central courtyard which is accessed through a vestibule, the ‘official’ character is attested only in the palatine domestic space where the ‘Persianizing imagery’ already suggested by Northedge for the ‘public’ components seems to have been used in the organisation of the palatine living units.

The third part of the work discusses the identified architectural models, their origins, and their influence in the elaboration of models derived from pre-Islamic traditions, as well offering an analysis of the influence of the conception of the ‘traditional Islamic house’. In detail, the fourth chapter is a compendium of the architectural components that constitute residential buildings (which in some cases have ‘official’ components) built in the Umayyad era in Greater Syria. These are: vestibules and ante-vestibules, main and secondary courtyards, ‘five room units’, ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs’, and the audience hall. Mosques located inside the perimeter were excluded from this study because they require specific treatment falling outside the scope of this work. These are twofold: while offering a general overview of these architectural models, it is also intended to create a basis for future studies that will address the themes of residential models of the early Islamic period.

The qaṣr is the other settlement model characteristic of the Umayyad period. The main residence is generally composed of a vestibule and central porticoed courtyard with rooms arranged around it, among which there may be an audience hall, mosque, apartments, service rooms and latrines. Some quṣūr had secondary courtyards and an upper floor. The study of the interior plans of quṣūr with ‘five room units’ or ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ allows us to suggest a residential function for the ‘five room units’, although it has been noted that in quṣūr without an audience hall the ‘five room units’ located axially to the vestibule may have instead had a representational function. Notably, the Umayyad quṣūr of Bilād al-Shām do not have banāʾ al-Ḥīrīs, though the presence of hybrid models between them and the ‘five room unit’ is attested at Khirbat alMafjar and Bālis. An interesting feature that emerges from the study of the ‘five room units’ of the Umayyad quṣūr is the clustering of these devices into three chronological groups corresponding to the caliphates of al-Walīd I (705715), Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (the first decade of the caliphate – 724-734) and al-Walīd II (743/4); these periods correspond neatly to the periods of Umayyad prosperity, or, as in the case of al-Walīd II, to a period of increased building activity. This trend is also reflected in the size of ‘five room units’: we have shown that these increase over time. It was also instructive to note that the chronological classification suggested for ‘five room units’ is supported, in most cases, by the dating of each qaṣr suggested by scholars. An exception is Khirbat al-Minya’s qaṣr, whose architectural comparison would lead to the dating of the living units to the caliphate of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik; however, the archaic characteristics of the architectural components of the qaṣr suggest a dating to al-Walīd I’s caliphate. Finally, while acknowledging the limits of this approach, we have suggested a chronological attribution based on the comparison of the surfaces occupied by ‘five

The fifth chapter contains the detailed discussion of the architectural models presented above. For this reason, we wanted to include those buildings of the Umayyad Bilād al-Shām that re-elaborate the form of the ‘five room unit’ or that present the so-called ‘proto-bayt’, architectural devices consisting of two or more rooms. These are, in the first case, the ‘bayt mansion’ of Madīnat al-Fār, one of the first examples of a living unit of the Islamic period arranged according to the adaptation of the internal scheme of the ‘five room unit’, for which, sadly, no other useful comparisons are extant. For the second case, the quṣūr of Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ, Umm al-Walīd and Khān alZabīb were examined. With the qaṣr of Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ, the comparison of the dimensions occupied by the central rooms of the buyūt with those dated between the caliphate of al-Walīd I and Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik has been an interesting one. Although it is not a significant dating element, it does find a parallel with the Umayyad dating recently suggested by Genequand and the discovery of an Arabic graffito bearing the date 743/4. In addition, the comparison between the measurements of the Umayyaddate ‘proto-buyūt’ of Umm al-Walīd and Khān al-Zabīb, allows us to compare the buyūt of Umm al-Walīd with those datable to the caliphate of al-Walīd I. The western qaṣr of Khān al-Zabīb, the only for which it is possible to identify with certainty the presence of ‘proto-bayt’, would bear comparison with buyūt dated between the caliphates of al-Walīd I and Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik. The discussion was also extended to Umayyad buildings featuring apartments outside Bilād al-Shām, Kūfa’s Dār al-Imāra and Tulūl al-Shuʿayba qaṣr, both in Iraq. The 86

Conclusions Finally, it was possible to suggest that the social and residential model of Umayyad houses is the dār on central courtyard, as attested in Medina during the early years of Islam and in Late Antique domestic architecture. We have therefore suggested that architects and local craftsmen who built Umayyad residences reworked residential models typical of Late Antique domestic architecture. Among these models, the ‘five room unit’ is the identifying model of the Umayyad elite; the model has also been adapted according to different needs: used mainly for the construction of ‘apartments’ or buyūt, it often marks the articulation of palatine architecture, both of madāʾin and quṣūr. Equally, the presence of the model in many of quṣūr suggests their residential function; this function is also underlined by the presence of secondary courtyards. We have been able to point out that this element is already attested in the Umayyad residences and it is not unlikely to suggest for the secondary courtyards a privacy function that would be typical of the ḥarim of Islamic houses; however, this function can also be found in some of the examples of Late Antique residential architecture. Also, to return to the ‘five room unit’, we saw that the model was used as a vestibule and as an audience room. Thus, the conceptual residential prototype of Umayyad houses is most likely to be found in the Prophet’s house of Medina and reflects the very concept expressed by the word ‘dār’: it is a ‘space surrounded by walls’ with a central courtyard with the rooms arranged around it, in some cases in ‘apartments’. However, while the dictates of the Islamic tradition seem to be respected in the Umayyad living units of Bilād al-Shām, many of these architectural features are already detectable in Late Antique domestic tradition, such as the concept of the house on a central courtyard, the vestibule and/or the ‘L-shaped’ entrance, and the presence of a representational space (the ‘majlis’ of the Islamic tradition). The only innovative element that would be reflected in the dictates of the Islamic tradition is the orientation of the houses: these, like all the studied buildings of the Umayyad era, are oriented to Mecca. An emblematic example is the central space of the southern ‘five room units’ of the late Umayyad palace of Qaṣr al-Ṭūba: here we find a miḥrāb in the wall oriented towards Mecca, an element that suggests the functional comparison with the majlis of the Islamic tradition. In conclusion, architects and masons have adapted Late Antique architectural layout within the new residential concepts characteristic of the Islamic housing model.

first example can be compared with the citadel palace of ʿAmmān: although comparisons between the ‘official’ parts of the two buildings have recently been presented, it was possible to highlight further similarities in this study between the living spaces. Indeed, around the īwān complex/pillar hall and domed cruciform hall of the two buildings there are five residential units on a central courtyard, of which probably the one immediately behind the cruciform hall could be for the exclusive use of the governor, considering the layout and the plan. This architectural type can also be found in the Iraqi qaṣr of Tulūl al-Shuʿayba. Consequently, it is possible to suggest that the buildings belong to a single early Islamic palace model which, while finding a different declination in the layout of the audience hall, has similarities in the planimetric and conceptual arrangement of the palace’s living units. Another possible comparison is between Tulūl al-Shuʿayba and Bālis, also proposed in the most recent studies. However, if at a first analysis the two quṣūr seem to reveal some planimetric analogies, Bālis’ qaṣr has architectural features typical of Bilād al-Shām such as the adaptation of banāʾ al-Ḥīrī according to the ‘five room unit’ scheme and the presence of other ‘five room units’, probably built in a second architectural phase. Finally, we have suggested here the identification of the ‘Persianizing imagery’ also in Bālis’ qaṣr, a process that could be compared with the one reconstructed by Northedge for ʿAmmān palace. One approach that has not so far been proposed for the understanding of Umayyad living space is a comparison between the dictates of the Islamic tradition, the origin of the Islamic living concept and Late Antique RomanByzantine domestic architecture. Privacy, modesty and hospitality are in fact the principles identified by various scholars through which the ‘traditional Islamic house’ is structured, although this approach risks crystallising the principle of the ‘traditional Islamic house’ without recognising the different chronological and social contexts. As for the Prophet’s house in Medina, the most recent studies have completely reviewed the reconstruction of Caetani and Creswell: in fact, it has been suggested that the dār of the Prophet, separated from the Prophet’s mosque, was composed of a central courtyard with rooms or ḥujarāt surrounding it. This was most likely the main housing model of Medina in the early Islamic period. The Late Antique living space consists, in most cases, of a house with a central porticoed courtyard around which the rooms are arranged with at least one triclinium and a vestibule. This model underwent a change towards the seventh century, when the portico disappeared and the residential area was moved to the upper floor, identified as the piano nobile. The discussion then proceeds with a careful analysis of the components of the Umayyad living units studied in order to identify possible elements which could lead back to the dictates of the ‘traditional Islamic house’. In other words, an attempt was made to understand what the ‘Islamic’ characteristics of Umayyad houses were and what, instead, was the influence of pre-Islamic traditions. 87

Appendix 1 Table 1. Extra-palatial dwellings of madāʾin equipped with courtyards Site

Dwelling

Sheet number

Courtyard area (m2)

Number of rooms

Number of rooms with direct access to the courtyard

Vestibule

Surface (m2)

‘Five room units’

ʿAnjar

A (SO)

6

70-75

17

6

×

360-365

×

ʿʿAnjar

B (SO)

7

90-95

17

at least 5

×

390-395

×

ʿAnjar

C (SO)

8

110-115

9

at least 1

×

285-290

×

ʿAnjar

D (SO)

9

unidentifiable

at least 5

unidentifiable

×

95-100

×

ʿAnjar

E (SO)

10

110-115

20

at least 4

×

470-475

×

ʿAnjar

F (SO)

11

> 150

at least 11

at least 3

×

305-310

ʿAnjar

G (SO)

12

95-100

at least 10

at least 1

×

385-390

ʿAnjar

H (SO)

13

80-85

at least 9

unidentifiable

×

285-290

ʿAnjar

I (SO)

14

85-90

at least 14

unidentifiable

×

380-385

ʿAnjar

J (SO)

15

85-90

16

unidentifiable

×

575-580

ʿAnjar

K (SO)

16

105-110

14

unidentifiable

×

350-355

ʿAnjar

L (SO)

17

95-100

at least 5

unidentifiable

ʿAnjar

M (SO)

18

105-110

14

unidentifiable

×

520-525

×

ʿAnjar

N (SO)

19

80-85

14

unidentifiable

×

395-400

×

ʿAnjar

O (SO)

20

> 100

at least 9

unidentifiable

×

270-275

ʿAnjar

P (SO)

21

90-95

at least 8

unidentifiable

×

420-425

ʿAnjar

Q (SO)

22

90-95

at least 13

unidentifiable

×

410-415

×

ʿAnjar

R (SO)

23

90-95

at least 12

unidentifiable

×

390-395

×

ʿAnjar

S (SO)

24

about 90-95

at least 8

unidentifiable

×

280-285

ʿAnjar

Š (SO)

25

about 85-90

at least 4

unidentifiable

×

215-220

ʿAnjar

T (SO)

26

80-85

at least 12

unidentifiable

×

350-355

×

ʿAnjar

U (SO)

27

65-70

11

at least 6

300-305

×

ʿAnjar

V (SO)

28

85-90

10

7

×

315-320

ʿAnjar

W (SO)

29

90-95

11

at least 2

×

530-535

ʿAnjar

X (SO)

30

85-90

10

8

×

310-315

ʿAnjar

Y (SO)

31

75-80

10

at least 6

×

295-300

ʿAnjar

Z (SO)

32

100-105

9

6

×

270-275

ʿAnjar

B (NO)

34

80-85

at least 8

at least 4

×

240-245

×

ʿAnjar

C (NO)

35

70-75

10

at least 4

×

235-240

×

ʿAnjar

E (NO)

37

75-80

17

at least 5

×

370-375

×

ʿAnjar

F (NO)

38

75-80

at least 11

at least 6

×

315-320

×

89

×

×

430-435

×

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Site

Dwelling

Sheet number

Courtyard area (m2)

Number of rooms

Number of rooms with direct access to the courtyard

Vestibule

Surface (m2)

‘Five room units’

ʿAnjar

G (NO)

39

75-80

at least 17

7

×

360-365

×

ʿAnjar

H (NO)

40

75-80

16

unidentifiable

×

340-345

×

ʿAnjar

I (NO)

41

> 85

at least 11

unidentifiable

×

415-420

ʿAnjar

J (NO)

42

80-85

at least 12

unidentifiable

×

415-420

ʿAnjar

K (NO)

43

?

at least 4

unidentifiable

×

405-410

ʿAnjar

L (NO)

44

85-90

at least 12

at least 1

460-465

ʿAnjar

O (NO)

47

80-85

at least 6

unidentifiable

370-375

ʿAnjar

P (NO)

48

110-115

at least 5

unidentifiable

ʿAnjar

Q (NO)

49

95-100

at least 13

unidentifiable

ʿAnjar

R (NO)

50

135-140

at least 8

unidentifiable

×

415-420

ʿAnjar

S (NO)

51

80-85

at least 10

unidentifiable

×

395-400

ʿAnjar

T (NO)

52

110-115

at least 13

unidentifiable

×

335-340

ʿAnjar

U (NO)

53

80-85

10

5

260-265

×

ʿAnjar

W (NO)

54

80-85

10

4

275-280

×

ʿAnjar

X (NO)

55

70-75

10

at least 3

255-260

×

ʿAnjar

Y (NO)

56

70-75

10

at least 2

260-265

ʿAmmān

A

76

about 150

at least 2

at least 1

×

200-205

ʿAmmān

C

78

about 135-140

at least 8

at least 8

×

225-230

ʿAmmān

D

79

105-110

at least 7

at least 5

×

225-230

ʿAmmān

E

80

unidentifiable

at least 1

at least 1

ʿAmmān

F

81

180-185

14

at least 6

×

535-540

ʿAmmān

H

82

85-90

8

at least 4

×

220-225

ʿAmmān

I

83

75-80

at least 8

at least 5

×

210-215

ʿAmmān

J

84

about 320-325

at least 4

at least 2

×

ca. 400405

ʿAmmān

L

87

115-120

8

at least 4

ʿAmmān

M

88

240-245

6

unidentifiable

ʿAmmān

1

79

20-25

2

2

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

I

56

500-550

18

about 5

×

190-195

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

III

56

500-550

16

about 5

×

160-165

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

VI

56

500-550

18

about 5

90

×

380-385 375-380

×

ca. 415420 ×

290-295 ×

395-400 50-55

170-175

×

Appendix 1 Site

Dwelling

Sheet number

Courtyard area (m2)

Number of rooms

Number of rooms with direct access to the courtyard

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

VII

56

500-550

14

about 5

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

IX

56

500-550

16

about 5

×

200-205

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

X

56

500-550

16

about 5

×

200-205

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (Large Enclosure)

XII

56

500-550

16

about 5

×

200-205

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī

E

58

450

21

at least 3

×

140-145

Vestibule

Surface (m2)

‘Five room units’

215-220

×

Table 2. Extra-palatial dwelling of madāʾin without courtyards showing internal subdivisions Site

Dwelling

Sheet number

Parcelled dwelling – description

Number of subdivisions

Communicating dwelling units

Number of communications

Number of rooms

ʿAmmān

K

85

The subdivision is assumed since K’ communicates exclusively with K

2

×

1

6

ʿAmmān

K’

86

The subdivision is assumed since K’ communicates exclusively with K

2

×

1

3

Table 3. Extra-palatial dwellings of madāʾin with courtyards showing internal subdivisions Site

Dwelling

Sheet number

Parcelled dwelling – description

Number of subdivisions

Communicating dwelling units

Number of communications

Number of rooms

ʿAmmān

Residence B

68

It can be assumed that the dwelling is divided into two units, composed of rooms a-c, e-h

2

×

*

9

91

Appendix 2 Table 4. ‘Five room units’ of quṣūr Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room unit’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - first floor (rooms 6-10)

70-75

8

716

3

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna second floor (rooms 21-25)

75-80

23

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - first floor (rooms 11-15)

75-80

13

716

3

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna second floor (rooms 26-30)

80-85

28

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna second floor (rooms 37-41)

85-90

39

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr a al-Kharāna second floor (rooms 31-35)

85-90

33

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - first floor (rooms 1-5)

85-90

3

716

3

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna second floor (rooms 16-20)

90-95

18

527

5

no

710

Bālis

Qaṣr (rooms 16-20)

90-95

18

‎4022 ‎

3

no

first half 8th century

Bālis

Qaṣr (rooms 11-15)

95-100

13

‎4022 ‎

3

no

first half 8th century

Bālis

Qaṣr (rooms 6-10)

95-100

8

‎4022 ‎

3

no

first half 8th century

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 105A (rooms 1-5)

105-110

5

about 1387

1

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 11-15)

110-115

13

3800

4

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 16-20)

110-115

18

3800

4

yes

724-743

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 6-10)

125-130

8

3800

4

yes

724-743

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 1-5)

135-140

3

3800

4

yes

724-743

AlFudayn

Qaṣr (rooms 1-5)

135-140

3

‎1028,6 ‎

1

no

first half 8th century

Qaṣr alKharāna

m2

93

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room unit’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 6-10)

135-140

8

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 11-15)

140-145

13

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 21-25)

140-145

23

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 1-5)

140-145

3

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 220 (rooms 1-5)

140-145

3

(perimeter: about 4900)

1

yes

724-743

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 16-20)

145-150

18

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 31-35)

145-150

33

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 26-30)

145-150

28

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

AlQasṭal**

Qaṣr (rooms 6-8)*

145-150

6

about 3073

4

no

720-744

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 36-40)

150-155

38

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 1-5)

155-160

3

4149

4

yes

727

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 6-10)

160-165

8

4149

4

yes

727

Khirbat al-Minya

Khirbat al-Minya (rooms 1-5)

165-170

3

4495

2

no

712-715

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 20-24)

170-175

22

(perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 16-20)

170-175

18

4149

4

yes

727

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 15-19)

180-185

17

(perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

Khirbat al-Minya

Khirbat al-Minya (rooms 6-10)

185-190

8

4495

2

no

712-715

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 1-5)

190-195

3

(perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 6-9)

190-195

8

(perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 10-14)

200-205

12

(perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 31-35)

200-205

33

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 41-45)

205-210

43

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 36-40)

205-210

38

16100

11

no

743/744

94

Appendix 2 Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room unit’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 51-56)

205-210

53

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 26-30)

215-220

28

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 11-15)

215-220

13

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 16-20)

215-220

18

16100

11

no

743/744

Al-Qasṭal

Qaṣr (rooms 1-5)

215-220

3

about 3073

4

no

720-744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 6-10)

220-225

8

16100

11

no

743/744

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 11-15)

220-225

13

4149

4

yes

727

Al-Qasṭal

Qaṣr (rooms 9-13)

225-230

11

about 3073

4

no

720-744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 1-5)

225-230

3

16100

11

no

743/744

Al-Qasṭal

Qaṣr (rooms 14-18)

255-260

16

about 3073

4

no

720-744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 6-10)

265-270

8

3473

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 1-5)

285-290

3

3901

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 6-10)

285-290

8

3901

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 1-5)

295-300

3

3473

4

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 46-50)

315-320

48

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 21-25)

360-365

23

16100

11

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 16-20)

415-420

18

3901

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 11-15)

415-420

13

3473

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 16-20)

420-425

18

3473

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 11-15)

420-425

13

3901

4

no

743/744

Table 5. Dimensions of central rooms of quṣūr’s ‘five room units’ Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room units’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘Five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - first floor (rooms 6-10)

30-35

8

716

3

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - second floor (rooms 21-25)

30-35

23

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - first floor (rooms 11-15)

35-40

13

716

3

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr a al-Kharāna - second floor (rooms 31-35)

35-40

33

527

5

no

710

95

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room units’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘Five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - second floor (rooms 37-41)

40-45

39

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - second floor (rooms 26-30)

40-45

28

527

5

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - first floor (rooms 1-5)

40-45

3

716

3

no

710

Qaṣr alKharāna

Qaṣr al-Kharāna - second floor (rooms 16-20)

45-50

18

527

5

no

710

Bālis

Qaṣr (rooms 16-20)

40-45

18

‎4022

3

no

first half 8th century

Bālis

Qaṣr (rooms 11-15)

40-45

13

‎4022

3

no

first half 8th century

Bālis

Qaṣr (rooms 6-10)

40-45

8

‎4022

3

no

first half 8th century

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 105A (rooms 1-5)

45-50

3

about 1387 m2

1

yes

724-743

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 6-10)

55-60

8

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 11-15)

50-55

13

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 21-25)

50-55

23

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 1-5)

50-55

3

‎1750 ‎

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 36-40)

50-55

38

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 1-5)

50-55

3

3800

4

yes

724-743

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 6-10)

50-55

8

3800

4

yes

724-743

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 11-15)

50-55

13

3800

4

yes

724-743

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 109 (rooms 16-20)

55-60

18

3800

4

yes

724-743

Al-Ruṣāfa

Qaṣr 220 (rooms 1-5)

55-60

3

(outside perimeter: about 4900)

1

yes

724-743

AlFudayn

Qaṣr (rooms 1-5)

55-60

3

‎1028

1

no

first half 8th century

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 16-20)

55-60

18

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 31-35)

60-65

33

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

Jabal Says

Qaṣr (rooms 26-30)

60-65

28

‎1750

8

yes

705-715

AlQasṭal**

Qaṣr (rooms 6-8)*

65-70

6

about 3073

4*

no

720-744

96

Appendix 2 Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room units’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘Five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 6-10)

65-70

8

4149

4

yes

727

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 1-5)

65-70

3

4149

4

yes

727

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 16-20)

70-75

18

4149

4

yes

727

Khirbat al-Minya

Khirbat al-Minya (rooms 6-10)

70-75

8

4495

2

no

712-715

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (rooms 11-15)

70-75

13

4149

4

yes

727

Khirbat al-Minya

Khirbat al-Minya (rooms 1-5)

75-80

3

4495

2

no

712-715

Al-Qasṭal

Qaṣr (rooms 1-5)

75-80

3

about 3073

4

no

720-744

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 1-5)

75-80

3

(outside perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 15-19)

80-85

17

(outside perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 20-24)

80-85

22

(outside perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 6-9)

85-90

8

(outside perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

AlRuṣāfa

Qaṣr 106 (rooms 10-14)

85-90

12

(outside perimeter: about 4900)

5

yes

724-743

Al-Qasṭal

Qaṣr (rooms 9-13)

80-85

11

about 3073

4

no

720-744

Al-Qasṭal

Qaṣr (rooms 14-18)

90-95

16

about 3073

4

no

720-744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 31-35)

90-95

33

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 36-40)

90-95

38

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 41-45)

95-100

43

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 26-30)

95-100

28

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 11-15)

95-100

13

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 16-20)

100-105

18

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 51-56)

110-115

53

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 6-10)

100-105

8

16100

11

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 1-5)

100-105

3

16100

11

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 6-10)

135-140

8

3473

4

no

743/744

97

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madā’in and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Site

Building

Inner surface (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room units’

Covered area (m2)

Number of ‘Five room units’

Part of a complex

Date

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 1-5)

135-140

3

3901

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 1-5)

135-140

3

3473

4

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 46-50)

135-140

48

16100

11

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 6-10)

140-145

8

3901

4

no

743/744

Mshattā

Mshattā (rooms 21-25)

150-155

23

16100

11

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 11-15)

150-155

13

3901

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr A (rooms 16-20)

150-155

18

3901

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 11-15)

165-170

13

3473

4

no

743/744

Qaṣr alṬūba

Qaṣr B (rooms 16-20)

165-170

18

3473

4

no

743/744

Table 6. Synopsis of Umayyad ‘five room units’ of quṣūr Site

Date

Covered area of ‘five room units’

Covered area of ‘five room units’ central room

Qaṣr al-Kharāna, 3 ‘five room units’

710

between 70 and 75 and 90 and 95 m2

between 30 and 35 and 45 and 50 m2

Al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 105A, 1 ‘five room unit’

724-743

between 105 and 110 m2

between 45 and 50 m2

Al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 109, 4 ‘five room units’

724-743

between 110 and 115, 135 and 140 m2

between 50 and 55, 55 and 60 m2

Jabal Says, 8 ‘five room units’

705-715

between 135 and 140, 145 and 150 m2

between 55 and 60, 60 and 65 m2

Al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 220, 1 ‘five room unit’

724-743

between 140 and 145 m2

between 55 and 60 m2

Khirbat al-Minya, 2 ‘five room unit’

712-715

between 165 and 170, 185 and 190 m2

between 70 and 80 m2

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī, 4 ‘five room unit’

727

between 155 and 160, 220 and 225 m2

between 65 and 75 m2

Al-Ruṣāfa, qaṣr 106, 5 ‘five room units’

724-743

between 170 and 175, 200 and 205 m2

between 75 and 90 m2

Mshattā, qaṣr, at least 11 ‘five room units’.

743/744

between 200 and 205, 360 and 365 m2

between 90 and 95, 150 and 155 m2

Al-Qasṭal, qaṣr, 4 ‘five room units’

720-740

between 215 and 220, 255 and 260 m2

between 65 and 70, 80 and 85 m2

Qaṣr al-Ṭūba, qaṣr A, 4 ‘five room units’

743/744

between 285 and 290, 420 and 425 m2

between 135 and 140, 150 and 155 m2

Qaṣr al-Ṭūba, Qaṣr B, 4 ‘five room units’

743/744

between 265 and 270, 420 and 425 m2

between 135 and 140, 165 and 170 m2

Bālis, qaṣr, at least 3 ‘five room units’

first half 8th century

between 90 and 100 m2

between 40 and 45 m2

Al-Fudayn, qaṣr, 1 ‘five room unit’

first half 8th century

between 135 and 140 m2

between 55 and 60 m2

98

Appendix 2 Table 7: Hybrid models between ‘Five room units’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’. Site

Building

Bālis

Khirbat al-Mafjar

Inner surface(m2)

‘Five room unit’ covered area (m2)

Denomination of the central room of the ‘five room unit’

Building covered area (m2)

Number of hybrid models

Part of a complex

Date

Qaṣr (rooms 120-125 1-5)

55-60

3

4022

1

no

first half 8th century

Qaṣr (rooms 150-155 1-5)

75-80

3

‎3449

1

yes

724-744

99

Appendix 3 Madāʾin Dwellings 1. ʿAnjar, Palace Dwellings S1

ʿAnjar, Main Palace

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southeast

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Government palace (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

Main Palace

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

59,6 × 70,8 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard), 2 vestibules (vestibule 1, vestibule 2), 2 apsidal rooms (apsidal room 1, apsidal room 2)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 32,8 × 33,3 m; vestibule 1: 9,3 × 5,8 m; vestibule 2: 10.5 × 6.3 m; apsidal room 1: 13.2 × 13.3 (apse depth: 3.6 m; apse width: 4.8 m); apsidal room 2: 13.1 × 13.1 m (apse depth: 3.5 m; apse width: 4.8 m); 1: 10.5 × 5.8 m; 2: 4.8 × 4 m; 3: 4.6 × 4 m; 4: 10.5 × 6.2 m; 5: 4.7 × 3.9 m; 6: 4.6 × 4 m; 7: 4.8 × 4.1 m; 8: 4.6 × 4 m; 9: 4.8 × 4 m; 10: 4.9 × 4.1 m; 11: 4.8 × 4.1 m; 12: 4.8 × 4.1 m; 13: 10.6 × 6.4 m; 14: 4.9 × 4 m; 15: 4.7 × 4.1 m; 16: 10.7 × 6.2 m; 17: 3 × 16,9 m; 18: 4,8 × 4,9 m; 19: 4,8 × 4,7 m; 20: 4,8 × 4,8 m; 21: 3 × 2,3 m; 22: 3,1 × 2,3 m; 23: 4,7 × 4,8 m; 24: 4,8 × 4,9 m; 25: 4.8 × 4.8 m; 26: 2.9 × 16.9 m; 27: 10.7 × 6.9 m; 28: 5.1 × 4.2 m; 29: 4.7 × 4.1 m; 30: 10.8 × 6.3 m; 31: 4.9 × 4.7 m; 32: 4.8 × 4.2 m; 33: 5 × 4.2 m; 34: 4.9 × 4.2 m; 35: 4.8 × 4.4 m; 36: 4.9 × 4.5 m; 37: 4.9 × 4.2 m; 38: 4.8 × 4.1 m; 39: 10.9 × 6.2 m; 40: 4.8 × 4 m; 41: 5 × 4 m; 42: 10.8 × 6 m; 43: 2.9 × 17.1 m; 44: 4.8 × 4.7 m; 45: 4.9 × 5.1 m; 46: 5 × 4.9 m; 47: 3.2 × 2.3 m; 48: 3.1 × 2.8 m; 49: 4.8 × 4.8 m; 50: 4.7 × 5 m; 51: 4.6 × 4.9 m; 52: 2.9 × 17.1 m

Total of all internal surfaces

3114,3 m2

‘Five room units’

4

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

3

Īwān

Entrance (description)

2 Accesses with vestibule (vestibule 1 and vestibule 2), 1 Access from room 48 of the apsidal room 1 to the street that connects the palace to the mosque

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

Yes, but not surviving

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

52 rooms (1-52)

4: 65,1 m2 13: 67,8 m2 30: 68 m2 39: 67,5 m2

Total internal surfaces

2-6: 139,4 m2 11-15: 146 m2 28-32: 151,9 m2 37-41: 147 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

100

Yes

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 11)

101

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S2

ʿAnjar, Minor Palace 1

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northeast

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Palace (dār)

Name of the building

Minor Palace 1

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

46,7 × 47,2 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard), 1 vestibule (vestibule 1)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 23.5 × 23.4 m; vestibule: 5.9 × 7.7 m; 1: 10 × 4 m; 2: 4 × 4 m; 3: 4.7 × 4 m; 4: 9.8 × 5.8 m; 5: 4.3 × 4 m; 6: 4.3 × 4.1 m; 7: 4 × 4.4 m; 8: 4.3 × 3.9 m; 9: 9.7 × 6 m; 10: 4.2 × 4 m; 11: 4.5 × 4.3 m; 12: 9.5 × 3.8 m; 13: 2.5 × 10.6 m; 14: 4.3 × 4.3 m; 15: 4.2 × 4.1 m; 16: 4 × 4.4 m; 17: 4 × 4 m; 18: 2.5 × 10.6 m; 19: 9.4 × 4.3 m; 20: 4.1 × 3.9 m; 21: 4.1 × 3.9 m; 22: 9.2 × 5.8 m; 23: 4.1 × 4.2 m; 24: 4 × 4.1 m; 25: 3.9 × 3.9 m; 26: 3.9 × 4.1 m; 27: 9.1 × 6 m; 28: 4.1 × 4.2 m; 29: 4.1 × 4.2 m; 30: 9.3 × 4 m; 31: 2.4 × 10.6 m; 32: 3.9 × 4.1 m; 33: 4 × 4.2 m; 34: 5.9 × 9.4 m; 35: 3.7 × 4.2 m; 36: 3.8 × 4 m; 37: 2.3 × 10.5 m

Total of all internal surfaces

1541,6 m2

‘Five room units’

5

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

3

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

1 Access with vestibule to the east; 1 Access with vestibule to the west; 1 Access through apsidal room 1, room 48

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

Yes, but not surviving

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

37 rooms (1-37)

4: 56,8 m2 9: 58,2 m2 22: 53,3 m2 27: 54,6 m2 34: 55,4 m2

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

102

2-6: 126,4 m2 7-11: 128,7 m2 20-24: 118,9 m2 25-29: 120,2 m2 32-36: 119 m2

Yes

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 15)

103

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S3

ʿAnjar, Minor Palace 2

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

palace (dār)

Name of the building

Minor Palace 2

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

45,9 × 46,1 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard), 1 vestibule (vestibule 1)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 24 × 23.2 m; hallway: 6.2 × 9.3 m; 1: 9.7 × 3.7 m; 2: 4.6 × 4.2 m; 3: 4.1 × 4.1 m; 4: 9.7 × 5.6 m; 5: 4.2 × 3.8 m; 6: 4.1 × 4 m; 7: 4.4 × 4.1 m; 8: 4.1 × 4.1 m; 9: 9.8 × 5.7 m; 10: 4.6 × 3.8 m; 11: 4.2 × 3.8 m; 12: 9.9 × 3.8; 13: 1.9 × 10.7 m; 14: 4.1 × 4.3 m; 15: 3.9 × 3.9 m; 16: 4.3 × 4 m; 17: 4.1 × 3.9 m; 18: 2.3 × 10.8 m; 19: 9.1 × 4 m; 20: 4 × 4 m; 21: 3.7 × 4.1 m; 22: 9.3 × 5.6 m; 23: 4.5 × 3.9 m; 24: 3.8 × 3.9 m; 25: 3.9 × 4 m; 26: 4 × 3.9 m; 27: 9 × 5.5 m; 28: 3.9 × 4.1 m; 29: 4.2 × 4.2 m; 30: 9.4 × 4.1 m; 31: 2.4 × 11.6 m; 32: 4.1 × 3.9 m; 33: 4.3 × 4.1 m; 34: 5.8 × 9.2 m; 35: 4.3 × 3.8 m; 36: 4.1 × 4.1 m; 37: 2.2 × 11.5 m

37 rooms (1-37)

Total of all internal surfaces

1524,1 m2

‘Five room units’

5

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the south

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

Yes, but not surviving

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

4: 54,3 m2 9: 55,8 m2 22: 52 m2 27: 49,5 m2 34: 53,3 m2

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

Yes

Author reconstruction

Notes

104

2-6: 122,8 m2 7-11: 124,1 m2 20-24: 115,6 m2 25-29: 114,3 m2 32-36: 120,1 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1)

105

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S4

ʿAnjar, Minor Palace 3

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Palace (dār)

Name of the building

Minor Palace 3

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

45,4 × 46,8 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard), 1 vestibule (vestibule 1)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

cour: 23,4 × 22,9 m; vestibule: 5,9 × 9,2 m; 1: 9,2 × 4 m; 2: 3.8 × 4.4 m; 3: 4 × 4.3 m; 4: 9 × 5.8 m; 5: 4 × 4.1 m;6: 3.8 × 3.9 m; 7: 4 × 3.7 m; 8: 3.8 × 3.7 m; 9: 9 × 6 m; 10: 3.8 × 3.8 m; 11: 3.9 × 4 m; 12: 9.3 × 4.3 m; 13: 2.3 × 10.1 m; 14: 4 × 3.8; 15: 3.7 × 3.8 m; 16: 4.1 × 3.7 m; 17: 4.2 × 4.8 m; 18: 2.2 × 10.8 m; 19: 9.5 × 3.8 m; 20: 4.2 × 4.1 m; 21: 4.1 × 4.3 m; 22: 9.2 × 5.9 m; 23: 4 × 3.8 m; 24: 4.1 × 3.8 m; 25: 3.8 × 4 m; 26: 4 × 3.9 m; 27: 9.3 × 5.5 m; 28: 4.1 × 4 m; 29: 4.2 × 3.8 m; 30: 9.2 × 4.2 m; 31: 2.2 × 10.6 m; 32: 4.1 × 4.2 m; 33: 4 × 3.8 m; 34: 5.5 × 9.5 m; 35: 3.5 × 4.3 m; 36: 3.5 × 3.7 m; 37: 2.4 × 10.6 m

37 rooms (1-37)

Total of all internal surfaces

1478,2 m2

‘Five room units’

5

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the south

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

Yes, but not surviving

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

4: 52,2 m2 9: 54 m2 22: 54,8 m2 27: 51,1 m2 34: 52,2 m2

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

Yes

Author reconstruction

Notes

106

2-6: 117,3 m2 7-11: 112,9 m2 20-24: 119,1 m2 25-29: 114,3 m2 32-36: 112,6 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1)

107

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings 1.2. ʿAnjar, extra-Palace Dwellings

Figure 68. Dwellings of the southwestern quadrant of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

109

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S5

ʿAnjar: Dwelling A (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

A

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

25 × 23,4 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.4 × 4.9 m; courtyard: 9.4 × 8.3 m a: 8 × 3 m; b: 2.6 × 3 m; c: 2.3 × 3.1 m; d: 4.2 × 3.2 m; e: 4.3 × 3.5 m; f: 4.2 × 3.5 m; g: 4.3 × 3.5m; h: 4.2 × 3.8m; i: 4.6 × 8.5m; j: 8.4 × 3.8m; k: 3.3 × 3.7 m; l: 3.7 × 3.3 m; m: 3.4 × 3.5 m; n: 3.3 × 3.4m;o: 7.9 × 3.6 m; p: 3.4 × 3.7 m; q: 3.4 × 3.7 m

17 rooms (a-q)

Total of all internal surfaces

360 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room (i; o)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

2

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the south (of a secondary lane); 1 Access to the north (connected to Dwelling B)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

Dwelling B in the north

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction Bibliography

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

i: 39.1 m2 o: 28.4 m2

Total internal surfaces (m-q; g-j)

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003

Notes

110

m-q: 76.7 m2 g-j: 101.1 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

111

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S6

ʿAnjar: Dwelling B (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

B

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎25,2 × 24,9 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.2 × 5.5 m; courtyard: 9.6 × 9.4 m a: 4.1 × 3.3 m; b: 2.6 × 3.3 m; c: 2.5 × 3.4 m; d: 7.9 × 3.2 m; e: 3.3 × 3.8 m;f: 3.7 × 3.4 m; g: 7.9 × 4.5 m; h: 3.4 × 3.6 m; i: 3.4 × 3 m; j: 3.3 × 3.7 m; k: 3.3 × 3.2 m; l: 3.8 × 8.1 m; m: 4.7 × 8.1 m; n: 4.4 × 3.2 m; o: 4.1 × 3 m; p: 4.2 × 4.3 m; q: 4.1 × 3.6 m

17 rooms (a-q)

Total of all internal surfaces

‎392,1 m2‎

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room (g, m)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

2

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane); 1 Access to the south (to Dwelling A)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

South: Dwelling A

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

g: 35.5 m2 m: 38 m2

Total internal surfaces (e-j, l-o)

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

112

e-j: 95.3 m2 l-o: 95.2 m2

No

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

113

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S7

ʿAnjar, Dwelling C (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

C

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎26,1 × 20,1 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.2 × 5.6 m; courtyard: 14 × 8.1 m a: 11.8 × 2.7 m; b: 7.8 × 3.6 m; c: 3.8 × 4 m; d: 4.4 × 4 m; e: 3.9 × 4.1 m; f: 9 × 4.1 m; g: 8.9 × 4.2 m; h: 4 × 3.8 m; i: 4 × 3.9 m

9 rooms (a-i)

Total of all internal surfaces

287 m2‎

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (g)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the north (towards the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

37,3 m2

Total internal surfaces (f-i) Total internal surfaces

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

114

No

105 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

115

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S8

ʿAnjar, Dwelling D (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

D

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎26,2 × 23,8 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.3 × ?; courtyard: ?; a: 4.6 × 2.8 m; b: 3.5 × 2.8 m; c: 9 × 4.7 m; d: 4.1 × 3.7 m; e: 3.7 × 3.6 m

Total of all internal surfaces

at least 5 rooms (a-e)

95 m2 approximately 93,4 m2

Internal surface area of central room (c)

‘Five room units’

1

Total internal surfaces (a-e)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

from the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

?

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Notes

116

42,3 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

117

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S9

ʿAnjar, Dwelling E (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

E

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,9 × 29 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 6.8 m; courtyard: 9.4 × 12 m; a: 3,1 × 2,1 m; b: 2.6 × 5.2 m; c: 2.5 × 5.1 m; d: 4.2 × 5.1 m; e: 4.2 × 4.1 m; f: 4.2 × 4.2 m; g: 4.4 × 8.4 m; h: 3.6 × 8.5 m; i: 4.9 × 8.5 m; j: 3.5 × 3.8 m; k: 3 × 3.7 m; l: 3.2 × 3.9 m; m: 3.2 × 3.9 m; n: 3.2 × 5.5 m; o: 3.3 × 5.5 m; p: 3.2 x 3.5 m; q: 3.3 x 3.5 m; r: 3.3 x 4.2 m; s: 3.3 × 4.2 m; t: 3.6 × 2.1 m

20 rooms (a-t)

Total of all internal surfaces

‎471,2 m2‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the east (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Īwān

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

118

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

119

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S10

ʿAnjar, Dwelling F (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

F

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,8 × 29,3 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 6.3 m; courtyard: ? × 12.8 m; a: 2.6 × 3.9 m; b: 4.2 × 4 m; c: 2.7 × 4.1 m; d: 7 × 4.1 m; e: 3.8 × 8.1 m; f: 3.7 × 3.9 m; g: 3.5 × 3.5 m; h: 3.4 × 4 m; i: 5.2 × 8.2 m; j: 3.8 × 8.3 m; k: 8.1 × 8.3 m

at least 11 rooms (a-k)

Total of all internal surfaces

307 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the east (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular?

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

GL

Notes

120

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

121

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S11

ʿAnjar, Dwelling G (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

G

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎28,8 × 20,6 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2 × 5.8 m; courtyard: 10.6 × 9.4 m; a: 9.3 × 3.5 m; b: 2.7 × 3.6 m; c: 8.1 × 14 m [?]; d: 3.5 × 3.5 m; e: 3.5 × 3.4 m; f: 4.5 × 3.5 m; g: 5.3 × 3.6 m; h: 5.1 × 3.7 m; i: 5 × 4 m; j: 5.1 × 4.3 m

at least 10 rooms (a-n)

Total of all internal surfaces

387 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the east (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

122

Finster 2003; GL

No

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

123

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S12

ʿAnjar, Dwelling H (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

H

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎28,3 × 22,6 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 1.6 × 7.6 m; courtyard: 8 × 10.3 m; a: 3,5 × 3,6 m; b: 2.7 × 3.5 m; c: 2.5 × 5.3 m; d: 6.3 × 5.2 m; e: 3.5 × 3.5 m; f: 3.4 × 6.2 m; g: 3.5 × 8.1 m; h: 7.4 × 3.7 m; i: 7.3 × 4.9 m

at least 9 rooms (a-i)

Total of all internal surfaces

287 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (i)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

35,7 m2

Total internal surfaces (a-b, h-i) Total internal surfaces

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

124

Finster 2003; GL

No

85,2 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

125

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S13

ʿAnjar, Dwelling I (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

I

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,8 × 23,4 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.3 × 5.4 m; courtyard: 9.7 × 9.2 m; a: 7.2 × 3.5 m; b: 7.8 × 3.1 m; c: 3.7 × 3.8 m; d: 3.6 × 4.6 m; e: 9.7 × 7 m; f: 3.7 × 3.7 m; g: 3.3 × 3.8 m; h: 3.4 × 3.9 m; i: 3.7 × 3 m; j: 3.3 × 3 m; k: 3.5 × 3.1 m; l: 7.4 × 4.8 m; m: 3.2 × 3.4 m;n: 3 × 7.4 m

at least 14 rooms (a-n)

Total of all internal surfaces

389 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with vestibule on the west (towards secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

126

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

127

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S14

ʿAnjar, Dwelling J (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

J

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎28,6 × 24,7‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,4 × 6 m; courtyard: 9,2 × 9,4 m; a: 11,1 × 14,1 m; b: 11,4 × 4,1 m; b’: 4,2 × 4,2 m; c: 4 × 4 m; d: 3,5 × 4 m; e: 3,7 × 4,2 m; f: 3,7 × 4,3 m; g: 3.9 × 3.6 m; h: 3.8 × 3.2 m; i: 9.1 × 7.7 m; j: 6.8 × 2.4 m; k: 3.7 × 3.8 m; l: 2.3 × 4.3 m; m: 3.1 × 7.6 m; n: 7 × 5 m; o: 2,9 × 3,3 m; p: 2,7 × 3,3 m

16 rooms (a-p)

Total of all internal surfaces

596 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

128

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

129

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S15

ʿAnjar, Dwelling K (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

K

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎21,5 × 25,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.2 × 5.8 m; courtyard: 10.6 × 10.2 m; a: 8 × 3.4 m; b: 2.7 × 3.4 m; c: 3.5 × 3.5 m; d: 3.6 × 6.2 m; e: 3.8 × 3.5 m; f: 3.7 × 3.3 m; g: 3.6 × 3.2 m; h: 5.5 × 7.6 m; i: 4.4 × 3.5 m; j: 4.4 × 3 m; k: 3.3 × 3.1 m; l: 3.4 × 3.2 m; m: 3.3 × 5.9 m; n: 3.4 × 3.9 m

Total of all internal surfaces

353 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (h)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

western Access with vestibule (to secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

14 rooms (a-n)

41,8 m2

Total internal surfaces (f-j) Total internal surfaces

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

130

Finster 2003; GL

No

94,1 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

131

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S16

ʿAnjar, Dwelling L (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

L

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎28,1 × 21,5 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard), 1 undefined room

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 10.8 × 8.8 m; undefined room: 7.6 × 14.6 m; a: 3.5 × 4 m; b: 3.2 × 4 m; c: 9.4 × 3.8 m; d: 7.6 × ? [14,6] m; e: [15,2] ? × 3,6 m;

at least 5 rooms (a-e)

Total of all internal surfaces

434 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

?

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

?

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

132

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

133

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S17

ʿAnjar, Dwelling M (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

M

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,4 × 25 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,4 × 5,2 m; courtyard: 9,9 × 10,9 m; a: 2,9 × 3,4 m; b: 6,8 × 3,3 m; c: 3,2 × 5,2 m; d: 3,2 × 13,2 m; e: 4,3 × 7,1 m; f: 4,2 × 7,2 m; g: 3,3 × 2,9 m; h: 3,3 × 3 m; i: 3,4 × 6,8 m; j: 3,1 × 3,2 m; k: 3,4 × 3 m; l: 7,6 × 4,4 m; m: 3 × 3,4 m; n: 3,7 × 3,5 m

14 rooms (a-n)

Total of all internal surfaces

524 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room (f, l)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (towards the road axis of the walls)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

f: 30.2 m2 l: 33.4 m2

Total internal surfaces (e-h, j-n) Total internal surfaces

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

134

GL

No

e-h: 80.2 m2 d-n: 76.7 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

135

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S18

ʿAnjar, Dwelling N (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

N

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,3 × 24,9 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,7 × 5,8 m; courtyard: 8,7 × 9,6 m; a: 7,6 × 4,2 m; b: 10,5 × 3,7 m; c: 7,2 × 4,1 m; d: 7,2 × 4,7 m; e: 3,5 × 3,5 m; f: 3.3 × 3.3 m; g: 3 × 3.2 m; h: 3.1 × 3.5 m; i: 3.5 × 7.7 m; j: 4,8 × 7,8 m; k: 3,8 × 3,4 m; l: 3,9 × 3,5 m; m: 3,7 × 4,2 m; n: 3,9 × 4 m

14 rooms (a-n)

Total of all internal surfaces

399 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (j)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

37,4 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

136

Total internal surfaces (i-l)

90,9 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Plan

137

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S19

ʿAnjar, Dwelling O (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

O

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

28,6 × 21,8 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,4 × 5,9 m; courtyard: ? × 9,9 m; a: 6,4 × 3,4 m; b: 6,4 × 3,3 m; c: 3,6 × 3,4 m; d: 3,4 × 4,5 m; e: 2,7 × 4,5 m; f: 7.3 × 9.7 m; g: 9.6 × 4.1 m; h: 7.8 × 4.2 m; i: 3.6 × 3.4 m

at least 9 rooms (a-i)

Total of all internal surfaces

272.6 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

indefinite

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

138

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

139

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S20

ʿAnjar, Dwelling P (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

P

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎29,3 × 22 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.8 × 6 m; courtyard: 9.5 × 9.8 m; a: 6.5 × 3.7 m; b: 11 × 3.6 m; c: 7.6 × 4.4 m; d: 7.6 × 4.2 m; e: 7.5 × 3.9 m; f: 3.9 × 3.9 m; g: 4.1 × 4.2 m; h:[7.5 × 14.6 m]; i: 3.5 × 3.7 m

at least 8 rooms (a-i)

Total of all internal surfaces

423 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to secondary lanes)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

140

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

141

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S21

ʿAnjar, Dwelling Q (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

Q

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎26 × 23,6 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 5.2 m; courtyard: 9.5 × 9.7 m; a: 7.6 × 3.2 m; b: 2.7 × 3.6 m; c: 8 × 9.1 m; d: 3.7 × 7.7 m; e: 3.6 × 3.4 m; f: 3.6 × 2.8 m; g: 7.9 × 3.5 m; h: 4.5 × 7.2 m; i: 4.1 × 3.3 m; j: 4.2 × 2.7 m; k: 4 × 6.6 m; l: 4 × 4.5 m; m: 4 × 4.5 m

Total of all internal surfaces

410 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (h)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the west (towards the walls road axis)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

at least 13 rooms (a-m)

32,4 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003

Notes

142

Total internal surfaces (f-j)

95 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

143

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S22

ʿAnjar, Dwelling R (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

R

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,8 × 25,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,4 × 5,6 m; courtyard: 9,4 × 9,7 m; a: 7,3 × 3,4 m; b: 9,9 × 3,6 m; c: 6,9 × 9,9 m; d: 3,2 × 7,4 m; e: 3 × 7,5 m; f: 3.7 × 3.6 m; g: 3.7 × 3.4 m; h: 4.2 × 7.7 m; i: 3.5 × 3.2 m; j: 3.6 × 3.4 m; k: 3.5 × 4.8 m; l: 3.7 × 4 m

at least 12 rooms (a-l)

Total of all internal surfaces

392 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (h)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

32,3 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

144

Total internal surfaces (f-j)

81,6 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

145

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S23

ʿAnjar, Dwelling S (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

S

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

20 × 24.9 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.4 × 6.5 m; courtyard: occupied area approximately 93 m2; a: 5.8 × 3.7 m; b: 7.1 × 3.3 m; c?: 3.6 × 3.5 m; d?: 3.6 × 4.3 m; e? 3.8 × 3.7 m; d?: 7.7 × 3.4 m; e? 3.5 × 3.4 m; f?: 3,5 × 2,9 m

at least 8 rooms (a-f?)

Total of all internal surfaces

286 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the east (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Irregular

Connection with other structures

No

First piano

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Yes

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

146

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

147

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S24

ʿAnjar, Dwelling Š (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

Š

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

19.4 × 20.2 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.1 × 5.1 m; courtyard: occupied area approximately 87 m2; a: 6.9 × 3 m; b: 5.4 × 2.6 m; c: 3 × 3.4 m; d: 3 × 5.1 m

at least 4 rooms (a-i)

Total of all internal surfaces

218 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Corte: forma

Irregular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

148

Finster 2003; GL

No

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

149

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S25

ʿAnjar, Dwelling T (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

T

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎27,9 × 20,8 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 5.5 m; courtyard: 9.4 × 9 m; a: 6.9 × 3.2 m; b: 10.3 × 3 m; c: 2.7 × 3.5 m; d: 3.5 × 3.4 m; e? 7.2 × 9.1 m; f: 9.2 × 4.1 m; g: 3 × 4 m; h: 3.1 × 4.1 m; i: 6.9 × 4.9 m; j: 3 × 3.3 m; k: 3 × 3.2 m; l: 2.9 × 3.2 m

at least 12 rooms (a-l)

Total of all internal surfaces

353 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (i)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

i: 33.8 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

150

Total internal surfaces (g-k)

g-k: 78 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

151

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S26

ʿAnjar, Dwelling U (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

U

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24 × 19,8 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard (surface): 66,1 m2; a: 4,8 × 3,1 m; b: 6 × 3 m; c: 5,8 × 4,4 m; d: 9,9 × 4,2 m; e: 8,6 × 3,8 m; f: 3.5 × 3.5 m; g: 3.4 × 3.4 m; h: 3.3 × 3.2 m; i: 7.7 × 4 m; j: 2,7 × 4,5 m; k: 4,3 × 4,8 m

11 rooms (a-l)

Total of all internal surfaces

304 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (i)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

to the north (towards the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Irregular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling was excavated by Finster (2003), who refers to production activities

30,8 m2

Total internal surfaces (g-k) Total internal surfaces

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

GL

152

81,4 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Plan

153

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S27

ʿAnjar, Dwelling V (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

V

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,2 × 19,8 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,3 × 5 m; courtyard: 9,2 × 9,3 m; a: 6,3 × 3,3 m; b: 11,2 × 3,3 m; c: 7,8 × 5,6 m; d: 8 × 2,7 m; e: 3,5 × 3,7 m; f: 8.2 × 3.8 m; g: 4 × 3.8 m; h: 3.3 × 3.8 m; i: 3.1 × 4.2 m; j: 2.9 × 4.1 m .

Total of all internal surfaces

316 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling was excavated by Finster (2003)

10 rooms (a-d)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

154

No

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

155

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S28

ʿAnjar, Dwelling W (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

W

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24 × 19,9 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,8 × 5 m; courtyard (surface): 90 m2 approximately; a: 6,7 × 3,3 m; b: 6,7 × 3,1 m; c: 3,7 × 3,1 m; d: 3,6 × 3,7 m; e: 3,5 × 4,6 m; f: 3,3 × 3,5 m; g: 8,5 × 3,7 m; h: 3,8 × 4,2 m; i: 4,2 × 8,8 m; j: 3,2 × 2,8 m; k: 3,4 × 5 m

11 rooms (a-k)

Total of all internal surfaces

531 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room (i)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Irregular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling was excavated by Finster (2003)

36,9 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

GL

156

Total internal surfaces (g-k)

110,3 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

157

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S29

ʿAnjar, Dwelling X (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

X

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,5 × 19,3 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.3 × 5 m; courtyard: 9.4 × 9.3 m; a: 2.6 × 3.3 m;b: 2.7 × 3.3 m; c: 7.6 × 5.3 m; d: 1.6 × 11.1 m; e: 5.1 × 11.1 m; f: 4.7 × 2.9 m; g: 4 × 2.9 m; h: 3.8 × 3 m; i: 3.5 × 4.1 m; j: 3.5 × 8.2 m

10 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

314 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Corte: forma

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling was excavated by Finster (2003), who refers of production activities

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

158

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

159

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S30

ʿAnjar, Dwelling Y (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

Y

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24 × 19,3 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.4 × 5.4 m; courtyard: 8.7 × 8.9 m; a: 6.8 × 3.6 m; b: 2.1 × 3.6 m; c: 7.6 × 3.6 m; d: 7.8 × 8.9 m; e: 8 × 3 m; f: 3.2 × 3 m; g: 3.8 × 3 m; h: 4.2 × 3 m; i: 3.5 × 3.9 m; j: 3.5 × 4 m

Total of all internal surfaces

299 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling was excavated by Finster (2003)

10 rooms (a-d)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

GL

160

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

161

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S31

ʿAnjar, Dwelling Z (southwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Southwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

Z

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,3 × 19,3 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.2 × 5.4 m; courtyard: 4.8 × 21.5 m; a: 6.4 × 3.6 m; b: 5.8 × 3.5 m; c: 3.2 × 4 m; d: 2.9 × 2.9 m; e: 4.6 × 3.2 m; f: 3.8 × 3 m; g: 12 × 3.1 m; h: 3.2 × 12 m; i: 3.9 × 3.6 m

9 rooms (a-i)

Total of all internal surfaces

271 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling was excavated by Finster (2003)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

162

No

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

163

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Figure 69. Dwellings of the northwesternern quadrant of ʿAnjar (Lebanon, 712-715; reworked after Finster 2003, fig. 1, detail)

165

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S32

ʿAnjar, Dwelling A (northwesternern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

A

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎15,2 × 24,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.3 × 4.2 m; a: ? × 2.4 m; b: 2.4 × 2.4 m

Total of all internal surfaces

326 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

?

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibiografia

Finster 2003

at least 2 rooms (a-b)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

GL

Notes

166

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

167

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S33

ʿAnjar, Dwelling B (northwesternern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

B

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎15,6 × 24,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.3 × 5.3 m; courtyard: 8.9 × 9.5 m; a: 2.5 × 3.6 m; b: 2.6 × 3.5 m; b’: 3.7 × 3.5 m; c: 4.8 × 9.5 m; d: 3.9 × 3.3 m; e: 3.9 × 3.6 m; f: 4.5 × 7.9 m; g: 3.5 × 3.4 m; h: 3.4 × 3.7 m

at least 9 rooms (a-h)

Total of all internal surfaces

253 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a north entrance hall (to secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

The Dwelling has been probably modified due to the construction of a church

f: 35.5 m2

Total internal surfaces Total internal surfaces

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

168

d-h: 86.9 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

169

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S34

ʿAnjar, Dwelling C (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

C

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎15,8 × 24 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2 × 5.7 m; courtyard: 9.1 × 8.5 m; a: 2.7 × 3.6 m; b: 2.5 × 3.6 m; c: 3.5 × 3.7 m; d: 3.6 × 3.4 m; e: 4.6 × 7.8 m; f: 3.6 × 3.6 m; g: 3.6 × 3.7 m; h: 3.7 × 3.7 m; i: 3.6 × 3.9; j: 3.8 × 3.7 m

10 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

236 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

e: 35.8 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

170

Total internal surfaces

No

c-g: 87.3 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

171

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S35

ʿAnjar, Dwelling (?) D (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

production area

Name of the building

D

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎15,7 × 23,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 3 × 5.2 m; courtyard: 8.9 × 8.3 m; a: 4.9 × 3.1 m; b: 3.5 × 3.1 m; c: 3.5 × 3.8 m; d: 3.4 × 3.8 m; e: 13.4 × 8.2 m

5 rooms (a-e)

Total of all internal surfaces

‎251,6 m2‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

2

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 Access with vestibule; 1 Access through room b

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

the structure was intended for production activities (as suggested by the wheel)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

172

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

173

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S36

ʿAnjar, Dwelling E (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

E

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,2 × 24,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,5 × 5,6 m; courtyard: 8,4 × 9 m; a: 6,4 × 3,6 m; b: 6,1 × 3,8 m; c: 3,2 × 3,7 m; d: 3,3 × 3,6 m; e: 3,2 × 3,6 m; f: 7.4 × 4.6 m; g: 3.3 × 4 m; h: 3.2 × 3.9 m; i: 3.2 × 3.2 m; j: 3.2 × 3.3 m; k: 3.2 × 3.9 m; l: 3.5 × 3.4 m; m: 4.4 × 8.3 m; n: 3,4 × 3,2 m; o: 3,3 × 3,7 m; p: 3,5 × 4,1 m; q: 3,6 × 4,1 m

17 rooms (a-n)

Total of all internal surfaces

372 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

f: 34 m2 m: 36.5 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

174

Total internal surfaces

No

d-h: 83.1 m2 k-o: 84 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

175

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S37

ʿAnjar, Dwelling F (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

F

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎19,4 × 24,6 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 5.4 m; courtyard: 8.7 × 8.9 m; a: 6.6 × 37 m; b: 7.1 × 3.5 m; c: 4 × 4.2 m; d: 4 × 4.1 m; e: 3.6 × 3.6 m; f: 3.5 × 3.7 m; g: 4.6 × 8.4 m; h: 3.5 × 4 m; i: 3.3 × 3.7 m; j: 3 × 3.7 m; k:[3 × 13.5 m]

at least 11 rooms (a-k)

Total of all internal surfaces

315 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

g: 38.6 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

176

Total internal surfaces

e-i: 90.7 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

177

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S38

ʿAnjar, Dwelling G (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

G

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,3 × 24 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,2 × 5,7 m; courtyard: 9,1 × 8,5 m; a: 7,3 × 3,8 m; b: 6,8 × 3,9 m; c: 2,7 × 3,9 m; d: 2,9 × 2,9 m; e: 3,2 × 3,1 m; f: 6.9 × 4.5 m; g: 3.1 × 3.5 m; h: 2.9 × 3.2 m; i: 3.3 × 3.5 m; j: 2,9 × 3,5 m; k: 3,1 × 3,5 m; l: 3,1 × 3,6 m; m: 5,1 × 8 m; n: 3,5 × 3,7 m; o: 3,6 × 3,4; p: 3,5 × 3,9 m; q: 3,7 × 3,6 m

at least 17 rooms (a-q)

Total of all internal surfaces

360 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

f: 31 m2 m:40.8 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

178

Total internal surfaces

No

d-h: 69.5 m2 k-o: 88 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Plans

179

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S39

ʿAnjar, Dwelling H (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

H

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,2 × 23,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 1.9 × 5.4 m; courtyard: 9.1 × 8.5 m; a: 6.1 × 3.2 m; b? 3 × 3.3 m; c: 3.1 × 3 m; d: 3.1 × 8.9 m; e: 3.3 × 3.1 m; f: 3.1 × 3.5 m; g: 4.9 × 8 m; h: 7 × 3.8 m; i: 2.9 × 3.2 m; j: 3 × 3.2 m; k: 3 × 4 m; l: 3.1 × 3.2 m; m: 6.8 × 4.5 m; n: 3 × 3.1 m; o: 3 × 3.1 m; p: 2.8 × 3.4 m

16 rooms (a-p)

Total of all internal surfaces

340 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

reconstruct according to the orientation of the structures

g: 39.2 m2 m:30.6 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

180

Total internal surfaces

e-i: 96.1 m2 k-o: 71.2 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

181

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S40

ʿAnjar, Dwelling I (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

I

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

23,1 × 24,2 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 5.5 m; courtyard: 9.4 × ? m; a: 3,8 × 6 m; b: 2.8 × 3.6 m; c: 2.7 × 9.7 m; d: 3.4 × 3.6 m; e: 2.9 × 3.9 m; f: 3 × 4 m; g: 3 × 3.3 m; h: 3.1 × 3.6 m; i: 3.2 × 8.1 m; j?: 7.5 × 9 m; k: 3.7 × 3.6 m

at least 11 rooms (a-k)

Total of all internal surfaces

419 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

?

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to secondary road axis)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

182

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

183

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S41

ʿAnjar, Dwelling J (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

J

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,1 × 24,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.5 × 5.5 m; courtyard: 9.4 × 9 m; a: 2.7 × 3.5 m; b? 10.3 × 3.7 m; c?: 7.2 × 13.3 m; d: 3.9 × 3.6 m; e: 2.8 × 3.6 m; f? 9.5 × 8.2 m; g: 3.4 × 3.7 m; h: 3.4 × 3.6 m; i: 2.9 × 3.9 m; j: 3 × 4 m; k: 3 × 3.3 m

at least 12 rooms (a-k)

Total of all internal surfaces

419 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

184

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Plan

185

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S42

ʿAnjar, Dwelling K (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

K

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,1 × 24 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), undefined rooms, including the courtyard

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 1.8 × 5.7 m; undefined rooms, including the courtyard (occupied surfaces): about 266 m2; a?: 10.4 × 3.7 m; b?: 6,8 × 3,8 m; c: 3.3 × 2.9 m; d: 3.6 × 3.7 m

at least 4 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

407 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

?

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

?

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

186

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Plans

187

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S43

ʿAnjar, Dwelling L (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

?

Name of the building

L

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,8 × 23,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard? 8.8 × 9.9 m a?: 10.5 × 3 m; b? 6.2 × 3.1 m; c: 3.1 × 3.1 m; d: 6.9 × 2.9 m; e: 7.9 × 5 m; f: 3.2 × 3.3 m; g: 3.3 × 3.1 m; h: 2.5 × 3.3 m; i? 17 × 3.3 m; j?: 13.2 × 3.3 m; k: 3.5 × 4 m; l: 3.6 × 3.7 m

at least 12 rooms (a-l)

Total of all internal surfaces

460 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

?

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

‎ Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

?

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

188

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

189

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S44

ʿAnjar, Dwelling (?) M (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

?

Name of the building

M

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,1 × 24,8 m‎

Plan (description)

undefined parts

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

undefined parts: 2.9 × 4.2 + 13.3 × 9.1 + 17.8 × 3.6 + 4.6 × 4.4 m; a: 3.2 × 3.3 m; b: 2.7 × 3.2 m; c?: 8.6 × 7.5 m; d: 3.2 × 7.6 m; e: 2.3 × 2.4 m; f: 2.2 × 5.7 m; g: 2.6 × 3.7 m; h: 3.3 × 8.1 m .

at least 9 rooms (a-h)

Total of all internal surfaces

‎475 m2‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

?

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

?

Form of the central courtyard

?

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

?

Connection with other structures

?

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

190

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

191

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S45

ʿAnjar, Dwelling (?) N (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

?

Name of the building

N

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,4 × 25,1 m‎

Plan (description)

at least 14 rooms (a-n?)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

a: 3.1 × 3.5 m; b: 8.3 × 3.6 m; c: 4 × 3.8 m; d: 2.4 × 3.6 m; e: 2.4 × 5 m; f? 18 × 5 m; g? 12.1 × 3 m; h: 2.6 × 7.7 m; i: 2.6 × 3 m; j: 3.4 × 3.1 m; k: 3.5 × 3.6 m; l: 7.5 × 7.7 m; m: 4.2 × 4 m; n?: 4,5 × 6,9 m‎

Total of all internal surfaces

‎359,4 m2‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

?

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

?

Form of the central courtyard

?

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

?

Connection with other structures

?

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

successive reconstructions alter the understanding of Umayyad structures

192

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

193

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S46

ʿAnjar, Dwelling O (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

O

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,8 × 24,5 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 8.4 × 9.6 m; a: 3.2 × 3.2 m; b: 6.5 × 3.3 m (?); c?: 3.3 × 9.5 m; d: 3.4 × 3.2 m; e: 3.5 × 2.8 m (?); f: 3.4 × 3.2 m

at least 6 rooms (a-f)

Total of all internal surfaces

370 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

eastern Access (to secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

194

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

195

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S47

ʿAnjar, Dwelling P (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

P

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,9 × 23,9 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.9 × 5.4 m; courtyard? 13.2 × 8.5 m; a: 11 × 3,3 m; b: 6.7 × 3 m; c?: 3.4 × 9 m; d: 4 × 3.5 m; e?: 3,1 × 17,4 m

at least 5 rooms (a-e?)

Total of all internal surfaces

380 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

196

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

197

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S48

ʿAnjar, Dwelling (?) Q (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling?

Name of the building

Q

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎25 × 25,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 9.6 × 10 m a a: 2.7 × 3.1 m; b: 13.7 × 3.5 m; c: 3.1 × 3.3 m; d: 3.1 × 4 m; e? 3.2 × 13.5 m; f?: 3,9 × 4,2 + 9,4 × 3,4 m; g: 7.8 × 3.2 m; h: 2.6 × 3.3 m; i: 6.6 × 3.5 m; j: 6.5 × 5 m; k: 3 × 3.7 m; l: 2.7 × 3.8 m; m: 3.3 × 3.1 m

at least 13 rooms (a-l)

Total of all internal surfaces

377 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

?

Īwān

0

Entrance (description)

?

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Connection with other structures

?

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

probable post-Umayyad modification; probable presence of ‘five room unit’, although not verifiable

198

i-l: 76.9 m2

Internal surface area of central room

d: 32.5 m2

Internal surface area of central room

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

199

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S49

ʿAnjar, Dwelling R (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

R

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,3 × 24,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,1 × 6,6 m; courtyard: 17,8 × 7,6 m; a: 6,1 × 4,2 m; b: 7.1 × 4.4 m; c: 2.8 × 4.2 m; d? 2.6 × 17 m; and: 2.5 × 3.4 m; f: 2.7 × 3.3 m; g: 3 × 7.8 m; h?: 9 × 7,8 m

at least 8 rooms (a-h?)

Total of all internal surfaces

416 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

200

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings

Plan

201

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S50

ʿAnjar, Dwelling S (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

S

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,7 × 23,7 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2.3 × 5.1 m; courtyard? 9 × 9.1 m; a: 6.4 × 3 m; b: 7 × 3.2 m; c: 3.5 × 4.2 m; d?: 3 × 4.9 + 3.8 × 17.6 + 8.7 × 4.2 m; e: 7.5 × 3.4 m; f: 3.6 × 4.8 m; g: 7.5 × 4.5 m; h: 2.7 × 3.1 m; i: 3.5 × 3.1 m; j: 3.4 × 3.1 m

at least 10 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

399 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the south (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

202

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

203

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S51

ʿAnjar, Dwelling T (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

T

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,5 × 23,3 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,3 × 5,5 m; courtyard: 13,1 × 8,8 m; a: 6,9 × 3,4 m; b: 6,1 × 3,3 m; c: 3,4 × 3,2 m; d: 3,5 × 2,9 m; e: 3,6 × 9 m; f: 3.6 × 2.7 m; g: 7.7 × 3 m; h: 3.1 × 3.2 m; i: 3.3 × 3.2 m; j: 8,6 × 2,6 m; k: 8,8 × 3,5 m; l: 3,5 × 4,4 m; m: 3,7 × 3,4 m

at least 13 rooms (a-m)

Total of all internal surfaces

339 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Total internal surfaces

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (to the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

Notes

204

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

205

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S52

ʿAnjar, Dwelling U (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

U

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,7 × 17,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

cour: 8,4 × 9,6 m; a: 4,9 × 3,6 m; b: 4,8 × 5,5 m; c: 4,8 × 4,3 m; d: 3,5 × 4 m; e: 3,9 × 4,4 m; f: 3,2 × 4,4 m; g: 3,3 × 4,4 m; h: 7.6 × 4.6 m; i: 3.4 × 4.3 m; j: 3.2 × 4.2 m .

10 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

266 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

from the east (towards the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Finster 2003

h: 34.9 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

206

Total internal surfaces

No

f-j: 91.6 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

207

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S53

ʿAnjar, Dwelling W (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

W

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎25,4 × 17,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

cour: 8,9 × 9,7 m; a: 4,9 × 3,5 m; b: 5,1 × 5,3 m; c: 5,1 × 4,1 m; d: 3,8 × 4,3 m; e: 4,1 × 4,3 m; f: 3,6 × 4,1 m; g: 3,3 × 4,2 m; h: 7.6 × 4.5 m; i: 3.6 × 4.6 m; j: 3.5 × 4.3 m .

10 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

279 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

from the east (towards the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

h: 34.2 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003

Notes

208

Total internal surfaces

f-j: 94.4 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

209

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S54

ʿAnjar, Dwelling X (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

X

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎25,5 × 17,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard?)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard? 7.7 × 9.4 m; a?: 3.9 × 4.1 m; b: 4.2 × 4.7 m; c: 4.1 × 4.8 m; d: 3.5 × 4.5 m; e? 4.2 × 4.6 m; f: 3.3 × 4.8 m; g: 3.2 × 4.5 m; h? 7.9 × 4.8 m; i: 3.7 × 3.9 m; j: 3.3 × 4 m .

10 rooms (a?-j)

Total of all internal surfaces

258 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

from the east (towards the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

Dwelling probably modified in a post-Umayyad period; reconstruction by comparisons with Dwelling U

h: 37.9 m2

Total internal surfaces

f-j: 95.7 m2

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003; GL

210

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

211

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S55

ʿAnjar, Dwelling Y (northwestern quadrant)

State / Territory

Lebanon

Site

ʿAnjar

Date

714-715

Quadrant / sector

Northwestern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

Y

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,7 × 17,1 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 8 × 9.3 m; a: 3.9 × 5.6 m; b: 3 × 5.5 m; c: 8.6 × 2.8 m; d: 3.4 × 4.8 m; e: 3.3 × 4.7 m; f: 4.7 × 4.8 m; g: 3.7 × 4.6 m; h: 4 × 4.7 m; i: 4 × 4.3 m; j: 4 × 4.4 m;

10 rooms (a-d)

Total of all internal surfaces

261 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

from the east (towards the secondary lane)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Finster 2003

Notes

Dwelling probably modified in a post-Umayyad period

1

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

Finster 2003

212

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

213

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 2. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī S56

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – Large Enclosure

State / Territory

Syria

Site

Coordinates

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī

35° 4’28.41”N; 39° 4’16.98”E

Date

728-729

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – Large Enclosure

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of Large Enclosure (quadrangular, dimensions: approximately 167 × 167 m) has threequarter round and half-round solid towers. The Large Enclosure is divided into: four entrances located in the middle of each side; a central courtyard with portico; twelve Dwelling units; a mosque in the southeastern corner and to the north of the latter productive facilities and baths (the latter probably built in a post-Umayyad period). The Dwelling units are in turn arranged in: a probable vestibule (with the exception of units VI and VII, which can be Accessed directly through the main courtyard), a courtyard with a portico and rooms located around it, including a ‘Five room unit’. about 27000 m2

Plan (surface) ‘Five room units’

7

Unit I

Internal surface area of central room

3: 77,5 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 194,1 m2

Unit III

Internal surface area of central room

2: 72,6 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-4: 164,3 m2

Unit VI*

Internal surface area of central room

3: 78,6 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 170,9 m2

Unit VII

Internal surface area of central room

3: 80,6 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5:217,4 m2

Unit IX

Internal surface area of central room

3: 70,5 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5:215,3 m2

Unit X

Internal surface area of central room

3: 72,6 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5:200,5 m2

Unit XII

Internal surface area of central room

3: 78,1 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5:201,8 m2

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Grabar et al. 1978; Genequand 2012

Notes

O. Grabar considers this building as dār al-imāra (Grabar et al. 1978, 70-71), but according to Genequand ‘it would be more logical to seek the official or administrative function in the neighbouring palace’ (Genequand 2012, 105)

Internal surface area of central room

Author reconstruction

214

Total internal surfaces

Grabar et al. 1978

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Grabar et al. 1978, pl. 23D)

215

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S57

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – Small Enclosure (palace)

State / Territory

Syria

Site

Coordinates

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī

35° 4’25.43”N, 39° 4’21.81”E

Date

728-729

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – Small Enclosure

Orientation

E/W

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the structure (quadrangular, dimensions: 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter round and halfround solid towers. The interior is divided into: an Access with a vestibule to the west; two Rectangular rooms to the east and west of the vestibule, probably stables; a courtyard with a portico; rooms arranged around it, six of which are provided with ‘Five room units’. The presence of a Upper floor, not preserved, is evidenced by stairs located to the south and west. 3619 m2

Plan (surface)

3: 73,8 m2 8: 82,4 m2 13: 76,2 m2 18: 75,02 m2 23: 62,7 m2 28: 73,8 m2 31: 75,02 m2 34: 75,02 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 183 m2 6-10: 240,8 m2 11-15: 190 m2 16-20: 183,8 m2 21-25: 205,6 m2 26-30: 173,9 m2 31-33*: 131,1 m2 34-36*: 132,2 m2

‘Five room units’

6

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper floor

Yes, but not surviving

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Grabar et al. 1978; Genequand 2012

Notes

The buyūt 31-33 and 34-36 are composed of three rooms respectively and are connected to the stables.

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

216

Grabar et al. 1978

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Grabar et al. 1978, pl. 6D)

217

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria D58

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – Dwelling E (Northern zone)

State / Territory

Syria

Site

Coordinates

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī

35° 4’43.53”N; 39° 4’21.20”E

Date

first half of the 8th century

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī – Dwelling E

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the Dwelling is Rectangular (dimensions: about 20 × 30 m). A three-quarter round and a half-round solid tower were added about the middle of the eighth century outside the Dwelling (northwestern corner). The latter is divided into a L-shaped Access located to the south; a central courtyard without a portico; rooms located around it, of which a ‘Five room unit’ is attested to the northwestern. The presence of a Upper floor, not preserved, is evidenced by stairs located to the north and in the courtyard 1043 m2

Plan (surface) ‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper floor

Yes, but not surviving

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Genequand 2010; 2011a

3: 52,3 m2

Total internal surfaces Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

Notes

218

GL

1-5: 144,1 m2

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Genequand 2010, fig. 3)

219

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 3. ʿAmmān 3.1. Palace’s Dwellings S59

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 1

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

1

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

35,7 × 29,5 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

13 rooms (a-m)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

cour: 20,2 × 20,4 m; a: 3,5 × 3 m; b: 3,6 × 4 m; c: 6,4 × 6,4 m; d: 6,3 × 3,8 m; e: 6,3 × 4,3 m; f: 4,9 × 5,6 m; g: 4,3 × 5,8 m; h: 3.2 × 5.8 m; i: 6 × 5.8 m; j: 4.6 × 5.8 m; k: 4.7 × 6.6 m; l: 5,2 × 4,6; m: 5,2 × 7,3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

845,1 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

1*

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Entrance (description)

1 Access from the north

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Total internal surfaces

0

i: 34.8 m2

Total internal surfaces

h-j: 70.8 m2

Īwān

2

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

Almagro et al. 2000; GL

Connection with other structures Upper floor

No.

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000

Notes

for the portico see the notes of the sheet of Dwelling unit 2; Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as a ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the portico in front of īwān is Lacking

220

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

221

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S60

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 2

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

2

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

27 × 35,9 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

14 rooms (a-n)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 7,11 x 2,1 m; courtyard: 20,5 × 15,2 m; a: 2,4 × 4,3 m; b: 2,4 × 4,3 m; c: 5 × 3,7 m; d: 4,8 × 4,8 m; e: 5,8 × 4,5 m; f: 5.8 × 4.5 m; g: 10 × 6.3 m; h: 5.1 × 4.5 m; i: 5.1 × 4.5 m; j: 10 × 6.3 m; k: 5.8 × 4.5 m; l: 5.7 × 4.3 m; m: 5.8 × 2.4 m; n: 4,9 x 5,8

Total of all internal surfaces

869,2 m2

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

g: 63 m2 (see notes)

Total internal surfaces

e-i: 161.1 m2 (see notes)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

1*

Internal surface area of central room

d: 63 m2 (see notes)

Total internal surfaces

h-k: 135 m2 (see notes)

Entrance

1

Īwān

2

Entrance (description)

1 Access with an eastern hallway (from courtyard 1 of the palace complex)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

courtyard 1 of the palace complex through the vestibule of the Dwelling unit

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000

Notes

The internal surfaces of the ‘Five room unit’ and ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ share 45.9 m2 of rooms h and i. Northedge (1992, p. 158) dates the portico to the Abbasid period since the columns are not made of stone, like all the others in the Umayyad citadel, but of conglomerate compacted by a gypsum mortar, covered with gypsum plaster (indeed gypsum was not found in the Umayyad phases of the citadel). This model can be considered as a ‘hybrid’ since it contains elements of the ‘Five room unit’ and the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī; in addition, the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as a ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the portico in front of the īwān is Lacking

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

222

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

223

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S61

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 3

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

3

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

30,2 × 28,7 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

12 rooms (a-l)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 5,3 × 2,4 m; courtyard: 15,3 × 19,5 m; a: 5,3 × 4,4 m; b: 5,3 × 4,8 m; c: 5,3 × 4,5 m; d: 4,5 × 5,8 m; e: 4 × 6 m; f: 5.4 × 6 m; g: 3.9 × 6 m; h: 6.1 × 6.2 m; i: 5.4 × 5.8 m; j: 5.4 × 4 m; k: 5.4 × 3.8 m; l: 2.8 × 5.6 m

Total of all internal surfaces

770,5 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

2*

Internal surface area of central room

g: 23.4 m2 d: 21.6 m2

Entrance

1

Īwān

2

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a western vestibule (from courtyard 1 of the palace complex)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

courtyard 1 of the palace complex through the vestibule of the Dwelling unit

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000

Notes

for the portico see the notes of the data of Dwelling unit 2; the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the porticoes in front of the īwān are Lacking

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

f-h: 93.6 m2 i-k: 73.4 m2

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

224

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

225

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S62

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 6

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

6

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

35,2 × 27,7 m

Plan (description)

2 vestibules (vestibule 1, 2), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

11 rooms (a-k)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule 1: 6,1 × 2,4 m; vestibule 2: 6,8 × 1,9 m; courtyard: 18,4 × 18,2 m; a: 5,7 × 4,2 m; b: 5,9 × 4,4 m; c: 6 × 3,9 m; d: 5 × 6,1 m; e: 4,9 × 6,1 m; f: 6,1 × 6,5 m; g: 3,9 × 6,3 m; h: 6,4 × 4,8 m; i: 6,3 × 4,4 m; j: 6,3 × 5,7 m; k: 6,3 × 4,2 m

Total of all internal surfaces

816,6 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

2*

Internal surface area of central room

f: 39.6 m2 d: 35.9 m2

Entrance

2

Īwān

2

Entrance (description)

2 Accesses with vestibule: 1 to the west (towards the colonnade lane), 1 to the east (towards architectural unit A)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

architectural unit A

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000; Anastasio - Botarelli 2015, pp. 123125 and fig. 226

Notes

for the portico see the notes of the data of Dwelling unit 2; the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the porticoes in front of the īwān are Lacking

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

e-g: 94.1 m2 i-k: 90.09 m2

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

226

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

227

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S63

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 9

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

9

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

35,2 × 27,7 m

Plan (description)

2 vestibules (vestibule 1, 2), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

11 rooms (a-k)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule 1: 7,9 × 2,5 m; vestibule 2: 6,8 × 1,7 m; courtyard: 18 × 17,5 m; a: 5,5 × 6,5 m; b: 5,9 × 3,6 m; c: 6 × 3,8 m; d: 5,9 × 4,8 m; e: 6,7 × 4,1 m; f: 7,9 × 5,8 m; g: 6,8 × 4,5 m; h: 6,8 × 5 m; i: 5,6 × 6,5 m; j: 6,1 × 5,5 m; k: 5,2 × 6,7 m

Total of all internal surfaces

816,6 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

2*

Internal surface area of central room

f: 45.8 m2 d: 35.2 m2

Entrance

2

Īwān

2

Entrance (description)

2 Accesses with vestibule: 1 to the west (of the colonnade lane), 1 to the east (of architectural unit A)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

architectural unit A

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000; Anastasio - Botarelli 2015, pp. 123125 and fig. 226

Notes

for the portico see the notes of the data of Dwelling unit 2; the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the porticoes in front of the īwān are Lacking

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

e-g: 102.6 m2 i-k: 106.4 m2

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

228

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

229

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S64

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 10

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Northern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

10

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

35,5 × 26,1 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

12 rooms (a-l)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 5,1 × 2,3 m; courtyard: 16,7 × 20 m; a: 4,6 × 4,5 m; b: 4,6 × 5,6 m; c: 4,6 × 4,3 m; d: 4,5 × 6,1 m; e: 3,5 × 5,9 m; f: 3.6 × 6 m; g: 5.7 × 5.8 m; h: 4.6 × 5.4 m; i: 4.1 × 5.9 m; j: 5,2 × 3,6 m; k: 5,2 × 3,4 m; l: 5,1 × 3,3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

695 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

2*

Internal surface area of central room

b: 25.7 m2 g: 33 m2

Entrance

1

Īwān

2

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the east (Access is connected to a corridor leading to courtyard 2)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

east: courtyard 2

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000

Notes

for the portico see the notes of the data of Dwelling unit 2; the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the porticoes in front of the īwān are Lacking

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

a-c: 66.2 m2 f-h: 79.5 m2

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

230

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

231

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S65

ʿAmmān, Palace complex, Dwelling unit 11

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Northern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

11

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

35.2 × 26 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

12 rooms (a-l)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 5,8 × 2,6 m; courtyard: 19,2 × 17,1 m; a: 5,8 × 3,2 m; b: 5,8 × 3,7 m; c: 5,7 × 3,9 m; d: 4,2 × 5,9 m; e: 3,6 × 5,9 m; f: 4 × 5.9 m; g: 5.8 × 5.9 m; h: 3.6 × 5.9 m; i: 6.5 × 4.7 m; j: 6,4 × 3,8 m; k: 6,3 × 5,6 m; l: 6,1 × 6,3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

808,2 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

2*

Internal surface area of central room

i: 21.2 m2 k: 35.2 m2

Entrance

1

Īwān

2

Entrance (description)

1 with a vestibule to the east (towards courtyard 2)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

west: courtyard 2

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000

Notes

for the portico see the notes of the data of Dwelling unit 2; the Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the porticoes in front of the īwān are Lacking

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

f-h: 76.7 m2 j-l: 98 m2

No (the portico was added in the Abbasid period, see Notes)

Author reconstruction

232

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

233

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S66

ʿAmmān, Palace complex: Dwelling unit 12

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Northern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

12

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

approximately 28 × 12 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

4 rooms (a-d)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 10 × 12.3 m; a: 5.4 × 5.7 m; b: 5.4 × 3.5 m; c: 6.3 × 4.7 m; d: 4.5 × 6 m

Total of all internal surfaces

229,2 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 Access from the south

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

south: courtroom

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No.

Almagro et al. 2000

Notes

234

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

235

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S67

ʿAmmān, Palatal complex, architectural unit A

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (Palace complex)

Purpose

?

Name of the building

A

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

27 × 8,8 m

Plan (description)

9 rooms (a-j)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

a: 2.3 × 52.3 m; b: 5.1 × 1.7 m; c: 5 × 2.6 m; d: 5 × 2 m; e: 5 × 9.5 m; f: 5.2 × 4.9 m; g: 5.1 × 5.8 m; h: 5 × 8 m; i: 5 × 5.3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

350,4 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

2

Īwān

Entrance (description)

2 Accesses to the west (to Dwelling units 6 and 9)

Form of the central courtyard

Lacking

Connection with other structures

Dwelling units 6 and 9

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Almagro 1983; Olavarri 1985; Northedge 1992; Almagro et al. 2000; Anastasio - Botarelli 2015, pp. 123125 and fig. 226

Notes

It is impossible to suggest the building’s purpose

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

236

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

237

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 3.2. ʿAmmān, extra-palace Dwellings S68

ʿAmmān, Dwelling A

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No.

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

A

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

13 × (at least) 20 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 2 rooms (a-b)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2 × 5.5 m; courtyard: 11.6 ×? (14.4) m; a: 3,4 × 3,8 m; b: 3.4 × 3.6 m

Total of all internal surfaces

about 203 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

an Access with a vestibule to the north (towards the street that surrounds the mosque)

Form of the central courtyard

probably Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Arce 2008

Notes

the Dwelling has been significantly modified in its Southern part in a post-Umayyad phase

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No.

Arce 2008; GL

238

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

239

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S69

ʿAmmān, Dwelling B

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

western

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

B

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24 × 19,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

10 rooms (a-k)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 7,4 × 2,4 m; courtyard: 8,6 × 11,1 m; a: 4,1 × 5,1 m; b: 4 × 5,1 m; c: 3,5 × 5,7 m; e: 4,2 × 6,2 m; f: 3,6 × 4,2 m; g: 5,8 × 5,1 m; h: 4,2 × 5,9 m; i: 6,6 × 1,1 m; j: 4,9 × 4,3 m; k: 4,9 × 4,7 m

Total of all internal surfaces

About 328 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

an Access with a vestibule to the west (towards the street that surrounds the mosque)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Northedge 1992, pp. 141-144, fig. 128; Arce 2008, fig. 10a

Notes

The dwelling has been occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (Northedge 1992, p. 141)

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Northedge 1992; Arce 2008; GL

240

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

241

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S70

ʿAmmān, Dwelling C – Unit 1

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

C – Unit 1

Orientation

N-NO / S-SE

Shape

Trapezoidal

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎6,6 × 12,7 × 10,1× ‎11,7 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

2 rooms (a-b)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 5,3 × 4,7 m; a: 3 × 4,5 m; b: 2,8 × 5,3 m‎

Total of all internal surfaces

53 m2 approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

To the west (towards the eastern road axis of the citadel)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Northedge 1992, pp. 144-148, fig. 145

Notes

The building consisted of two residential units, composed of Unit 1 and 2 (see the following sheet). The dwelling has been occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Author reconstruction

242

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

243

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S71

ʿAmmān, Dwelling C – Unit 2

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

C – Unit 2

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎14 × 20,4 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 9 (a-f)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard (upper occupied): ca. 135 m2; a: 4.3 × 3.5 m; b: 5 × 3.5 m; b1: 3.2 × 3.8 m; c: 4 × 3.3 m; d: 4.5 × 4.9 m; e: 3.2 × 3.6 m; f: 8.3 × 3.7 m

Total of all internal surfaces

about 226 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access to the west (towards the eastern street of the citadel)

Form of the central courtyard

Irregular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Northedge 1992, pp. 144-148, fig. 145; Arce 2008, fig. 11b

Notes

The building consisted of two residential units, composed of Unit 1 and 2 (see the above sheet). The dwelling has been occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

Arce 2008; GL

244

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

245

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S72

ʿAmmān, Dwelling D

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

D

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Trapezoidal

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎11,9 × 23,9 × 17,4 ‎m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 7 rooms (a-h)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,7 × 5,1 m; courtyard: 10 × 10,5 m; a: 2 × 2,6 m; b: 3,1 × 3,1 m; d: 4,7 × 4,1 m; e: 4,8 × 4,6 m; f: 4,6 × 4,5 m; g: 4,8 × 4 m; h: 3,6 × 4,1 m

Total of all internal surfaces

‎229 m2‎ approximately

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the west (towards the eastern lane of the citadel)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Northedge 1992, pp. 143-146, fig. 145; Arce 2008, fig. 11b

Notes

The dwelling has been occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

Arce 2008; GL

246

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

247

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S73

ʿAmmān, Dwelling E

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

E

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Trapezoidal

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎22,6 × 25,8 × 28,1 × 16,6 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 1 room (a ?)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard ? (surface): ca. 391 m2; a ?: 6,1 × 4,1 m ‎

Total of all internal surfaces

About ‎416 m2‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access to the south (towards the secondary road, perpendicular to the main eastern road)

Form of the central courtyard

Irregular ?

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Arce 2008

Notes

The dwelling has been reconstruct considering the orientation of the dwelling walls around it. The dwelling has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

GL

248

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

249

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S74

ʿAmmān, Dwelling F

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

F

Orientation

N /S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎26,1 × 32 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

14 rooms (a-n)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2,4 × 7,1 m‎; courtyard: 13,5 × 13,6 m; a: 4,7 × 5,1 m; b: ‎5,3 × 5 m; c: 4,1 × 5 m; d: 3,4 × 5 m; e ?: 3,6 × 9,5 m; f: 3,4 × ‎4,2 m; g: 6,6 × 3,8 m; h: 6,3 × 3,9 m; i: 5,9 × 8,6 m; j: 6,6 × 3,2 m; k: 7,1 × 4,3 m; l: 3,8 × 4,8 m; m: 3,8 × 4,2 m; n: 4 × 3,7 m

Total of all internal surfaces

About 538 m2

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the north (in axis with the Southern Access of the mosque, east of miḥrāb)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Arce 2008

Notes

Considering the state of conservation of the eastern area, it is not possible to quantify with certainty the number of rooms. Dwelling has been modified in the eastern part in post-Umayyad times. The dwelling has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

j: 50,7 m2

g-k: 152 m2‎

Total internal surfaces 0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Total internal surfaces

No

Arce 2008; GL

250

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

251

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S75

ʿAmmān, Dwelling H

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

H

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23 × 18 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 8 rooms (c-g, j, n, p)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 7,9 × 2,4 m; courtyard (surface): 89 m2 approximately; c: 3,1 × ‎5,5 m; d: 4,8 × 5,3 m; e: 3,5 × 5,6 m; f: 3,9 × 5,4 m; g: 3,3 × 3,2 m; j: 3,6 × 3,9 m; n: 3,5 × 4,1 m; p’: 1,9 × 5,7 m; p’’: 1,1 × 1,4 m‎

Total of all internal surfaces

About 224 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the east to the western road axis of the citadel

Form of the central courtyard

Irregular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Harding 1951a, pp. 7-9, fig. 1

Notes

Dwelling excavated by Harding (1951a) and no longer existing. The dwelling has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

GL

252

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

253

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S76

ʿAmmān, Dwelling I

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

I

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎24,9 × 16,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 8 rooms (a-h)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 2 × 7,4 m; courtyard: 9,1 × 8,7 m; a: 4,6 × 3,4 m; b: 4,8 × 3,1 m; c: 5,3 × 2,7 m; d: 3,8 × 3,8 m; e: 3,6 × 3,7 m; f: 2,6 × 4,5 m; g: 2,6 × 4,7 m; h: 4,5 × 4,4 m

Total of all internal surfaces

‎About 210 m2‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the west (towards the western road axis of the citadel)

Form of the central courtyard

Square

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Arce 2008

Notes

The dwelling has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

Arce 2008; GL

254

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

255

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S77

ʿAmmān, Dwelling J

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

J

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎23,6 × 23,5 m‎

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least rooms (a-d)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 1,5 × 6,7 m; courtyard ?: 15,7 × 20,7 m; a: 4,5 × 4,9 m; b: 4,5 × 4 m; c: 4,4 × 3,1 m; d: 4,3 × 3,1 m

Total of all internal surfaces

About 402 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

2

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access with a vestibule to the east (towards the eastern road axis of the citadel); to the northwestern (towards room A)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Connection with other structures Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Northedge 1992, fig. 145; Arce 2008, fig. 11b

Notes

The dwelling has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

Author reconstruction

Arce 2008; GL

256

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

257

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S78

ʿAmmān, Dwelling unit (?) K

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling?

Name of the building

K

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Square

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎15 × 16,2 m‎

Plan (description)

1 central room (central room)

6 rooms (a-f)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

central room: 2 × 6,5 m; a: 3,9 × 8,2 m; b: 3,1 × 3,4 m; c: 4,1 × 4,3 m; d: 3,2 × 3,5 + 2,5 × 1,9 m; e: 4 × 2,9 m; f: 3,8 × 3,3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

About 113 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

2

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access to the south-east (to the structures to the Northeast of the Byzantine church); to the south-west (to the Dwelling unit (?) K’)

Form of the central courtyard

Lacking

Connection with other structures

Dwelling unit (?) K’

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Arce 2008, fig. 11b

Notes

Dwelling function uncertain. The building has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

Arce 2008

258

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

259

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S79

ʿAmmān, Dwelling unit (?) K’

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling?

Name of the building

K’

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Irregular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

15,1 × 12,8 × 5,2 × 5,4 × 9,8 m

Plan (description)

3 rooms (a-c)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

a: 3,9 × 4,5 m; b: 4,5 × 8,4 m; c: 5,7 × 3,3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

About 74 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access to the Northeast (to the Dwelling unit (?) K)

Form of the central courtyard

Lacking

Connection with other structures

Dwelling (?) K

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Arce 2008, fig. 11b

Notes

Dwelling function uncertain; the building has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

No

Arce 2008

260

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

261

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S80

ʿAmmān, Dwelling L

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh cent. / 724-744

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

L

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

‎18 × 22,1 m‎

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (courtyard)

at least 8 rooms (a-h)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard: 13,2 × 8,8 m; a: 4 × 4,2 m; b: 2,1 × 4,8 m; c: 3,2 × 3,1 m; d: 3,7 × 4,9 m; e: 4,6 × 5,2 m; f: 3,5 × 5,1 m; g: 4,6 × 5 m; h: 8,5 × 6,7 m‎

Total of all internal surfaces

292 m2 approximately‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

Access to the west (towards the street that surrounds the mosque)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Arce 2008

Notes

The building has been probably occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is the ‘pre-citadel’ phase (see Northedge 1992, 145-147)

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No.

Arce 2008; GL

262

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

263

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S81

ʿAmmān, Dwelling M

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

ʿAmmān, citadel

Date

End seventh / 724-744 (see notes)

Quadrant / sector

western

Part of a residential complex

No

Purpose

Dwelling

Name of the building

M

Orientation

N/S

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

29,5 × 19,7 m

Plan (description)

1 vestibule (vestibule), 1 courtyard (courtyard)

6 rooms (a-g)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

vestibule: 7,1 × 1,8 ‎m;‎ courtyard: 13,7 × 17,8 m; a: 5,4 × 3,1 m; b: 5,1 × 3,3 m; c: 5,8 × 5 m; d: 4,9 × 5,2 m; e: 5,8 × 5,1 m; f: 5,8 × 4,1 m

Total of all internal surfaces

398 m2 approximately‎

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

1

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 Access with a vestibule to the east (towards the western road axis of the citadel)

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

No

Upper floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Northedge 1992, pp. 141-143, fig. 126; Arce 2008, fig. 10a

Notes

The dwelling has been occupied in two Umayyad phases, the first of which is ‘pre-citadel’ (Northedge 1992, p. 141)

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Northedge 1992; Arce 2008; GL

264

Appendix 3  Madāʾin Dwellings Plan

265

Appendix 4 Quṣūr dwellings 1. Qaṣr al-Kharāna S82

Qaṣr al-Kharāna

State / Territory

Jordan

Site

Coordinates

Kharāna

31°43’44.35”N, 36°27’46.16”E

Date

About 710

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

Qaṣr al-Kharāna

Orientation

E-NE / W-SW

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the palace (quadrangle, dimensions: About 35 × 35 m) has angle three-quarter-circle towers and lateral semi-circular towers; all the towers are full. The palace is divided into two floors; the First floor is divided into: entrance and central courtyard (with portico, not preserved); two stables; three groups of ‘five room units’; four rooms communicating with the ‘five room units’; two stairs. The Upper floor is divided into: five ‘five room units’; four rooms communicating with the ‘five room units’; an audience hall (room 36) First floor: 716 m2 Upper floor: 527 m2

Plan (surface)

3: 41,8 m2 8: 30,3 m2 13: 35,8 m2 18: 45,1 m2 23: 32,5 m2 28: 40,5 m2 33: 38,8 m2 39: 42,4 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 89,6 m2 6-10: 71,9 m2 11-15: 76,9 m2 16-20: 93,7 m2 21-25: 75,1 m2 26-30: 84,3 m2 31-35: 90 m2 37-41: 87,6 m2

‘Five room units’

8

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

Yes

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Urice 1987; Arce 2016b

Notes

The ‘five room units’ 1-5, 6-10 and 11-15 are on the First floor. It is likely that the ‘five room unit’ 21-25 has not been completed.

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

266

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings

(reworked after Urice 1987, fig. 119)

(reworked after Urice 1987, fig. 120)

267

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 2. Khirbat al-Minya S83

Khirbat al-Minya

State / Territory

Israel

Site

Coordinates

Khirbat al-Minya

32°51’54.63”N, 35°32’10.63”E

Date

712-715

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

Khirbat al-Minya

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the palace (quadrangle; dimensions: about 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular side towers; all towers are full except the central tower on the north side where a latrine is located. Access is located to the east through a vestibule; the palace rooms are arranged around a central courtyard with portico: to the east are the service rooms; to the southeast the palace mosque; to the south the audience hall; to the southwest a ‘five room unit’; to the north another ‘five room units’ and service rooms; the western part has only been partially excavated (Grabar et al. 1960). The presence of a Upper floor is attested by three stairs

Plan (surface)

4495 m2

‘Five room units’

2

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

Yes, but not kept

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes, of western rooms

Bibliography

Schneider 1952; Grabar et al. 1960; Creswell 19792, 381-389; Ritter 2016

Notes

According to the commonly accepted hypothesis, the site would date to the reign of al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, precisely between 712 and 715; this hypothesis is based on an inscription bearing the name of al-Walīd as amīr al-muʾminīn, interpreted by Creswell as al-Walīd I and because of the presence of miḥrāb in the mosque, later than 712 according to Creswell (Creswell 19792, I, 388). Markus Ritter recently proposed to reinterpret the dating since the inscription does not explicitly mention al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and, therefore – according to the researcher – it should not be excluded a dating to the reign of al-Walīd ibn Yazīd (Ritter 2016). However, considering the archaism of the plan (the absence of secondary courtyards and rooms around the central courtyard), the typology of the vestibule, the connection between the audience hall and the mosque (for a different and later example see, for example, Mshattā where the audience hall is located far from the mosque), it is likely that the palace dates between 712 and 715.

3: 75,6 m2 8: 74,2 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 168 m2 6-10: 186,6 m2

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

268

Grabar et al. 1960; Ritter 2016

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(Schneider 1953, table 3, reworked)

269

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 3. Jabal Says S84

Jabal Says – Main qaṣr

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

33°18’11.25”N, 37°21’34.14”E

Date

Site

Jabal Says

705-715

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Main qaṣr

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of qaṣr is quadrangle (dimensions: approximately 70 × 70 m) with three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers; all towers are empty. Access is to the north through a vestibule, communicating with adjacent rooms. All the rooms of the qaṣr are arranged around a central courtyard with a portico; there are eight ‘five room units’, communicating with service rooms. The presence of an upper floor, not preserved, is evidenced by stairs located at the end of the southern side.

Plan (surface)

1750 m2

‘Five room units’

8

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

Yes, but not kept

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Sauvaget 1939b; Brisch 1963a; 1963b; 1965; Schmidt 2012

Notes

According to Schmidt (2012, 50), the ‘five room unit’ 6-10 can be interpreted as an audience hall by considering the axiality in relation to the main entrance and niche (thickness 3 m) of room 8; another hypothesis suggested by Schmidt (2012, 50) is that this ‘five room unit’ was a prayer room when considering the orientation towards Mecca. With regard to the niche in the ‘five room unit’ 16-20 Schmidt suggests that ‘gab dem Raum keinen Bedeutungszuwachs’ (Schmidt 2012, 28).

3: 53,5 m2 8: 56,7 m2 13: 54,6 m2 18: 55,1 m2 23: 50,4 m2 28: 64,2 m2 33: 63,1 m2 38: 54 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 144,7 m2 6-10: 139,6 m2 11-15: 142,4 m2 16-20: 149,3 m2 21-25: 144,6 m2 26-30: 148,7 m2 31-35: 145,9 m2 36-40: 154,9 m2

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

270

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Schmidt 2012, fig. 2)

271

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 4. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī S85

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī – qaṣr

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

34°22’58.22”N, 37°36’32.49”E

Date

Site

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī

727

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī – qaṣr

Orientation

E/W

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (quadrangle, dimensions: About 70 × 70 m) shoes three-quarters angle towers and lateral semi-circular towers; all towers are full. The rooms are arranged around a central courtyard with a portico; entrance is to the east through the vestibule. There are four ‘five room units’ connected to the adjacent rooms. The presence of an upper floor, not preserved, is evidenced by stairs on the east side. The northern part of the qaṣr was modified in the post-Umayyad period.

Plan (surface)

About 4150 m2

‘Five room units’

4*

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

Yes, but not kept

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Schlumberger 1939; 1986

Notes

*It is likely that the audience hall was located on the upper floor (Genequand 2012, 163). The northern side of the qaṣr was modified in the post-Umayyad period, but the exact dimensions of the internal surfaces cannot be provided.

3: 69 m2 8: 70 m2 13: 72,1 m2 18: 72,1 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 159,1 m2 6-10: 161,6 m2 11-15:221,8 m2 16-20:173,3 m2

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

272

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Schlumberger 1986, pl. 22)

273

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 5. al-Qasṭal S86

al-Qasṭal

State / Territory

Jordan

Coordinates

31°44’45.74”N, 35°56’23.23”E

Date

Site

al-Qasṭal

720-744 (see notes)

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Qaṣr

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (quadrangle, dimensions: approximately 70 × 70 m) has three-quarters angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers, with the exception of a quarter of a circle towers located next to the entrance; all towers are full. The qaṣr is divided into: an entrance to the east with a vestibule; a central courtyard with a portico; rooms arranged around it, of which there are four ‘five room units’, each of which is in communication with service rooms and latrines. The presence of an upper floor, not preserved, is evidenced by stairs located next to the vestibule

Plan (surface)

About 3073 m2

‘Five room units’

4*

Internal surface area of central room

3: 78 m2 6: 68,9 m2

Total internal surfaces

11: 84,7 m2 16: 91,6 m2

1-5: 216,7 m2 6-8: 147 m2 (see notes) 9-13: 227,2 m2 14-18: 258,9 m2

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Upper Floor

Yes, but not kept

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Carlier – Morin 1984; 1987; Creswell – Allan 1989, 173-177

Notes

The ‘five room unit’ 6-8 is composed of three rooms; it is possible to assume the existence of other two ‘five room units’ which have been destroyed. The dating suggested by Gaube for al-Qasṭal palace is between 720 and 744 and is based on stylistic comparisons with other Umayyad palaces (Gaube 1977, 52-86); however, this dating element seems to be too weak. After a First general dating to the Umayyad period Carlier and Morin (1984, 349-352) suggest an unlikely dating to the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik through analogies with the cubits used in Qubbat al-Ṣakhra (Carlier – Morin 1987, 239-246)

Internal surface area of central room

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

274

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Carlier – Morin 1984, fig. 53)

275

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 6. al-Ruṣāfa S87

al-Ruṣāfa - Qaṣr 105A

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

35°37’37.55”N, 38°45’50.29”E

Date

Site

al-Ruṣāfa

724-743

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

qaṣr 105A

Orientation

NE / SW

Plan (dimensions)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (almost quadrangle, dimensions: approximately 36.5 × 38 m) has at least one three-quarters angle tower and one semi-circular lateral tower. The qaṣr is divided into a central courtyard; rooms arranged around it, of which a ‘five room unit’ is reported. Mostly of the structures of qaṣr have been detected by geomagnetic surveys

Plan (surface)

Non-deductible data (total considering the external perimeter: approximately 1387 m2)

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Siegel 2015

Notes

We use here the number of quṣūr proposed by Konrad 2011

Author reconstruction

3: 46,1 m2

Total internal surfaces Total internal surfaces

Siegel 2015

276

1-5: 108,2 m2

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan     

(reworked after Siegel 2015, fig. 11)

277

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S88

al-Ruṣāfa – Qaṣr 106

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

35°37’32.07”N, 38°45’43.16”E

Date

Site

al-Ruṣāfa

724-743

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

qaṣr 106

Orientation

NE / SW

Plan (dimensions)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (quadrangle, dimensions: approximately 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers; all towers are full. The qaṣr is divided into: a southern entrance with vestibule; a central courtyard with portico; rooms arranged around it, of which five ‘five room units’ are indicated, entrance to which is possible through a secondary courtyard, with the exception of the ‘five room unit’ 6-9, entrance to which is directly through the courtyard with portico. The structures at qaṣr have been partially excavated; the others have been detected by geomagnetic surveys

Plan (surface)

Non-deductible data (total obtained considering the external perimeter: approximately 4900 m2)

‘Five room units’

5

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Otto-Dorn 1957; Konrad 2011

Notes

We use here the number of quṣūr proposed by Konrad 2011

Author reconstruction

3: 80 m2 8: 88,2 m2 12: 89,6 m2 17: 83,2 m2 22: 82,1 m2

Total internal surfaces

Total internal surfaces

Otto-Dorn 1957; Konrad 2011; GL

278

1-5: 191,6 m2 6-9: 190,6 m2 10-14: 205 m2 15-19: 181,9 m2 20-24: 174,8 m2

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings  

Plan

(reworked after Otto-Dorn 1957, fig. a; Konrad 2011, fig. 2)

279

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria D89

al-Ruṣāfa – Qaṣr 109

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

35° 37.491’N, 38° 45.852’E

Date

Site

al-Ruṣāfa

724-743

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

qaṣr 109

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (rectangle, dimensions: approximately 55 × 70 m) has three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers. The qaṣr is divided into an entrance to the west and a courtyard immediately east of it (a); four groups of rooms arranged around secondary courtyards (b-e), each group having a ‘five room unit’. Access to group e is through a cruciform vestibule (I; outer perimeter: About 5 × 5 m). The structures of qaṣr have been reconstruct after archaeological and geomagnetic surveys

Plan (surface)

Non-deductible data (total obtained by considering the external perimeter: approximately 3800 m2)

‘Five room units’

4

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Siegel 2010

Notes

The number of quṣūr proposed by Siegel 2010 is used here; according to the researcher, cruciform room ‘I’ would be an audience hall (Siegel 2015, 17-18, fig. 15)

Author reconstruction

3: 53,4 m2 8: 55,8 m2 13: 50,1 m2 18: 52,3 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 135,7 m2 6-10: 128 m2 11-15: 114,5 m2 16-20: 113,9 m2

Total internal surfaces

Siegel 2010

280

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Siegel 2010, fig. 1)

281

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria D90

al-Ruṣāfa – Qaṣr 220

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

35° 37.011’N, 38° 45.651’E

Date

Site

al-Ruṣāfa

724-743

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

qaṣr 220

Orientation

NW / SE

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (quadrangle, dimensions: approximately 70 × 70 m) has three-quartercircle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers. The qaṣr is divided into: a northern entrance with a rectangle vestibule outside the perimeter of the qaṣr; a central courtyard probably with a portico; rooms located around it, of which at least one ‘five room unit’ is reported, which is accessed through a secondary courtyard. According to Konrad (2015, 528-529) this building was the ‘official’ qaṣr of Hishām, however he identifies the quadrangle room opposite the vestibule as the audience hall or majlis. The structures of qaṣr have been partially excavated; the remaining structures are deductible from geomagnetic surveys

Plan (surface)

Non-deductible data (total obtained by considering the external perimeter: approximately 4900 m2)

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Otto-Dorn 1957; Konrad 2011; Konrad 2015

Notes

We use here the number of quṣūr proposed by Konrad 2011

Author reconstruction

3: 59,4 m2

Total internal surfaces Total internal surfaces

Konrad 2011; GL

282

1-5: 143 m2

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Konrad 2011, fig. 2)

283

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 7. Khirbat al-Mafjar S91

Khirbat al-Mafjar – Qaṣr

State / Territory

West Bank

Coordinates

31°52’54.55”N, 35°27’34.89”E

Date

Site

Khirbat al-Mafjar

724-744

Part of a residential complex

Yes

Name of the building

Khirbat al-Mafjar, qaṣr

Orientation

E/W

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (quadrangle, dimensions: About 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers, with the exception of the southern square lateral tower (About 7.5 × 7.5 m), which has a niche inside, probably for prayer. Access is to the east through a vestibule, preceded by a monumental gate; the rooms are arranged around the central courtyard with portico; in the northeast and southeast corners there is a room with two central pillars; in the northern part a room (dimensions: approximately 29 × 11 m) is divided into two parallel naves by a row of pillars; in the centre of the western side there is a hybrid model between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ (a pseudo īwān flanked by two rooms for each side). Below the latter is a rectangle underground room (sirdāb) with a basin on the west side. The presence of a Upper floor is evidenced by two stairs located to the south and north

Plan (surface)

3449 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

1*

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

Yes, but not kept

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Baramki 1953; Hamilton 1959; Whitcomb – Jennings – Creekmore – Arce 2016

Notes

This bayt model is a hybrid between the ‘five room unit’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ and reveals comparisons with bayt 1-5 of Bālis

Total internal surfaces 3: 78,4 m2 (v. Notes)

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 153,4 m2 (v. Notes)

Author reconstruction

284

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Baramki 1953, fig. 1)

285

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 8. Bālis S92

Bālis – Qaṣr

State / Territory

Syria

Coordinates

35°58’33.80”N, 38° 6’4.87”E

Date

Site

Bālis

First half 8th century

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

Bālis, qaṣr

Orientation

E-NE / W-SW

Plan (description)

The perimeter of qaṣr (quadrangle, dimensions: approximately 70 × 70 m) has angle and lateral square towers, with the exception of the towers next to the entrance, U-shaped; all towers are full. The main entrance are to the east and west; the rooms are arranged around several courtyards, of which the one to the west precedes a ‘pavilion’ composed of a portico with two pillars, a hybrid model between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ (rooms 1-5) with a central pseudo īwān (with pillars in antis), two rooms for each side and rooms communicating with the latter; the pseudo īwān and the portico compose a T-device. In the southern side of the qaṣr there are two rooms, three ‘five room units’ and six service rooms. The north-eastern part of the qaṣr was modified during the 13th century. The northern side of the qaṣr was not excavated, but it was probably specular to the southern side.

Plan (surface)

4022 m2

‘Five room units’

3

Internal surface area of central room

8: 44 m2 13: 41,5 m2 18: 41,5 m2

Total internal surfaces

6-10: 98,4 m2 11-15: 96,3 m2 16-20: 93,5 m2

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

1

Internal surface area of central room

3: 55 m2 (v. Notes)

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 121,2 m2 (v. Notes)

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Author reconstruction

Leisten 2008; GL

Bibliography

Leisten 2008

Notes

Bayt 1-5 is a hybrid between the ‘five room unit’ and the ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’; the T-device of Bālis is the only one attested in the region; however, there are no columns in antis, as in the Mesopotamian examples, but there is one pillar. A hybrid model between ‘five room unit’ and ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ can be found at Khirbat al-Mafjar (bayt 1-5) and, for urban examples, at ʿAmmān (dār al-imāra, dwelling unit 2). The site shows three Umayyad phases: (1) construction of the central ‘pavilion’ and the ‘pseudo Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī; 2) extension and construction of the ‘five room units’, the enclosure and other rooms, (3) construction of structures dedicated to production activities

286

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings

Plan

(reworked after Leisten 2008, fig. 3)

287

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 9. al-Fudayn S93

al-Fudayn - Qaṣr

State / Territory

Jordan

Coordinates

32°20’41.94”N, 36°12’2.14”E

Date

Site

al-Fudayn

First half eight century

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

al-Fudayn, qaṣr

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr is quadrangle (dimensions: approximately 38 × 38 m). The qaṣr has two entrances: a main entrance to the west through a vestibule and another located in the qiblī wall of the mosque. The rooms of the qaṣr are articulated around a central courtyard: to the northwest there is a ‘five room unit’ (rooms 1-5), to the southwest a mosque and, in the other parts, service rooms. The qaṣr communicates to the northeast with baths.

Plan (surface)

1028 m2

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Humbert 1989; al-Husan 2001; 2002; Ballian 2012; Labisi 2015

Author reconstruction

3: 59,1 m2

Total internal surfaces Total internal surfaces

Labisi 2015

Notes

288

1-5: 138,8 m2

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Labisi 2015, fig. 3)

289

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 10. Qaṣr al-Ṭūba S94

Qaṣr al-Ṭūba – Qaṣr A

State / Territory

Jordan

Coordinates

31°19’33.25”N, 36°34’15.85”E

Date

Site

Qaṣr al-Ṭūba

743-744

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

Qaṣr A

Orientation

NE / SW

Plan (description)

The site is composed of two communicating and specular quṣūr. The perimeter of the qaṣr A (quadrangle, dimensions: About 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers; only the towers on the southern side are full. The entrance – flanked by two quadrangle rooms – is to the north through a vestibule; the rooms are accessible through secondary courtyards, the latter communicating with the central courtyard of the qaṣr; among the rooms are four ‘five room units’; the central rooms of the two southern ‘five room units’ – which corresponds to a courtyard – are equipped with niches, probably for prayer. In the north-western tower is a latrine. The eastern part of the qaṣr has not been completed and is only visible in foundations.

Plan (surface)

3900 m2

‘Five room units’

4

Internal surface area of central room (courtyard)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

3: 138,2 m2 8: 141,7 m2 13: 154,8 m2 18: 154 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 288,7 m2 6-10: 290 m2 11-15: 424,5 m2 16-20: 417,1 m2

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

Bibliography

Jaussen – Savignac 1922; Creswell 19792, I, 607-613

Notes

The construction of the quṣūr has not been completed and Creswell attributes them to the period of the caliph al-Walīd II (743-744) through comparisons of the plan and architectural decorations with Mshattā (Creswell 19792, I, 623-641)

290

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Jaussen - Savignac 1922, fig. 2)

291

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria D95

Qaṣr al-Ṭūba – Qaṣr B

State / Territory

Jordan

Coordinates

31°19’32.12”N, 36°34’17.89”E

Date

Site

Qaṣr al-Ṭūba

743-744

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

Qaṣr B

Orientation

NE / SW

Plan (description)

The site is composed of two communicating and specular quṣūr. The perimeter of the qaṣr B (quadrangle, dimensions: About 70 × 70 m) has three-quarter-circle angle towers and semi-circular lateral towers; only the towers on the southern side are full. The entrance – flanked by two quadrangle rooms – is to the north through a vestibule; the rooms are accessible through secondary courtyards, the latter communicating with the central courtyard of the qaṣr; among the rooms are four ‘five room units’; the central rooms of the two southern ‘five room units’ – which corresponds to a courtyard – are equipped with niches, probably for prayer. In the eastern tower is a latrine. The northern wall of the qaṣr has not been completed; the other structures of the qaṣr are visible only in foundations

Plan (surface)

3473 m2

‘Five room units’

4

Internal surface area of central room (courtyard)

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

3: 139,2 m2 8: 139,2 m2 13: 169,5 m2 18: 166 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 298,5 m2 6-10: 268,3 m2 11-15: 418,6 m2 16-20: 421,3 m2

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

Bibliography

Jaussen – Savignac 1922; Creswell 19792, I, 607-613

Notes

The construction of the quṣūr has not been completed and Creswell attributes them to the period of the caliph al-Walīd II (743-744) through comparisons of the plan and architectural decorations with Mshattā (Creswell 19792, I, 623-641)

292

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Jaussen – Savignac 1922, fig. 2)

293

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 11. Mshattā S96

Mshattā

State / Territory

Jordan

Coordinates

35°58’33.80”N, 38° 6’4.87”E

Date

Site

Mshattā

Phase 1: 743-744

Part of a residential complex

No

Name of the building

Mshattā

Orientation

N/S

Plan (description)

The perimeter of the qaṣr (quadrangle, size: approximately 150 × 150 m) has angle three-quarter-circle towers, semi-circular side towers and two hexagonal towers next to the entrance; all towers are full except for the three northern central towers and the secondary tower to the west of the entrance, where latrines are located. Access is located to the south through a vestibule, followed by a courtyard with recesses and the large central courtyard of the qaṣr. To the north of the latter is a ‘three-bay īwān’ divided into three naves by two rows of columns; to the north of the ‘īwān’ is the audience hall and to the north of the latter are three rooms, one of which is connected to a tower latrine. To the east of the hall there are four ‘five room units’ (two to the south and two to the north) subdivided by a secondary courtyard; rooms 10 and 17 of the ‘five room units’ communicate with two latrines located inside the towers. Four secondary courtyards, two on each side, communicate with the other rooms of the qaṣr, but they have never been completed: only the western rooms have been excavated (published by Genequand 2008c and Cramer et al. 2016) and are visible in foundation; these rooms are located in a specular way: in the north and south there are two larger ‘five room units’ and in the centre two ‘five room units’; in the north and south of the latter are service rooms. To the east of the vestibule is the palace mosque (About 13 × 28 m) and to the west a ‘five room units’. Only the rooms in the northern central part have been completed (the large īwān, the audience hall and the four ‘five room units’).

Plan (surface)

About 16100 m2

‘Five room units’

11*

Internal surface area of central room

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of central room

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Brunnow – von Domaszewski 1905; Schultz – Strzygowski 1904; Herzfeld 1910 (repr. 2007); Herzfeld 1921; Creswell 19792, I, 578-641; Grabar 1987; Genequand 2008; Cramer et al. 2014; Cramer et al. 2014; 2016

Notes

The ‘five room units’ on the western side were excluded since they were only traced in the ground (Cramer et al. 2016, I, 283)

3: 101,5 m2 8: 100,6 m2 13: 97 m2 18: 103,6 m2 23: 152 m2 28: 98,8 m2 33: 92,1 m2 38: 92,1 m2 43: 96 m2 48: 136,5 m2 53: 110,4 m2

Total internal surfaces

1-5: 226,6 m2 6-10: 221,3 m2 11-15: 216,8 m2 16-20: 219,6 m2 21-25: 362,9 m2 26-30: 215,2 m2 31-35: 203,9 m2 36-40: 206,8 m2 41-45: 205,1 m2 46-50: 319,8 m2 51-56: 208 m2

Total internal surfaces

Author reconstruction

294

Appendix 4  Quṣūr Dwellings Plan

(reworked after Cramer et al. 2016, fig. 293)

295

Appendix 5 Models of Umayyad madāʾin dwellings of Bilād al-Shām ʿAnjar Model A, northwestern quadrant (dwellings U, X: model A1, dwellings W, Y: model A2) Perimeter

23-24 × 17 m approximately

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Total of all internal surfaces

250-300 m2

Entrance

Without vestibule

Dimensions of the central courtyard

Approximately 8 × 9 m

Number of rooms

10

Number of ‘five room units’

1

Description

Two rooms in the western side; two rooms in one side (northern side in model A1; southern side in model A2); one room in a corner (in the northwestern corner in model A1, in the southwestern corner in model A2); a ‘five room unit’ is located south in model A1, north in model A2

Notes

Dwelling Y was modified in a post-Umayyad period, but it is likely that the original layout of the rooms was similar to that of the rooms in dwelling W

296

Appendix 5  Models of Umayyad madāʾin dwellings of Bilād al-Shām

297

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Model B, northwestern quadrant (dwelling B: model B1, dwelling C: model B2) Perimeter

About 15 × 24

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Total of all internal surfaces

200-250 m2

Entrance

Vestibule

Dimensions of the central courtyard

About 9 × 8 m

Number of rooms

B1: 8 B2: 10

Number of ‘five room units’

1

Description

Two rooms (east and west of the vestibule); one room (in the northwestern corner); two rooms (in the western side); an entrance with vestibule (located north in model B1, south in model B2); a ‘five room unit’ (located south in model B1, north in model B2)

Notes

Dwelling B was modified around the twelfth century due to the construction of a church in its western side

298

Appendix 5  Models of Umayyad madāʾin dwellings of Bilād al-Shām Model C, NW quadrant (dwellings E, G: models C1) and SO (dwellings A and B) Perimeter

Approximately 19-23 × 24 m

Orientation

E-NE / S-SW

Total of all internal surfaces

C1, C2-C3: 350-400 m2

Entrance

Vestibule

Dimensions of the central courtyard

About 9 × 8 m

Number of rooms

C1, C2-C3: 17

Number of ‘five room units’

2

Description

Model C1: one entrance with a vestibule (located south); two rectangular rooms (east and west of the vestibule); one room (in the southeastern corner); two ‘five room units’ (one located west, one north); two rooms (in the northeastern corner); two rooms (on the western side) model C2: an entrance with a vestibule (located south); two small square rooms (east and west of the vestibule); one room (in the southeastern corner); two rooms (on the eastern side); two ‘five room units’ (one located north and composed of four rooms –the room located northeast is larger than the others; a ‘five room unit’ located in the eastern side) model C3: specular to model C3, vestibule located north

Notes

299

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria

300

Appendix 5  Models of Umayyad madāʾin dwellings of Bilād al-Shām Model D, southwestern quadrant (dwellings N, R) Perimeter

Approximately 23 × 24-25 m

Orientation

E-NE / S-SO

Total of all internal surfaces

350-400 m2

Entrance

Vestibule

Dimensions of the central courtyard

Approximately 8-9 × 9 m

Number of rooms

12-14

Number of ‘five room units’

2

Description

An entrance with vestibule (located north); two rectangular rooms (east and west of the vestibule); two rooms in the southwestern corner; two rooms in the eastern side; two ‘five room units’ (one on the western side – which can be reconstructed for dwelling N; one in the southern side)

Notes

301

Appendix 6 Other Umayyad dwellings Madāʾin contexts 1. Madīnat al-Fār, ‘Bayt mansion’ S97

Madīnat al-Fār, ‘Bayt mansion’

State / Territory

Syria

Site

Madīnat al-Fār

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

?

Purpose

Probably residential

Name of the building

‘Bayt mansion’

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

41,6 × 20,2 m

Plan (description)

5 rooms (1-5)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

1: 11,1 × 3 m; 2: 11 × 11,4 m; 3: 10,3 × 16,3 m; 4: 11,2 × 3,1 m; 5: 11,1 × 11,3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

773,7 m2

‘Five room units’

1

Internal surface area of the central part

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Entrance

4, probably 5

Entrance (description)

The building was probably provided by 5 entrances, from each room

Form of the central courtyard

Lacking

Connection with other structures

No

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Haase 2008

3: 167,9 m2

Total internal surfaces Īwān

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Total internal surfaces

Haase 2008

Notes

302

0

No

1-5:486,7 m2

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

303

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria 2. Kūfa, dār al-imāra S98

Kūfa, dār al-imāra, dwelling unit ‘A’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Kūfā, dār al-imāra

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Western

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

A

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

36,8 × 30,5 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (54)

5 rooms (53, 56-58)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard (54): 25.2 × 19 m; 53: 13 × 5.1 m; 56: 5.8 × 7.2 m; 57: 13.1 × 11.3 m; 58: 5.4 × 7.2 m

Total of all internal surfaces

773,7 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

1*

Internal surface area of the central part

57: 148 m2

Entrance

4

Īwān

1

Entrance (description)

4 accesses according to the 4 cardinal points

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Mustafa 1963; Creswell 19792, I, 48-64; Santi 2018

Notes

The banāʾ al-Ḥīrī must be considered as a ‘pseudo banāʾ al-Ḥīrī’ since the portico in front of īwān is missing

Author reconstruction

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

0

Total internal surfaces

53, 56-58: 478,8 m2

No

Mustafa 1963; GL

304

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings

Plan

305

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S99

Kūfa, dār al-imāra, dwelling unit ‘B’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Kūfā, dār al-imāra

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Western

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

B

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

39,5 × 44,5 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (35)

12 rooms (1-2, 29-30, 42-46, 49-52)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

courtyard (35): 16.9 × 19.3 m; 1: 9.7 × 3.3 m; 2: 3 × 5.5 m; 29: 7.7 × 5.7 m; 30: 11.5 × 5.9 m; 42: 6.2 × 7.2 m; 43: 7.2 × 7.6 m; 44: 6 × 7.7 m; 46: 2.2 × 25.4 m; 48: 9.1 × 7.9 m; 49: 7.5 × 7.9 m; 51: 12.1 × 4.6 m; 52: 4.9 × 2.4 m

Total of all internal surfaces

818,5 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

10

Īwān

Entrance (description)

10 accesses according to the 4 cardinal points

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Mustafa 1963; Creswell 19792, I, 48-64; Santi 2018

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Mustafa 1963

Notes

306

No

0

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

307

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S100

Kūfa, dār al-imāra, dwelling unit ‘C’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Kūfā, dār al-imāra

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Western

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

C

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

38,8 × 29,6 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (6)

8 rooms (3-5, 30, 36-37, 45, 50)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Courtyard (6): 26.7 × 13.9 m; 3: 6.5 × 7.3 m; 4: 6.9 × 7.3 m; 5: 9 × 7.3 m; 36: 2.1 × 7 m; 37: 3.3 × 5.1 m; 45: 5.6 × 7.2 m; 50: 4.8 × 5 m

Total of all internal surfaces

886,4 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

11

Īwān

Entrance (description)

11 accesses according to the 4 cardinal points

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Mustafa 1963; Creswell 19792, I, 48-64; Santi 2018

Notes

According to Mustafa (1963, 42), unit ‘c’ had an administrative function; however, it is possible to suggest for this unit a residential function considering the comparison with the dwelling unit 12 of ʿAmmān palace(see here Annex 3, S66)

Author reconstruction

0

1 (36)

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Mustafa 1963

308

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

309

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S101

Kūfa, dār al-imāra, dwelling unit ‘D’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Kūfā, dār al-imāra

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Western

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

D

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

25,6 × 36,2 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (10)

7 rooms (7-9, 26-28, 31)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Courtyard (10): 22 × 14.1 m; 7: 4.1 × 11.6 m; 8: 11.4 × 4.2 m; 9: 3.8 × 11.9 m; 26: 6.2 × 4.7 m; 27: 3.9 × 6.8 m; 28: 11.4 × 6 m; 31: 5.9 × 3.9 m

Total of all internal surfaces

597,9 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

5

Īwān

Entrance (description)

5 entrances to the east, west and north

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

Yes

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Mustafa 1963; Creswell 19792, I, 48-64; Santi 2018

Notes

The presence of an upper floor is deductible thanks to the presence of stairs in the courtyard

Author reconstruction

0

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

No

Mustafa 1963

310

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

311

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S102

Kūfa, dār al-imāra, dwelling unit ‘E’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Kūfā, dār al-imāra

Date

Late seventh - first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Western

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Palace complex (dār al-imāra)

Name of the building

E

Orientation

N-NE / S-SW

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

18 × 41,1 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (24)

4 rooms (11, 15, 17, 23)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Courtyard (24): 15 × 13 m; 11: 14.5 × 4.7 m; 15: 3.4 × 10.5 m; 17: 14.6 × 4.7 m; 23: 10.5 × 6.7 m

Total of all internal surfaces

437,8 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

3

Īwān

Entrance (description)

3 entrances to the east, west and north

Form of the central courtyard

Almost square

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

Yes

Bibliography

Mustafa 1963; Creswell 19792, I, 48-64; Santi 2018

Author reconstruction

0

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Mustafa 1963

Notes

312

No

0

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

313

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Quṣūr contexts 3. Tulūl al-Shuʿayba S102

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba, dwelling unit ‘A’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba

Date

Late seventh - first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Qaṣr

Name of the building

A

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

21,1 × 23 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (1)

6 rooms (2-7)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Courtyard (1): 11.2 × 9.1 m; 2: 5.9 × 3.8 m; 3: 3.8 × 5.8 m; 3a: 4.1 × 0.9 m; 4: 4.1 × 6.6 m; 5: 3 × 2.8 m; 6: 2.9 × 2.6 m; 7: 4.3 × 7.3 m

Total of all internal surfaces

224,4 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

3

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 entrance respectively from: the central courtyard, the main īwān and the dwelling unit b

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Majhul 1972; Creswell – Allan 1989, 222

1

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

314

No

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings

Plan

315

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S103

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba, dwelling unit ‘B’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Qaṣr

Name of the building

B

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

10,2 × 20,3 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (8)

4 rooms (9-11b)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Courtyard (8): 9.3 × 9.8 m; 9: 4.5 × 4.8 m; 10: 4.2 × 5.4 m; 11a: 1.6 × 1.7 m 11b: 4.4 × 2 m

Total of all internal surfaces

146,9 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

4

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 entrance from the east from the reception room (banāʾ al-Ḥīrī)

Form of the central courtyard

quadrangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

Yes (presence of stairs in the courtyard)

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Majhul 1972; Creswell – Allan 1989, 222

2

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

316

No

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

317

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S104

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba, dwelling unit ‘C’

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Qaṣr

Name of the building

C

Orientation

N-NO / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

20,5 × 22,7 m

Plan (description)

1 courtyard (12)

9 rooms (13-21)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Courtyard (12): 10.5 × 9.1 m; 13: 3.8 × 5.7 m; 14: 3.9 × 5.7 m; 15: 4 × 2.3 m; 16: 2.1 × 1.2 m; 17: 4.1 × 2 m; 18: 1.9 × 3.7 m; 19: 3.2 × 7.2 m; 20: 7.4 × 4.4 m; 21: 1.4 × 6.7 m

Total of all internal surfaces

231,3 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Total internal surfaces

Entrance

4

Īwān

Entrance (description)

1 entrance from the central courtyard, 1 entrance from the reception room, 2 entrance from the dwelling unit b

Form of the central courtyard

Rectangular

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Majhul 1972; Creswell – Allan 1989, 222

1

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Author reconstruction

Notes

318

No

Appendix 6  Other Umayyad Dwellings Plan

319

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria S105

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba, reception room (banāʾ al-Ḥīrī)

State / Territory

Iraq

Site

Tulūl al-Shuʿayba

Date

Late seventh – first half eighth century

Quadrant / sector

Southern

Part of a residential complex

Yes (palace complex)

Destination of use

Qaṣr

Name of the building

Reception room (banāʾ al-Ḥīrī)

Orientation

N-NW / S-SE

Shape

Rectangular

Outside perimeter (dimensions)

11,4 × 16,3 m

Plan (description)

1 portico (25)

3 rooms (22-24)

Plan (internal surface dimensions)

Portico (25): 13.4 × 3.4 m; 22: 3.8 × 4.3 m; 23: 4.5 × 5.6 m; 24: 4.3 × 2.5 m

Total of all internal surfaces

97,8 m2

‘Five room units’

0

Internal surface area of the central part

Banāʾ al-Ḥīrī‎

1

Internal surface area of the central part

25,2 m2

Entrance

4

Īwān

1

Entrance (description)

1 entrance from the central courtyard, 3 entrance from the dwelling units a, b, c

Form of the central courtyard

Total internal surfaces

Presence of a portico in the central courtyard

Connection with other structures

Yes

Upper Floor

No

Hypothetical reconstruction

No

Bibliography

Majhul 1972; Creswell – Allan 1989, 222

Author reconstruction

Notes

320

Total internal surfaces

97,8 m2

Other Umayyad dwellings Plan

321

Bibliography Abreviations

al-Ṭābarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr, Taʿrīkh al-rusul wa ’l-mulūk, ed. M. J. De Goeje et al., Leiden, Brill, 15 vols., 1879-1901 (English translation: The History of al-Ṭabarī, 38 vols., Albany/NY: SUNY Press).

AAAS ADAJ

Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan AION Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Serie Orientale AO Ars Orientalis BAAL Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies DaM Damaszener Mitteilungen EI Encyclopaedia of Islam / Encyclopedie de l’Islam, Leiden, Brill. EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd Edition / Encyclopedie de l’Islam, 2nd edition, Leiden, Brill EIr Encyclopaedia Iranica, New York, Columbia University. EQ Encyclopaedia of the Qurʿān, Leiden – Boston – Köln, Brill. Jerash II Jerash archaeological project 1984-1988, II. Fouilles de Jérash 1984-1988 (Extrait de Syria, LXVI), Paris, Librairie Orientalis de Paul Geuthner, 1989. SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology o f Jordan ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb b. Jaʿfar, Kitāb albuldān, ed. A. W. T. Juynboll, Leiden, Brill, 1861.‎ al-Yāqūt, b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥamawī, Muʿjam al-buldān, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Leipzig, Brockhaus, 6 vols., 1866-1873. Théophane, Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Hildesheim, Holms, 2nd reprint, vol. I, 1980 (first edition: Leipzig, 1883). Studies Allara, Anny Florence, Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos sull’Eufrate. L’isolato dei vasai (B2), Napoli, Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2002. Almagro, Antonio, El Palacio Omeya de ‘Ammān I. La Arquitectura, Madrid, Istituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura, 1983. Almagro, Antonio, Arce, Ignacio, El alcázar omeya de Ammán, crisol de técnicas constructivas, in Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción, Madrid, 1996: 25-30. Almagro, Antonio, Jiménez, Pedro, Navarro, Julio, El Palacio Omeya de ‘Ammān III. Investigacìon Arqueològica y Restauraciòn 1989-1997, Granada, Escuela de Estudios Arabes CSIC, 2000. Almagro, Martin, Caballero, Luis, Zozaya, Juan, Almagro, Antonio, Qusayr ‘Amra. Residencia y baños omeyas en el desierto de Jordania (2nd edition), Granada, El Legado Andalusi, 2002.

Sources al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyāʾ b. Jābir, Kitāb futūḥ albuldān, ed. M. J. De Goeje, Brill, Leiden, 1866 (transl. P. K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, New York, Columbia University Press, 1916-1924).

Amir-Moezzi, Moḥammad ʿAlī, Dictionnaire du Coran, Paris, Robert Laffont S.A, 2007. Anastasio, Stefano, Botarelli, Lucia, The 1927–1938 Italian Archaeological Expedition to Transjordan in Renato Bartoccini’s Archives, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2015.

Abū-l Fidāʾ, Ismāʿil b. ʿAlī, Taqwīm al-buldān, ed. Reinaud – De Slane, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1840. al-Jāḥiẓ, Abū ʿUthmān ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Kinānī alFuqaymī al-Baṣrī, Le livre de la couronne (Kitāb alTāj), ed. C. Pellat, Paris, Éditions des Belles Lettres, 1954.

Ansary, A.R., Qaryat al-Fau: A Portrait of Pre-Islamic Civilization in Saudi Arabia, New York, Martin’s Press, 1982.

al-Masʿūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Murūj aldhahab wa maʿādin al-jawhar, Beirut, Dār al-Andalus, 1966.

Arce, Ignacio, The Palatine City at Amman Citadel. The Construction of a Palatine Architecture under the Umayyads (II), in Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd alRazzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf.: VML, 2008: 183-216.

al-Muqaddasī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm, ed. M. J. De Goejie, Leiden, Brill, 1906 (BGA III). 322

Bibliography – The Umayyad Baths at Amman Citadel and Hammam al-Sarah Analysis and Interpretation: the Social and Political Value of the Umayyad Baths, Syria 92 (2015): 133-168.

Bennett, Crystal-M., Excavation at the Citadel, Amman, 1975, ADAJ 20 (1975): 131-142.

– The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex on the Amman Citadel: Architectural Features and Urban Significance, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (22-26 May 2000, Copenhagen). Volume 2. Islamic Archaeology, General, Islamic Archaeology, Symposium, edited by Ingolf Thuesen, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2016a: 121-142.

Bennett, Crystal-M., Northedge, Alastair, Excavation at the Citadel, Amman, 1976. Second Preliminary Report, ADAJ 22 (1978): 172-179.

– Excavation at the Citadel (Al-Qal’a [sic]). Amman, 1977, ADAJ 23 (1979): 151-160.

Bell, Gertrude M. Lowthian, Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir: A Study in Early Mohammadan Architecture, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1914. Bell, H.I., The Aphrodito Papyri, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 28 (1908): 97-120.

– Qasr Kharana Revisited, in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, II edited by S. Bickel, B. Jacobs, J.-M. Le Tensorer, D. Genequand, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2016b: 335-355.

Ben-Dov, M., The Omayyad Structures near the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society, 1971. Bevan, George, Fisher, Greg, Genequand, Denis, The Late Antique Church at Tall al-ʿUmayrī East: New Evidence for the Jafnide Family and the Cult of St. Sergius in Northern Jordan, BASOR 373 (2015): 49-68.

Askari-Chaverdi, Ali-Reza, Excavations at the so-called Sasanian Palace at Sarvestān [Kāvuš dar banā-ye maʿarūf ba kāx-e sāsānī-e Sarvestān, Fārs], Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 23/2 (2010): 3765.

Bier, Lionel, Sarvistan. A Study in Early Iranian Architecture, University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1986.

– Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid Settlements in the plains of Rostam 1 (Fahliyān), Rostam 2, Nurābād, Dasht-e Bozpar (Posht-e par), Kāzerun, Borāzjān [Esteqrārhā-yi doure-yi haxāmaneshi, farā-haxāmaneshi dar dashtā-yi Rostam 1 (Fahliyān), Rostam 2, Nurābād, Dasht-i Bozpar (Posht-I par), Kāzerun, Borāzjān], in Achaemenid and Post Achaemenid Studies. Mamasani Region, Northwestern and Western Fars, edited by AliReza Askari Chaverdi, Daniel T. Potts, Cameron Petrie. Shiraz, Shiraz University, 2014: 143-178.

– The Sasanian Palaces and Their Influence in Early Islam, AO 23 (1993): 57-65.

Azarnoush, Massoud, The Sasanian Manor House at Hājīābād, Iran, Firenze, Le Lettere, 1994.

Bosworth, C.E., al-Shām, EI2, IX, 1997: 261-262.

– Sarvistan Reconsidered, in Leaving No Stones Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen, edited by Erica Ehrenberg, Winona Lake (Indiana), Eisenbrauns, 2002: 43-51. Borrut, Antoine, Entre mémoire et pouvoir. L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et les premiers Abbasides (v. 72-193/692-809), Leiden – Boston, Brill: 2011. Bosworth, C.E., van Donzel, E., Lewis, B., Pellat, Ch., Madjlis, EI2, V, 1986: 1031-1082.

Baldini Lippolis, Isabella, La domus tardoantica. Forme e rappresentazioni dello spazio domestico nelle città del mediterraneo, Bologna, University Press, 2001.

Bourke, S.J., Appendix 3. First Preliminary Report on the Excavation and Study of Human Remains, in Pella in Jordan 2. The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982-1985, edited by A.W. McNicoll, P.C. Edwards, J. Hanbury-Tenison, J.B. Hennessy, T.F. Potts, R.H. Smith, A. Walmsley, P. Watson, Sydney, Meditarch, 1992: 215-226.

Ballian, Anna, al-Fudayn. In Byzantium and Islam. Age of Transition (7th-9th Century), edited by Helen C. Evans, B. Ratliff, New York, Metropolitan Museum, 2012: 212-216. Baramki, Dimitri C., Arab Culture and Architecture of the Umayyad Period: A Comparative Study with Special Reference to the Results of the Excavations of Hisham’s Palace (PhD diss., University of London, 1953)

Brands, Gunnar, Der sogennante Audienzsaal des alMundhir in Resafa, DaM 10 (1998): 215-235. Brisch, Klaus, Le chateau omeyyade de Djebel Seis, AAAS 13 (1963a):135-158.

Bashshāsh Rasul Kanzaq, Qaraʿt Katibehā-ye BāstānShenāsī Bandyān Dargaz Dasgerd ‘Yazdešāprān’, Gozārešhā-ye Bāstān-Shenāsī 1 (1376/1997): 33-38.

– Das omayyadische Schloss in ‘Usais, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 19 (1963b): 141-187.

Bates, Michael, The Coinage of Syria under the Umayyads, 692-750 A.D, in The IVth International Conference on Bilad al-Sham, edited by Moḥammad A. Bakhit, Robert Shick, ʿAmmān, University of Jordan Press, 1989: 195228.

– Das omayyadische Schloss in ‘Usais (II), Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 20 (1965), 138-177. 323

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Brooks, Ernest Walter, A Syriac Chronicle of the Year 846, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 51 (1897): 569-588.

Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, ‎and Archaeology, London, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881.‎

Brünnow, Rudolf Ernst, von Domaszewski, Alfred, Die Provincia Arabia, 3 vols., Strassburg, Trubner, 19041909.

Conrad, Lawrence, The Quṣūr of Medieval Islam: Some Implications for the Social History of the Near East, al-Abḥāth 29 (1981): 7-25.

Buckingham, James Silk, Travels in Palestine, London, Longman, 1821.‎

Cramer, Johannes, Perlich, Barbara, Reconsidering the Dating of Qasr al-Mshatta, in Beiträge zur islamischen Kunst und Archäologie (Jahrbuch der Ernst-HerzfeldGesellschaft), edited by Julia Gonnella, Rania Abdellatif, Simone Struth, Wiesbaden, Reichert, 2014: 220-233.

Burckhardt, Johann Ludwig, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, ‎ London, J. Murray, 1822.‎ Butler, Howard Crosby, Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904-5 and 1909. Division II, Architecture. Section A, Southern Syria, Leiden, Brill, 1919.

Cramer, Johannes, Perlich, Barbara, Schauerte, Günther, Qaṣr al-Mschatta. Ein frühislamischer Palast in Jordanien und Berlin, 2 vols., Petersberg, Michael Imhof Verlag, 2016.

Caetani, Leone, Annali dell’Islam, 10 vols., Milano, Hoepli, 1905-1918.

Creswell, Keppel Archibald Cameron, Early Muslim Architecture (Umayyads A.D. 622-750), 2 vols., New York, Hacker Art Books, 19792.

Callieri, Pierfrancesco, Architecture et représentations dans l’Iran sassanide (Conférences d’Etudes Iraniennes Ehsan et Latifeh Yarshater 7 – Studia Iranica, Cahier 50), Paris, Peeters Press, 2014.

Creswell, Keppel Archibald Cameron, James W., Allan, A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, Aldershot, Scholar Press, 1989.

Campo, Juan Eduardo, House, Domestic and Divine, EQ, II, 2001: 458-426.

Crone, Patricia, Slave on Horses. The Evolution of the Islamic Polity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Carfì, Antonio, Ayla / ʿAqaba e i modelli insediativi nell’area meridionale del bilād al-Shām in età protoislamica (MA Thesis, ‘Sapienza’ Università di Roma, 2014).

Ćurčić, Slobodan, Late-Antique Palaces: The Meaning of Urban Context, AO 23 (1993): 67-90.

Carlier, Patricia, Morin, Frederic, Recherches archeologiques au chateau de Qastal, ADAJ 28 (1984): 343-383, 491-493.

Damgaard, Kristoffer, Islamic Aqaba Project - Season 2008. Final Report, in Islamic Aqaba Project 1, 1-16 (https://miri.ku.dk/projekts/aap/, 09/07/2018).

– Archaeological Researches at Qastal, Second Mission, 1985, ADAJ 31 (1987): 221-246.

– A Palestinian Red Sea Port on the Egyptian Road to Arabia: Early Islamic Aqaba and its Many Hinterlands, in Connected Hinterlands: Proceedings of Red Sea Project IV held at the University of Southampton, September 2008 (BAR International Series 2052), edited by L. Blue, J. Cooper, R. Thomas, J. Whitewright, Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2009: 85-97.

Chaniotis, A., Corsten, T., Stroud, R.S., Tybout, R.A., 2006: SEG 56-1867. Emesa (area of Qasr al-Hayr alGharbi [Heliaramia?]). Construction of a Monastery, ‎529-569 (A-C) and 559 (D) A.D., in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, R.A. Tybout (http://dx.doi. org/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a56_1867> 30 decembre 2016).

– Jordan’s port on the China Sea. A Preliminary Report on the 2010 Field Campaign of the Aylah Archaeological Project 2010 (mir.ku.dk/projekts/aap/ reports/AAP2010_Report, 09/07/2018).

Chehab, Hafez K., On the Identification of ‘Anjar (‘Ain alJarr) as an Umayyad Foundation, Muqarnas 10 (1993): 42-48.

– Islamic Aylah (Aqaba), American Archaeology 116/4 (2012): 746-748.

Chehab, Maurice, The Umayyad Palace at ‘Anjar, AO 5 (1963): 17-25.

Journal

of

– Between Castrum and Medina: a Preliminary Note on Spatial Organisation and Urban Development in Medieval Aqaba, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras. VII Proceedings of the 16th, 17th and 18th International Colloquium Organized at Ghent University in May 2007, 2008 and 2009, edited by U. Vermeulen, K. D’Hulster, J. Van Steenbergen, Leuven – Paris – Walpole, Peeters, 2013a: 39-66.

Clauss-Balty, Pascale, Hauran III. L’habitat dans les campagnes de Syrie du Sud aux époques classique et mediévale (BAH, 181), Beyrouth, Ifpo, 2008. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, Une inscription du calife Hicham (an 110 de l’hegire), in Recueil d’archéologie orientale, III, Paris, E. Leroux, 1900: 285-293.

– Finding Fatimid Jordan: A Reinterpretation of Aylah’s ‘Fatimid Residence’, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid,

Conder, C.R., with the collaboration of H.H. Kitchener, E.H. Palmer, W. Besant, The ‎Survey of Western 324

Bibliography Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras. VII Proceedings of the 16th, 17th and 18th International Colloquium Organized at Ghent University in May 2007, 2008 and 2009, edited by U. Vermeulen, K. D’Hulster, J. Van Steenbergen, Leuven – Paris – Walpole, Peeters, 2013b: 67-98.

Ellis, Simon, Late Antique Housing: An Overview, in Housing in Late Antiquity. From Palaces to Shops, edited by Luke Lavan, Lale Özgenel, Alexander Constantine Sarantis, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2007: 1-22.

David, Jean-Claude, Rousset, Marie-Odile, La qaʿa de la maison Wakil à Alep. Origine d’un nouveau modèle d’espace domestique, in Angels, Peonies, and Fabulous Creatures: The Aleppo Room in Berlin, edited by Julia Gonnella and Jens Kröger, Münster, Rhema, 2015: 5569.

Erdmann, Kurt, Die Kunst Irans zur Zeit der Sasaniden, Mainz, Kupferberg: 1969. Evans, J.A.S., The Age of Justinian. The circumstances of imperial power, New York, Routledge: 2000. Finster, Barbara, Researches in ʿAnjar. Preliminary Report on the Architecture of ʿAnjar, BAAL 7 (2003): 209-244.

De Saulcy F., Voyage en Terre Sainte, Paris, Didier, 1865.‎

– Vine Ornament and Pomegranates as Palace Decoration in ʿAnjar, in The Iconography of Islamic art. Studies in Honour of Robert Hillenbrand, edited by Bernard O’Kane, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2005: 143-158.

De Vries, Bert, The Umm el-Jimal project, 1981-1992, ADAJ 27 (1993): 433-460. Di Cesare, Michelina, Nota su un dipinto parietale rinvenuto nel Qaṣr al-Imāra di Kufa, il suo contesto archeologico e storico-artistico, in Mantua Humanistic Studies, IX, edited by Raffaella Santi, Mantova, Universitas Studiorium, 2020: 105-140.

— ‘Anjar: Spätantik oder Frühislamisch ?, in Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd al-Razzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf., VML, 2008: 229-242.

Di Stefano, Giovanni, L’attività della Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali ed Ambientali a Camarina e nel ragusano (1992-1995), Kokalos XLIII-XLIV/2.2 (1997): 745791.

Fisher, Greg, Between Empires. Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.

Djaït, Hichem, al-Kūfa. Naissance de la ville islamique, Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose, 1986.

Flood, Finbarr Barry, The Great Mosque of Damascus, Leiden – Boston, Brill: 2001.

Djamali, Morteza, Askari Chaverdi, Alireza, Balatti, Silvia, Guibal, Fredéric, Santelli, Coralie, On the chronology and use of timber in the palaces and palacelike structures of the Sasanian Empire in ‘Persis’ (SW Iran), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12 (2017): 134-141.

Foietta, Enrico, Hatra. Il territorio e l’urbanistica, Oxford, Archeopress, 2014. Fontana, Maria Vittoria, The Umayyad ‘Cruciform’ Domed Halls at Kūfa and ʿAmmān Compared with the Plans of the Sasanian Fire Temples (čahār ṭāqs), AION 75/1-4 (2015), 215-222.

Djamalzadeh, M.A., Andarūn, EIr, II/1, 1985: 11. Donner, Fred McGraw, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1981.

Fontana, Maria Vittoria, Galdieri, Eugenio, Giunta, Roberta, Caterina, Lucia, Al-Hundaydah, Yemen: una lettura pluridisciplinare. Primo rapporto preliminare (1997), AION 58/1-2 (2000), 110-142.

Downey S.B., The Palace of the Dux Ripae at DuraEuropos, in Histoire et cultes de l’Asie centrale préislamique. Sources écrites et documents archéologiques: actes du Colloque international du CNRS (Paris, 22-28 novembre 1988), edited by Paul Bernard, Frantz Grenet, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1991: 17-21.

Fowden, Elizabeth Key, The Barbarian Plain. Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999. Frantz, Alison. Late Antiquity: A.D. 267-700 (The Athenian Agora. Vol. XXIV), Princeton – New Jersey: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1988.

Dornemann, Rudolph Henry, The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Milwaukee, Milwaukee Public Museum, 1983.

Gabriel, Albert, Recherches archéologiques à Palmyre, Syria 7 (1926): 71-92.

Eastwood, Gillian M., Appendix 8. The Pella Textiles, in Pella in Jordan 2. The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982-1985, edited by A.W. McNicoll, P.C. Edwards, J. Hanbury-Tenison, J.B. Hennessy, T.F. Potts, R.H. Smith, A. Walmsley, P. Watson, Sydney, Meditarch, 1992: 257-265.

Gaube, Heinz, Ein Arabischer Palast in Südsyrien, Hirbet el-Baida, Beirut, Orient-Institut, 1974. — ʿAmmān, Ḫarane und Qastal. Vier frühislamische Bauwerke in Mitteljordanien, ZDPV 93 (1977): 52-86. — Die syrischen Wüstenschlösser. Einige wirtschaftliche und politische Gesichtspunkte zu ihrer Entstehung, ZDPV 95 (1979): 182-209.

Elisséeff, N., Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī, EI2, IV, 1997: 726727. 325

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria proposal [Pīšnahādī barāye maḥal-e šahr-e sāsānī Seymareh bar assās-e motūn-e tārīxī va madārek-e bāstānšenāxtī], in M. H. A. Kharanaghi, M. Khanipour, R. Naseri, Proceedings of the International Congress of Young Archaeologists, Tehran, University of Tehran Press, 1393/2014: 477-488.

– Wie ist Ḫirbat al-Bayḍaʾ chronologisch einzuordnen?, Oriente Moderno 23 (2004): 449-467. Gayraud, Roland-Pierre, Fostat: évolution d’une capitale arabe du VIIe au XIIe siècle d’après les fouilles d’Istabl ʿAntar, in Colloque International d’Archéologie Islamique, 1993, edited by R.P. Gayraud, Cairo, IFAO, 1998: 435-460.

Ghirshman, Roman, Cinq campagnes de fouilles à Suse, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 46/1 (1952): 1-18.

Gawlikowski, Michael, A Residential Area by the South Decumanus, in Jerash Archaeological Project 19811983, edited by Fawzi Zayadine, Amman, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1986: 107-136.

Gignoux, Philippe, Dastgerd, EIr, VII/1, 1994: 105-106. Gonnella, Julia, La citadelle d’Alep: les périodes islamiques, Archéologie Islamique 11 (2001): 188-194.

– L’habitat à Palmyre de l’Antiquité au Moyen-Âge, in Les maisons dans la Syrie antique. Du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam. Pratiques et représentations de l’éspace domestique (Actes du Colloque International, Damas 27-30 juin 1992), edited by Corinne Castel, Michel al-Maqdissi, François Villeneuve, Beyrouth, IFAPO, 1997: 161-166.

Grabar, Oleg, Ceremonial and Art at the Umayyad court (PhD diss., University of Princeton, 1955). – The Date and Meaning of Mshatta, DOP 41 (1987): 243-247. Grabar, Oleg, Holod, Renata, Knustad, James, Trousdale, William, City in the Desert. Qasr al-Hayr East, Cambridge/MA, Harvard University Press, 1978.

Genequand, Denis, Umayyad Castles: The Shift from Late Antique Military Architecture to Early Islamic Palatial Building, in Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria. From the Coming of Islam to the Ottoman Period, edited by Hugh Kennedy, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2006: 3-25.

Grabar, Oleg, Perrot, Jean, Bezalel, Ravani, Ayalon, Myriam, Sondages à Khirbet el-Minyeh, IEJ 10 (1963): 226-243. Gussone, Martin, Müller-Wiener, Martina, Resafa-Rusafat Hisham, Syria. ‘Long-Term Survival’ of an Umayyad Residence. First Results of the Extended Surface Survey, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, Ancient, Modern Issues in Cultural Heritage Colour, Light in Architecture, Art, Material Culture Islamic Archaeology, II, edited by R. Matthews, J. Curtis, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2012: 569-684.

– Trois sites omeyyades de Jordanie centrale: Umm alWalid, Khan al-Zabib et Qasr al-Mshatta (travaux de la Fondation Max van Berchem 1988-2000), in Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd al-Razzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf., VML, 2008: 125-151. – Rapport preliminaire des campagne 2008 et 2009 de la mission archéologique syro-suisse de Palmyre, in SLSA - Jahresbericht 2009, Zurich, 2010: 221-232.

Haase, Claus-Peter, Madīnat al-Fār – First Archaeological Soundings at the Site and the History of an Ummayyad Domain in ‎Abbasid Times, in Bilād al-Shām During the ‘Abbāsid Period, edited by Muḥammad Adnan alBakhit, Robert Schick. Amman, [The University of Jordan Printing Press], 1991: ‎206-225.

– Rapport preliminaire des travaux de la mission archéologique syro-suisse de Palmyre en 2010, on SLSA Jahresbericht 2010, Zurich, 2011a: 81-86. – Les décors en stuc du Bâtiment E à Qaṣr al-Ḥayr alSharqī, Syria 88 (2011b): 351-378.

– Is Madinat al-Far – in the Region of Northern Syria – an Umayyad Foundation?, in Proceedings ‎of the Fourth International Conference (Oxford 1993), Arab-Byzantine-Syriac Culture Interchange during the ‎Umayyad Era (Bilad al-Sham) 6 (1994), Oxford, ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, 1994: 245-257.

– Les établissements des élites omeyyades en Palmyrène et au Proche-Orient (BAH 200), Beyrouth, IFPO, 2012. – The Archaeological Evidence for the Jafnids and the Naṣrids, in Arabs and Empires before Islam, edited by Greg Fisher, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015: 172-213.

– Madīnat al-Fār: The Regional Late Antique ‎Tradition of an Early Islamic Foundation, in Continuity and Change in Northern ‎Mesopotamia from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period, ed. Karin Bartl, Stefan R. Hauser, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1996: 165-171.

Genequand, Denis, Robin, Christian Julien, Les Jafnides. Des rois arabes au service de Byzance (VIe siècle de l’ère chrétienne): Actes du colloque de Paris, 24-25 novembre 2008 (Serie Orient et Mediterranée, 17), Paris, De Boccard, 2015.

– Une ville des ‎débuts de l’Islam d’après les fouilles effectuées à Madinat al-Far (Syrie du Nord). Les premières fondations urbaines ‎umayyades, Archéologie Islamique 11 (2001): 7-20.‎

Geravand, Morteza, Zeinivand, Mohsen, The location of the Sassanid city of Seimareh, according to the historical texts and the archaeological records. A 326

Bibliography Hopkins, Clark, Topography and Architecture of Seleucia on the Tigris, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1972.

— Public and Domestic Architecture. The Case of Madinat al-Far/Hisn Maslama, in Résidences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd al-Razzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf., VML, 2008: 395-402.

Hoyland, Robert G., Arab Kings, Arab Tribes and the Beginnings of Arab Historical Memory in Late Roman Epigraphy, in From Hellenism to Islam. Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, edited by Hannah M. Cotton, Robert G. Hoyland, Jonathan J. Price, David J. Wasserstein, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009: 374-400.

Hadidi, Adnan, Excavation of the Roman Forum at Amman (Philadelphia), ADAJ 19 (1974): 71-91. Hamilton, Robert, Khirbat al-Mafjar: An Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1959.

– Two New Arabic Inscriptions: Arabian Castles and Christianity in the Umayyad Period, in To the Madbar and Back Again. Studies in the Languages, Archaeology, and Cultures ofArabia Dedicated to Michael C.A. Macdonald, edited by Laïla Nehmé, Ahmad Al-Jallad, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2018: 327-337.

– Who Built Khirbat al-Mafjar?, Levant 1 (1969): 61-67. Harding, Gerald Lankester, Excavations on the Citadel, Amman, ADAJ 1 (1951a): 7-16. – A Roman Tomb in Amman, ADAJ 1 (1951b): 30-33.

Huff, Dietrich, From Median to Achaemenian Palace Architecture, Iranica Antiqua XL (2005): 371-395.

Harrison, Matthew James, Fusṭāṭ Reconsidered: Urban Housing and Domestic Life in a Medieval Islamic City (PhD Diss., University of Southampton, 2016).

Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, El-Fedein/Mafraq, in Contribution française à l’archéologie jordanienne, Amman, IFAPO, 1989: 124-131.

Hasson, Isaac, Judhām entre la ‘Jāhiliyya’ et l’Islam, Studia Islamica 81 (1995): 5-42.

al-Husan, Abdel-Qader, Preliminary Results of the Archaeological Excavations at Al-Mafraq 1991-2001, ADAJ 45 (2001): 5-13 (Arabic Section).

Herzfeld, Ernst, Erster Vorläufiger Bericht Über Die Ausgrabungen von Samarra, Herausg. von Der General-Verwaltung Der Königlichen Museen, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Islamische Abteilung, 1912.

– The New Archaeological Discoveries of the al-Fudayn and Rahāb – al-Mafraq Excavation Projects, 19912001, ADAJ 46 (2002): 71-94 (Arabic Section).

– Mshattâ, Ḥîra und Bâdiya, die Mittelländer des Islam und ihre Baukunst, Jahrbuch der Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, 42 (1921): 104-146.

Ibrahim, Laila, Residential Architecture in Mamluk Cairo, Muqarnas 2 (1984): 47-59. Jaussen, Antonin, Savignac, Marie-Raphael, Mission archéologique en Arabie. III. Les châteaux arabes de Qeseir ʿAmra, Ḫarāneh et Tūba, Paris, Geuthner, 1922.

– The Genesis of Islamic Art and the Problem of Mshattā, in Early Islamic Art and Architecture, edited by James M. Bloom (translation by Thomas Leisten of ‘Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst und das Mshattā Problem’, Der Islam 1, 1910), Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007: 7-86.

Johns, Jeremy, The ‘House of the Prophet’ and the Concept of the Mosque, in Bayt al-Maqdis: Jerusalem and Early Islam, edited by Julian Raby, Jeremy Johns, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999: 59-112.

Hillenbrand, Robert, La Dolce Vita in Early Islamic Syria: the Evidence of Later Umayyad Palaces, Art History 5 (1982): 1-85.

Karamian, Gholamreza, Sassanid city of Ramāvand, Lorestan (Archaeological Excavations of Barz-i Qawāla) [Šahr-e sāsānī-e Ramāvand Lorestān (Kāvošhā-ye bāstān šenāsī-e Barz-e Qawāle)], Tehran, Abrishamifar, 1394/2016.

– ʿAnjar and Early Islamic Urbanism, in The Idea and Idéal of Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Gianpietro Brogiolo, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 1999: 59-98.

Keall, E.J., Bīšāpūr, EIr, IV/3, 1989: 287-289.

Hoffmann, Marion-Isabell, Sasanidische Palastarchitektur. Forschung – Grundlagen – Funktion (PhD Diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, 2008)

Kennedy, Hugh, From polis to madina: Urban change in late antique and early Islamic Syria, Past and Present, 106 (1985): 3-27.

Hoffman, Valerie J., Hospitality and Courtesy, EQ, II, 2001: 449-454.

– The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State Warfare and History, London – New York, Routledge, 2001.

Hondius, J.J.E., EG 7-188. Sergioupolis. In ecclesia extra muros erecta, in porticu absidis, in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, R.A. Tybout, 1934 (http:// dx.doi.org/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a7_188, 30 decembre 2016).

– An Historical Atlas of Islam, London – New York, Brill, 2002. – The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. The Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century, Harlow, Taylor and Francis, 2004. 327

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria – The Great Arab Conquests. How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In, Philadelphia, Da Capo Press, 2007.

in Materialen zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, edited by U. Finkbeiner, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, 1993: 195-218.

– Great estates and elite lifestyles in the Fertile Crescent from Byzantium and Sasanian to Islam, in Court Cultures in the Muslim World. Seventh to nineteenth centuries, edited by Albrecht Fuess and Jan-Peter Hartung, London – New York, Routledge, 2011: 54-78.

Leisten, Thomas, Mshatta, Samarra, and al-Hira: Ernst Herzfeld’s Theories Concerning the Hira-Style Revisited, in Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies 1900-1950, edited by Ann C. Gunter, Stefan R. Hauser, Leiden –Boston, Brill, 2005: 371-384.

Kondakov, N. P., Arkheologicheskoe puteshestvie po Sirii i Palestinie, St. Petersburg, Izd. Imp. Akademii nauk, 1904.

– For Prince and Country(side). The Marwanid Mansion at Balis on the Euphrates, in Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd al-Razzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf., VML, 2008: 377-394.

Konrad, Cristoph, Resafa – Rusafat Hisham, Syrien. Archäologische Untersuchungen. Die Qusur FP 106 und FP 220, zwei Paläste in der Residenz des umaiyadischen Kalifen Hisham b. ʿAbd al-Malik, in Masterstudium Denkmalpflege Jahrbuch 2009-11, edited by Dorothée Sack, Berlin, Technische Universität Berlin Fakultät VI - Planen Bauen Umwelt. Institut für Architektur, 31, 2011.

Le Strange, Guy, Palestine Under the Moslems: Description of Syria and the Holy Land from AD 650 to 1500, London, A.P. Watt, 1890.

– Introduction, in C. Konrad, I. Oberholl, D. Sack, The Stucco Decoration of the Palaces (quṣūr) in the Umayyad Residence Ruṣāfat Hishām, Syria. Style and Techniques, in 1st International Conference of the European Network of Museums of Islamic Art. REMAI Actas, Alhambra 25.–27. April 2012, Granada – London, Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife, Victoria and Albert Museum, 2015: 527-546.

Levi della Vida, Giorgio, Taym Allāh, EI2, X, 2000: 400401. Lewis, B., Ménage, V.L., Pellat, Ch., Schacht, J., Ḥārim, EI2, III, 1986: 209. Lindsay, James E., Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company, 2005.

Konrad, Michaela, La frontière romaine au VIe siècle et le batiment dit ‘Praetorium d’al-Mundhir’ à RuṣāfaSergiopolis, in Les Jafnides. Des rois arabes au service de Byzance (VIe siècle de l’ère chrétienne: Actes du colloque de Paris, 24-25 novembre 2008 (Serie Orient, Mediterranée, 17), edited by Denis Genequand and Christian Robin, Paris, Editions De Boccard, 2015: 239-258.

Luz, Nimrod, The Construction of an Islamic City in Palestine. The Case of Umayyad al-Ramla, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7/1 (1997): 27-54. Majlul, Dakhil, Telul esh-Sheibah, Sumer 28/1-2 (1972): 243-246 (Arabic Section). Marçais, George, Dār, EI2, 1991: 113-115.

Koutsoukou, Anthi, Russell, Kenneth W., Najjar, Mohammad, Momani, Ahmed, The Great Temple of Amman. The Excavations, ʿAmmān, American Center of Oriental Research, 1997.

Marsham, Andrew, Rituals of Islamic Monarchy. Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

Kraeling, Carl H., Gerasa. City of the Decapolis, New Haven, American Schools of Oriental Research, 1938.

Mazar, Benjamin, The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1969.

Kubiak, Wladyslaw B., al-Fustat. Its Foundation and Early Urban Development, Cairo, The American University in Cairo Press, 1988.

McNicoll, Anthony, Appendix 9. A Preliminary List of Coins Found at Pella During the Sydney Sessions 1978/9-1984/5, in Pella in Jordan 2. The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982-1985, edited by A.W. McNicoll, P.C. Edwards, J. Hanbury-Tenison, J.B. Hennessy, T.F. Potts, R.H. Smith, A. Walmsley, P. Watson, Sydney, Meditarch, 1992: 267-279.

Labisi, Giuseppe, al-Fudayn: an Umayyad Residence in Northern Jordan, Vicino Oriente 19 (2015): 15-35. – Squinches and semi-domes between the Late Sasanian and Early Islamic Periods, Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies (DOI: 10.1080/05786967.2019.1633241), 2015.

Mathews, Thomas F., Annie Christine, Daskalakis Mathews, Mansions in Byzantine Cappadocia and the Development of the Inverted T-Plan, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56/3 (1997): 294315.

Lammens, Henri, Etudes sur le siècle des Omayyades, Beyrouth, Imprimerie catholique: 1930. Lecomte, O., Ed-Dur, les occupations des 3e et 4e s. ap. J-C: contexte des trouvailles et matériel diagnostique, 328

Bibliography Meissner, Bruno, Von Babylon nach den Ruinen von Ḥîra und Ḫuarnaq (Sendschriften der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft, II), Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1901.

– Studies on Roman and Islamic ‘Amman. Volume 1, History, Site and Architecture, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992.

Memarian, Gholamhossein, Brown, Frank, The shared characteristics of Iranian and Arab courtyard houses, in Courtyard Housing. Past, Present and Future, edited by Brian Edwards, Magda Sibley, Mohamad Hakmi, Peter Land, New York, Taylor and Francis, 2006: 2740.

– Archaeology and new urban settlement in Early Islamic Syria and Iraq, in Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam II, Settlement Patterns in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, edited by G.R.D. King and A. Cameron, Princeton, Darwin Press, 1994: 231-265. – Entre Amman et Samarra: l’archéologie et les élites au début de l’Islam (VIIe - IXe siècles) (Synthese de travaux soumis pour l’obtention de l’habilitation à diriger les recherches, Paris, Universite de Paris 1).

Milwright, Marcus, An Introduction to Islamic Archaeology, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2010. Monneret De Villard, Ugo, Introduzione allo studio dell’archeologia islamica: le origini e il periodo omayyade, Venezia – Roma, Istituto per la collaborazione culturale, 1968.

– The Palaces of the Abbasids at Samarra, in A Medieval Islamic City Reconsidered. An interdisciplinary Approach to Samarra, edited by Chase F. Robinson, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001: 29-67.

Moradi, Youssef, Imarat-e Khosrow in View of the First Season of the Archaeological Excavations [Emārat-e Xosrow dar partu-ye noxostin fasl-e kavošhā-ye bāstānšenāxti], in Nāmvarnāmeh. Papers in Honour of Massoud Azarnoush, edited by Hamid Fahimi, Karim Alizadeh, Teheran, IranNegar Publication, 2012: 329350.

– The Historical Topography of Samarra, London, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2005. – The Umayyad Desert Castles and Pre-Islamic Arabia, in Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd al-Razzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf., VML, 2008: 243-259.

Mortada, Hisham, Traditional Islamic principles of built environment, London – New York, Routledge, 2003.

– The Umayyad desert castles and pre-Islamic Arabia, Orient Archäologie, 24 (2009): 243-259.

Mouterde, Paul, Inscriptions en syriaque dialectal à Kamed (Beqa’), Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 2 (1939): 73-106.

– The Contents of the First Muslim Houses: Thoughts about the Assemblages from the Amman Citadel, in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London), Volume 2, Ancient, Modern Issues in Cultural Heritage Colour, Light in Architecture, Art, Material Culture Islamic Archaeology, edited by R. Matthews, J. Curtis, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2012: 633-659.

– Trente ans après, les inscriptions de Kamed (complément), Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 44 (1968): 23-29. Müller-Wiener, Martina, Siegel, Ulrike, Gussone, Martin, Salman, Ibrahim, Archaeological Survey of al-Hīra / Iraq. Fieldwork campaign 2015, Bulletin de la Fondation Max van Berchem 29 (2015): 5-7.

– Early Islamic Urbanism, in A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture, edited by Finbarr Barry Flood, Gülru Necipoğlu, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2017: 155-176.

Musil, Alois, The Middle Euphrate. A Topographical Itinerary, New York, American Geographical Society, 1927. Muṣṭafa, Muḥammad ʿAlī, Excavation at Kūfa, Sumer 10/1 (1954): 73-85.

Northedge, Alastair, Kennet, Derek, Archaeological Atlas of Samarra. Samarra Studies II, 1, London, The British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2015.

Nöldeke, Theodor, Die Ghassānischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna’s, Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1887.

Olavarri-Goicoechea, Emilio, El Palacio Omeya de ‘Amman II. La Arqueologîa, Madrid, Istituto HispanoArabe de Cultura, 1985.

Noori Almulla Hwaish, Akeel, Concept of the ‘Islamic House’. A Case Study of the Early Muslims House, International Journal of Advances in Mechanical and Civil Engineering 3/1 (2016): 18-25.

Oleson, John-Peter, Baker, Gregory S., De Bruijn, Erik, Foote, Rebecca M., Logan, Judy, Reeves, M. Barbara, Sherwood, Andrew N., Preliminary Report of the alHumayma Excavation Project, 2000, 2002, ADAJ 47 (2003): 37-64.

Northedge, Alastair, Survey of the Terrace Area at Amman Citadel, Levant 12 (1980): 135-154. – Qalʿat ʿAmmān in the Early Islamic Period (PhD Diss. School of the Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2 vols., 1984).

Ory, Solange, Les graffiti umeyyades de ʿAynn al-Ǧarr, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 20 (1967): 97-148. 329

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Rousseau, J.-Baptiste, Voyage de Baghdad à Alep, 1808, Paris, Jean André, 1899.

Ostraz, Antoni, The Citadel of Amman. The Conservation and Restoration of the Ayyubid Tower, ADAJ 41 (1997): 395-402.

Rousset, Marie-Odile, L’archéologie islamique en Iraq. Bilan et perspectives, Damas, Publications de l’Institut Français de Damas, 1992.

Othmann, Zulkeplee, Aird, Rosemary, Buys, Laurie, Privacy, modesty, hospitality, and thedesign of Muslim homes: A literature review, Frontiers of Architectural Research 4 (2015): 12-23.

– Al-Hadir. Étude archéologique d’un Hameau de Qinnasrin (Syrie du Nord, VIIe-XIIe siècles), Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Mediterranée Jean Pouilloux, 2012.

Otto-Dorn, Katharina, Grabung im Umayyadischen Ruṣāfah, AO 2 (1957): 119-133.

Russell, Kenneth, The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid8th Century A.D., BASOR 260 (1985): 37-59.

Özgenel, Lale, Public Use and Privacy in Late Antique Houses in Asia Minor: the Architecture of Spatial Control, in Housing in Late Antiquity. From Palaces to Shops, edited by Luke Lavan, Lale Özgenel, Alexander Constantine Sarantis, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2007: 239-282.

Safar, Fuʿad, Wāsiṭ, the Sixth Season’s Excavation, Le Caire, Imprimerie IFAO, 1945. al-Salah, Mohammed, al-Azzawi, Saood, Effect of Natural Environment of the Development of al-Humayma and on the Abbasid Movement 68-132 AH (687-750 AD), in SHAJ, VI. Landscape Resources and Human Occupation in Jordan Throughout the Ages, edited by Ghazi Bisheh, ʿAmmān, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1997.

Pigulevskaja, Nina, Les villes de l’État iranien aux époques parthe et sassanide. Contribution à l’histoire sociale de la basse Antiquité, Paris, La Haye, 1963. Piraud-Fournet, Pauline, Le ‘Palais de Trajan’ à Bosra. Présentation et hypothèses d’identification, Syria 80 (2003): 5-40.

Saliby, Nassib, Un palais byzantino-omeyyade à Damas, in Les maisons dans la Syrie antique. Du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam. Pratiques et représentations de l’éspace domestique (Actes du Colloque International, Damas 27-30 juin 1992), edited by Corinne Castel, Michel al-Maqdissi, François Villeneuve, Beyrouth, IFAPO, 1997: 191-194.

– Le « Palais de Trajan » dans le paysage de Bosra au VIe siècle apr. J.-C. (PhD Diss. Université Paris-Sorbonne IV, 2003). Rahbar, Mehdi, Le monument sassanide de Bandiàn, Dargaz : un Temple du Feu d’après les dernières découvertes 1996-98, Studia Iranica 33 (2004): 7-30

Santi, Aila, The Role of Madīna in the Emergence of the Mosque-dār al-Imāra Combination: A Preliminary Note, Vicino Oriente 21 (2017): 211-223.

Raphael, Sarah Kate, Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast (BAR International Series 2673), Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2014.

– Early Islamic Kūfa in Context: A Chronological Reinterpretation of the Palace, with a Note on the Development of the Monumental Language of the Early Muslim Élite, AION 78 (2018a): 69-103.

Reuther, Oscar, Sāsānian Architecture. A. History, in A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present, edited by Arthur U. Pope, Philip Ackerman, London – New York, Oxford University Press, 19381939: 493-578.

– Masjidu-hu wa masākinu-hu: ‘His Mosque and His Dwellings’. New Perspectives on the Study of ‘the House of the Prophet’ in Madīna, in Mantua Humanistic Studies, II, edited by R. Roni, Mantova, Universitas Studiorum, 2018b: 97-116.

Ritter, Markus, Umayyad Foundation Inscriptions and the Inscription of al-Walīd from Khirbat al-Minya, in Khirbat al-Minya: Der Umayyadenpalast am See Genezareth (Orientarchäologie 36), edited by HansPeter Kuhnen, Rahden, Marie Leidorf, 2016: 59-82.

– Il rapporto fra moschea e dār al-imāra nel periodo protoislamico. I casus studii di Medina, Kūfa e ʿAnjar alla luce di una riconsiderazione dell’urbanistica delle origini (PhD Diss., ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, 2019).

– Eastern Elements in Umayyad Architecture: Audience Hall and Ceremonial Space in Residences, in Sasanidische Spuren in der byzantinischen, kaukasischen und islamischen Kunst und Kultur (Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident, 15), edited by Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Falko Daim, Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2019: 37-59.

Sarre, Friedrich, Herzfeld, Ernst, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, 4 vols., Berlin, ReimerVohsen, 1911-1920. Sartre, Maurice, Bostra. Des origines à l’Islam, Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1985.

Rosen-Ayalon, Myriam, The Early Islamic Monuments of al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf. An Iconographic Study (Qedem 28), Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1989.

al-Sayyad, Nezar, Cities and Caliphs. On the Genesis of Arab Muslim Urbanism, New York, Greenwood Press, 1991. 330

Bibliography Sauvaget, Jean, Les ruines omeyyades de ʿAndjar, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 3 (1939a): 5-11.

da contributi recenti, in Silenziose rivoluzioni: La Sicilia dalla tarda antichità al primo Medioevo: atti dell’incontro di studio, Catania- Piazza Armerina, 21-23 maggio 2015 (Testi e studi di storia antica; 28), edited by Claudia Giuffrida, Margherita Cassia, Catania, Edizioni del prisma, 2016: 273-305.

– Les ruines omeyyades du Djebel Seis, Syria 20/3 (1939b): 239-256. – Remarques sur les monuments omeyyades, Journal Asiatique 231 (1939c): 1-59.

Shahid, Irfan, Lakhmids. EI2, V, 1986: 632-634.

– Les Ghassanides et Sergiopolis, Byzantion. Revue Internationale des études Byzantines 14 (1939d): 115130.

– Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century. Volume 1/1-2, Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995.

– Les inscriptions arabes de la mosquée de Bosra, Syria 22/1 (1941): 53-65.

– Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century. Volume II/1, Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2002.

– Châteaux umayyades de Syrie. Contribution à l’étude de la colonisation arabe aux Ier et IIe siècles de l’Hégire, Revue des Études Islamiques 35 (1967): 1-52.

Shdaifat, Younis M., Ben Badhann Zakariya N., Shuqayra Al-Gharbiyya: A New Early Islamic Compound in Central Jordan, Near Eastern Archaeology 71/3 (2008): 185-188.

– Ḥalab, EI2, III, 1990: 85-90. Scerrato, Umberto, The First two Excavation Campaigns at Ghazni, 1957-1958. Summary Report on the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan, East and West, 10/1-2 (1959): 23-55.

Siegel, Ulrike, Resafa – Rusafat Hisham, Syrien. Archäologie und Prospektionen. Auswertung der Oberflächenbefunde am Fundplatz 109, in Masterstudium Denkmalpflege Jahrbuch 2008-10, edited by Dorothée Sack, Berlin, Technische Universität Berlin Fakultät VI - Planen Bauen Umwelt. Institut für Architektur, 2010: 37.

– Islam, Milano, Mondadori, 1972. Schiettecatte, Jérémie, L’Arabie à la Veille de l’Islam: Bilan Clinique: Table Ronde Tenue au Collège de France, Paris, les 28 et 29 août 2006, Paris, de Boccard, 2009.

– Was die Oberfläche Bauforschern verrät. Ergebnisse archäologischer Geländebegehungen in ResafaSergiupolis/Rusafat Hisham, Syrien, Architectura 45 (2015): 3-21.

Schmidt, Kurt, Das umayyadische „Wüstenschloss“ und die Siedlung am Ǧabal Says, I, Architektur (Damaszener Forschungen 13), Darmstadt, Philipp von Zabern, 2012.

Simpson, Ian, Market Buildings at Jarash: Commercial Transformation at the Tetrakonion in the 6th to 9th Centuries C.E. In Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes front Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, edited by Karin Bartl, Abd alRazzaq Moaz, Rahden/Westf., VML, 2008: 115-124.

Schlumberger, Daniel, Les fouilles de Qasr el-Heir elGharbi (1936-1938): rapport preliminaire, Syria 20 (1939): 195-238, 324-373. – La Palmyrène du Nord-Ouest, Paris, Geuthner (BAH 49), 1951.

Smith, Robert Houston, Pella of the Decapolis, 1. The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella, Wooster, The College of Wooster, 1973.

– Qasr el-Heir el-Gharbi, Paris, Geuthner (BAH 120), 1986.

Smith, Robert, McNicoll, Anthony, Watson, Pamela, The Byzantine Period, in Pella in Jordan 2. The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982-1985, edited by A.W. McNicoll, P.C. Edwards, J. HanburyTenison, J.B. Hennessy, T.F. Potts, R.H. Smith, A. Walmsley, P. Watson, Sydney, Meditarch, 1992: 145182.

Schneider, Alfons Maria, Ḫirbet el-Minje am See Genesareth, AAAS 2/1-2 (1952): 23-45. Schulz, Bruno, Strzygowski, Joseph, Kulturbesitz Mschatta. Bericht über die Aufnahme der Ruine von Bruno Schulz und kunstwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von Josef Strzygowski, Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 25/4 (1904): 205-373.

Sodini, Jean-Pierre, Habitat de l’Antiquité tardive (2), Topoi 7/2 (1997): 435-577.

Seeden, H., Busra 1983: An Umayyad Farmhouse and Bronze Age Occupation Levels, AAAS 33 (1983): 161173.

Sourdel, Dominique, Ḥaurān. EI2, III, 1986: 292-293. Sourdel-Thomine, Janine, Ayn al-Djarr, EI2, I, 1986: 787.

Seetzen, Ulrich Jasper, Reisen durch Syrien, Palästina, Phönicien, die Trans-jordan-‎Lander, Arabia Petraea und Unter-Aegyptien, I, Berlin, G. Reiner, 1854.‎

Talbot Rice, David, The Oxford Excavations at Ḥīra, Ars Islamica I/1, 1934: 51-73. Tate, George, Les campagnes de la Syrie du nord du IIe au VIIe siècle: un exemple d’expansion démographique

Sfamemi, Carla, Edilizia residenziale tardoantica in sicilia tra continuità e discontinuità: riflessioni a partire 331

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria et économique à la fin de l’antiquité, Paris, Librarie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1992.

(Actes du Colloque International, Damas 27-30 juin 1992), edited by Corinne Castel, Michel al-Maqdissi, François Villeneuve, Beyrouth, IFAPO, 1997: 269-281.

Tiddia, Fabio, Henry Corbin editore ed interprete del pensatore ismailita Nāṣir-i Khusraw, Archivi di Studi Indo-Mediterranei V (2015): 1-23.

Walmsley, Alan, The Umayyad Period. In Pella in Jordan, 1, An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 19791981, edited by Anthony Mc Nicoll, Robert H. Smith, Basil Hennessy, Canberra, Australian National Gallery, 1982: 123-181.

Torel-Niehoff, Isabel, Al-Ḥīra: eine arabische Kulturmetropole im spätantiken Kontext (Islamic history and civilization, studies and texts; 104), Leiden, Brill, 2014.

– Pella/Fiḥl after the Islamic Conquest (AD 635- c.900): A Convergence of Literary and Archaeological Evidence, Mediterranean Archaeology 1 (1988): 142-159.

Tsafrir, Yoram, Foerster, Gideon, 1992‎: The dating of the ‘Earthquake of the Sabbatical Year’ of 749 CE in Palestine. BSOAS 55, 231-235.

– Fiḥl (Pella) and the Cities of North Jordan during the Umayyad and Abbasid Periods, in SHAJ, IV, edited by Adnan Hadidi, ʿAmmān, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1992a: 377-384.

Urice, Stephen K., Qasr Kharana in the Transjordan, Durham (North Carolina), American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987. Uytterhoeven, Inge, Housing in Late Antiquity: Thematic Perspectives, in Housing in Late Antiquity. From Palaces to Shops, edited by Luke Lavan, Lale Özgenel, Alexander Constantine Sarantis, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2007: 25-66.

– The Social and Economic Regime at Fihl (Pella) Between the 7th and 9th Centuries, in La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam. VIIe-VIIIe siècles (Actes du colloque international), edité par Jean-Paul Rey-Coquais, Pierre Canivet, Damas, Institut Français de Damas, 1992b: 249-261.

Vanden Berghe, Louis, Le tombeau achéménide de Buzpar, in Vorderasiatische Archäologie: Studien und Aufsätze. Anton Moortgat zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, edited by Kurt Bittel, Barthel Hrouda, Ernst Heinrich, Berlin, Mann, 1964: 243-258.

– Ceramics and the Social History of Early Islamic Jordan: the Example of Pella (Tabaqat Fahl), Al-ʿUsur al-Wusta. The Bulletin of Middle East Medievalists 9/1 (1997): 1-4. – The Islamic Jarash Project. Season Report, 2005, Copenhagen, The University of Copenhagen, 2005.

Venco Ricciardi, Roberta, Preliminary Report on the 1987 Excavation at Hatra, Mesopotamia 23 (1988): 31-42.

– Early Islamic Syria. An Archaeological Assessment, London, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2007.

– Second Preliminary Report on the Excavation at Hatra (Season 1988), Mesopotamia 25 (1990): 37-45.

Walmsley, Alan, Barnes, Hugh, Mslam, Ibrahim, The Islamic Jarash Project. Excavation Season Report, 2009, Copenhagen, The University of Copenhagen, 2010.

– Archaeological Research at Hatra. Preliminary Report on the 1989 Season, Mesopotamia 28 (1992): 189-198. – Domestic Architecture at Hatra, in Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read ath the 40e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 5-8 1993, edited by Klaas Roelof Veenhof, Istanbul, Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch instituut te Istanbul, 1996: 309-321.

Whitcomb, Donald, Excavations in ʿAqaba. First Preliminary Report, ADAJ 31 (1987): 247-266. – Aqaba. Port of Palestine on the China Sea, Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1988a.

Vernet, Apolline, Dwelling Transformation and Evolution of Customs after the Islamic Conquest in Near Eastern Cities, in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, II, edited by S. Bickel, B. Jacobs, J.-M. Le Tensorer, D. Genequand, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2016: 455-467.

– A Fatimid Residence at Aqaba, Jordan, ADAJ 32 (1988b): 207-224. – Coptic Glazed Ceramics from the Excavations at Aqaba, Jordan, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 26 (1989a): 167-182.

– L’habitat urbain au Proche‑Orient, de la fin de la période byzantine aux premiers temps de l’Islam (VIe s. – VIIIe s.) (PhD Diss. Panthéon-Sorbonne University of Paris, 2018).

– Mahesh Ware: Evidence of Early Abbasid Occupation from Southern Jordan, ADAJ 33 (1989b): 269-285. – The Fourth Gate at Ayla: A Report on the 1992 Excavations at Aqaba, ADAJ 27 (1992a): 533-547.

Villeneuve, François, Les salles à alcôve dans les maisons d’époque romaine et byzantine en Syrie, particulièrement dans le Hauran, in Les maisons dans la Syrie antique. Du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam. Pratiques et représentations de l’éspace domestique

– Reassessing the Archaeology of Jordan of the Abbasid Period, in SHAJ, IV, edited by Adnan Hadidi. ʿAmmān, Departement of Antiquities of Jordan, 1992b: 385-390. – Aqaba, 1989-90, Syria 70/1-2 (1993a): 239-244. 332

Bibliography – Aqaba. 1991-1992 Annual Report, in The Oriental Institute 1991-1992. Annual Report, Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993b: 20-25.

Zayadine, Fawzi, Najjar, Mohammad, Greene, J. A., Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Amman (Lower Terrace), A Preliminary Report, ADAJ 31 (1989): 299311.

– Aqaba. 1992-1993 Annual Report, in The Oriental Institute. 1992-1993. Annual Report, Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993c: 12-20.

‎Zetterstéen, K.V., Gabrieli, F., ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd, EI2, I, 1986: 12-13.

– Ayla. Art and Industry in the Islamic Port of Aqaba, Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994. – A Street and the Beach at Ayla: the Fall Season of Excavations at ʿAqaba, 1992, ADAJ 39 (1995a): 499507. – Two Glass Medallions: Sasanian Influences in Early Islamic Aqaba, Iranica Antiqua 30 (1995b): 191-206. – Aqaba. 1995-1996 Annual Report, in The Oriental Institute. 1995-1996. Anuual Report, Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996: 21-26. – Umayyad and Abbasid Periods, in The Archaeology of Jordan, edited by Burton MacDonald, Russell Adams, Piotr Bienkowski, Sheffield, Continuum, 2001: 503513. – The Walls of Early Islamic Ayla: Defence or Symbol?, in Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria. From the Coming of Islam to the Ottoman Period, edited by Hugh Kennedy, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2006: 61-74. – Ayla at the Millennium: Archaeology and History, ADAJ 44 (2010): 167-176. – Qaysāriyya as an Early Islamic Settlement, in Shaping the Middle East. Jews, Christians, and Muslims in an Age of Transition 400-800 C.E., edited by Kenneth G. Holum, Hayim Lapin, Bethesda, University Press of Maryland, 2011: 65-82. Whitcomb, Donald, Jennings, Michael, Creekmore, Andrew, Arce, Ignacio, Khirbet al-Mafjar. New Excavations and Hypotheses for an Umayyad Monument, Near Eastern Archaeology 79/2 (2016): 78-87. Whitcomb, Donald, Taha, Hamdan, The Mosaics of Khirbet el-Mafjar: Hisham’s Palace, Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2015. Würsch, Renate, Kawarnaq, EIr, XVI/2, 2012: 143-145. Zayadine, Fawzi, Excavation on the Upper Citadel of Amman. Area A (1975-1978), ADAJ 22 (1977): 20-56. – The Jerash Project for Excavation, Restoration. A Synopsis with Special Reference to the Work of the Department of Antiquities, in Jerash Archaeological Project 1981-1983, I, edited by Fawzi Zayadine, ʿAmmān, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1986: 7-28. 333

Index Baalbek, Heliopolis: 19, n. 167. Bahrām Gūr, Sasanian sovereign: 12. Banā al-Ḥīrī, Persian bayt, Iraqi-Persian bayt, Samarra bayt, T-Plan bayt: xvii, 1, n. 2, 9-14, 44, 47, 49-50, 54, 65-69, 73, 74-75, 77, 83, 85-87, 99, 220-233, 285288, 304-305, 308-309, 314-317, 320-321. Al-Balādhurī: 24 n. 214, 25 n. 217, 26, 27 n. 239. Bālis: 1, 8 n. 65, 51 n. 373, 54, 56, n. 416, n. 426, 63 n. 442, 67 n. 464, 68, n. 469-473, 73-78, 83 n. 575, 8487, 93, 96, 98, 99, 284, 286-287. Al-Balqāʿ: 7 n. 37, 38, n. 296. Banū Qays: 7, n. 37, n. 40, 24 n. 216. Banū ʿUmayya: see Umayyads. Barz-i Qawāla, Ramāvand: 9, 13-14, 77 n. 524, 85. Al-Baṣra: 5, 75. Baths: 20-21, 24, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40 n. 324, n. 325, 42, n. 328-330, 44, 50, 51, 52, 54, 83, 85, 214, 288; apodyterium: 24, n. 207, 34, 42, ; calidarium: 24, n. 207, 40 n. 325; ‘cold room’: 24, n. 207, 42; hypocaust: 24 n. 207, 34, 42; tepidarium: 24, n. 207. Bayʿa: 8, 51. Bayt (pl. buyūt), see Banā al- Ḥīrī; ‘Five room unit’. Bayt al-Ram: 37 n. 283. Berlin, Museum of Islamic Art: 55. Bilād al-Shām: 1, 6-7, n. 38, 51, 63, 68, n. 472, 73, 74, 77, 78, 81, 83-84, 85-87. Biqaʿ, valley (Lebanon): 19. Bīrūnī: 79. Al-Brayka: 9 n. 94. Al-Bukhārī: 5 n. 15. Al-Burj (Jordan): 14. Buṣrā: 1 n. 3, 9, 82. Byzantine, early Byzantine period: xvii, 6-8, 12, 14 n. 164, 19, n. 181, 30, 35-37, 51, 54, 63, 69, 71, 81, n. 553, 83, 85-87, 258.

ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd, Umayyad general: 19 n. 183, 24 n. 216, 25, 27, 29-30. Abbasid caliphate, period: xvii-xviii, 7 n. 40, n. 50, 10 n. 106, 34, 37 n. 293, 38 n. 296, 49, 54, 55, 63, 71 n. 486, 74, 77, 83 n. 571, 86 220-232. ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān, Umayyad caliph: 38 n. 294, n. 296, 73 n. 500. Abū Abū’l-ʿAbbās al-Saffāḥ, Abbasid caliph: 7. Abū-l Fidāʾ: 19, 38. Abū Bakr, ʿAbd Allāh Allāh ibn Abī Quḥāfa, the first of the caliphs al-rāshidūn: 6, 24. Abū Muslim: 7 n. 40. Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb: 7 n. 37. Administration, administrative organisation: pre-Islamic Arabia: 8 n. 63, 51 n. 371; Roman and early Byzantine periods: 81; Umayyad period: 6 n. 186, 19, 37 n. 293, 38 n. 297. Al-Aghdaf: 38 n. 296. Agriculture, agricultural holding: 6-9, 25, 30, 34. Ahl al-Shām: 7 n. 39-40. Ahl al-ʿIrāq: 7 n. 39-40. Ai Khanoum: 12. Aleppo: 1 n. 3, 32, 54, 82. ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the fourth caliph al-rāshidūn / first Imām: 7 n. 39, 81. Amīr: 35, 54. Amīr al-muʾminīn: 52 n. 380. ʿAmmān: 1, 6, 9 n. 85, 14, 29, 35, 37-50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 63, 64, 66, 69, 74, 77, 82, 83, 85-87, 90, 91, 220-265, 286, 308. Andarūnī: 79 n. 531. Andron: 10 n. 95. ʿAnjar: 1, 6, 10, 19-31, 35, 63, 64, 66-67, 69, 82-84, 85, 89-90, 100-213, 296-301. Anti-Lebanon: 6 n. 32. Adopodyterium, see baths. Apartment, see bayt. ʿAqaba: 1 n. 3. Arabia, Arabian Peninsula, Arabian forts: 1, 5, 6, 8 n. 63, n. 67, 11, 35-36, 37, 51, 51 n. 371, 84, 85. Architectural decorations: 63, 69, 290, 292. Aristocracy: 35, 38; Umayyad aristocracy: 37, 67, 85. Army: 6, 7 n. 40, 8, 10, 11 n. 112, 42 n. 332. Arsacid era: 12. Athens, ‘Palace of the Giants’: 10, 9 n. 94, 85. Audience halls: Late Antiquity: 9, n. 94-95; Umayyad period: 84, 87; of urban palaces: 25-26, 42, 44, 47, 50, 69, 74, 85; of quṣūr: 51, 52, 54, 55, 63, 65, 67, n. 466, 68, 69-71, 75, 77, 82-83, 86, 266-273, 280-283, 294-295. ʿAyn al-Jarr, source: 19, 24, n. 216. Al-Azraq: 38 n. 296.

Calidarium, see baths. Caravanserai: 32. Central Asia: 12. Christianity: 6 n. 34, 7 n. 39, 12, 19; Arab Christian tribes: 14. Civil war, see fitna. Cold room, see baths. Constantinople: 63, 81. Courtyards (architecture): 5, n. 15, 32, 34-37, 38, 40, n. 311, 42, n. 330-332, 77-78, 80-81, n. 520, 84-87, 89-91; dwelling units of quṣūr: 68, n. 469, 84-87, 266-295; mosque: 24, n. 204-206, 42; madāʾin extrapalatial dwelling units: 25, n. 224, 34-35, 44, 50, 64, 84-87, 109-213, 218-219, 238-265, 296-301; madāʾin palaces: 7, 14, 21, 24, 25, 47-49, 66, n. 456, 69, 7374, n. 507, 75, 77, 82, n. 561-562, 84-87, 102-107, 216-217; madāʾin palatial dwelling units: 12, 35, 49, 334

Index Ḥiṣn: 6. Houle, lake: 6 n. 32. Ḥujra, ḥujārat: 5, n. 15, 7, 81, 83-84, 87. Al-Ḥumayma: 1 n. 2, 37 n. 293, 38 n. 295. Hybrid models between ‘five room units’ and ‘pseudo Banā al-Ḥīrīs’: 49-50, 54, 65-69, 74-77, 86, 284-287. Hypocaust, see baths.

63-64, 84-87, 102-107, 214-217, 220-236, 304-318; quṣūr: 8-9, 51-55, 56 n. 422, 64-65, n. 453, 67, 83-87, 266-295. Crops, see agriculture. Damascus, jund, see jund al-Dimashq Damascus: 1, 7 n. 37, 14, 19, 37, n. 283, 52, 71, 81. Dār, dūr: 5, n. 15, 7, n. 47, 10-11, 81-82, 84, 86-87. Dār al-Imāra: 5, 7, 34, 44, 49, 73-75, 86, 100-101, 214, 304-321. Dead Sea: 6 n. 32. Al-Diyārbakrī: 5 n. 15. Domus: 9-10, 37 n. 290. Dura Europos: 9 n. 94-95, 12. Dūmat al-Jandal: 8 n. 67, 51 n. 375.

Ibn ʿAsākir: 71. Ibraḥim ibn al-Walīd, Umayyad General: 19. Ibraḥīm ibn Muḥammad, member of the Abbasid family: 37 n. 293. Inkhil: 9 n. 94. Inscriptions: Arabic: 24-25, n. 214-216, 32, n. 241, 35-36, 51, 52, n. 380, 268; Jafnid (in Greek): 14, n. 152-157, 82; Pahlavi: 11 n. 114, 19; Syriac: 19, n. 183. Islamic conquest: 6-7, 81, n. 552, 84. Iraqi-Persian bayt, see Banā al-Ḥīrī. Iron Age: 37 n. 290. Irrigation: 7, 32, 51. Īwān: xvii, 9, 12-16, 40, 49-50, 55, 69-71, 74-75, 77-78, 85-87, 314-322; see also ‘pseudo īwān’.

Economy, economic activities: 8-9, 38. Egypt: 19 n. 180. Elites: xvii, 5-6, 81. Epidaurus: 9 n. 94, 10-11, 85. Euphrates: 6 n. 32, 11-12, 32, 52. Al-Fiḥl, battle: 7 n. 37. Al-Fiḥl, Pella of the Decapolis, city: 1 n. 3. Al-Filasṭīn, jund al-Filasṭīn: 31, 38 n. 294. Fīrūzābād: 10, 13-14, 41 n. 326, 47. Fitna, civil war: 26, 38 n. 294, 6-7, n. 37-39. ‘Five room unit’: as audience hall: 69; as vestibule: 63; origins: 9-16; madāʾin context: 21, 24-31, 32-37, 47, 49-50, 66-67, 73, 74, 89-91, 100-219, 250-251, 296301, 302-313; quṣūr context: 51-59, 67-69, 77, 93-99, 266-295, 314-321; Umayyad architectural model: 78-80, 82-84, 85-87. Fortifications: 24, 37 n. 290, 44. Al-Fudayn, Mafraq: 1, 54, 56-57, 63 n. 442, 67 n. 465, 68 n. 468, 86, 93, 96, 98, 288-289. ‘Fünfraumgruppen’, ‘Syrian bayt’ see ‘Five room unit’. Al-Fusṭāṭ: 5, 7 n. 40, 11 n. 110.

Jabal Ashrafiyya: 37 n. 285. Jabal al-Ḥusayn: 37 n. 285. Jabal al-Jawfa: 37 n. 285. Jabal al-Qalʿa: 37, n. 285. Jabal Says: 1, n. 2, 10, 14, 24, 29, 52, 56-57, n. 416, n. 428, 63 n. 443, 65 n. 452, n. 453, 67 n. 463-466, 68 n. 468, 69 n. 482, n. 476, 71 n. 483, 73, 82, 83 n. 575, 85, 94, 96, 98, 270-271. Jabal al-Shaykh: 24 n. 216. Al-Jābiya: 14. Jafnids, Jafnid dynasty: 11, n. 113, 14, 85. Al-Jāḥiz, ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Kinānī al-Baṣrī: 45. Jamarīn: 9 n. 94. Jerash, Gerasa of the Decapolis: 1 n. 2, 9 n. 85, 40 n. 324. Jerusalem: 1 n. 3, 37 n. 283, n. 290. Jilliq: 14. Jordan, river: 37 n. 283. Judhām, tribe: 7 n. 38. Jund al-Dimashq: 19 n. 186, 38.

Ghassan, tribe: 7 n. 38. Ghassanids, see Jafnides. Giarratana (Sicily): 9 n. 94. Great Zāb, battle 7 n. 40:

Kalb, tribe: 7 n. 37, 12 n. 124. Kāna pūsh, see squinch. Khabur: 6 n. 32. Khālid ibn ʿAbbād: 38 n. 296. Khān al-Zabīb: 64 n. 448, 65, n. 452, 73-74, n. 502-504, 86. Khawarnaq: 12-13. Khaybar: 8 n. 67, 51 n. 375. Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ: 9 n. 85, 14, 67 n. 463, 73-74, 86. Khirbat al-Mafjar: 1, 40 n. 325, 44 n. 337, 51, 54-55, 6364, n. 443-444, 65 n. 452, 68-69, n. 468, n. 472, 71, n. 484, 83 n. 575, 86, 99, 284-285. Khirbat al-Minya: 1, 40 n. 325, 44 n. 337, 51, 52, 56-57, n. 419, n. 432, 63 n. 443, n. 444, 65, n. 452-453, 67, n. 463, 68 n. 468, 69 n. 474, n. 482, 83, 94, 98, 268269. Khirbat al-Samrāʾ / Maʿān: 1 n. 2.

Ḥammām, see baths. Al-Ḥammām (residence, Maʿān): 1 n. 2. Ḥammām al-Ṣarakh: 40 n. 325, 83. Ḥarim: 79, n. 532, 80-82. Al-Ḥārith: 14 n. 151, n. 153. Al-Ḥārith ibn ʿAmr al-Ṭāʾi: 38 n. 294. Hatay: 6. Hatra: 12. Al-Ḥayyat: 14. Ḥawrān: 6 n. 32, 9 n. 94-95, 14, 85. Hellenistic: 6, 12. Ḥimṣ (Ḥomṣ), city: 7 n. 37. Ḥimṣ Jund: 19. Al-Ḥīra: 5, 8 n. 63, 10-12. Hisham ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph: 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 51, 52, 54, 56-58, 65, 71, 73-74, 82, 85-86. 335

Dwelling Models of Umayyad Madāʾin and Quṣūr of Greater Syria Nasrid, Lakhmid, Lakhmid kingdom: 5, 1-13. Nawā: 9 n. 94. Nippur: 12. Nitl: 14. Nomadic: 7-8, 51, 81, 83-84. Al-Nuʿmān: 11-12. Numismatics, coins: 12, 38, n. 297, 40.

Khusraw Anūshirwān, Sassanian sovereign: 11. Khusraw Parwīz, Sassanian sovereign: 10 n. 106, 12. Kom Ishgau: 19 n. 181. Al-Kūfa: 5, 7 n. 40, 74-77, 304-313. Lake of Tiberias: 6 n. 32, 52. Lakhm, tribe: 11 n. 114. Lakhmids, Lakhmid kingdom, see Nasrid. Late Antiquity: 5, 10-16, 63, 84, 85. Late Roman Empire: 7, 14. Latrines: 8, 34, 35, 51, 52, 55, 66, 67, 68, 85, 86, 274, 294. Al-Līṭānī: 19, n. 167.

Orontes, river: 6 n. 32. Paikuli: 11 n. 114. Palace: madīna (madāʾin) palace: xvii, 7, 9 n. 94, 10 n. 105, n. 106, 12-14, 20-29, 32-37, 40-42, 44-49, 50, 74-77, 85-87, 100-107, 216-217, 220-237, 304-313; extra-urban palace, see qaṣr. Palestine, Palaestina I: 17, 25. Palmyra: city: 1 n. 3, 9 n. 94, 12, 52; Palmyra region: 7 n. 28, 32. Partitioning of dwellings or housing units: 49, 91. Persian bayt, see Banā al-Ḥīrī. Persian empires: 12-16. Phthiotic Thebes: 9 n. 94, 10. Production activities: 26 n. 226, 54, 152, 158, 172, 286. Productive installations: 8, 214. ‘Pseudo Banā al-Ḥīrī’: 47, 49-50, 54, 65-66, 67-69, 77, 83, 86, 99, 220-233, 284-287, 304-305. ‘Pseudo īwān’: 47-49, n. 361, 68 n. 472, 74, 77-78, 220233, 284-287, 294-295, 304-305, 308-309.

Madaba: 14. Madīna, madāʾin: 1, 6-7, 19, 24, 27, 29-30, 34-37, 44, 50, 63-69, 73-75, 82-84, 85-87, 89-91, 100-265, 296301, 302-313. Madīnāt al-Fār: 6, 29, 73, 86, 302-303. Mafraq, see al-Fudayn. Maḥram: 79-84. Majlis: xviii, 8, 10-11, 45, 51, 54, 69, 80, 83-84, 87, 282. Majlis al-ʿĀmm: 44, 47, 50, 69. Majlis al-Khāṣṣ: 44-45, 47, 49-50, 69. Market, see sūq. Marwān ibn Muḥammad (Marwān II), Umayyad caliph: 7 n. 40, 19, n. 177, 37 n. 293, 45. Marwanids: 73-74, 83. Maslama ibn ʿAbd al-Malik: 6. Al-Masʿūdī: 10-12, 44, 65, 75, 77, 85. Mawlā: 7 n. 40. Mecca: 20, 37 n. 283, 42 n. 334, 84, 87. Medina: 5-6, 52 n. 380, 81-82, 84, 87. Miḥrāb (plur. maḥārīb): 24, 42, 52 n. 380, 54, 63, 87, 250, 268. Miṣr (plur. amṣār): 5, 30. Mleyḥa: 8 n. 67, 51 n. 375. Mosaic: 14 n. 155, 38 n. 298, 54, 77. Mosque: 5-6, 7-8, 32, 34-35, 37 n. 293, 38 n. 298, 42-45, 49, 50, 51, 67, 69, 82-83, 100, 214, 238-240, 250, 262; congregational mosque (jāmiʿ): 7, n. 49, 20-21, 24 n. 204, 29, 37, n. 288, 85-86; of the Prophet (Medina): 81, 87, quṣūr mosque: 52-55, 65 n. 453, 86, 268-269, 288-289, 294-295. Mshattā: 1, 52 n. 382, 55, 56, n. 424, 57, 63, 64 n. 448, 65 n. 453, 67 n. 463, 68 n. 468, 71, n. 493, 82 n. 561, 83, n. 575, 94-95, 98, 268, 290, 292, 294-295. Muʿāwiya ibn Abū Sufyān, Umayyad caliph: 1, 7 n. 3639. Muḥammad, Prophet: xvii, 5, n. 15, 24 n. 216, 81, 84, 87. Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī, Umayyad Governor: 38 n. 294. Al-Mundhir ibn al-Ḥarith (III), Alamoundaros, Jafnid phylarch: 11. Al-Mundhir ibn al-Numʿān (IV): 12. Al-Muqaddasī: 37 n. 283, n. 293, 38 n. 298. Muqātila: 25 n. 218. Al-Mutrāb / al-Maʿān: 1 n. 2.

Qaryat al-Fāw: 5, 8 n. 67, 51 n. 375. Qaṣr (plur. quṣūr): xvii, 1, 7-8, n. 48-49, 51-59, 63, 64-65, 69-72, 73-74, 77-78, 82, 84, 85-87, 93-99, 266-295, 314-321. Qaṣr ʿAyn al-Sil: 1 n. 2. Qaṣr al-Kharāna: 1, 8, 10, 40 n. 325, 51-52, 56 n. 415, n. 425, 63, 65, n. 452, 67-68, n. 463-471, 69 n. 474-476, 71 n. 482, n. 493, 73-74, 82, 83, n. 575, 84, 93, 95-96, 98, 266-267. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī: 1, 14, 34, 51, 52, 56, n. 432, 57, 63, 65 n. 452, 67 n. 463-464, 68 n. 468, 71 n. 484, 83 n. 575, 94, 95, 97, 272-273. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī: 1, 24, 29, 32-37, 44 n. 336, 82, 85; ‘Dwelling E’: 34, 64, 67, 218-219; ‘house A’: 34, 63 n. 442; ‘Large Enclosure’: 6, 32, 69, 82, 90-91, 214-215; Northern Settlement: 34; ‘Small Enclosure’: 32, 63, 64, 66, 82, 216-217. Qaṣr al-Mushāsh: 1 n. 2. Qaṣr al-Nuwayjīs: 40 n. 324. Qaṣr al-Radum: 8 n. 67, 51 n. 375. Qaṣr Sadīr: 12 Qaṣr Ṣinnīn: 12. Qaṣr al-Ṣwāb: 1 n. 2. Qaṣr al-Ṭūba: 1, 54-57, n. 436, 63 n. 443, 64 n. 448, 65, 67 n. 463, 68 n. 469, 82 n. 561-562, 84, 87, 95, 97-98, 290-293. Qaṣr-i Shīrīn: xvii, 10 n. 106, 14 n. 139, 41 n. 326. Al-Qasṭal: 1, 52, 56 n. 422, 57, 63, n. 444-445, 65 n. 452, 67 n. 463-464, 68 n. 468, 71, n. 484, 86, 94-98, 274-275. Qaṭīʿa (plur. qaṭāyi): 7, n. 37.

Najaf: 12. Nāṣir-i Khusraw: 24 n. 214. 336

Index ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, the second of the caliphs alrāshidūn: 81. Al-ʿUmarī: 5 n. 15. Umm al-Zaytūn: 9 n. 94. Umm al-Walīd: 9 n. 85, 63 n. 443, 64 n. 448, 65, n. 452, 73-74, 86. ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, the third of the caliphs al-rāshidūn: 7 n. 38.

Qays, tribe, tribal confederation: 7, n. 38, n. 40, 24 n. 216. Qayṣāriyya, Caesarea Maritima: 1 n. 3. Qinnasrīn: 1 n. 3. Qubbat al-Khaḍrāʾ: 71. Qubbat al-Ṣakhra, Dome of the Rock: 274. Quraysh, tribe: 6, n. 33, 24 n. 216. Quṣayr ʿAmra: 1 n. 2, 38 n. 296, 40 n. 325, 83. Al-Ramla: 1 n. 3, 6, 24, n. 214, 27, 29, 31. Rasm al-Shaʿar: 1 n. 2. Al-Ruṣāfa, Sergioupolis: 1, 14, 32, 51, 52, 56-57, 64 n. 448, 65, n. 452-453, 67 n. 463, 73-74, 82 n. 561; qaṣr 105A: 52-54, 56 n. 427, 93, 98, 276-277; qaṣr 106: 54, 56 n. 435, 68 n. 468-469, 83 n. 576, 93, 98, 278-279; qaṣr 109: 54, 56 n. 429, 68 n. 468, 93, 98, 280-281; qaṣr 220: 54, 63 n. 443, 68 n. 468-469, 69 n. 482, 71, n. 483, 83 n. 576, 94, 98, 282-283.

Vestibule: 7-9, 12, 21, n. 204, 25-26, 32, 34, 35, 36-37, 40 n. 323-325, 44, 47, 49-50, 51-55, 63, 66-67, 69, 71, n. 484, 77-79, 82-84, 85-87, 89-91, 100-301. Villa rustica: 7-8, 51. Wādī al-Ḥaddāda: 37. Wādī Shāriʿ al-Salṭ: 37. Wādī al-Taym: 24 n. 216. Al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (al-Walīd I), Umayyad caliph: 19, 24 n. 216, 25 n. 217, 30, 52, 56-57, 73-74, 85-86, 268.

Saint Sergios: 14. Samarra bayt, see Banā al-Ḥīrī. Samarra: xvii, 7, 34, 35, 83. Al-Samhūdī: 5 n. 15. Sammāʾ: 14. Şanlıurfa: 6. Sarvistān: 10, n. 105, 41 n. 326. Sasanians, architecture, dynasty, empire, period: xvii, 6, 8-16, 40, n. 323, 41, n. 326, 44, 45, 47, 51, 64, 74, n. 506, 75, 77, 83, 84, 85. Sasanian-Islamic transitional period; Sasanian models in early Islamic period: 34, 40-41 n. 325, 47, 49, 50, 69, 77. Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʿ: 71 n. 486. Shapūr II, Sasanian sovereign: 10 n. 105. Sharīf (plur. ashraf): 25-29. Shuqayra al-Gharbiyya: 63 n. 442. Sinimmār: 12. Sirdāb: 54, 68, 284. Squinch: 40-41, n. 323-324, 49. Stable: 7 n. 48, 34, 37. Stucco, stucco decorations: 12, 32, 34, 37, 67, 73, 77. Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph: 24 n. 214, 27, 29, 31, 38 n. 296. Sulaymān ibn Hishām, Umayyad general: 19, n. 177, 38 n. 294. Sūq, market: 20, 38, 40, 42, n. 330. Syrian bayt, see ‘Five room unit’.

Al-Walīd ibn Yazīd (al-Walīd II), Umayyad caliph: 38 n. 296, 52 n. 381, 54, 55, 56-57, 71, n. 486, 86, 268, 290, 292. Water and agricultural installations: 6 n. 32, 7 n. 51, 12 n. 119, 19, n. 167, 25 n. 217, 34, 37, n. 285, 38 n. 298, 40, n. 305.

Yaman, tribe, tribal confederation: 7, n. 38-39, 14. Al-Yaʿqubī: 19, n. 179, 37, n. 292, 38 n. 296. Al-Yāqūt: 37 n. 293. Yarmuk, battle: 7 n. 39, 14 n. 164; river: 6 n. 32. Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (Yazīd II), Umayyad caliph: 38 n. 296. Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān, military commander of Damascus: 37. Yūsuf ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī, Governor of Iraq: 38 n. 295. Al-Zīzāʾ: 38 n. 296.

Al-Ṭabarī: 37, n. 293, 38 n. 295. Taghlib, tribe: 7 n. 38. Tanūkh, tribe: 7 n. 38. Taurus: 6 n. 32. Taym Allāh, tribe: 24 n. 216. Tepidarium, see baths. Theophanes: 7, n. 41, 19, n. 175. Tribe, tribal group: 14, n. 164, 24, n. 216, 8 Tulūl (Tilūl) al-Shuʿayba: 68, n. 472, 73, 75-77, 86-87, 314-321. T-Plan bayt, see Banā al-Ḥīrī. Al-Ukhayḍīr: 10. ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Umayyad caliph: 38 n. 294. 337

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 0 4

2020

This book is the first systematic collection and discussion of dwellings in the Umayyad ‘cities’ (madā’in) and ‘palaces’ (qusūr) of Bilād al-Shām. Giuseppe Labisi offers an overview of the apartments within and identifies the architectural models that inspired Umayyad dwellings. This study also allows the precise identification of the origin of preIslamic dwelling models and their reinterpretation in Umayyad domestic architecture. Through classification, the author has been able to group the apartments of qusūr chronologically by the reigns of the Umayyad caliphs. The identification of the dictates of Islamic domestic tradition and the characteristics of early Islamic Arabia and Late Antique houses offer original insight and allow us to situate the Umayyad residences of Bilād al-Shām in their wider cultural context. Additionally, Umayyad dwellings have been classified and presented in a rich catalogue as an appendix within the text. ‘This is an interesting and important piece of work providing a large amount of data some of which is otherwise very hard to find. The analysis of the buildings is very detailed and provides the first systematic attempt to understand how the Umayyad rulers arranged the residential areas of their palaces. The bibliography is excellent and provides the most comprehensive information on Umayyad architecture.’ Professor Andrew Petersen, University of Wales Trinity St David Giuseppe Labisi is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Konstanz. He earned his joint PhD in Islamic Archaeology from the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ and the University of Paris 1 ‘Panthéon-Sorbonne’ in 2017. His research interests include Islamic archaeology and architecture, Medieval topography, and Late Antique – early Islamic transitions.

Printed in England