Sarvistan: a study in early Iranian architecture 9780271004167

Citation preview

Sarvistan |

BLANK PAGE

, LIONEL BIER

Sarvistan

A Study in Early Iranian Architecture

by | | | 1986 | Published for

THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS

UNIVERSITY PARK AND LONDON |

Monographs on the Fine Arts sponsored by

THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA XLI Editor, Carol F. Lewine

Bier, Lionel.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sarvistan : a study in early Iranian architecture. (Monographs on the fine arts ; 41) Includes bibliography and index. 1. Architecture, Sasanid—Iran—Sarvestan. 2. Palaces—Iran—Sarvestan.

3. Sarvestan (Iran)—Buildings, structures, etc. I. College Art Association of America. II. Title. II. Series.

NA226.S827B54 1985 722'.§2 85—-43085

ISBN 0-271-00416-9 -

Copyright © 1986 The College Art Association of America All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

To Monica and in memory of my father

BLANK PAGE

Contents List of Illustrations 1X Preface and Acknowledgments Xiil

of Abbreviations XVil | , I , IListIntroduction

II The Building in Its Setting 3

II The Architectural Remains and a Reconstruction 7 IV Construction, Design, and the Building’s Date 23 V_ Palace or Fire Temple? 55 VI Sarvistan and Early Iranian Architecture: A New Perspective 69

Bibliography 75

Index 79

Illustrations 83

1. Map of southwestern Iran 11. Section through Rooms 13, 11, 9, and 4 (L. Bier)

2. Map of the Sarvistan area 12. Section through Rooms § and 4 (L. Bier) a 3. Sarvistan. Aerial photo of the building and its 13. Southwest elevation (L. Bier) surroundings (Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of

the University of Chicago) 14. View from the south 4. Aerial photo of the building and its surroundings 15. View from the west ,

(Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University |

of Chicago) , 16. View from the east

5. Plan (L. Bier) , 17. View from the east showing building prior to consolidation (after Vanden Berghe, Archéologie de

6. Plan with section lines and photo location key (L. I’ Iran ancien) Bier)

18. View from the east

7. Reconstruction (after Reuther, in Pope, Survey of

Persian Art) 19. View from the southeast (after Dieulafoy, L’art) |

8. Reconstruction (after Siroux, Studia Iranica 2, 1973) 20. View from the southeast

9. Section through Rooms 14, 12, 10, and 8 (L. Bier) 21. View from the southwest (after Dieulafoy, L’art)

10. Section through Rooms 11, 1, and 12 (L. Bier) 22. View from the southwest

x LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 23. Foundation for the southwest corner tower 44. Room 4. Detail of the semidome on squinches

24. Room 1. North wall 45. Room 4. Niche head in the south wall seen from below

25. Room 1. North wall with niche and molding

46. Room 4. Niche in the south wall

26. Room 1. Detail of niche and molding of the north

wall 47. Room 5. View of the north wall showing vault and remains of niche

27. Room 1. Niche of the north wall viewed from the

exterior 48. Room 5s. South wall and vault

28. Room 1. North wall with niche, squinch, and 49. Room 5. Detail of the vault molding

50. Room ro. Northeast corner ;

29. Room 1. Squinch in the southwest corner $1. East wall of the court. The vertical seams indicate

30. Room 1. Podium, drum, and dome from the bonding with the south wall of Room Io. northeast 52. Room 10. Southeast squinch

;;k

31. Room 1. Podium, drum, and dome from the

northwest 53. Room to. Detail of the southeast squinch with double offset molding at bottom

32. Room 3. Niche above doorway : 54. Room ro. Southeast squinch

33. Room 3. Detail of the niche

55. Room 8. South wall with dome of Room Io in the

34. Room 3. Squinch in the northwest corner background

Lo. 6. Ro 12. Vi to th th with the d f

35. Room 3. Molding in the north wall ; Room 10 see OEE ND © come © , 36. Room 11. View from the west 57. Room 12. View of the northwest corner showing the northern wall niche and pier supported by 37. Room 11. Detail of the molding and the remains of doubled columns the vault

58. Room 12. Southwest corner pier 38. Room 9. View from the east

s9. Room 12. Northern niche and pier on doubled

39. Room 9. View of the northwest corner showing columns squinch

60. Room 12. Northern pier with springing of a

40. Room 9g. An alcove in the west wall transverse arch

41. Room g. An alcove in the west wall pierced by a 61. Room 12. Southern niche doorway

62. Room 12. Miniature squinch and molding in the

42. Room 4. View of the southwest corner showing northern niche small lateral arch and squinch supporting semidome

63. Exterior of Room 1o from the northwest showing

43. Room 4. View of the southwest corner showing the brick packing for the vault of Room 7 southern lateral arches, squinch, and remains of the semidome 64. Court staircase from the north

, LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Xl 65. Room 13. View from the south 78. Qasr-i Shirin. Char Qapu. Squinch 66. Room 13. View from the southwest 79. Kazerun. Char tag. Masonry of the walls 67. Room 13. Offset moldings of alcove arches 80. Centering frame for the construction of an offset

68. Room 14. View from the east | arch

81. Iwan-i Kerkha. Springing of a transverse arch

69. Room 14. Footing in the east doorway. 82. Firuzabad. Palace of Ardashir. Squinch

70. Room 12. Masonry of a pier showing trimmed

pointing plaster 83. Ukhaydir. Semidome over an alcove (after Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture)

71. Room 14. Masonry of the north wall showing lift

sears 84. Firuzabad. Palace of Ardashir. North facade with

72. Room 10. Masonry of the squinch zone showing

engaged columns

tri d pointing plast

een Potmnang Plaster 85. Palace of Ardashir. Engaged columns of the north

73. Tall-i Jangi. Char tag. Masonry of an arch

facade

86. Takht-i Sulayman. Plan of the fire temple (after

74. Masonry of the corridor wall Naumann, AA 1965, 623, fig. 1)

75. Squinch supporting dome 87. Sarvistan. Reconstruction. Axonometric projection (L. Bier)

76. Aviz. Char taq. Masonry of the squinch zone

88. Cross vaults on diaphragm arches. (a) Ukhaydir

and dome Khan Ortma, Baghdad

77. Baladeh. Char taq. Interior view showing squinch (b) Qasr Kharana (c) Masjid-i Juma, Yazd (d)

BLANK PAGE

Preface and Acknowledgments

DESPITE increased activity during the past four decades in the exploration and archaeology of Sasanian Iran (A.D.224—651), some basic problems remain unsolved. Many center around the ruins of approximately one hundred architectural monuments that have been attributed to the Sasanian dynasty over the years. Although we have become accustomed to referring to them variously as palaces, pavilions, and temples, we have almost no information about how these buildings were actually used. Study of the plans has been of little help. More embarrassing is the fact that in most cases we cannot even be certain that these buildings are Sasanian. The testimony of early Arab geographers and local tradition are often the only indications that a building is of Sasanian origin. The use of “typical Sasanian masonry” is frequently cited as a criterion, although this term has never been adequately defined. A Fulbright-Hays Grant and a fellowship from the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, enabled me to spend the 1975—76 academic year in Iran investigating these and related problems for

, a doctoral dissertation. My original project involved a careful firsthand examination of the , - accessible remains of all monuments that have been designated Sasanian, with a view toward — establishing criteria for identifying the technological characteristics of Sasanian architecture. During the course of this work two things became increasingly clear. First, that the published

plans, many of which were produced prior to World War I, bore little resemblance to the remains, and second, that these inaccuracies have resulted in gross misinterpretations of these buildings with regard to both date and function. The so-called Sasanian palace near Sarvistan, a monument that has occupied a prominent position in the architectural history of Iran, appeared to exhibit the greatest divergence from the

published documentation, so I have focused special attention on this building. In order to determine its original form, I compiled in the field a detailed and comprehensive file of photo-

X1V PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

graphs, drawings, and measurements, as well as notes on materials and methods of construc-

tion that could provide a basis for further research.

The present study makes use of that documentation in presenting a thorough physical description of the monument near Sarvistan in order to determine its position in the history of Persian architecture. The dearth of relevant contemporary sources enhances the importance of such a description, since our knowledge of the monument is limited to what can be learned from a careful inspection of the fabric of the building itself. On the basis of comparison of the structural, organizational, and decorative features found at Sarvistan with these aspects of other monuments of ancient and medieval architecture in the Near East, the Sasanian origin of the building will be questioned and arguments for an Islamic date put forth. My interpretation presented in chapter s—that the ruins are those of a Zoroastrian fire sanctuary rather than of a palace—is certain to stimulate discussion. Since the drawings (figs. 5, 9-13) comprise such an important part of the documentation, a few words on the method of measurement are necessary. The building was measured entirely with tapes, plumb bobs, and hand levels and without the use of optical surveying equipment. This process was greatly facilitated by scaffolding left in place by the National Organization for the Protection of Historic Monuments of Iran, which had recently begun emergency restoration work. Room diagonals and irregularities in plan were recorded along with normal plano-

metric measurements on a dimension sheet, but they have been regularized in Figure 5. The foundation walls have been shown for the southwestern portion of the building but largely omitted in the northeast—although they are exposed in most places—to avoid encumbering the drawing. Indications of vaulting on the plan make no distinction between surviving masonry and hypothetical reconstruction. Evidence for the reconstruction of the vaults is presented in Chapter 3. Sections and elevations were measured with the aid of an aluminum pole six meters long with a 30-meter tape and plumb bob attached to the end. These drawings show irregularities deriving from both original building practices and subsequent collapse. The profiles of arches and domes as they appear in the drawings were accurately measured by taking numerous

offsets from fixed datum points on the plan and from a leveled datum string set one meter above the top of the foundation walls. The thickness of the domes and their outer profiles could be estimated only in the sections above the drum. All facing stones indicated in the drawings are shown correctly with regard to shape, size, position, and coursing, although in some broad, featureless expanses of wall they have been omitted. Lift seams were recorded but do not appear in the drawings. Coursed brickwork is suggested by horizontal lines, except in section D-D (fig. 12), where the bricks of the vault of Room ¢ are represented individually with their mortar joints. Stippling at the bottoms of the walls indicates recent rebuilding, refacing, or repointing. The upper surface of the foundation walls or footing varies less than 5 centimeters in height throughout the building and has been used as a datum for vertical measurements cited in the description. To facilitate reading, the building will be described as if the main—that is, the triple-entrance facade—were oriented toward the south instead of the southwest. The diagram in Figure 6 contains a photo location key which indicates the direction of each photographic view. The diagram also indicates where the sections through the building were measured and should be used with the elevation drawings in Figures 9 through 12. I would like to express my gratitude to those who have aided and supported me in this work over the past few years. The original impetus for the project came largely from conversations

with Oleg Grabar, who has himself written about this enigmatic building. Donald Hansen made the original suggestion that I approach the problem of Sasanian architecture through a

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XV

monographic treatment of Sarvistan. My debt to him goes back to my early years of graduate school. This study has benefited greatly from my association with him, both in his seminars on

, the art and architecture of the ancient Near East at the Institute of Fine Arts and in the field. He , was the first to give me an appreciation of ancient architecture and a sensitivity to archaecologi-

cal evidence that I hope are apparent in this study. Equally important, he gave me the opportunity to acquire the practical experience in surveying that eventually enabled me to undertake

this project. Special thanks go to Carol Manson Bier for traveling with me that year, for sharing the photography, and for the endless discussions we had about every aspect of the work. I have greatly benefited also from discussions with Oleg Grabar, James Knudstad, and Sheila Gibson concerning architectural and historical problems surrounding the building at Sarvistan.

While in Iran, I received assistance from many people. I would like to thank Pari Rad of the Fulbright Commission and the members of her staff for their support during my entire stay in Iran. Colin MacKinnen and Hasan Sepehri of the American Institute of Iranian Studies in

Teheran were helpful in expediting my initial applications for residence and research permits. I . also enjoyed the sustained support and assistance of Firuz Bagherzadeh and the Center for Archaeological Research in Teheran. I would like to thank especially Nasr Kojouri and Allah qoli Eslami of the Ministry of Culture and Arts in Shiraz for their efficient and courteous

assistance and for a constant supply of information on the location of sites. They kindly provided letters of introduction to the local site guardians. Thanks go also to Ali Akbar Sarfaraz for his kind hospitality at Bishapur. My greatest debt of gratitude goes to James Knudstad, friend and talented archaeologist and

field architect, who first exhorted me to an extra measure of care and accuracy and then suffered the consequences of his advice when he was pressed into service surveying the high places of the building for the section and elevation drawings. He often tells me that the chill of those winter days in Sarvistan is still in his bones. Lionel Bier

: Brooklyn College of the _ City University of New York

BLANK AGE

List of Abbreviations

AA Archdologischer Anzeiger Pope, ed., A. U. Pope, ed., A Survey of AMI Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Survey Persian Art from Prehistoric

/ 1938

Tran (N.F.) Times to the Present, Oxford,

Creswell, EMA’ K. Creswell, Early Muslim Ar- Reuther, O. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture, Oxtord, 1932-40 — “Sasanian chitecture,” in Pope, ed., Creswell, EMA’ K. Creswell, Early Muslim Ar- Architecture” Survey, 1, 493ff. and plates,

chitecture, 1, 2nd ed., Oxford, vol. 4

1969 Schippmann, K. Schippmann, Die irani-

Dieulafoy, L’art M. Dieulafoy, L’art antique de Feuerheiligttimer schen Feuerheiligtiimer, Ber-

la Perse, achéménides, parthes, lin, 1971

sassanides, Paris, 1884-85 Schwarz, Ivan P. Schwarz, Ivan im Mittel-

Flandin and E. Flandin and P. Coste, Voy- alter nach den arabischen Geo-

Coste, age en Perse, Perse ancienne, graphen, 9 vols., StuttgartVoyage Paris, 1843-54; text volume, Berlin-Leipzig, 1896-1936 , pp. 23-27, illustrations, vol. 1 Siroux, M. Siroux, “Le palais de

Naumann et al., R. Naumann, D. Huff, and R. “Sarvistan” Sarvistan et ses votites,” Stu-

“Takht-i Schnyder, “Takht-i Suleiman: dia Iranica, U, 1973, 44ff.

Suleiman Bericht tiber die Ausgrabun- Wilber, The Il D. Wilber, The Architecture of 1965-73 gen 1965-1973,” Archdologi- Khanid Period Islamic Iran: The Il Khanid

scher Anzeiger, 1975, 109-204 Period, Princeton, 1955

~BLANK PAGE

]°

ntroduction

HE ruins of a large building situated in southwestern Iran near the Shiraz-Fasa road,

) twelve kilometers south of the town of Sarvistan, have long been known to students

of Persian architecture. The building is first mentioned by W. Ouseley, who viewed it through field glasses on his way from Shiraz to Bandar Abbas in 1810 and described it as “a brick building in the usual style of Muselman architecture.”* In 1840 E. Flandin and P. Coste visited the site and produced a plan and five drawings in addition to a description that can be considered detailed for those days.* Flandin suggested that the building was a palace, and he compared its construction to several char tags, which he assumed to be fire sanctuaries of the Sasanian period. M. Dieulafoy’s visit to Sarvistan in 1880 did not add significantly to the efforts

of his predecessors. Concerned more with harmonics than with the careful recording of architectural detail, he produced a few analytical diagrams based on approximate measurements, a plan less accurate than Coste’s, and a lengthy, though incomplete, description. J. Dieulafoy’s photographs, the earliest we have of the building, comprise the most valuable part of his presentation, since they show features that have not survived.* Since the late nineteenth century, many have written about the building, but few have had firsthand knowledge of the site. O. Reuther’s contribution to A Survey of Persian Art, which remains the most comprehensive study of the monument, is based on Dieulafoy’s publication

rather than on actual observation of the ruins.* His graphic reconstructions are well known and 1. Sir W. Ouseley, Travels in Various Countries of the 4. Ibid., pls. I-VIII. | East; More Particularly Persia, London, 1819-23, 1, 67ff. 5. O. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” in A. U. 2. E. Flandin and P. Coste, Voyage en Perse, Perse Pope, ed., A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times ancienne, Paris, 1843-54, text vol. 1, 23-27, pls. 28, 29. to the Present, Oxford, 1938, 1, 493-578, and figs. 133,

3. M. Dieulafoy, L’art antique de la Perse, achéménides, 134, 151, and 152 with Dieulafoy’s photographs, rv, pls.

parthes, sassanides, Paris, 1884-89, Iv, rff. 148A-C.

2 SARVISTAN . have appeared often in surveys and handbooks. Sir Aurel Stein, L. Vanden Berghe, and the Iranian Institute have published additional photographs, but, deferring to Dieulafoy’s work, they have provided little or no text and no new drawings.° A recent study by M. Siroux is devoted to the building’s ruined vaults.? His numerous drawings, though attractive, are unfortunately little more than sketches, and they are contradicted in some cases by his own photographs. As a result, not much more is known today about the physical appearance of the building than was known a century ago. Despite the lack of proper archaeological documentation, the monument near Sarvistan continues to occupy a prominent place in the history of architecture; it is invariably cited to illustrate the early use of the brick dome in Iran and the typical Persian dome on squinches. ° Although the antiquity of the monument has always been assumed, its date has been argued for many years. Dieulafoy’s assertion that it belonged to the late Achaemenid Empire or perhaps to

the Seleucid period (312 B.c.—A.D. 64) found no support among the authors of numerous handbooks of architecture, who unanimously reestablished the Sasanian date first suggested by Flandin.? As early as 1910, Herzfeld proposed that the building near Sarvistan, “place of cypresses,” be dated to the reign of the Sasanian king Bahram V (A.D. 420-38). To support this position he cited Tabari, who relates that Bahram’s minister, Mihr Narseh, built a palace in a

, garden planted with 12,000 cypress trees in the vicinity of Firuzabad."° Oddly enough, the fifth-century date, based only on the meaning of the modern place name, has never been seriously challenged.”

The original function of the building, which is unique in its layout, is no less problematic than its date. It has been identified variously as a fire temple, a garden pavilion, and a palace, with the latter suggestion receiving the most general acceptance. 6. Sir A. Stein, “An Archaeological Tour in the 10. F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, Ivanische Felsreliefs, Ancient Persis,” Iraq, 11, 1936, 178ff. and fig. 19, with Aufnahmen und Untersuchungen von Denkmalern aus alt-

map of region opposite pl. XXX; L. Vanden Berghe, und mittelpersischer Zeit, Berlin, 1910, 131, and again, Archéologie de l’Iran ancien, Leiden, 1959, pls. 65a, 66a— more confidently, in Archdologische Reise im Euphrat- und

d; Bulletin of the American Institute for Iranian Art and Tigris-Gebiet, Berlin, 1911-20, 1, 332f. For the well-

Archaeology, vi/vul, 1946, figs. 21-25. known passage in Tabari, see T. Ndldeke, Geschichte der 7. M. Siroux, “Le palais de Sarvistan et ses votites,” Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der arabischen Studia Ivanica, 1, 1973, 49ff. Restoration work carried Chronik des Tabari, Leiden, 1879, I11.

out at this time has been recorded: K. Siegler, I1. For example, O. Grabar, “Sarvistan, A Note on H. Wunderlich, G. Albrecht, and U. Rombock, Res- Sasanian Palaces,” Forschungen zur Kunst Asiens: In tauration des palais sassanides der Kaleh-Dokhtar, Memorium Kurt Erdmann, Istanbul, 1969, 1; D. ThompFirouzabad et Sarvistan = UNESCO _ Photoprint son, Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqabad Near Rayy, 2988/RMO. RD/CLP, Paris, 1973. This document is London, 1976, 3ff. Recently, D. Huff, “Takht-i Sulei-

classified and has not been available to me. man: Bericht tiber die Ausgrabungen, 1965-1973,” | 8. For example, K. Creswell, Early Muslim Architec- Archdologische Anzeiger, XC, 1975, 158, n. $2, suggests a

ture, Oxford, 1932-40, 1, 1orff. post-Sasanian origin for the building because of the

9. For a list of these handbooks, see Creswell, form of the vaulting. ,

EMA’, Ul, I0I, n.I.

The Building in Its Setting

HE town of Sarvistan is situated near the southeastern end of an inland basin that is , | defined by two parallel mountain chains of the southern Zagros (fig. 1). The basin’s floor is approximately 130 kilometers long from northwest to southeast and up to 30 kilometers wide, with a mean elevation of about 1700 meters above sea level. In a depression toward its center is a large salt marsh that becomes a lake in the rainy season, its shape and extent varying yearly with the amount of precipitation. This lake, known as the Daryache-y1 Maharlu, is also a catchment for a number of streams that drain the basin, including the Rudkhaneh Khushk, which originates in the mountains above Shiraz. Leaving Shiraz at the northwestern end of the basin, the main road to Fasa, Darab, and Bandar Abbas crosses the Pol-i Fasa and continues in a southeasterly direction along the narrow strip of level ground between the lake and the high mountains to the south. There it passes through several villages, of which the largest—Maharlu—consists of clusters of houses scattered among groves of almond trees. Some 60 kilometers from Shiraz, the road enters a broad, flat plain and turning north and then east again skirts the mountains above Sarvistan before climbing into the hills of the Chinar pass on the way to Fasa.’ Documentation for the early history of Sarvistan is sparse. The town is first mentioned by Mugqaddasi in the late tenth century A.D.” Ibn Khurdadbih (a.p. 864) and Istakhri (A.D. 951) list a place called Khawristan, on the road between Shiraz and Darabgird; it has been suggested that

this may be an earlier form of the town’s name.’ In the following centuries Sarvistan (or 1. The name of the pass is given by Stein, “Archaeo- 3. For the identification of Sarvistan with Khawris-

logical Tour,” 178, as Gardaneh-i-Alafa or Chinar. tan, see Schwarz, Ivan im Mittelalter, u, 73; G. Le 2. P. Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalter nach den arabischen Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cambridge,

Geographen, Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig, 1896-1936, 0, 74. 1930, 252. |

4 SARVISTAN Khawristan) appears in the itineraries of Arab and Persian geographers, where it is described as

having a pleasant climate and producing fruits grown in both warm and cold regions. Its numerous cypress trees, from which the name Sarvistan derives, are also mentioned. They were apparently in great demand during the Middle Ages. According to the Nizam al-Tavirikh, composed by Ghazi Nasir al-Din Bayzavi in A.D. 1275, Sarvistan provided timber for the construction of the Masjid-i Atig in Shiraz.* If the town contained buildings of any significance, little is said of them. Even the fine tomb and shrine of Shaykh Yusuf Sarvistani,* whose earliest inscription dates to A.D. 1283, was overlooked by both Mustawfi (A.D. 1340) and Abu’l-Fida

(A.D. 1321). Ibn Battuta, who passed through in a.p. 1347, does not mention this shrine, although his expressed purpose for traveling was to visit holy places.° Aside from the passage in Tabari cited above, whose relevance is highly questionable, there are no references to the palace in the literary sources. Early travelers from the West also found Sarvistan unremarkable, referring to it casually as a way station two days’ march from Shiraz on the main road to Bandar Abbas and noting its climate, gardens, and produce.’ The shrine of Shaykh Yusuf was first mentioned by J. Dieulafoy, who visited the monument in 1881.*° It was described again by Stein almost fifty years later.°

Having survived the vicissitudes of constant tribal warfare, which marked the decades preceding the advent of Pahlevi rule, Sarvistan today is a town of moderate prosperity. Fruit trees are still cultivated in significant numbers, but the famous cypresses are no longer in evidence, being scattered throughout the gardens on the outskirts of the town. The hills to the north and south still provide grazing grounds for nomadic tribes of the Khamsah confederation. The plain itself is sparsely cultivated and beyond the edge of Sarvistan consists mostly of scrub-covered waste laced with dry canal beds and ganats, most of which are no longer in use. The few small

villages and hamlets draw their water from wells. During his brief visit to the area, Stein excavated three low mounds in this plain, which produced quantities of worked flint and pottery of the Chalcolithic period.” The ruins, known locally as Kakh-i Sarvistan,™ sit in “splendid isolation” near the eastern edge of the plain, where they are clearly visible from the town some 12 kilometers to the north (fig. 2). Over the centuries they have acquired a warm reddish-brown patina, a quality that they share with other building of allegedly Sasanian date in Fars. The walls of the building are of mortared rubble that is faced with large, roughly shaped stones set in regular courses (fig.

71). Many of the walls are standing, at least in part, to their full height, while others have toppled, perhaps as a result of earthquakes. The complete plan is, in any case, traceable. Doorways, where they are preserved, are with few exceptions surmounted by arches that are semicircular to gently elliptical in shape and set slightly forward on their imposts. Two well4. Cited by D. Wilber, The Masjid-i ‘Atig of Shiraz 1608 et 1809, Paris, 1819, 1, 342 (“Selvissoun”); Ousely, (The Asia Institute Monograph Series, no. 2, Pahlavi Travels, u, 74; Dieulafoy, L’art, Iv, I.

University, Shiraz, Iran), Tehran, 1972, 2 and n. 4. 8. J. Dieulafoy, La Perse, la Chaldée et la Susiane, 5. For this monument, see D. Wilber, The Architec- Paris, 1887, 468 and fig. ture of Islamic Ivan: The Il Khanid Period, Princeton, 1955, 9. Stein, “Archaeological Tour,” 178.

117; W. Kleiss, AMI, v, 1972, 207f. and fig. 82 with pls. 10. Ibid., 18off.

§8:2,3 and §9:1,2. 11. The modern name, Kakh-i Sarvistan, certainly

6. Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-54, reflects the influence of modern Western opinion. The trans. H. Gibb, London, 1929, 120, 303, mentions older designations like “Chahar-taq” (Stein, “ArchaeoKawrastan, which Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalter, m1, 133, logical Tour,” 178) and “atech-Gah” (Flandin and takes to Khawristan (Sarvistan). See Note 3 above. Coste, Voyage, 23) suggest that local tradition held the 7. A. Duprés, Voyage en Perse fait dans les années 1807, building to have been a fire temple.

, THE BUILDING IN ITS SETTING 5 preserved domes, the larger rising to a height of almost 20 meters, give the building its characteristic profile. Both domes are constructed of baked bricks of small format (.27—.28 by .27-.28 by .07—.08 meters) laid with a hard, light gray calcareous mortar. A third dome may be reconstructed over Room 13. The other vaults of the building have fallen, but sufficient traces remain to permit reconstruction with a high degree of certainty.

, All walls are bonded at the corners, and, except for the blocking of one doorway and the , narrowing of another, there is no indication of significant alterations or additions to the plan in ancient times. Minor restorations are evident in repairs to the sawtooth molding in Room 11 and the narrowing of the niche above the north doorway to Room 3. Otherwise, the building

as it stands today represents a single phase of construction. The walls of the building rest on a continuous system of foundations that are constructed of

unfaced mortared rubble. They extend slightly beyond the wall faces on either side and project | to form roughly rectangular footings for the paired columns in the two long halls. The pub- | _ lished drawings (figs. 7, 8)'* indicate steps cut into the foundations in the doorways, but the recent removal of the encumbering debris that has exposed the thresholds has not revealed any. Excavation is needed to determine the depth of these foundations and, more important, the original relationship between the floor level and the surrounding land, which today are equal. The original appearance of the building must have been severe. Decoration is surprisingly Sparse, consisting merely of stucco sawtooth moldings. Evidence of further ornamentation such

as mural painting, mosaic, glazed tiles, decorative brickwork, or carved stucco is entirely absent. There are no inscriptions. ">

The plan (fig. 5) is a simple rectangle 45 meters long by 37.10 meters wide oriented 150 | degrees west of magnetic north with the main facade facing the southwest."* Despite the neat tripartite division of this rectangle into two lateral segments of equal width and a wider central

tract, the plan gives the impression of asymmetry, a quality often remarked upon." This is because each longitudinal segment was laid out independent of the others and seemingly without a unified concept of design. The central tract consists of a shallow iwan preceding a large domed hall, which in turn gives access to a square court closed at the back by a “bayt” that includes a small iwan flanked by small square rooms.’® The eastern tract contains a small entrance iwan, a long columned hall, and a tall domed room with a small room behind it. Of the rooms of the western tract, only the large iwan (Room 11) is specifically related to the central tract; it fronts the large domed chamber, providing it with a monumental entrance. A square room, originally domed, occupies the southwestern corner of the building, while to the north a second columned hall, somewhat shorter than the first, gives access to a corner room set at right angles to it. This subdivision of the three tracts, each largely independent of the others, results in a series of rooms, no two of which are alike. Another peculiar characteristic of 12. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pls. 28, 29; Dieula- cardinal points and placed the triple-arched facade to the foy, L’art, pls. I, VIII; Reuther, “Sasanian Architec- west. They were followed by Reuther, “Sasanian Archi-

ture,” figs. I42, I§1, 152; Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pls. tecture,” fig. 151. Dieulafoy gives no hint as to the

XV:2, XIX:6. building’s orientation. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pl. XIV, has 13. Ouseley was informed by his Persian host in the main facade opening on the south. My own compass

Sarvistan that “neither inscriptions nor sculpture of any reading, taken 10 April 1976, showed the main axis to be

kind remained to evince its antiquity.” Ouseley, Trav- 30 degrees east of magnetic north. See Figure s. els, 1, 73. This news may have dampened his determina- Is. For example, Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,”

tion to visit the building. 536; Grabar, “Sarvistan,” 3.

14. There is some divergence of opinion as to the 16. The term“bayt” indicates an architectural unit, building’s orientation. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, 24, often self-contained, consisting of two or more rooms described the main axis as corresponding with the flanking an iwan that opens on a court.

6 SARVISTAN the plan is its openness. Each room communicates with those adjacent to it, and most of the rooms are directly accessible from the outside. Early photographs show the building in a state of imminent collapse. The lower walls had been robbed of their facing stones, thus subjecting them to rapid erosion (figs. 19, 21). The entire north corner, including Rooms 6, 7, and 8, appears as a mound of rubble,'’ and an enormous gap can be seen on the east side extending from the base of the large dome to the doorway below (fig.

17). To prevent further deterioration, restoration work was begun in the late 1960s under the auspices of the National Organization for the Protection of Historic Monuments of Iran. Since then, the bases of walls have been refaced, the gap that threatened the destruction of the large

dome filled in, and precariously leaning walls propped up by a temporary system of timber supports, presumably pending further consolidation and rebuilding. , During his survey of the region in 1934, Stein noticed that the ground around the palace was strewn with potsherds, mostly of green glaze, and concluded that “habitations of a humbler sort must have stood nearby.”'* He did not mention the remains of a small settlement immedi-

ately to the west of the Sarvistan monument, to which the sherds apparently belong. This settlement, clearly visible in Schmidt’s aerial photos (figs. 3, 4), consists of houses with pisé walls on stone foundations."? Their plans, exposed in places, can be easily traced after a rain, when the earth is damp. Schmidt’s photographs show the building to have been surrounded on four sides by walls some 30 to 40 meters from it, enclosing an area of approximately 12,000 square meters. The only feature in the immediate vicinity with a substantial profile is a mound, some 220 meters to the north of the palace, which measures about 30 meters square (figs. 3, 4). This mound, known locally as ashpazkhaneh (kitchen), was examined recently by W. Kleiss and by Siroux.*° Each reconstructed, on the basis of the exposed remains, a single building around a

square room or open coutt. ,

In the absence of excavations, the precise nature of these topographic features and their relationship to the palace remain unclear. There is nothing to indicate that the palace and the settlement are contemporary, and if the system of enclosure walls belonged to the palace, as the orientation of the palace and its central position suggest, it would be difficult to imagine the gardens or orchards, which they in all probability protected, as extending over the unleveled remains of earlier houses. It would seem therefore that the building predates the settlement and was already abandoned, if not actually in ruins, when the settlement was built. It is not unusual in the Near East for settlements to spring up around a ruin, which then becomes a convenient source of building material. Siroux’s contention that the ashpazkhaneh served as throne room

for the larger building is purely conjectural and unlikely.*’ |

17. See Stein, “Archaeological Tour,” fig. 19. 20. W. Kleiss, AMI, v, 1972, 204 and fig. 79; Siroux,

18. Ibid., p. 179. “Sarvistan,” 65 and fig. Is. 19. E. Schmidt, Flights over Ancient Cities of Iran, 21. Ibid., 6s. Chicago, 1940, pls. 20, 21.

The Architectural Remains and a Reconstruction

HIS chapter comprises an archaeological record of the remains of the building near

, Sarvistan. It takes the form of a detailed physical description, illustrated with photographs and measured drawings. The description proceeds room by room, beginning at the center with the great domed hall and concluding with the facades. The numbering of the

rooms on the plan in Figure § has been retained from the field notes and is more or less

arbitrary. But in the following presentation the rooms are dealt with in an order reflecting probable patterns of movement and circulation, anticipating architectural comparisons made with other monuments later in Chapter 4, as well as the question of function raised in Chapter 5. This archaeological documentation will also provide a sound basis for a theoretical reconstruction of the building that will emerge gradually as the data are presented.

ROOM 1 A large domed room 12.55 meters square, extended to a cruciform plan by four arched recesses each 1.40 meters deep, 5.75 meters wide and 6.90 meters high, forms the core of the building (figs. 5, 10, 24, 87). Arched doorways 2.15—2.25 meters wide and 5.70 meters high pierce the rear wall of each recess, providing access from the three adjacent rooms and the open court.’ The lower walls of the square terminate at a height of 7.80 meters in a composite stucco 1. The southern, eastern, and northern doorways are each 2.15 meters wide; the western doorway is 2.25 meters wide.

8 SARVISTAN molding consisting of a sawtooth frieze set between plain rectangular strips (figs. 25, 26). The outer face of the lower strip, projecting .06 meters from the wall, is aligned with the backs of the triangular teeth. The upper strip, extending another .06 meters, is flush with the front edges

of the teeth and with the base of a transition zone consisting of four large squinches. The squinches (fig. 29) are built with stones slightly smaller than those of the walls. They are laid in horizontal courses, with the first two running through to the corners. Above the second course the two segments of each squinch arch forward to intersect at an angle that fades gradually into a hood of three to five uncoursed stones. The outlines of the squinches are marked by a border of small stones over which the plaster forms a sharp ridge. The walls between the squinches, rising 3.50 meters in twelve courses of facing stones, are curved in plan and warped toward the top to facilitate the transition from a square room to a circular dome. In the center of each side, beginning at a level one course (.45 meters) above the molding, are the remains of a niche. The niche above the northern door (figs. 25-28) is the best preserved. It consists of a rectangular shelf 2.04 meters wide covered by a shallow ovoid hood, which springs with a slight offset from a zone of two miniature squinches. Squinches, hood, and a fillet applied to the front undersurface of the hood are modeled in stucco on a packing of rubble and mortar. The rear walls of all four niches are broken out and might originally have been pierced by small window openings.* The facing stones and niches of the transition zone are encased from the level of the niche bases in a podium block approximately square in plan that is built up of bricks carelessly laid in

twenty-nine undulating courses (fig. 30). The gradual transition through the podium from coursed brick to a conglomerate of brickbats, stone and mortar, to the facing stones of the interior can be observed in the large break at the center of the eastern wall and at the southeast-

ern and northwestern corners of the podium where erosion has exposed the backs of the squinches (figs. 10, 20, 31). Viewed from the exterior, the damaged niches appear as jagged gaps in the centers of the podium faces. Projecting fragments of brickwork at the gaps in the eastern and western faces are probably the remains of shallow extensions built to accommodate the niches, whose original depth nearly equaled the thickness of the walls (figs. 30, 31). The podium, which rests on an uneven surface of rounded stones that comprise the tops of the walls, supports a circular drum 1.05 meters thick made of twelve courses of brick laid flat in shallow beds of mortar. The drum is set in slightly from the sides of the podium in the north and west but is tangent to the eastern face. The base of the drum on the exterior corresponds in level with a projecting sawtooth molding on the interior, which is identical to the lower molding but circular in plan. This marks the top of the squinch zone. Directly above this circular molding is a single row of facing stones embedded in a band of mortar .45 meters high (figs. 25, 28). The dome today is inaccessible, so it was not possible to measure with precision its thickness at any point, nor is it known whether this dimension was constant throughout. The inner face of the dome, rising from the mortar band above the upper sawtooth molding, is constructed of rings of radially laid bricks. These rings did not invariably extend through the thickness of the

dome; half-bricks and brickbats are visible in the breaks. The exterior surface of the dome, , which is set in from the sides of the drum, has eroded almost entirely and is represented only

by isolated patches of brick. Rising today to a maximum height of 17.40 meters in forty 2. The fragmentary remains of these niches are arched windows piercing the walls between the. visible in the published photographs. See Dieulafoy, squinches. See Flandin and Coste, Voyage, 25 and pls. L’art, pl. V; Bulletin of the American Institute for Iranian 28, 29; Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” fig. 152; Art and Archaeology, v1 and vu, 1946, figs. 22, 23. They Siroux, “Sarvistan,” 55 and pls. XIX, XXII. have been overlooked by all writers who have indicated

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION 9

courses, the dome is pierced by sets of small rectangular openings, whose edges have mostly disappeared (fig. 15). No plaster adheres to the inner surface of the dome. The smooth appearance of the well-preserved lower-brick courses combined with a lack of evidence for procedures

| preparatory to plastering, such as nicking or combing of the mortar, suggests that the brickwork of the interior was always exposed.

ROOM 3 The main domed hall is entered from the south through a broad iwan 10.56 meters wide and 5 meters deep that is extended east and west by arched alcoves 2.07 meters deep and 5.10 meters high (figs. 5, 14). The lower walls of the iwan terminate at 5.80 meters in a stucco molding with a sawtooth frieze. A short section of the frieze is preserved to the right of the northern door (fig. 35). It resembles the moldings in Room 1 but includes an additional strip forming a double step below the teeth. A transition zone carried out by the molding beyond the surface of the lower walls contains two squinches, of which only the left one, 2.40 meters high and 3.10 meters along the base of each segment, has retained its facing stones. It differs from the larger squinches of Room 1 in that the segments are not vertical in the lower courses but begin to lean forward immediately above the molding. This squinch, moreover, appears to have been built up around a

, core of nine small stones, which are clearly visible as a unit in the lower corner (fig. 34). In the squinch zone, directly above the northern door, is a niche 2.86 meters wide and .80 meters deep (figs. 32, 33). Its squat hood, carried across the corners by a horizontal stucco bracket, was constructed of coursed stones, roughly rectangular in shape, set into a rubble and mortar packing. Fragmentary remains of a sawtooth molding are visible .90 meters above the

, shelf on both sides. They were covered over when the width of the niche was reduced to correspond with the width of the doorway below. The moldings of the first and second phases

would have continued around the back of the niche, where they were set into a slot just below | the curved bracket. The facing stones of the transition zone have fallen away, exposing the underlying mortar and rubble in all places except the area around the lower half of the niche and in the northwestern squinch. Neither the semidome, which the squinches must have supported, nor its springing, is preserved at any point.’ The arches of the alcoves that flank the iwan spring from a height of about 2 meters and are set forward on their imposts. Traces of a stucco molding with a double offset adhere to the corbeled springing stones on the south side of the unrestored eastern arch. This detail has been

, overlooked or ignored in the recent consolidation of the western alcove, where the springing has been plastered smooth. The rear wall of each alcove is pierced off-center by a doorway that gives access to a corner room (13 and 14). The western doorway is 1.03 meters wide and 2.60 meters high. Its arch is unusual in that it springs smoothly without offsets from the jambs. The

eastern doorway, 1.60 meters wide, had a flat lintel whose wooden planks have left their impressions at the back of a slot .25 meters high and .45 meters deep in the north jamb 3.60 3. The early drawings indicate a tunnel vault rather al., “Takht-i Suleiman 1965-73,” col. 158, n. 52, and than a semidome on squinches. See Flandin and Coste, _— by Siroux, “Sarvistén,” 54 and pls. XVIII, XIX, XXII. Voyage, pls. 28, 29; Dieulafoy, L’art, pl. VII, followed Both noticed the remains of squinches during their visits

by Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” fig. 152. This to the site. error has recently been rectified by Huff, in Naumann et

IO SARVISTAN meters above the floor. The southern jamb is preserved only to .75 meters. The crown of the alcove arch, the lintel of the doorway, and most of the wall to its south have disappeared.

ROOM I1 |

A second iwan, 6.60 meters wide and 9.85 meters deep, fronts the large domed room on the west (figs. 5, 36). Its southern wall retains traces of a longitudinal tunnel vault of brick. The wall is pierced by an arched doorway 2 meters wide and 5.45 meters high and terminates at a height of 5.75 meters in the usual sawtooth frieze set between plain stucco strips (fig. 37). This molding brings forward a single course of facing stones set in a band of mortar .45 meters high. The springing of the vault is marked by four courses of brick laid flat in an equal thickness of mortar. The vault proper begins with a row of bricks set on edge with vertical mortar joints equal to the thickness of one brick. The vault is eroded away above the springing and it is

impossible to determine whether the bricks originally continued pitched to the crown or whether zones of pitched brick alternated with horizontal courses. The brickwork of the vault does not run the entire length of the iwan but terminates abruptly against mortar and rubble 1.65 meters from the western end. The facing stones of this portion of the wall have fallen. Intact, they would have formed a broad fillet or rib projecting slightly

from the undersurface of the vault at the facade. , The eastern wall of the iwan, cut in the center by the doorway to Room 1, is recessed at a height of 6.95 meters to form a ledge .90 meters deep, whose rough rear surface of unfaced mortar and rubble fades gradually back toward the podium of the large dome. Some bricks on the ledge at the southeastern corner appear to be in situ and may be the remains of a tympanum (fig. 36). The sawtooth molding did not continue around this eastern wall but ended against it. The northern wall of this room is mostly ruined. Preserved to a maximum height of 2 meters in the east corner, it rapidly falls away to less than a meter at the center, where it is cut by a doorway I.90 meters wide.

ROOM 9 The doorway in the ruined northern wall of the iwan gave access to a hall 16.05 meters long and 8.40 meters wide (figs. 5, 11, 38, 87). Disagreement as to the original appearance of this hall among the few writers with firsthand knowledge of the building must be attributed to careless observation and to inaccurate recording of the architectural remains. In fact, an examination of the masonry in its present condition supplemented by a photograph by J. Dieulafoy (fig. 21) that shows the eastern wall, which has since collapsed, in good condition, provides all

the information necessary for a secure reconstruction. ,

The hall takes its characteristic form from twelve squat, baseless columns arranged in pairs

and placed .58 meters from the long side walls. On the west, four of the six columns are preserved to their full height of 2.10 meters. On the ruined eastern side, only the mortar impressions of the lowest drums remain. The columns were built of rough-hewn drums set in thick mortar. Each pair supported a stone abacus 1.50 meters wide, .70 meters deep, and .12

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION II

meters thick, whose plastered lower surfaces were either stepped or roughly beveled.* These rudely constructed columns were transformed into smooth cylinders .60 meters in diameter by a plaster coat, traces of which remain below the abacus and at the foot. The distance between

paired columns with their plaster coats intact was only .o8 meters. Each abacus with its columns suported the end of a pier 1.60 to I.70 meters wide,*> which projected 1.25 meters from the wall. The abaci were joined to the walls they fronted by longitudinal vaults .55 meters wide built into the undersurfaces of the piers. The alcoves formed by the projecting piers were treated individually and differ from one another in width, height, and general appearance (figs. 11, 38). The first (northern) alcove in the western wall is 3.54 meters wide and vaulted by a squat arch of irregular outline that springs with a slight offset from the northern wall. It rises to a total height of 4.96 meters. The second alcove,

2.40 meters wide, is spanned by a semidome 6.30 meters high at the crown, built of horizontal | rings of facing stones (fig. 41). A curving sawtooth frieze set into the wall between plain stucco strips separates the semidome from a transition zone of two small squinches. This zone is penetrated by the arch of a doorway 1.40 meters wide and 4.90 meters high, which communicates with the outside. The third alcove, also covered with a semidome on squinches, is equal in height to the second but is .35 meters wider as a result of the uneven spacing of the piers (fig. 40). There is no doorway in its rear wall. The poorly preserved southern alcove, 2.50 meters wide, retains a fragment of a small squinch in its north corner 4.15 meters above the floor (fig. 11). A ruined doorway in the rear wall of this alcove is represented by a large portion of its north jamb.°

South of this, the walls are preserved to less than a meter in height. , On their plans, Flandin and Coste and Dieulafoy indicated niches in the rear walls of all , alcoves in Room 9g that are not pierced by doorways.’ Siroux unaccountably follows suit, although he does not mention niches in his text.* These writers are contradicted by the photographs, including Dieulafoy’s (figs. 21, 40), which clearly show unbroken wall surfaces be- |

tween the piers. |

Previous attempts to determine the original nature of the vaulting system employed in Room g have been fraught with needless difficulties. Dieulafoy noted the squinch preserved in the northwestern corner (fig. 39) and correctly restored a half-dome over the northern bay.’ He did | not comment on two stumps of masonry, conspicuously visible in his photograph, rising | Opposite one another from the tops of the walls near the northern end of the room (fig. 21). _ Siroux, misjudging their position, described them as the remains of one of three transverse supporting arches, which he reconstructed as originating from the piers.*° A frontal photograph

and drawing of the western wall (figs. 11, 38) clearly show, however, that the one stump preserved today is not aligned with the pier below it. Three facing stones still embedded in the mortar describe a curve whose contour and position suggest a slightly projecting rib or fillet springing from a point on the wall above the pier. The springing itself is not preserved, but the configuration of the adjacent facing stones suggests that it descended into or slightly below the transition zone, where it was probably terminated in plaster with a single- or double-offset 4. Not enough of the plaster survives to permit 7. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 28; Dieulafoy,

reconstruction of the original profiles of these abacus L’art, pl. III. ,

capitals. 8. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pls. XV, XXII. 5. The central pier of the western wall is 1.70 meters 9. Dieulafoy, L’art, 1v, 24. Dieulafoy’s fig. 21 seems

wide; the two flanking it are each 1.60 meters wide. to be a conflation of the two columned halls. 6. The doorway is correctly shown by Flandin and 10. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” $8. Coste, Voyage, pl. 28. Dieulafoy, L’art, pl. IH, indicates a niche, followed by Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture, ”

fig. 151, and Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pl. XV.

12 SARVISTAN

1.20 meters in width.

molding. Two facing stones in the upper wall to the south indicate that this rib did not exceed

The most obvious solution for the roofing of the central portion of the hall would have been , a longitudinal tunnel vault sprung from the tops of the walls above the piers. Siroux’s reconstruction which shows two parallel vaults resting on arches thrown between opposite piers, 1s based on his misinterpretation of Dieulafoy’s photograph and on his failure to observe carefully the evidence of the remains during his own visits to the site.’ The photograph (fig. 21) shows the two southernmost piers of the now-collapsed eastern wall, with their front surfaces well preserved up to the level of the alcove semidomes. Siroux assumed that the springing for transverse arches would have originated above this level. There, the disappearance of the pointing and the leaching of mortar from between the coursed facing stones had left a rough surface, which he mistook for the underlying mortar and rubble fabric of the piers. In the photograph, however, coursed facing stones are clearly visible on the upper parts of both piers, thus precluding the existence of such arches. Similarly, recent photographs of the preserved western wall, including some of Siroux’s, show large patches of surface on the piers extending to the tops of the walls (fig. 38). It does not appear likely that the southern end of the hall was covered by the semidome that Siroux restored, evidently for the sake of symmetry.*? Another glance at Dieulafoy’s photograph (fig. 21) shows that the height of the southeastern alcove arch left no room for a squinch zone, which, in the northwest, is five courses high. Nor does the southeastern pier show traces of a rib. Beginning at the rib that delimited the north bay, a tunnel vault must have run the entire length of the room, ending against the southern wall. This reconstruction is supported

by the existence of a mass of brickwork protruding from the rough stone masonry that supports the podium of the large dome (figs. 15, 36). This mass corresponds in thickness and position to the southern wall of Room 9g and certainly formed one end of a brick tympanum that was keyed into the adjoining masonry for greater stability. This tunnel vault, if not the semidome at its northern end, was probably made of brick, but no traces of it have survived. The row of facing stones preserved at the top of the western wall at a height of 7 meters corresponds with the top of the transition zone and probably indicates the original level of the springing. A sawtooth frieze should be restored below the transition zone at the northwest end, where the neat impression of a molding may still be seen (fig. 39). The tunnel vault may have been set off from the supporting walls by a similar frieze running along both side walls from the rib to the southern wall.

ROOM 4 An arched doorway 1.40 meters wide and 3.80 meters high in the eastern wall of Room 9 gives -- access to a small corner room 6.10 meters wide and 3.80 meters long, whose main axis runs east-west (figs. 5, II, 12, 43, 87). The vaulting of this room, which included a semidome on squinches at its western end, depended ultimately on two columns, similar in size and construction to those in Room 9, placed .55 meters from the long side walls and 2.20 meters from the rear 11. Ibid., 58 and pls. XV, XVIII.

12. Ibid., pl. XI, 4. See also Dieulafoy, L’art, pl. VII, which shows much of the piers’ surfaces intact. 13. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pls. XV, XXIII.

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION 13 western wall. Each column was capped by a rough stone abacus that supported one end of a pair of lateral arches. The two smaller arches joined the western wall with a slight offset 1.86 meters above the floor, forming alcoves 1.95 meters wide, 3.20 meters high, and 1.20 to 1.30 meters deep.'* Forty-six centimeters above the crowns of these arches is a transition zone of three courses of facing stones with two small squinches in the corners (fig. 42). The lower course is corbeled out and rests on a stucco molding that consists of a sawtooth frieze set between plain rectangular strips. As in Room 3, an extra strip was added to form a double step below the teeth. Directly above the squinches is a single ring of stones, whose faces tilt sharply forward. An

elliptical semidome on a double bed of mortar rises steeply from this ring to a maximum _ preserved height of 6.85 meters (fig. 44). The sawteeth terminated against the edge of a projecting fillet .go meters wide that lined the front undersurface of the semidome and descended to the

base of the squinch zone on both sides. Four rectangular holes in the second course of the semidome apparently held wooden supports for scaffolding used during construction. The two columns are joined by two lateral arches 5.50 meters wide and 1.20 to 1.30 meters deep to the eastern wall, where they spring with slight offsets from a height of 2.15 meters above the floor." The springing of the southern arch is pierced by a doorway 1.30 meters wide and 3.30 meters high that gives access to the open court. The crowns of both arches have fallen. By projecting the curve of the surviving portions we obtain an original height of approximately 5.65 meters for both arches, which equals the preserved heights of the side walls. The vaulting of the eastern part of the room has not survived. It is best restored as a longitudi-

nal barrel vault of brick sprung from the walls above the lateral arches. Allowing for a single course of stones above the arch crowns, the vault would have begun at a level approximately 6 meters above the floor, attaining a total height of at least 8.20 meters, or 1.20 meters greater than the projected height of the semidome at its western end. This reconstruction requires an apse wall above the arch of the semidome and a tympanum at the eastern end of the room, one or both of which could have been pierced by a window opening to admit light and air.'° An examination of the tops of the walls (fig. 11) reveals that the facing stones of the semidome were encased in a , packing of bricks laid flat in thin beds of mortar. Brickwork adhering to the top of the southwest

wall represents the packing behind the haunches of the barrel vault. ,

A well-preserved niche, 1.09 meters wide, 1.68 meters high, and .58 meters deep, is built into the southern wall of Room 4; the niche is 1.22 meters above the floor and .86 meters from the eastern corner (figs. 45, 46). Its rectangular shelf is covered by a shallow hood that is carried across the corners by a curved stucco bracket. A plain stucco strip projects from the niche wall beneath the bracket on all three sides.

ROOM 5 A second doorway in the eastern wall of Room 4 communicates with a small chamber, 3.55 meters square, covered by a brick tunnel vault set along its east-west axis (figs. 5, 12, 47, 48, 87).'7 The vault, complete except for the fallen eastern portion, begins 3 meters above the floor 14. The southern alcove is 1.30 meters deep; the 16. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pl. XXII.

other is 1.20 meters deep. 17. Dieulafoy, L’art, 1v, 13ff. and fig. 9, describes the

15. The southern arch is 1.30 meters deep; the vault of this room in some detail and compares its

northern arch is 1.20 meters deep. brickwork to that of the Ramesseum at Thebes.

14 SARVISTAN - with single courses of corbeled facing stones whose lower edges were masked by smooth plaster strips. The lower portions of the vault above the spring stones consist of bands of two and three courses of brick laid radially, alternating with single rows of pitched brick. All mortar beds and joints are equal to the thickness of one brick. The crown is composed of vertical rings of brick laid edge to edge with beds perpendicular to the vault’s axis (fig. 49). Little or no mortar was used between these rings, whose bricks were held in place by the lateral pressure they exerted upon one another at their lower corners and by a quantity of mortar and rubble that was poured in from above. In the mortar between the stones of the springing, near

the corners of the northern and southern walls, are four holes, each .12 meters in diameter, which contain the remains of wooden beams. These were supports for a centering frame used in the vault’s construction. The partially collapsed southern wall retains traces of a window opening, including the west jamb and adjacent portions of the sill and arch. The opening, beginning 1.90 meters above the _ floor and 1.36 meters from the west corner, would have been about .75 meters wide, assuming that it occupied the center of the wall. Its arch was sprung with a slight offset .75 meters above the sill and pierced the springing of the vault up to the base of the first course of bricks. A small rectangular opening .30 meters wide and .66 meters high pierces the vault’s springing between

the window and the western wall. ,

At the center of the northern wall, at a height of 1.25 meters above the floor, is a hooded niche similar in form to the one in Room 4 but smaller in size and not as well preserved.

| The western wall is built entirely of stone and mortar to the top of the vault. It is broken only by the arched doorway to Room 4, whose left jamb is a continuation of the southern wall. The eastern wall, which is mostly destroyed, contained a doorway 1.25 meters wide.

ROOM Io Near the northeastern corner of the building is a hall measuring 8.66 meters (north-south) by 8.30 meters (east-west), which is covered by a brick dome on squinches (figs. 5, 9, 50, 87). The lower walls of this room are pierced in their centers by doorways, 1.90 to 2.08 meters wide and 5.70 meters high, whose arches spring with slight offsets from the jambs.** Four corner columns set .75 meters from the walls support stone abaci on which rest four lateral arches 5.95 meters high and 1.22 meters deep. The structural role played by these arches has not been fully recognized by previous writers who see them simply as supports for the narrow gallery that runs around the room .85 meters above the arch crowns. Specifically, it has been stated that they played no part in supporting the dome, which was believed to rest entirely on this room’s outer walls.'? The measured section shows, however, that the dome’s supporting walls, only 1.06 to 1.10 meters thick, rest both on the thicker lower walls and on the gallery (fig. 9). The |

distance to be spanned by the dome was thus slightly reduced. Narrow vaults pierce the springing of the eastern and western arches behind the columns, continuing through the northeast and southwest walls to form lateral passageways, .70 meters wide and 2.46 meters high, that lead to Rooms 8 and 12. 18. The southern doorway of Room 10 is 2.07 19. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, 26 and pl. 29 meters wide. The eastern doorway is 2.05 meters wide. (bottom); Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 503f.; Si-

_ The northern doorway is 2.08 meters wide. The roux, “Sarvistan,” 59 and pl. XXIV; K. Erdmann, Die

western doorway is I.90 meters wide. Kunst Ivans zur Zeit der Sasaniden, Mainz, 1969, 31.

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION 15 | The upper walls rise to a height of 1.78 meters above the gallery, at which level the lower stones of a transition zone are corbeled out. The four squinches are essentially of the usual type, consisting of two segments set at right angles to one another, built up of horizontal courses that lean forward toward the top, forming a hood (figs. 52, 54). The corbeled stones at the base of each squinch are masked by a plaster panel with neat vertical edges. The panel extends downward for .44 meters, terminating at the bottom in a double offset (figs. 53, 54). The corbeled stones between the squinches are also finished off in plaster, which is given a double-offset molding in the northern and southern walls and a simple offset on the east and west. These moldings connect the squinches with openings .80 meters wide and 2 meters high in the center of each wall, whose arches spring with an offset at the level of the molding and rise into the transition zone. The upper walls, from the gallery to the top of the transition zone, are encased in a square podium whose corners have partially eroded away, exposing the backs of the squinches (figs. I5, 16, $5). On the eastern and western sides the podium rises in lifts of coursed stones in mortar up to the springing of the window arches. Above this—corresponding in height to the squinch zone on the interior—the podium is of coursed bricks laid flat in mortar beds about 3 to § centimeters thick. The window arches are made of bricks and half-bricks set radially with their beds normal to the axis of the arch. On the northern and southern sides the face of the podium is preserved to its full height only around the window openings, where it is con-

structed entirely of stone and mortar. Here, too, the arches are of brick. The podium, in turn, supports a circular drum with roughly vertical sides that rises 1.60 meters in fourteen courses of brick laid flat in shallow beds of mortar. The drum, set in from

the sides of the podium, is about .85 meters thick at its base. On the interior the drum is revetted for three-quarters of its height. Three courses of facing stones in mortar form a band 1.18 meters high, which is corbeled out from the transition zone below it. The interior surface of the dome proper rises smoothly from the top of this band. The construction of this dome is similar to that of the larger dome and consists of rings of bricks laid radially. The mortar beds

are somewhat thinner, however, averaging from 4 to 6 centimeters in height. The dome’s © exterior surface, today almost entirely eroded, began at a slightly higher level and was set in from the sides of the drum on which it rested. The dome is complete to the twenty-fourth course, except for small holes in the brickwork, and is partially preserved for another three courses for a total height of about 14 meters. It is pierced by two rows of rectangular openings, each .38 meters high and one brick wide (fig. 15). The lower openings are visible from the interior in the lower courses and pierce the top of the drum on the exterior. The second row of openings begins in the eighteenth course. A third set of openings may have disappeared with the collapsed crown of the dome.

ROOM 8 This rectangular corner room, originally measuring 3.15 by 3.22 meters, has almost entirely disappeared, leaving only a faint trace of the northeastern corner (fig. $). It is not clear whether

this room communicated with Room 7. The facing stones of the southern wall continue through to the exterior (fig. 55), indicating that a doorway pierced the eastern wall at this point. The room was probably covered by a tunnel vault sprung from a height of about 6.80 meters.

16 SARVISTAN

ROOM 12 Room 10 communicated by way of the tall doorway and narrow lateral passages in its southern wall with a long hall whose plan measures 19.65 by 8.30 meters (figs. 5, 9, 10, $6, 57, 87). Although in a poor state of preservation, its salient features are clear. The long side walls were fronted, as in Room 9, by six sets of paired columns, which rested on extensions of the walls’ footing and supported engaged piers. The columns, similar in construction to those in Rooms 9

and 4, were 1.80 meters high and stood .70 to .80 meters from the long walls. With their plaster coat intact they measured .65 meters in diameter. The columns of each pair were set .08 meters apart and supported a stone abacus 1.50 meters wide, .75 meters deep, and .15 meters thick, whose lower edges were roughly beveled and plastered smooth.*° The two surviving piers project 1.40 to 1.50 meters from the wall and are 1.56 meters wide, extending slightly beyond the edges of the abaci on three sides.** Longitudinal vaults .60 meters wide in their undersides spring with a slight offset from the walls, forming lateral passageways 2.45 meters

high. In addition to the six sets of paired columns, four single columns were placed in the corners in line with the others and .78 to .88 meters from the short end walls.7” Their abaci supported piers that were bonded into the corners of the room. Vaults in the undersides of the corner piers are continuous with passageways .67 to .83 meters wide that pierce the end walls, giving access, with the large doorways, to Rooms 10 and 14. The projecting piers formed eight alcoves, all but two of which had doorways in their rear walls. The northernmost alcove in the western wall retains a short length of sawtooth molding above its northern side at a height of 4.60 meters above the floor (figs. 9, 60). A fragment of squinch beginning at the same level in the southern corner is preserved to its full height of 1 meter and indicates a semidome, now gone. A doorway at the back of this alcove communicates with the open court. Its northern jamb has been restored up to a height of 1.90 meters.

The southern jamb, continuous with the southern wall of the court, is preserved to 4.45 meters, or .I1§ meters below the molding. The crown of the doorway, assuming it was arched, must have sprung from the level of the molding, thereby penetrating the squinch zone as in the western wall of Room 9. A second doorway, 2.20 meters wide, whose fallen crown and jambs have been completely restored, is located in the central alcove of the western wall and gives access to the large domed room. This doorway, placed slightly off center, occupies most of the rear wall of the alcove, leaving no room for squinches. It was presumably covered by a small tunnel vault that extended the width of the room. Its springing has not survived. The rear walls of the two alcoves flanking the central door were recessed to form shallow ledges .28 meters deep, the one to the south at 4.60 meters above the floor and the other at 4.80 meters above the floor, before continuing vertically as a rough mortar surface to a total height of 7 meters. The ledge above the southern alcove supports a mass of roughly coursed brick that served as packing for a transition zone and semidome (fig. 9). Some facing stones of two small squinches adhere to this packing in the corners. A short length of sawtooth molding is preserved beneath the southern squinch. The other alcove retains traces of a squinch against its northern pier. A few isolated bricks of the packing rest in situ on the ledge (fig. 9). Each of these alcoves was provided with a hooded niche 2.33 meters high, consisting of a rectangular 20. Not enough plaster survives on these abacus capi- 22. These columns stand .78 meters from the south-

tals to permit reconstruction of their original profiles. ern wall and .88 meters from the northern wall, 21. The pier of the western wall projects 1.40 respectively. meters, and that of the eastern wall 1.50 meters.

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION 17

shelf 1.30 meters wide and 1.12 meters deep, built into the wall 1.65 meters above the floor (figs. §7-62). In each niche two small stucco squinches are set above a sawtooth molding and support an ovoid hood, the underside of which is lined at the front with a projecting fillet. Traces of reddish-brown paint adhere to the pointing plaster in both niches. The eastern wall of Room 12, reasonably well preserved at the time of Dieulafoy’s visit, has almost entirely disappeared. The published plans disagree as to the number of doorways it contained. Coste’s plan shows a wall niche in the northernmost alcove with doorways in each of the other three. The doorway facing the entrance to Room 1 is shown as the widest.** This broad doorway is the only one indicated by Dieulafoy.** He has been followed by Reuther, who places niches in the other three alcoves, and by Siroux.”*° Oddly enough, four doorways—one in each alcove—are plainly visible in a photograph in Dieulafoy’s publication (fig. 19). Moreover, both jambs of the southernmost doorway are still standing today, and a doorway in the northernmost alcove is plainly indicated by a single facing stone that remains in situ high up on its north jamb (figs. 10, 20). During the course of recent restorations, the wall stumps were cleared of debris, revealing the lower jambs and thresholds of all four doorways (figs. 18, 20). The doorway opposite the entrance to Room I is 2.05 meters wide, or .55 to .75 meters wider than the other three. Its position as well as its dimensions suggest that it defined a monumental line of approach to the large domed hall. Following the scheme of the western wall, a tunnel vault may be restored over this alcove and

semidomes on squinches over the other three.

A more difficult problem is presented by the room’s vaults, of which almost nothing remains. Flandin and Coste, as well as Dieulafoy, reconstructed a longitudinal tunnel vault resting on the piers and alcove heads.*° They were followed by Reuther and Creswell, who both praised the ancient builders’ grasp of statics.*”? Siroux was the first to note that the vaults of Room 12 were supported by transverse arches, whose springing can be observed on the faces of the two extant piers (fig. 60).?* These arches were 1.05 meters wide, and their contours were

identical to those of the broader arches connecting opposite piers at the ends of the room. Siroux’s conception of a series of tunnel vaults (fig. 8) resting on these arches and set at right angles to the main axis of the hall is reasonable; parallels for this type of construction can be found in Iran and elsewhere. It is likely, as Siroux suggests, that these vaults were of brick and that their tympana were fenestrated.*?

ROOMS 2 (COURT), 6, AND 7 Behind the large domed hall was an open court, nearly square in plan, measuring 14.50 meters (east-west) by 15.10 meters (north-south) (fig. 5). Its original appearance is difficult to visualize

23. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 28. 28. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” 56f. and pl. XV. These , 24. Dieulafoy, L’art, pl. II. were noted independently by Huff, in Naumann et al.,

25. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” fig. 151. Si- “Takht-i Suleiman 1965-1973,” 158, n. §2, who, like

roux, “Sarvistan,” pl. XV. Siroux, incorrectly restores cross vaults on arches for

26. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, plan, pl. 28. But see the other columned hall (Room 9) as well. Flandin and Note 28 below. Dieulafoy, L’art, Iv, 24, restores a Coste, Voyage, 25f., noted remains of arches in Room tunnel vault terminating in a semidome above the last 12 and suggested that they supported either a single

(northern) bay. tunnel vault or a series of domes. 27. Reuther, “Sansanian Architecture,” 505. Cres- 29. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pls. XX, XXI.

well, EMA’, u, 87ff.

18 SARVISTAN because its western wall is gone and the northern end has been largely restored. Unlike the typical intramural court of monumental buildings of the ancient and Islamic Near East, this court was not designed as an entity but was simply defined by the outer walls of the surrounding rooms. These walls were pierced by five doorways of varying dimensions, which were situated to suit the requirements of the surrounding rooms. Engaged columns, niching, and other features normally employed by builders to articulate extensive wall surfaces are absent. At a height of 6.20 to 6.70 meters, the faces of the court’s eastern and southern walls are broken

and the masonry recedes 1 to 1.30 meters to the podiums that support the domes (fig. 64). The | walls must have terminated at this height in a light parapet, one or two stones thick, that connected the four facades of the court, providing a measure of unity for an otherwise heterogeneous and asymmetrical design. The restorations at the northern end of the courtyard are presumably based on evidence uncovered when the debris encumbering the wall stumps was removed. Included in this area is a small room (Room 7) equal in size to Room §, from which it was separated by a central iwan measuring 5.40 meters wide and 4.75 meters deep. The iwan was covered either by a semidome on squinches or, more probably, by a simple tunnel vault breaking the line of the parapet. An arched doorway has been restored in the northern wall connecting the iwan and the court with the outside.3° Room 7, currently serving as a toolshed and guardhouse, was originally covered with a vault, whose brick packing still adheres to the northwestern exterior corner of Room Io (fig. 63). It is not known

whether the iwan shared a doorway with Room 7, as both Coste and Reuther indicated.3' An important feature that has escaped the notice of earlier visitors to the site is a staircase located near the southeastern corner of the court adjacent to the doorway to Room 12 (figs. 5, 9, 64). It is represented today by its western wall and a portion of its vault, which are built into the exterior northeastern corner of the large domed hall. This stairway could not have served an everyday purpose, since it begins well above the floor. It is clear, in any case, that the building had no upper story. In combination with a simple ladder or movable wooden steps, the staircase must have provided workmen with a means of access to the roof, permitting maintenance of the

vaults. The stairway is preserved as a rough trench in the masonry about .50 meters wide, beginning 4.20 meters above the floor of the court and rising in irregular stages of stone, mortar, and brick that formed the packing for the steps. The steps themselves have not survived and their original position cannot be determined. The left wall of the staircase is also gone. Its western wall is built of courses of rounded stones set closely together in mortar. It extended in at right angles from the court’s southern wall for a distance of 1.45 meters before curving sharply to the left. The missing staircase vault was sprung smoothly from the wall and inclined at an angle of seven degrees. The springing is a patchwork of discontinuous courses of brick set pitched and radially with edges tangent to the curved surface. The mortar beds and joints are not uniform in thickness. The brickwork of the vault, originally covered with plaster like the staircase walls below, terminated against an arched bracket of stucco set in the same plane as the eastern face of the large

dome’s brick podium. All of the building’s vaults were thus accessible from this point. The semidome above the doorway connecting the court with Room 12 may have supported a walkway that gave direct access to the gallery of Room Io. 30. The rear wall of Room 6 has been entirely 31. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 28; Reuther,

rebuilt. The recent restoration of a doorway here was “Sasanian Architecture,” fig. 151. apparently based on the fact that the footing was cut down as in two doorways of Rooms 12 and 14. See Figure §.

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION 19

ROOM 14 Columned hall 12 is fronted on the south by a small room that measured 5.55 meters wide and about 3.30 meters deep. The two rooms communicate by a tall doorway and narrow lateral passageways in their common wall (figs. 5, 9, 20, 68, 87). The southeastern portion of Room 14 lay in ruins by the nineteenth century, as Coste’s plan and Dieulafoy’s photograph show (fig. 19).37 Careless observation of the remains has led to the production of inaccurate plans and reconstruction drawings that misrepresent both the appearance of this room and the general character of the south facade.

The room’s width was extended to 8.30 meters by lateral arches sprung from shallow projections at the ends of the northern wall. The published drawings are unanimous in joining the other ends of these arches to tongue walls, which are confidently shown as marking the room’s southern limits (figs. 7, 8).33 Careful examination of Dieulafoy’s photograph and of the existing ruins, however, reveals no trace of tongue walls here, but only fragmentary spurs of the footing on which the building rests. Furthermore, the masonry that rested on the western spur was bonded into the side wall at some point above the three to five unbroken courses of

facing stones that extend along the western wall to the facade. Instead of a tongue wall, it is safer here to restore a pier slightly narrower than the 2 meters thickness of the footing, with a tunnel vault in its underside. The line of the pier’s southern face is given by the facing stones preserved in place on the western wall near the face. The vault would have sprung from this side wall at a height of about 2 meters, assuming that it had the same dimensions as the vaults leading to Room 12. Duplicated on the eastern side of the room, this arrangement would have extended the two lateral passageways through the facade, giving the building an even more Open appearance than has been previously imagined. Both piers would have projected a distance equal to the width of the lateral alcove arches they supported, thus making Room 14 an iwan. Nothing remains to indicate the presence of paired columns, but the use of columns, which offer less structural stability than a solid pier, could account for the poor state of preservation of this part of the building. The rear wall of Room 14 and the two jambs of its doorway rise to a height of 5.05 meters. Above this height, masses of rough stone and mortar, extending around the sides and slightly overhanging the corners, represent the packing of a squinch zone that was pierced by the crown of the doorway, now fallen. This zone, in turn, is surmounted by several courses of eroded | brickwork, the packing for the semidome that may be restored over the iwan. The intrados of the iwan’s framing arch, originating from the two piers of the facade, would have risen to a height of approximately 8.50 meters. A doorway in the northern wall of the room communi-

cates with the central iwan (Room 3). A doorway in the eastern wall, of which only the northern jamb survives, gave access from the exterior.

32. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 28; Dieulafoy, tongue walls and arches, see also Reuther, “Sasanian

L’art, pl. Il. : Architecture,” plan, fig. 151, and reconstruction, fig.

33. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 28; Dieulafoy, 142; Siroux, “Sarvistan,” plan, pl. XV, with reconL’art, plan, pl. III, and reconstruction, pl. VIII, shows struction, pl. XXII.

tongue walls but does not indicate the arches. For |

ROOM 13 | |

20 SARVISTAN

The room occupying the building’s southwestern corner is built on a plan 5.80 meters square and is extended on three sides by recesses of the same width and 1.20 to 1.35 meters deep (figs. 5, II, 22, 65, 66, 87).** The recess arches spring with double offsets from a point 3.30 meters above the floor (fig. 67). Their crowns have mostly fallen, but traces adhering to the rear walls of the northern and eastern recesses give their shape and indicate original heights of about 7.40 meters.

The room was entered from the south through an opening of the same width as the room itself. The left wall is represented today by only a few stones that rest on the footing. The right wall preserves a jamb that displays two double offsets. The first offset is located 3.30 meters above the floor—the same height as those of the recess arches. The second offset is located 5.20 meters above the floor (figs. 65, 66). The section of jamb between the two offsets is vertical.

, Above the second offset is preserved the springing of an arch that, projected upward, would have risen to a height of almost 9 meters above the ground. No part of the room’s wall surfaces survives above the crowns of the recess arches, so it is impossible to determine the exact height of the dome on squinches, with which it was presumably covered. If the squinch zone began above the tall entrance arch, the room would have been inordinately tall in relation to its plan. It is therefore likely that the squinch zone was lower and penetrated by the crown of the arch. In addition to the doorways connecting Room 13 with the two iwans (Rooms II and 3), a third doorway, 1.62 meters wide, pierced the rear wall of the western recess, giving access to Room 13 from the exterior of the building. This doorway was subsequently blocked.

THE FACADES The building’s northern, western, and eastern facades, where they have not entirely disappeared, are broken and eroded at a uniform height of 6 to 6.50 meters and must originally have terminated shortly above this level in a parapet or cornice molding. The form of the molding is not known. The crenellations envisioned by Dieulafoy and Reuther have left no trace.3> Rows of merlons are known to have crowned facades of Sasanian and Early Islamic buildings in Iran.*° These could conceivably have been executed in stucco or rough stone and mortar at Sarvistan. However, given the subdued nature of the decoration at Sarvistan, a simpler solution, such as the slightly projecting brick cornice found in Siroux’s reconstruction (fig. 8), is more likely. The drawings by Dieulafoy and Reuther are inaccurate and misleading in showing the three entrance arches of the southern facade as being nearly equal in height and incorporated beneath

a cornice that continues uninterrupted around the entire building (fig. 7).37 My measured 34. The eastern recess is 1.20 meters deep. The tional Mosque and Other Mosques from the Ninth to the northern recess is 1.31 meters deep. The western recess Twelfth Centuries, London, 1980(?), p. 13 and Pl. sB,

is 1.35 meters deep. fig. 9. Stepped crenellations were carved in the rock 35. Dieulafoy, L’art, pl. VII; Reuther, “Sasanian above the facade of the main iwan at Taq-i Bostan. See

Architecture,” figs. 142, 152. Erdmann, Die Kunst Irans, pl. VII.

36. R. Ghirshman, Bichdpour, 1: Les Mosaiques sassa- 37. Dieulafoy, L’art, pl. VIII; Reuther, “Sasanian nides (Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités orien- Architecture,” Figs. I41, 152. Flandin and Coste, tales, Série archéologique, VII), Paris, 1956, 158ff. and Voyage, pl. 29 (top), envisioned a tall central arch figs. 51-55; D. Whitehouse, Siraf II. The Congrega- flanked by two smaller ones of equal height.

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND A RECONSTRUCTION 21 drawings make it clear that these arches were of greatly differing heights and that all three rose well above the level of the other facades. The same is true of the western iwan. Each of these four entrances would almost certainly have been fronted by a rectangular frame of masonry called a pish taq, a feature that became characteristic of Persian architecture after the Seljuk period. The two corner rooms (13 and 14), set slightly in from the facade, were preceded by shallow

porches. The eastern porch has almost entirely disappeared, but its original depth can be estimated at about 1.70 meters. The other porch, 1.90 meters deep, preserves its eastern wall and the lower portion of its arch, which has a double-offset molding at the springing 5.20

, meters above the floor.

Two sets of three engaged columns decorated the facade on either side of the main iwan (figs.

13, 14). Spaced .24 meters apart, these columns are .70 meters wide and project .46 meters from the wall. The upper and lower portions were already gone when the building was photographed for the first time (fig. 19). Coste’s reconstruction drawing shows them resting, without bases, directly on the footing.** The main facade has fallen completely in both the western and eastern corners, but the configuration of the exposed footing suggests that engaged columns once decorated these walls (figs. 5, 23).3? The simplest reconstruction places two single engaged columns of dissimilar size at each corner. Those on the eastern and western wall faces would have been somewhat larger than the other two, commensurate with the engaged column (.90 meters wide and .65 meters deep) to the right of the wester iwan. The portion of the western facade adjacent to the large iwan on its north is gone, except for

the two lowest courses of facing stones. These courses were recently restored, so it is not possible to know whether a second flanking column stood here. The doorway to Room g is also flanked on its north side by an engaged column, of which little remains. Again, one would

expect a matching column to the south, but the wall here has been largely refaced, so it is impossible to be sure. There is no evidence for engaged columns on the northern or eastern

facades, although they have been reconstructed by Siroux.*° , 38. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 29 (top). foy and Siroux, apparently unaware of the projections

39. Ibid, plan, pl. 28, restores an engaged column on of the footing near both corners of the facade, do not the southern wall at the southwestern corner, but not in indicate engaged columns in their plans. the corresponding position on the eastern wall. Dieula- 40. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pl. XV.

oe BEANK PAGE oe ee |

Construction, Design, and the © Building’s Date

HE foregoing documentation of the ruined building near Sarvistan permits closer analysis of its formal and technical qualities and of the architectural style resulting from their interrelationship. An examination of these features within the context of ancient and medieval architecture in Iran and adjacent areas offers the best possibility for determining an approximate date of construction.

THE FOUNDATIONS AND FLOORS The building rests upon a continuous system of heavy foundation walls, which were partially exposed during recent restoration. Built of unfaced mortared rubble, they extend .o5 to .20 meters and more beyond most interior and exterior wall faces and project to form footings for single and paired columns in Rooms 4, 9, and 12. Clearing has revealed shallow cuttings in the upper surfaces of the foundation walls in some doorways. These cuttings may have been provided with doorsills, which no longer survive (fig. 69). The intramural steps indicated in all the published drawings did not exist." If the foundations actually served to elevate the rooms above the surrounding area, as has been assumed, exterior stairways may yet be found. One would expect the building, situated as it is near the base of hills whose streams water the plain, to have experienced some rise in the level of the surrounding land as a result of centuries of silt 1. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pls. 28, 29; Dieulafoy,

L’art, pl. VII; Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” figs. 142, I§I, 1§2; Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pls. XXITI-—XXVI.

24 SARVISTAN deposition, although it is possible that the present ground level approximates the original one and that the building was entered directly without steps. A few trenches would shed light on this problem. Excavation is also needed to determine the depths of the foundations and information about their construction. Did the builders, for example, construct the foundation walls in an open pit, filling the spaces between them with earth, or did they lay them in trenches that corresponded with the projected plan? Little can be said about the floors, since they were removed in the course of restoration. Traces of plaster adhering to the columns at their bases end abruptly less than .o1 meters above

the tops of the footings, and one must assume that the plaster extended at this level over tamped earth floors. Because of a dearth of excavations, few data are available concerning the foundations and floors of Sasanian and Early Islamic buildings. The Great Mosque at Siraf on the Persian Gulf, discovered by Stein and recently excavated, had heavy foundation walls of mortared rubble about 1 meter thick and more than 2.50 meters deep. These supported both the outer walls of dressed stone blocks and the arcades.* Whitehouse dates the first phase of the building to the late ninth century.’ He reports that some of the walls were constructed without foundation trenches, the spaces between foundations being filled with earth and rubble up to the level of the floors. In this way a platform was formed that raised the mosque more than 2 meters above the level of the adjacent buildings.‘

THE MASONRY OF THE WALLS The basic building material used for the walls of Sarvistan is a rubble consisting of large pebbles and broken stone in a generous quantity of calcareous mortar. Unlike the foundations, which are unfaced, the upper walls were surfaced with large stones, fractured and roughly dressed on

one side with a punch or toothed chisel. The facing stones are normally oblong, measuring .2§-.30 by .15-.20 meters, but often they are roughly square. They are laid in horizontal courses with oblong stones set either vertically or lengthwise. Joints average 8 centimeters in thickness.

The use of wooden shuttering was avoided by raising the walls in “lifts” or horizontal layers. According to this method, as applied at Sarvistan, a wall, including mortared rubble and facing stones, was built up to a certain height, usually less than 1 meter. A layer of mortar was poured in on top and allowed to dry before the next lift, beginning with a bed or mortar, was added, —

and so on. The lifts can be distinguished by horizontal seams in the mortar beds, visible throughout the building wherever the pointing has disappeared (figs. 63, 71). The lifts contain from one to three courses of facing stones. Usually they are two courses high averaging .65 meters thick, including three mortar beds, each .08 meters thick. The lifts do not run through the length of the walls but rise at unequal rates on opposite sides of all recesses and doorways, near the tops of which the facing stones become uncoursed and are awkwardly worked into a pattern of stones set radially around the arches like voussoirs (fig. 63). Walls are shallowly bonded at the corners, where facing stones were partially inserted into the mortar of the adjacent wall every two to six courses. Although the coursing of facing stones 2. Whitehouse, “Excavations at Siraf: Second In- 3. Siraf Im, 9.

terim Report,” p. 43. Siraf m1, 4 and fig. 15. 4. Ibid. 4 ff.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 25 coincides in bonded walls, the number of courses in adjoining lifts frequently does not, indicating that a room’s walls did not necessarily rise at a uniform rate. Alcoves and recesses were formed

by building a second wall against a preexisting one that was left unfaced in the portions to be , covered. Inner and outer layers, whose courses generally do not coincide, are never bonded and have therefore separated in places. The alcove arches in Rooms 13 and 4 are separated from the walls by plaster about .o4 meters thick, which is brought up flush with the intrados.

An unusual type of bonding occurs in Room to. There, the southern wall extends in part over the narrow side galleries and is keyed into the western and eastern walls. This is evident from the vertical seams that are visible in the eastern wall of the court (fig. 51) and, at a corresponding position, in the building’s eastern facade. The purpose of this method is not clear. It would seem to be a precaution taken to counter the lateral thrust exerted on the lower

less external support.

, walls by the dome. In this case, however, it would be redundant, since the wall here is buttressed by Room 12. Such a precaution was not taken at the northern end, where there was

Numerous putlog holes, some containing the remains of short wooden beams, provide

evidence that the building was erected with the aid of scaffolding. These beams were inserted into the mortar beds of interior walls to support a working platform for the masons. In the larger domed hall (Room 1), each wall is perforated by two sets of holes at heights of 2.80 and 4.80 meters above the floor, respectively. Each set contained a pair of heavy timbers (.20 by .20 meters) placed .20 to .50 meters from the corners of the room, in addition to a pair of smaller logs about .15 meters in diameter set in at the same level near the sides of the doors (figs. 10, 24). The heavy rectangular timbers were used only in Room 1, whereas the logs occur, always in horizontal rows of two or more, throughout the building. Logs at the tops of the side walls in Room 5 may have supported centering for the construction of the vaults. Nowhere in the building does a beam pierce the entire thickness of a wall as a tie, nor do beams ever occur in doorways as braces. In the last phase of construction all wooden scaffold supports were sawed off close to the wall, where the stumps remained exposed.° - The original appearance of the walls is a subject that has engendered controversy. Specifically, were the wall surfaces completely plastered over?° From my own observations of the

masonry, I am convinced that they were not. Nowhere in the building was I able to find a facing stone entirely covered with plaster. Sometime after the facing stones were set in place,

the joints were pointed with plaster, which was allowed to extend in a thin layer over the edges, leaving the center of each stone exposed. Excess plaster was trimmed away to form a square or rectangular area that was apparently intended to produce the visual impression of ashlar or brick (figs. 70, 72). Thus the facing stones were always visible, a fact that precludes the existence of wall painting or other forms of surface decoration such as carved stucco.’ 5. Scaffold holes and beam ends were often left “peint par parties d’un top brun ou de dessins rouges si exposed in Seljuk and Il Khanid buildings. See Wilber, effaces aujourd’hui qu’il est impossible d’en reconstituer

The Il Khanid Period, 5 4ff. les lineaments.” He reiterates (p. 55) that walls, vaults,

6. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, 27 and pl. 29, de- and domes were plastered and decorated with designs in scribed all surfaces as having been plastered but indi- reddish-brown paint. Today, daubs of a reddish-brown

_cated ashlar in their drawings. Dieulafoy, L’art, 1v, 2, paint can be seen on the pointing plaster of the stated that interior wall surfaces were plastered. He is semidomes of the wall niches in Room 12, but these followed by Siroux, “Sarvistan,” 52, 60 and fig. 3, who were clearly not part of a painted composition. Siroux,

states that both interior and exterior wall surfaces were “Sarvistan,” 60, takes Dieulafoy at his word and

plastered. envisions painted scenes of combat, hunting, or ban7. Dieulafoy, L’art, tv, 26, described the stones of the queting on the walls of the large domed hall. walls as having been covered with a layer of plaster ,

26 SARVISTAN The concept of a typically Sasanian masonry consisting of mortared rubble faced with roughly shaped stones pervades the archaeological literature and has been applied without further refinement as a dating criterion to several classes of buildings on and around the Iranian plateau.* An examination of these buildings reveals a surprising variety within this broad masonry type. In fact, rarely are the fabrics of any two structures precisely alike. The palaces of Firuzabad and

Bishapur in Fars, located only 150 kilometers apart, and belonging almost certainly to the successive reigns of Ardashir I and Shapur I, respectively, are both constructed of this material. At Bishapur, mortared rubble was faced with uncoursed slabs of stone of irregular shape set vertically,’ while the walls at Firuzabad were build up solidly of irregular stone blocks laid flat , with little mortar in discontinuous course.*° At both sites the wall faces were heavily plastered and provided with carved stucco decoration in wall niches and around doorways. The so-called char tags, generally believed to be the remains of Zoroastrian fire sanctuaries of

the Sasanian period, comprise another group of buildings constructed essentially of this material.‘* More than forty of these monuments, whose standing ruins always include a domed chamber on a square plan with an arched doorway in each wall, are known today, mostly in

the provinces of Fars, Kirman, and Isfahan. Like the palaces, they display variations on a general masonry type that utilizes rubble and rough-hewn facing stones with a hard gray mortar as a binding agent. A group of nine char tags, located in Fars between Kazerun and Farashband, is especially interesting in connection with Sarvistan, since most of them have been attributed, at one time or another, to Mihr Narseh, the presumed builder of Sarvistan.”

Within this group the most attractive and regular masonry is found in the relatively wellpreserved building of Tall-1 Jangi, located in the plain south of Farashband.” Its walls of mortared rubble are faced with long rectangular blocks (averaging .25—.30 by .12—.15 meters) laid in courses that are neatly keyed into a system of voussoirlike stones framing the doorway arches (figs. 73-75). The rough-hewn blocks sometimes rest directly on the stones below them. Little mortar was used in the beds and joints. An attempt was made by the masons to line up the joints of alternate courses, a technique common in brick and dressed stone architecture but unusual in coarse stone and mortar masonry. 8. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 498, describes 12. An attempt to link the remains of char tags in the this type of masonry and associates it with Sasanian vicinity of the Kazerun-Farashband-Firuzabad road architecture. Vanden Berghe frequently cites the use of with a group of fire temples mentioned by Tabari as this type of building material as evidence for the having been built in Fars by Mihr Narseh, the minister Sasanian origin of buildings he surveyed. See, for of Bahram V, was first made by Herzfeld, Archaeological example, “Les ruines de Behisht u Duzakh 4a Sul- History of Ivan, London, 1935, ro1f. Later scholars tanabad,” Iranica Antiqua, vill, 1968, 100; “Nouvelles generally disagreed on which buildings were those of découvertes,” 145, n. 1. See also Keall, “Qal’eh-1 Yaz- Mihr Narseh. See Godard, “Les monuments du feu,” digird,” 2 and n. 3, and Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 169ff.; Erdmann, Das iranische Feuerheiligtum, 41;

passim. Vanden Berghe, “Récentes découvertes,” 190f. The 9g. Ghirshman, “Les fouilles de Chapour, deuxiéme difficulty of identifying Mihr Narseh’s foundations lies

campagne,” pl. XII, 2, 3. particularly in the ambiguities of Tabari’s account 10. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” pls. 146, 147. concerning their location. For a recent and thorough

11. The most comprehensive study of these build- review of the problem, see Schippmann, Feuerings is Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, where all the heiligttimer, 123ff. Schippmann denies that any of the known monuments are presented with a complete char tags in the region between Kazerun and Firuzabad bibliography. The wisdom of summarily ascribing all of are works of Mihr Narseh. For Tabari’s often-quoted these monuments to the Sasanian period and attributing account, see Néldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber, them to a Zoroastrian cult origin has been questioned by III.

Huff, “ ‘Sasanian’ Char Tags in Fars,” in F. Bagherza- 13. E. Herzfeld, “Reisebericht,” Zeitschrift der deh, ed., Proceedings of the IIIrd Annual Symposium on Deutschen Morganlandischen Gesellschaft, Lxxx, 1928, Archaeological Research in Iran, November 1974, Teheran, 256; Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 129ff.; Huff, “ ‘Sa-

1975, 243ff. sanian’ Char Taqs in Fars,” 245f.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 27 The ruins called Char Tag-1 Gunbad near Aviz, 7 kilometers north of Farashband (fig. 76), “4 and those near Baladeh, between Farashband and Kazerun (fig. 77),*° are both faced with neatly

coursed stones set in shallow mortar beds with narrow joints. Yet they differ from the two buildings described above and from each other; the facing stones at Baladeh tend to be jagged in outline, while those of the Char Tag-i Gunbad are rounded at the corners. *® Another char taq of this group, located 3 kilometers to the southwest of Tall-1 Jangi and designated “Farashband Nr. 3” by Vanden Berghe, has a less homogeneous masonry.’’ Its core of rather large broken stones in mortar is faced with uncoursed stones that vary greatly in size and shape. The irregular spaces between them are plugged with large stone chips. The doorways and doorway arches, however, have been treated like those of the better-built structure at Tall-i Jangi; long rectangular slabs, corbeled out at the springings, lean inward at an angle that becomes progressively steeper, though never radial, toward the crown. The wall surfaces in all cases show evidence of having been completely covered with plaster. Even Tall-i Jangi, whose rough-hewn but regular and carefully laid facing blocks approach

ashlar in appearance, retains patches of thick plaster on the interior wall surfaces, where weathering has been hindered by the well-preserved domes and vaults (fig. 75).

It is remarkable that not one of the buildings in this region resembles Sarvistan in the appearance of its walls. Even the small char taq near Kazerun,'* whose masonry has been -emphatically compared to that of “Mihr Narseh’s palace,”'? displays only superficial simuilarities. Its facing stones are less regular in shape and size than those at Sarvistan, and they are set so closely together in places that they project into the mortar joints of adjacent courses (fig. 79). Nor are lift seams evident either in the facing or in the broken sections where the mortar and

rubble core are exposed. ,

Other char tags in Fars and neighboring provinces also exhibit considerable variation in the masonry of their walls. None is strictly comparable to Sarvistan. Some consist of a core of mortared rubble faced with irregular stones set randomly” or with roughly shaped stones set in _ fairly regular courses.*’ In other cases, the walls are built up solidly of rough, elongated stones laid flat with relatively little mortar.** A few buildings, like the char taq of Muk, 40 kilometers north of Firuzabad,** resemble Tall-i Jangi in that they utilize a facing of rough-hewn rectangular blocks set close together in courses that are worked into a system of stones framing the

doorway arches. ,

4. Huff, “Der Tshahar Taq-e Gumbad bei Farrash- sanian’ Char Tags in Fars,” 3, discusses the char taq of

band,” 2309ff. Malek (Bagh-i Malek), which he confuses with the 15. Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 138 (under “Gir- monument at Kazerun. He illustrates the Malek char taq

ra”). The building is briefly described by Vanden in his fig. 9 and incorrectly labels it “Kazerun.” Berghe, “Récentes découvertes,” 188 and table, 196. I Ig. Godard, “Les monuments du feu,” 30, writes

know of no published photographs. See Figure 77. that the char taq of Kazerun is “in all respects 16. The buildings differ also in the construction of identical . . . to Sarvistan which must be attributed to

their domes. The Char Taq-i Gunbad 1s built entirely of the munister of Bahram V.” Also, Siroux, “Petit ) stone and mortar. The building near Baladeh employed monument sassanide,” 135-39, and Vanden Berghe, baked bricks laid on edge and leaning toward stone and “On the Track of the Civilizations of Ancient Iran,” mortar ribs that began in the center of each side above Memo from Belgium, c1v—cv, 1968, 7ff.

the squinch zone and presumably continued to the 20. The char taq of Barjin in Kirman, Vanden crown. Sections of the first course of brick can still be Berghe, “Nouvelles découvertes,” pl. XX XVIII, 3.

seen. Their arrangement suggests a herringbone bond. 21. Tang-i Chak Chak, Vanden Berghe, “ReconBrick debris from the collapsed dome litters the ground naissance archéologique,” pl. XVII (bottom).

of the chamber. 22. The char taq of Deh Shaykh, Vanden Berghe, 17. Vanden Berghe, “Récentes découvertes,” 184ff. “Nouvelles découvertes,” pl. XX XIX. and pl. XXXII, b; Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 134. 23. Ibid., pl. XXXVI, 3. 18. Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 127. Huff, “ ‘Sa-

28 SARVISTAN The laying up of walls in lifts is a common practice, but again, variations in technique should not be overlooked.** At Sarvistan the lifts vary in height and in the number of courses of facing stones. Each is defined at top and bottom by a mortar bed (fig. 71). These bracketing beds are

normally omitted in other buildings utilizing this technique. Lifts in other Iranian structures also tend to be more uniform in height than they are at Sarvistan.*> Often, each lift begins with a row or two of somewhat larger stones.”° To the west of the Iranian plateau, mortared rubble and rough stone masonry is less pervasive as a building material for Sasanian and Early Islamic monuments. When it occurs, it 1s often in combination with dressed stone or baked brick.*” Occasionally it is used as the primary

material, as in the Iraqi “churches” of Qusayr, located about 40 kilometers southwest of Karbala, where, again, no close comparison with Sarvistan is possible.** The Char Qapu at Qasr-i Shirin, generally considered to be of late Sasanian date, has often been compared to Sarvistan because of the appearance of its masonry.” The facing stones of both buildings are generally similar in size and shape, although at Qasr-i Shirin they are set with less mortar, so adjacent stones often touch (fig. 78). Furthermore, extensive patches of brown plaster preserved on the interior wall surfaces of the Char Qapu indicate that its facing stones were not exposed. In the process of attempting to refine the confusing term “typical Sasanian masonry,” two facts have emerged. First, that this term is imprecise and insufficient to describe the great variety of masonry types and techniques hidden within it. Second, and more specifically, that the masonry of Sarvistan, although it superficially resembles that of other buildings throughout Fars and neighboring regions, is in fact quite different from them both in composition and in appearance. When coursed facing stones of comparable size and shape occur in other monuments, they are invariably set more closely together, the stones of one course often encroaching on the mortar joints of the next. The lifts of Sarvistan are irregular in height and always begin and end with a mortar bed, so the seams separating them are clearly visible where the pointing © has fallen away. The most important distinguishing characteristic of the Sarvistan masonry is certainly the exposed stonework and the manner in which plaster is used to imitate ashlar masonry or brickwork. In all of the other buildings the irregularities inherent in a masonry of rough stone and mortared rubble were hidden beneath a layer of plaster.*° 24. The technique has been noted and described by 28. Finster and Schmidt, “Sasanidische und frtihSiroux for several buildings that he surveyed in the islamische Ruinen im Iraq,” Baghdader Mitteilungen, Isfahan area. See, for example, Athar-é Iran, m, 1938, VIll, 1976, Qusayr, “Church A,” 28, fig. 8 and pls. 14-

9 5ff. 18, 2Ib.

25. The char taq at Negar (Kirman). See Vanden 29. De Morgan, Mission scientifique, 1v, 350f.; Bell, Berghe, “Nouvelles découvertes,” pls. XLff. Also the Palace and Mosque, 53, n.; Creswell, EMA’, 11, 106.

char tag at Navish, Vanden Berghe, “Nouvelles 30. In a number of buildings a counterfeit masonry découvertes,” pl.XXXVI, 2. In the Char Qapu at was effected by the tracing of patterns in the plaster to Qasr-i Shirin the lifts vary in height as at Sarvistan, but suggest ashlar or brickwork; for example, the columns they lack the additional mortar beds at top and bottom. of the recently excavated building of Tulul al-Ukhaydir

See Bell, Palace and Mosque, pl. 70, fig. 2. in Iraq. See Finster and Schmidt, “Sasanidische und

26. The char tag at Negar, Vanden Berghe, “Nou- frtthislamische Ruinen im Iraq,” 62, fig. 19 and pl. 28;

velles découvertes,” pl. XLI, 3. the Char Qapu at Qasr-i Shirin, Bier negative no. , 27. West of the Iranian plateau, mortared rubble and 761R72.10. For the earliest phase of the Masjid-i Atig in rough stone masonry is less common as a building Shiraz, see Wilber, The Masjid-i “Atig of Shiraz, to. In all material. When it occurs, it is usually in combination cases the effect was achieved by means different from with dressed stone or baked brick. See the tunnel vaults those at Sarvistan, where the plaster was trimmed away at Hammam al-Sarakh, Creswell, EMA’, so1 and fig. to reveal the stones underneath. Especially in Seljuk and

554; the tunnel vaults of the mosque at Qusayr I] Khanid architecture, false brick joints were traced in al-Hallabat, Creswell, EMA’, 503 and fig. 557; Ukhay- plaster or painted. See Grabar and Hill, Islamic Architec-

dir, EMA’, 1, fig. 60. ture, 73; Wilber, The Il Khanid Period, 8o.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 29

: In conclusion, the masonry of Sarvistan is unique among the monuments generally considered Sasanian, including those that have been attributed to Mihr Naseh, Sarvistan’s supposed builder.

THE ARCHES | Three basic types of arches occur in buildings generally assigned to the Sasanian period. Those

, of the first type spring smoothly from the door jambs or walls. The second type is set back so that its diameter is greater than the width of the doorway or alcove it covers. A third type is the offset arch. Arches of all three types can be erected without a centering device, provided that the stones are used as structural elements and that a rapidly setting mortar is used as a binder.*’ Thus at Tall-i Jangi, the peculiar pattern of long rectangular stones corbeled out at the springing of doorway arches and inclined inward at an angle that becomes increasingly steeper toward the crown is not merely an element of the facade but continues through the depth of the arch

(fig. 73). When stones are not employed in a structural manner, and especially when the proportion of mortar is so great that the stones are completely separated from one another,

some form of centering frame is necessary to support the arch during construction. , Reuther illustrates a light timber centering that could be erected across a doorway once the walls had been built up to the level of the impost.3? A row of planks set edge to edge on a curved armature would support the stones of the intrados until the mortar dried. Since the impost was partially covered by the ends of the frame during construction, the resulting arch was of the second type.*3 As illustrated in Figure 80, a slight change in the design of Reuther’s centering frame would

be necessary to produce an offset arch. Here the outer surfaces of the curved side boards are flush with both wall surfaces, while their front edges partially overhang the jambs. The arch stones would be supported by planks affixed to their lower edges until the mortar dried.** — With the exception of the western doorway in Room 3, all of Sarvistan’s arches belong to the third type, springing with an offset from their imposts. These arches could not have been built without centering, since the stones of the intrados provide only a surface and act neither as corbels nor as voussoirs. Recessed margins that would have been left in the wall surfaces around the arches by frames resting on the imposts (fig. 80) are lacking.** Nor are there beam holes at the springing lines that might have supported a temporary armature. We must therefore assume that the centering rested on the ground. The absence of plank impressions in the pointing plaster of intrados surfaces indicates that the stones were placed directly on the frame

31. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 498; Godard, doorway. See the doorway arch at Firuzabad, Archaeol“Votites iraniennes,” Athar-é Iran, Iv, 1949, 214; Bell, ogy, XXXV, 1982, photograph, p. 31 (top).

Palace and Mosque, 45. 34. Godard, “Voites iraniennes,” 200ff., describes a 32. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 499, fig. 128. type of armature made of plaster reinforced with reeds,

33. This method was employed throughout the which, he says, was used not for support but to guide palaces at Firuzabad. See Huff, “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar bei the masons in the construction of arches and vaults. Firuzabad: Ein Beitrag zur sasanidischen Palastarchitek- This device has been cited for Ukhaydir. See Reuther, tur,” AMI, Iv, 1971, 167 and pl. 22. Arches of this type, Ocheidir, Leipzig, 1912, 3, and Creswell, EMA’, 1, 61. however, could be provided with impost and archivolt 35. Such margins appear, however, in the sides of moldings, with a layer of stucco lining the intrados, so the piers in Rooms 9 and 12, where they terminate the

that in the final stage arch diameter equaled the width of vaults. ,

30 SARVISTAN and pointed after the frame was removed. Arch offsets at Sarvistan were masked by neat stucco

strips that descended from corbeled spring stones to a point .10 to .15 meters down the supporting walls or jambs. In the alcove arches of Rooms 1 and 13 and in the porch of Room 13, the offsets were double-stepped (figs. 66, 67). The offset arch, though simple in principle, was apparently not a common feature of Sasanian architecture.*° It occurs with some frequency in such Early Islamic buildings as the palaces of Qasr Kharana and Ukhaydir.*”? The double offset is applied to arches and vaults in both of these buildings.**

The arches of Sarvistan, which depended on the skill of the carpenters who produced their centering, are somewhat irregular in profile. All surviving doorway arches, as well as the recess

arches in Rooms 3, 4, 14, and 9, are roughly semicircular and tend to be squat. The recess arches of Rooms I, 10, and 13, as well as the transverse arches of Room 12, were elliptical. The

building has no pointed arches, a fact that has no doubt encouraged the belief that it is of pre-Islamic origin.

THE DOORWAYS Doorways at Sarvistan were surmounted by arches set slightly forward on their imposts. The only exceptions are the doorway between Rooms 3 and 13, whose arch springs without offsets, and the doorway between Rooms 3 and 14, which had a flat wooden lintel. Jambs throughout the building are faced with stones set in courses that are continuous with the courses of the walls they terminate. The thresholds of most doorways consisted simply of the upper surface of the foundation walls, but several were cut down, apparently to receive doorsills of some other material.*? There are no holes in any of the preserved thresholds or jambs that might have held , fastenings for doorleaves. Nor are there perforations for curtain rods. We must therefore conclude that the building was mostly or entirely open.

36. It appears for the first time in Ardashir’s palace XXVIII, 1, and fig. to. For Ukhaydir, see Creswell, supported by triangular brackets in a window between EMA’, ll, 61, 63. the central domed hall and an arm of the second-floor 38. Jaussen and Savignac, Les chateaux arabes, $7ff. gallery. See Huff, “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar,” pl. 26:4. In and pls. XXV, XXX and fig. 9. Creswell, EMA’, m1, 68 Shapur’s palace at Bishapur, an arch with a double offset and figs. 40, 49. executed in plaster covers a large niche in the west wall 39. Jambs of two external doorways in Room 12 of a recently excavated corridor south of the great hall. were cut down, as was the jamb in the doorway In the majority of the char taqs, doorway arches spring connecting Room 6 with the outside. The same without offsets from the jambs. For an exception, see treatment was given the eastern doorway in Room 14. the char taq at Natanz, Athar-é Iran, 1, 1936, 78—79. Bell, Doorsils of baked brick laid flat are preserved in the Palace and Mosque, 45 and pl. 52:2, illustrates an offset eastern doorway of Room io and in the northern arch in the palace (Imarat-i Khusrau) at Qasr-i Shirin doorway of Room 11. Brick doorsills occur in the but says, without grounds, that this feature “is generally recently excavated building of Tulul al-Ukhaydir in

the case in Persian vault building.” Iraq, which has been described as a mosque and

37. For Qasr Kharana, see J. Jaussen and J. Savignac, tentatively dated in the seventh or early eighth century Mission archéologique en Arabie, 11: Les chateaux arabes de by the excavators. But here the entire building is of Quseir’Amra, Hardneh et Tuba (Publications de la Société brick. See Finster and Schmidt, “Sasanidische und

des Fouilles Archéologiques), Paris, 1922, 64 and pl. fruhislamische Ruinen 1m Iraq,” 77, fig. 30.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 31

THE TUNNEL VAULTS -

The narrow vaults in the undersides of the salient piers in Rooms 9 and 12 and in the lateral passageways connecting Room 12 with Rooms to and 14 belong to the masonry of the walls

rather than to the vaulting proper, and like the walls, they consist essentially of rubbled mortar. They are faced with small stones roughly square (about .15 by .15 meters) and set close together in longitudinal rows. Recessed margins around the vault arches in the sides of the piers

indicate the use of a centering device, this must have been a substantial frame capable of supporting the stones from below while the mortar was setting, rather than the simple templates described by Reuther for Ukhaydir.*° These margins were filled with plaster once the frames were removed. All of the rooms at Sarvistan appear to have been covered with vaults of brick. Tunnel vaults

can be restored for Rooms 8 and 7, Room 4 (east of the semidome), Room 9 (south of the semidome), and probably for Room 6. Actual remains of tunnel vaults are to be seen only in the west iwan (Room 11) (fig. 37) and in the small square chamber (Room 5) adjoining corner , Room 4 (figs. 12, 47, 48). Both vaults begin with a single row of facing stones set in a mortar band. In Room 11 these zones were carried forward several centimeters beyond the surfaces of the lower walls on sawtooth moldings. In Room § the corbeled stones terminate in plaster strips, whose neat lower surfaces seem to have been molded on the edges of planks temporarily

fixed in place for this purpose. The planks have left impressions .23 meters wide in the mortar and pointing plaster at the tops of the walls, which apparently were still wet when work on the vaults was begun.*' Above this level the vault in Room 5 rises on each side in three bands of brick, radially laid, which alternate with two rows of single bricks set on edge, their beds at right angles to the axis of the vault. The first and third band have three courses each; the middle band has only two. The crown of the vault, preserved over the western half of the room, is

- composed of rings of pitched brick; these are separated by little or no mortar and are held in , place by the lateral pressure they exert on one another and by mortar poured in from above. The crown contrasts with the shoulders of the vault, in which the mortar beds and rising joints

equaled the thickness of one brick in all beds and joints. | , ,

, In the vault of Room 11, at least where it is preserved over the southern wall, four courses

of bricks are laid radially above the springing, followed by a row of pitched bricks. Above this level, the vault is fallen. Horizontal seams are visible in the thick mortar beds immediately below and above the band of radially laid bricks, indicating that at least the shoulders of the vault were laid up in lifts. Of some interest is the evident care taken by the masons to line up the brick joints of radial courses. In Room 5 the joints of alternate courses coincide. In

courses. , |

Room 11 the joints of the first and fourth course line up, as do those of the second and third , Although examples of the pitched brick vault can be cited for Roman and Byzantine Asia Minor and Syria, it is now generally agreed that the technique is more at home in the East,

40. Reuther, Ocheidir, p.3. a notch in the wall above the top course of stones as 41. Dieulafoy, L’art, iv, 13, fig. 9, indicated elsewhere in the building. These notches are absent in sawtooth moldings here but published no photographs. Room 5. If such moldings existed, they would have been set into

32 SARVISTAN where its traditions can be traced back to the Bronze Age.” The practice of laying bricks on edge is so common in the Parthian period, especially in Mesopotamia, that it has long been considered a characteristic feature of Parthian architecture.*? As in more ancient times, such vaults often covered subterranean tomb chambers. At Seleucia they serve as the standard tomb vault, combining, in one case, a crown of pitched brick with shoulders of radial courses.** But pitched brick was also used for larger spans both in simple form and in combination with radially laid courses at the springing. At Assur, for example, the technique was employed to roof public buildings, including the main rooms of the first-century palace.*’ In Iran, where the architecture of this period is little known, pitched brick vaults are found in the Parthian Palace

at Kuh-i Khwaja.*° |

The Sasanian period provides fewer examples of pitched brick construction. The most famous is the great iwan vault at Ctesiphon.*” Pitched brick vaults have also been reported for Dastagird.** In Iran, brick vaults have been suggested, on the evidence of remains, for the Char Qapu at Qasr-i Shirin,*? the Takht-i Nishin at Firuzabad,*° and the Taq Iwan (Iwan-i Kerkha) in Khuzistan,*’ all generally believed to be of Sasanian origin. But whether these vaults were of pitched brick construction cannot be determined. The excavations of a Sasanian fire sanctuary

at Takht-1 Sulayman in the north have uncovered an unusual room with eight pillars surrounded on four sides by corridors.** The pillars and the outer walls, both of dressed stone blocks, supported vaults of pitched brick, which rested on a single springing course of corbeled bricks laid flat.

Pitched brick vaulting is a common feature of the Umayyad desert palaces of Syria and Jordan, where the immediate prototypes might have been provincial Roman or Byzantine. Such vaults, spanning large halls at Jabal Says, Qasr al-Tuba, Mshatta,*? and Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi,** almost always have shoulders consisting of from two to thirteen radially laid 42. For a brief account of the technique, see J. B. Seleucia and Ctesiphon, Seasons 1966, 1967 and 1968,”

Ward-Perkins, “Building Methods of Early Byzantine Mesopotamia, i/Iv, 1968-69, 49f. At Assur, see Architecture,” in D. T. Rice, The Great Palace of the W. Andrae and H. Lenzen, Die Partherstadt Assur, Byzantine Emperors, Second Report, Edinburgh, 1958, Berlin, 1933, pls. 48, 50. giff. Pitched brick vaults cover private tombs at Susa, 45. Andrae and Lenzen, Die Partherstadt Assur, pl.20. which date in the late second millennium B.c. See 46. G. Gullini, Architettura iranica dagli Achemenidi ai R. Ghirshman, Arts Asiatiques, X, 1964, 19; XI, 1965, Sasanidi: Il “palazzo” di Kuh-i Khwagia (Seistan), Turin, 12ff., figs. 8-11. For pitched brick vaults in the early 1964, 282. second millennium B.c. at Tell Rimah, see D. Oates, 47. Reuther, in Pope, ed., Survey, Iv, 151; A. Bruno, Iraq, XXVU, 1965, 77 and pl. XXb; Iraq, xxxu, 1970, 20- “The Preservation and Restoration of the Taq-Kisra,” 23. Pitched brick vaults cover the granaries of the Mesopotamia, 1/1, 1966-67, pl. XXI. Ramesseum at Thebes (thirteenth century B.c.). See 48. Sarre and Herzfeld, Archdologische Reise, 1, 79, 91 S. Clarke and R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry: and fig. 177. The Building Craft, London, 1930, 183-85 and figs. 214- 49. Bell, Palace and Mosque, 45: “In Chehar Qapu 16; Dieulafoy, L’art, Iv, 21, fig. 18. For further examples some brick vaults are still standing.” of pitched brick vaulting, see Creswell, EMA’, 349, n. I. so. D. Huff, “Der Takht-i Nishin in Firuzabad,” 43. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 424; W. An- AA, Il, 1972, 576, suggests that the four halls on the drae and H. Lenzen, “Architektur des Partherzeit in main axis of the char taq would have been vaulted either | Mesopotamien und ihre Brtickenstellung zwischen der with brick, like the central chamber, or with stone.

Architektur des Westens und des Ostens,” Festschrift s1. Dieulafoy, L’art, v, 7off. Carl Weikert, Berlin, 1955, 122f.; A. Godard, The Art of 52. Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman 1965—1973,”

Iran, New York, 1965, 139. 131 and fig. 23.

44. At Seleucia, see N. Manasseh, “Architectural 53. Creswell, EMA’, pl. 78a,b; 138d; 118b,c.

Features of Block B,” in Second Preliminary Report upon 54. O. Grabar et al., City in the Desert: Qasr al-Hayr the Excavations at Tel Umar, Iraq, Ann Arbor, 1933, pl. East, Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs xxitI/xxIv XX; “Third Preliminary Report on the Excavations at (Cambridge, 1978), 22ff. and ill. 39, 98D.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 33

courses, of which the lowest are slightly offset. Vaults of this type occur also in the Abbasid , palaces of Atshan and Ukhaydir.** Of the few Early Islamic monuments of pre-Seljuk date in Iran whose fabric can be studied, only the eighth-century Tarikh Khanah at Damghan gives evidence of pitched brick vaults. *° The tunnel vaults of Sarvistan, as far as they are preserved, exhibit a number of peculiarities

that distinguish them from other vaults of pitched brick construction. Most notable, perhaps, is the large quantity of mortar, which accounts for more than one-half of the vault’s surface. The high proportion of mortar to brick, rare in the East, is a well-known characteristic of Byzantine construction from the time of the foundation of Constantinople.*? A comparison of Sarvistan’s vaults with the few documented Byzantine examples that utilize pitched brick reveals basic differences in technique and finish. In the Byzantine buildings the rings of brick always lean slightly toward one or both end walls, apparently to facilitate construction without centering, a practice also common in the East, at Ctesiphon and elsewhere. Pitched bricks at Sarvistan, however, are always vertical. In addition, the roughly made Byzantine vaults were faced with plaster, whereas Sarvistan’s vaults display the level coursing, consistent joint

thickness, careful pointing, and the smooth and regular surfaces of a brickwork that was intended to be seen.

The tunnel vaults at Sarvistan are also unusual in their alternating bands of pitched and

, radial courses of brick, a technique surely present in Room 5 and assumed for Room 11. The Sasanian and Early Islamic vaults cited above almost always include both types of lay, but the radial courses are, without exception, restricted to the springing and shoulders, providing a base for the vertical or slightly inclined rings of the crown. The alternation of radial and pitched courses of brick in the vaults at Sarvistan can have no explanation in statics or in the practical necessities of construction. The bricks, like the facing stones of the walls, are merely a revetment in a hard, durable mortar that could stand without them. Since the brick under-

surfaces at Sarvistan were not hidden by plaster but exposed, the alternation must be a decorative device, perhaps foreshadowing the elaborately patterned brickwork in Islamic architecture of later periods.** The use of doubled stretchers in the preserved fragment of vault in Room 11, for example, has numerous parallels in the brickwork of Seljuk and Il Khanid 55. Finster and Schmidt, “Sasanidische und frtih- figs. 4-6; Schroeder, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, 934. See islamische Ruinen im Iraq,” pls. 6a, 7b; Creswell, also the char taq at Yazdkhwast, in M. Smith, “Three :

EMA’, u, pls. tod, Ifa. Monuments at Yazd-i Khwast,” Ars Islamica, vil, 1940,

56. A. Godard, “Le Tari Khana de Damghan,” 106 and fig. 3. For the brickwork, see Bier negative no. Gazette des Beaux-Arts, XII, 1934, 231 and fig. 3. 761R36.26. The alternation of zones of brick laid flat 57. Ward-Perkins, “Building Methods,” 55. with pitched bricks whose beds are exclusively perpen§8. Vaults constructed of alternating courses of dicular to the wall surface occurs in the tenth century pitched and radial brick are peculiar to Sarvistan. The Masjid-i Juma at Nayin. See Pope, ed., Survey, tv, pl. alternation of courses of brick laid flat with rows of 266b. This type of bond is found also at Neyriz, Athar-é bricks set on edge occurs in walls of Parthian buildings, Iran, 1, 1936, fig. 112; in the Seljuk minarets at where, however, the faces of some courses of vertical Gulpayagan, Pope, ed., Survey, rv, pl. 365c; and at Ala, bricks are normal, not perpendicular, to the surface of A. Hutt, “Recent Discoveries in Iran 1969-70: A Major the wall; for example, Assur. See Reuther, in Pope, ed., Islamic Monument,” Iran, 1x, 1971, 160. pl. Va. For this Survey, I, 422ff. and fig. 99a,b. See also the pavilion at technique, see also R. Hillenbrand, “Saljuq Monuments

Qalah Zohak recently studied by W. Kleiss and placed in Iran, 2: The ‘Pir’ Mausoleum at Takistan,” Iran, x, in the first century a.D., in “Qal’eh Zohak in Azerbai- 1972, 50. In Iraq, for the outer wall of the Great Mosque djan,” AMI, vi, 1973, 164-88, fig. 6 and pl. 41. This at Samarra, see T. M. al-’ Amid, The Abbasid Architecture bonding pattern is found later at Damghan in the round of Samarra in the Reign of Both al-Mu’tasim and al-Mutaw-

piers of both the Sasanian palace and the Early Islamic akkil, Baghdad, 1973, fig. 22. | Tarikh Khanah. Godard, “Le Tari Khana,” 225 and

34 SARVISTAN architecture.*? In any case, the juxtaposition, in the small vault of Room 5, of no less than three types of bond—radial and pitched brick rings with thick mortar joints and beds, and pitched brick rings with little or no mortar—is truly in keeping with the playful heterogeneity

that characterizes the building.

In addition, it should be noted that brick vaults in the Near East typically rest on walls of either brick or dressed stone. The brick vaults of Sarvistan rest on walls of rough stone and

mortar, a distinctive trait that this building shares with few others. oo THE VAULTS OF ROOM 12

Siroux and Huff both recognized independently that the east columned hall (Room 12) must

have been covered with a series of transverse tunnel vaults.°’ Earlier visitors to the site, overlooking the springings of the supporting arches still preserved on two of the piers, had mistakenly reconstructed a single longitudinal vault running the entire length of the room.” Following a well-documented practice, the spandrels of each arch would have been built up to a uniform level slightly higher than the crown. The walls thus formed would have served to support a series of vaults set at a right angle to the main axis of the hall. The height and shape of these arches are easily determined. Their remains correspond in profile with the northern arch fronting Room to. Their method of construction is not certain. They could have continued in stone and mortar like the springing, but it is also possible that the upper portions were of brick. No traces remain of the vaults themselves, but they were probably executed in brick employed in radial courses and pitched rings like the vaults in Rooms § and 11. The tympana at the ends of the vaults may have been pierced by window openings, as

Siroux has suggested. ° =

The arrangement of vaults on transverse diaphragm arches was long thought to be of Persian origin because of its presumed occurrence in the Iwan-1 Kerkha, a building located among the

ruins of a large town in Khuzistan believed to have been founded by Shapur II after the

59. For doubled stretchers, see Godard, “Khorasan,” EMA’, u, pl. 16,b; and in the thirteenth-century Jabal-i Athar-é Ivan, iv, 7ff. and figs. 4, 5, 13; M. Burkett, “The Sang in Kirman, in Pope, ed., Survey, tv, pl. 281. A Tower at Karat Khorasan,” Oriental Art, xx, 1973, 47, passage in the Fars-namah of Ibn al-Balkhi refers to a fig. 5; M. Smith, “The Minars of Isfahan,” Athar-é Ivan, building named Gunbad Kirman, whose walls were of I, 1936, fig. 227; R. Hillenbrand, Iran, 1x, 1971, 160 and stone and whose dome was of baked brick. See G. Le pl. VII c. This bond is common in buildings of the tenth Strange, Description of the Province of Fars in Persia, and twelfth centuries in Central Asia. See, for example, London, 1912, 45. There is no indication in the text as to the facade of the “Arab-ata” mausoleum at Tim, in G. whether the stone was dressed or left rough. See Huff, Pugachenkova, Istoriya iskusstv uzbekistana, 1965, pl. “Der Takht-i Nishin,” s525f. and n. 49. 101; the mausoleum of Ahmad, in Pugachenkova, Puti 61. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” s6f. and figs. 2, 4, 7, 9, I0. Razvitiia architektury Iuzhnogo Turkmenistana, Moscow, Huff, in Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman 19651958, 178f. and photograph, p. 179. For this technique 1973, col. 158, n. §2. Both have mistakenly restored in I] Khanid architecture (“doubled common bond”), this type of vault for Room 9 as well.

see Wilber, The I] Khanid Period, so. 62. Dieulafoy, L’art, 1v, 24 and pl. VIII, followed by

60. Brick vaults have been claimed for the stone and Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” figs. 134, ISI, 152. mortar Char Qapu at Qasr-i Shirin. See Bell, Palace and Flandin and Coste, Voyage, pl. 29 (bottom), show Mosque, 45. Brick vaults surmount walls of rough stone arches but interpret them as ribs for a longitudinal and mortar in the sanctuary of Takht-1 Sulayman, in tunnel vault. Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman 1965-1973,” figs. 63. Siroux, “Sarvistan,” 57 and figs. 7, 9. $2, 56; in the Abbasid palace of Ukhaydir, in Creswell,

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 35

destruction of Susa. This building, situated near the southeast corner of the town’s perimeter wall, is represented today by a stretch of wall 2.70 meters thick and 21 meters long (fig. 81). This segment originally formed the east side of a long hall. It is constructed of bricks measuring | .30 by .30 by .o7 meters laid in mortar beds .02 to .03 meters thick with rising joints of .03 to .08 meters.°* The west wall, now collapsed, appears largely intact in a photograph published by Dieulafoy, the first to study the building.®° Dieulafoy described the structure as having formed one arm of a longer hall, at the center of which was a domed chamber 9 meters square. The standing section of wall, which includes the hall’s northeastern corner, retains the lower portions of five arches, 1.50 to 1.65 meters wide and spaced 1.70 to 1.90 meters apart. The original ground level is not known. Nothing remains of the transverse vaults that were presumably carried by these arches, nor do they appear in the early photographs. The hall was lighted by rectangular windows with inward-sloping sills, which pierced the walls between the arches. The bottom and east jamb of a large niche or window can be seen at a lower level in the fragmentary north wall. The universally held belief that these are the ruins of a pre-Islamic building has no doubt resulted as much from an uncritical acceptance of the reconstruction drawings by Dieulafoy and Reuther, which show rounded Sasanian arches, as from the assumption that the building is necessarily contemporary with the town’s foundation.®” A closer look at the ruins themselves

suggests other possibilities.

The form of the ruined north arch, the only one preserved to any height, provides the best evidence for the building’s date. Beginning with an offset of .06 meters, it rises vertically for seven courses (.60 meters) to the actual springing, from which point eighteen additional courses

- are corbeled out to produce the gradual curve of the lower shoulder. This curve becomes abruptly sharper in several corbeled transition courses, above which the arch continues as a straight-sided block consisting of courses four-and-a-half bricks wide inclined at an angle of about 40 degrees to the wall. The spandrel is built up of bricks laid in common bond. The apex of the arch has not survived, nor is it possible to determine with certainty its original profile. Nevertheless, it should have long been apparent from Dieulafoy’s photograph that the arch could not have had the elliptical profile given it by Dieulafoy and Reuther; both intrados and extrados are straight in the portion that has survived above the springing. The arch therefore must have continued beyond the height at which it is now broken to form a strong point at its apex. The resulting profile would appear to have been struck from four centers. It is unlikely that a Persian or Mesopotamian building utilizing pointed arches of the stilted, four-centered variety could have been built in the Sasanian period, least of all in the fourth century A.D. The pointed arch, as Creswell has amply demonstrated, had its origin and early 64. Both the date of the town’s foundation and its to R. Wenke; see Mesopotamia, x, 1975, 73). N. Piname have been disputed. Ghirshman, who briefly gulevskaja, Les villes de l’état iranien aux époques parthe et excavated in the vicinity of the “palace,” believed the sassanide, Paris, 1963, 159, attributes the foundation of building to have been constructed by Shapur II after the Kerkha de Ledan to Shapur IL. destruction of Susa and calls the site Iwan-i Kerkha. He 65. Keall, “Qal’eh-1 Yazdigird,” 109, reports the

does not say when the city was founded. See Mission de bricks to be .32 by .37 by .08 meters.

Susiane, Rapports préliminaires 1: Cinq campagnes de 66. Dieulafoy, L’art, 1, pls. VII-IX. The building is fouilles a Suse (1946-51); Memoires de la Mission discussed by Creswell, EMA’, 282f. with early bibliogArchéologique en Iran, Paris, 1952, 10-12. R. Frye, on the raphy. basis of Syriac sources, believes that this site, commonly 67. Dieulafoy, L’art, v, 79ff., believed that it formed

called Iwan-1 Kerkha, was known as “Kut-i Gapu” and a monumental gateway through the city’s enormous “Kharkeh de Ledan” and that it was rebuilt by Kavad I enclosure wall. In fact, it appears to rest directly on the (A.D. 488—543) but founded before the arrival of Shapur wall, whose bricks are of a different format. II, possibly in Parthian times (personal communication

36 SARVISTAN development in Syria, where the seven earliest examples are found.®* With the exception of the

questionable examples at Qasr ibn Wardan (second half of the sixth century), all date in the eighth century.” It has also been noted that the pointed arch was only reluctantly adopted in Persia, where it appears for the first time in undeveloped form in the late eighth-century Tarikh khanah at Damghan.’”° The earliest-known arches with profiles struck from four centers occur in the eighth century in the Baghdad Gate at Raqqa in Syria and a century later in the Bab al-Amma of the Jausaq al-Khagani at Samarra.” Although this new type of arch, known in Mesopotamia as the “Persian arch,” has been extolled as the supreme expression of Persia’s artistic genius,’” no examples are known in Iran until the tenth century.” On the evidence of the form of the arches, the Iwan-i Kerkha must be removed from the short list of architectural monuments that can be ascribed with reasonable certainty to the Sasanian period. Although it is not clear how late the building should be dated, an origin in the

Seljuk period or even later is entirely possible.

In the light of this, the history of this type of vaulting system in Iran becomes somewhat obscure. The excavators of the Parthian palace at Assur claimed that the technique was used to cover a large room with four square pillars in the complex to the north of the central court, although neither the vaults nor the supporting arches were standing.’”* Lenzen reconstructed the system from the pattern of the fallen bricks, citing Dieulafoy’s reconstruction of the Iwan-i Kerkha, but he did not publish a photograph or scatter plan of the debris. The technique of covering a single room with a series of transverse tunnel vaults on arches seems to have been used on a small scale in the early Sasanian phase of the mudbrick “palace” at Kuh-1 Khwaja in Sistan.’”> The northern area of the complex includes a once-domed cham-

ber, 4.30 meters square, fronted on the southwest by a hall of the same width, 3.80 meters deep. The ruined side walls of this hall retain the lower portions of two transverse arches .9o meters wide and spaced .90 meters apart. The vaults that presumably rested on these arches have fallen, along with the upper portions of the walls. Leaving aside for a moment the Iwan-i Kerkha, whose date is uncertain, the next cross vaults on diaphragm arches in Iran would seem to be those described as having roofed the mihrab hall of the Masjid-i Atig in Shiraz. This hall is thought to belong to the original mosque built in A.D. 894 by the Saffarid prince Amru ibn Layth.” According to D. Wilber, who surveyed the ruins in 1935 just prior to the massive rebuilding of the monument, it was defined by fourteen rectangular stone piers arranged in two rows spaced about 6.50 meters apart, with a distance of about 3.25 meters separating the piers of each row. The transverse arches, some of which were

narrower than the piers, were sprung from inset capitals with cavetto moldings and were mostly of stones roughly dressed to blocks .20 to .30 meters square set in regular courses with .03 meters mortar beds. Brick walls constructed on the extrados of these arches supported the transverse tunnel vaults. These vaults, unusually flat in profile, were made of a single thickness of brick laid in radial courses at the shoulders and in pitched rings to the crown.

The Masjid-i Atiq provides the only preserved and documented example in Iran of the

68. Creswell, EMA’, 443f. fig. 100, accepted this reconstruction, and it has become

69. Ibid., 442ff. part of the literature.

70. M. Smith, in Ars Islamica, xmm/XIv, 1948, 180. 75. Gullini, Architettura iranica, 362ff. and fig. 20s.

71. Creswell, EMA’, 1, 45. These vaults were first noted by Herzfeld, “Damascus: 72. Sarre and Herzfeld, Archdologische Reise, 0, 358. Studies in Architecture 2,” Ars Islamica, V, 1943, 52 and 73. M. Smith, in Ars Islamica, xiu/xXIv, 1948, 181; fig. 23. He believed the building to be pre-Sasanian.

Creswell, EMA’, m1, 43. 76. Wilber, The Masjid-i “Atiq of Shiraz, 2, off. and

74. Andrae and Lenzen, Die Partherstadt Assur, 43f. pl. VIII. See also Schroeder, in Pope, ed., Survey, nu, and pls. 11, 13d, 22b. Reuther, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, 939ff. and figs. 320, 321.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 37

archaic type of transverse vault assumed to have been employed at Assur, Kuh-i Khwaja, Iwan-1 Kerkha, and Sarvistan.”” When transverse vaults next appear in Iranian buildings, they have a highly developed form. In the prayer hall of the Masjid-i Juma at Abarquh, near Isfahan,

for example, the shallow rounded vaults spring from a low level at the walls. The crowns extend horizontally toward the center, then rise abruptly to accommodate the tops of the arches.”* A similar arrangement is found in the oratories of the Masjid-i Juma at Yazd (fig. 88c),

where the cross vaults terminate in groin vaults, cloister vaults, and in lantern domes.”? An elaborate variation on this theme occurs in the Khan Ortma in Baghdad (fig. 88d), where the vaults rise in stepped sections, culminating in the centers in domical vaults on squinches.*° The vertical rise between each section of vault is pierced by a window opening. In her monograph on the Timurid shrine at Gazur Gah in Afghanistan, L. Golombek makes some interesting observations on the development of this type of vaulting system.*' Citing its occurrence in nearly two dozen buildings of the I! Khanid and Timurid periods in Greater Iran,

she notes that transverse vaulting was normally used in rectangular prayer halls, which she divides into two categories. In the first, or “masjid” type, the mihrab is located in the center of

one long side, where it is accommodated by an enlarged central bay. Although normally | forming part of a larger complex, such halls could themselves serve as principal prayer rooms, for their long gibla walls were accessible to congregations of moderate size. The second category of rectangular prayer hall is designated by Golombek as the “oratory” type. It is oriented with a short side parallel to the qibla, thus eliminating the need for an elongated central bay. Since large groups of people could not be accommodated near the narrow mihrab wall, halls of this type normally flanked a main sanctuary, which they served to augment. Apparently unaware of the evidence for transverse vaults in the Early Islamic period, Golombek locates the origin of this vaulting technique in central Iran in the fourteenth century, noting that halls of the “oratory” type, as exemplified by the Masjid-i Juma at Yazd, become characteristic of the architecture of that area, while the “masjid” type was favored in northeastern Iran

and Afghanistan. |

The early occurrence of transverse vaults in four buildings in Iraq, Fars, Khuzistan, and

Sistan should ultimately affect Golombek’s thesis of a central Iranian origin for this technique in the Il Khanid period, but it does not necessarily contradict her observations on the subsequent development of this form. In all four cases the supporting arches define bays of equal size, and

movement is directed toward one short side. In the Masjid-i Atig in Shiraz, the mihrab provides y this focus, producing a hall of the “oratory” type, while the other three terminate in domed chambers. Thus, while only one of these buildings is strictly comparable to the later central Iranian prayer halls in function, all four structures are related to them morphologically.

It should further be noted that the use of transverse vaults on diaphragm arches is well documented for the lands immediately to the west of Persia from the early eighth century A.D. The Abbasid palace of Ukhaydir displays two types of transverse vaults in the central complex _77. By “archaic” I mean that the crown of the vault 79. Siroux, “La Masjid-e Djuma de Yazd,” Bulletin

is horizontal along its entire length. de l’Institute francais d’archéologie orientale, xt1v (Cairo,

78. Godard, Athar-é Iran, 1, 1936, 56ff. and fig. 4o, 1947), 119-76, plan, pl. VII, 1, 2, ascribes both halls to believes the hall was constructed later than the principal the Muzaffarids. Wilber, The Il Khanid Period, 159f. and prayer iwan, which is dated to A.H. 755/A.D. 1337 by a figs. 136, 137, accepts Siroux’s chronology for the halls, mihrab inscription. Wilber, The Il Khanid Period, 18rff., which he says were probably erected after 1360. dates the hall in the late fourteenth century. Golombek, 80. Sarre and Herzfeld, Archdologische Reise, u, 193ff.

The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah, 73, suggests that it and figs. 218, 219. was built by Shah Nizam Kirmani, who in A.H. 819 81. Golombek, TheTimurid Shrine at Gazur Gah, constructed the west oratory of the Masjid-i Juma in s4ft., 71ff.

Yazd.

38 SARVISTAN to the south of the Court of Honor. Two rectangular rooms (33 and 40) are each divided longitudinally into three bays by two pairs of columns placed close to the long side walls (fig. 88a). The columns of each pair are connected to one another by large arches and to the side walls by smaller arches that form narrow lateral corridors like those at Sarvistan. The walls carried by these arches support simple tunnel vaults of brick. More complex vaults in Room 32 rest on lightly pointed arches that spring with double offsets from the long side walls. The ends of the easternmost vault joined arched fillets at the walls above the doorways, while the two western vaults terminated in stilted semidomes whose bases, consisting in one bay of zones of

small squinches and in the other of low half-drums on horizontal brackets, descend for a considerable distance below the apex of the arches. West of the Euphrates this type of vault is found in only two buildings. In the Qasr Kharana in Jordan it is used throughout, the pointed arches springing variously from piers, from abaci that surmount two or three engaged columns (fig. 88b), or, with double offsets, directly from the walls.*3 The audience hall at Qusayr Amra is divided into three bays by slightly pointed arches sprung from engaged plinths.** The arches support transverse vaults, semicircular in

profile, whose tympana are pierced by window openings. In all of these early examples the vault crowns extend horizontally along the main axis.*

| Although Parthian examples of transverse vaults on diaphragm arches have been claimed for both Iran and Mesopotamia, the early history of the technique is obscure. Its occurrence in | three buildings of the eighth century in Iraq and Jordan might suggest a western origin for the practice, but our understanding of its early development is hampered by the paucity of properly recorded and securely dated monuments for the centuries between Ukhaydir and the Khan Ortma in Iraq and for the entire Sasanian and early Islamic periods in Iran.*° In general terms, 82. Creswell, EMA’, 11, 68f., 70, figs. 49, 50, 52, and 84. Creswell, EMA’, figs. 450-51 and pl. 71C¢.

pls. 15 a—c, 16 b. 85. Cross vaults with horizontal crowns are found in

83. The basic study of this building is Jaussen and later buildings as well. See K. Fischer, “Archaeological Savignac, Les chdteaux arabes, 51-77, with pls. XIX- Reconnaissance in Afghan Seistan .. . ,” The Art of Iran XXIV. A graffito on a wall in the upper story gives a and Anatolia from the 11th to the 13th Century A.D. date ante quem of A.H. 92 (A.D. 710): “A New (Colloguies on Art and Archaeology in Asia No. 4), London, Reading,” Ars Islamica, xI-xMl, 1946, 190-95. Cres- 1974, 152 and fig. 6. well’s dating of the building to the pre-Islamic period 86. Creswell, EMA’, u, 16, reconstructs transverse

(EMA’, 637), has recently been challenged by vaults on diaphragm arches for the great arcades of the H. Gaube, “Amman, Harane and Qastal: Vier frtih- gates of eighth-century Baghdad. He refers to a passage islamische Bauwerke in Mitteljordanien,” Zeitschrift des in Ya’kubi where “Byzantine windows” (“kiwa rumDeutschen Paldstina-Vereins, XCIII, 1977, 52-86, esp. tya”), which admit light but not rain, are described. He 81ff., who has successfully demonstrated its Umayyad also cites Ibn Rusta, who says that these arcades were origins (early eighth century). An Umayyad origin for vaulted with burnt brick and gypsum. Herzfeld, “Dathe building has recently been supported by S. Urice in mascus: Studies in Architecture 1,” Ars Islamica, Ix, his Ph.D. dissertation, “Qasr Kharana: An Early Islamic 1942, 34, reproduces a plan of the ruins of Kyrk Kyz Monument in the Transjordan,” Harvard University, near Termez in Soviet Central Asia, first published by 1981. Urice, who, with the aid of excavations, has made B. Zasypkin in 1928. The building is square, about $5

the first careful investigation of the ruins in modern meters on each side. In the center it has a domed times bases his conclusions on a comparative study of chamber, about Io meters square, with four axial iwans the architecture and on quantities of Umayyad pottery, that are fronted by halls covered by cross vaults on apparently from the building’s interior, which he culled pointed arches. Each vaulted bay was connected by from dumps formed during earlier restoration work. doorways to flanking exterior corridors. Herzfeld beHis theory that the building originally served as a lightly lieved the building to date to the third century a.H. fortified retreat used occasionally for gatherings by (tenth century a.D.), but M. Smith, Ars Islamica, xm— tribal groups in the Sufyanid period (A.D. 661-84) is XIV, 1948, 192, feels that the advanced form of the intriguing but cannot be proved at the present time. vaulting system indicates a later date. Smith considers Urice’s work renders highly unlikely a pre-Islamic the cross vault on arches to be an intrusive technique

origin for Qasr Kharana proposed by J. Warren, “A from the West. The cross vault on arches is also Sasanian Attribution for Two Buildings in Jordan,” Art discussed by Godard, “Voites iraniennes,” 243f. -and Archaeology Research Papers, 1977, 45-59.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 39 there seems to have been a difference in the way this type of vault was employed east and west of the Euphrates. In Iran these vaults normally covered rectangular halls in which one short wall was emphasized either by a mihrab niche or by a doorway leading to a domed chamber. In effect, the succession of vaults implied movement in one direction along the room’s longitudi, nal axis. This arrangement can also be found at Ukhaydir, where Rooms 33 and 40 give access,

by doorways in one short wall, to a square room that seems to have been the focus of the , complex south of the Court of Honor.*” The transverse vaults of Qusayr Amra and Qasr Kharana across the Euphrates were apparently without directional significance. The vaults at Iwan-i Kerkha and Sarvistan were clearly employed in the Persian manner, but

their precise form is still open to question. If the former was built in the eighth century, the earliest date permissible on the form of the arches, it would most probably have had vaults of the archaic type employed in Shiraz at the end of the ninth century.** There is no reason, however, why the building could not be considerably later, in which case the vaults might have risen along the profile of the arch either in a continuous curve, in a curve broken at the apex, or even in a series of steps, as in the Khan Ortma of Baghdad. Any of these solutions is possible,

since the windows are set unusually low in relation to the arches as though to accommodate | vaults beginning lower at the sides than at the centers. The transverse vaults at Sarvistan, on the

other hand, could not have joined the side walls at a point lower than the tops of the alcove _ semidomes, and most probably they would have extended horizontally for their entire length. The latest documented examples of this archaic form are the vaults that roofed the original gibla iwan of the Masjid-i Atigq in Shiraz.

THE SEMIDOMES Semidomes, constructed of brick, mortared rubble, or dressed stone, are common features of ancient and medieval architecture in the Near East, where they are used to terminate long halls and to cover apses and alcoves. Surprisingly, they seem to be entirely lacking in monumental form in Sasanian buildings both in Mesopotamia and Iran, occurring only in the third-century palace at Bishapur as small stucco niche heads.*® At Sarvistan, however, semidomes of various sizes were employed throughout, roofing the northern end of columned hall 9 and the western end of Room 4, covering twelve alcoves in Rooms 9 and 12 and nine wall niches in Rooms 1, 3, 4, 5, and 12. The shallow entrance iwan (Room 3) was also roofed with a large semidome. Of the three large semidomes, only the one in Room 4 remains reasonably intact. It is constructed of mortared rubble faced with roughly squared stones set in horizontal rings. The alcove semidomes in Rooms 9g and 12, although much smaller in size, are of the same construction. In buildings of the Roman Empire semidomes were employed over semicircular spaces, but in Byzantine and Islamic structures they often covered rectangular areas and thus had to be supported at the corners by special devices. The transition from rectangular plan to curved base was most often effected by pendentives, which, in Islamic buildings, could be decorated with mugarnas. ‘The bases of semidomes could also be carried across the corners on horizontal 87. Creswell, EMA’, u, plan, fig. 64. The transverse 89. Ghirshman, “Les fouilles de Ch4pour, deuxiéme vaults reported by Zasypkin for Kyrk Kyz and recon- campagne.” 16 and pls. X, XII, 1-3. The lower walls structed by Creswell for Baghdad would conform to contained sixty-four niches, with an additional niche this manner of employment. See Note 86 above. above each of the four doors.

88. See Note 77 above. |

40 SARVISTAN brackets of stone, brick, or stucco, a method well documented for Iraq.?° Except for the wall niches in Rooms 3, 4, and §, which utilized such brackets, all semidomes at Sarvistan are supported by squinches. In addition, each bore a fillet that lined the front undersurface of the arch and descended into the transition zone. The semidome on squinches is a feature not infrequently found in Early Islamic architecture

to the west of Iran.?’ It occurs in somewhat elaborate form at Ukhaydir and the Qasr Kharana.” A simpler form exists at Qusayr (Church A) and in the facade of the Bab al-Amma at Samarra, where the lightly pointed arches are offset as at Sarvistan.”

THE DOMES In construction and appearance, the brick domes of Sarvistan remain isolated in an area where the history of the dome in general is obscure.** Architects of the Parthian period apparently

preferred to roof their buildings with simple tunnel vaults. Although Parthian domes are mentioned in the Western sources,?> no monumental examples are known. The earliest preserved domes in Iran cover the large square halls in the early Sasanian palaces at Firuzabad. The domes, resting on transition zones of large squinches, were built up, like the walls, of rough stone slabs laid in gypsum mortar and plastered on their undersurfaces. They are not entirely freestanding, being encased for most of their height in masonry containing small chambers and corridors that are disposed on several stories. This arrangement has been cited to demonstrate their early origin in relation to Sarvistan with its fully developed freestanding domes.” Aside from the early domes at Firuzabad, there exists little material for a history of Sasanian dome construction. Nothing remains of the domes that are believed to have covered the great hall at Bishapur?’ or the gate chamber of the presumed late Sasanian Imarat-i Khusrau at Qasr-1 Shirin.?* The char tags of Fars and Kirman offer a potentially rich source of data for a study of construction techniques in Iran, but their chronology is uncertain and few have been adequately recorded.”? In any case the great majority of these buildings had domes made of uncut stone

and mortar and are thus not comparable to Sarvistan. 90. For the palace at Atshan, see Finster and for a Corpus of Early Iranian Islamic Architecture, 2:

Schmidt, “Sasanidische und frtihislamische Ruinen im Minar and Masdjid—Barsian (Isfahan),” Ars Islamica, tv, Iraq,” pl. 5. For Ukhaidir, see Creswell, EMA‘, u, pl. 1937, 7ff. For symbolic aspects of the dome, see O. Gra-

10 b, c. bar, “The Islamic Dome: Some Considerations,” Journal

gt. Semidomes on squinches occur in an early of the Society of Architectural Historians, xxl, 1963, 191ff. mosque at Fahraj near Yazd. For this building, see 95. Philostratus speaks of a room in the royal palace K. Pirnia, “Masjid-i Jami-i Fahraj,” Bastan-shinast va in Parthian Babylon as being roofed with a sapphireHunar-i Iran, v, 1970, 1-13; E. Galdieri, Isfahan: Masgid-i colored dome. Cf. Reuther, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, 428.

Guma, 1, Rome, 1972, 27 and plan; P. Soucek, “Iranian 96. Dieulafoy, L’art, 1v, 41; Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture: The Evolution of a Tradition,” in R. Ett- Architecture,” $37. inghausen and E. Yarshater, eds., Highlights of Persian 97. Ghirshman, “Les fouilles de Chapour, deuxiéme

Art, Persian Art Series No. 1, Boulder, 1979, 137f. campagne,” 16. |

92. Creswell, EMA’, u, pl. 19a, c, for the palace 98. Reuther suggested a large dome for the square mosque at Ukhaidir, and EMA’, fig. 330, for Qasr hall behind the entrance iwan. See Reuther, “Sasanian

Kharana. Architecture,” fig. 134. This part of the building was 93. Finster and Schmidt, “Sasanidische und frtihisla- already poorly preserved in the nineteenth century.

mische Ruinen im Iraq,” pl. 18b; Creswell, EMA", u, Neither de Morgan, Mission scientifique, 1v, pl. XLII, nor

pl. sr. Bell, Palace and Mosque, pl. 53, shows domes for this 94. Little information exists about the construction of area in their plans.

Iranian domes. For technical problems, see Godard, 99. The problem is clearly stated by Huff, “ ‘Sasan“Votites iraniennes,” 259ff., and M. Smith, “Material ian’ Char Taqs in Fars,” 243-48.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE AI The monument at Firuzabad known as Takht-i Nishin, recently ascribed by Huff to the reign of Ardashir I, seems to have had a brick dome, judging from the debris.*®° Its walls were of

dressed stone blocks. A brick dome has also been assumed for the Char Qapu at Qasr-1 Shirin,’”’ although nothing remains above the squinches. The char taq near Baladeh south of Kazerun (fig. 77) had a dome made partially of burnt bricks that were apparently laid in a herringbone bond,’ a technique found in a number of late medieval Islamic buildings.*°? The char tag at Yazdkhwast, south of Isfahan, was built entirely of brick."°* The bricks of the dome were laid in radial rings as at Sarvistan, but with narrow horizontal and vertical joints. The undersurface, at least in the final stage, was obscured by a smooth coat of plaster. The original structure can probably be dated to post-Sasanian times on the form of the arches. "°° Little is known about dome construction for the first three or four centuries after Hiujra. Domes are a common feature of Umayyad and Abbasid architecture in Mesopotamia, where they were used in mosques, gateways, throne rooms, and fountains. None that remains stand- . ing is comparable to Sarvistan in construction or appearance.'°° The same is true for a series of mausoleums in Central Asia that have been assigned to the tenth century and earlier.*°’ A significant number of Iranian monuments of the Seljuk period display brick domes. In those that have been studied with respect to technical features, the brickwork was masked with a plaster coat that was decorated with various forms of painted or carved ornament.’ In some 100. Huff, “Der Takht-i Nishin in Firuzabad,” 525. mortar in radial rings. The inner surfaces were

101. Bell, Palace and Mosque, 53. plastered. See Creswell, EMA", 11, 232, pl. sic, and fig. 102. For this building, see Schippmann, Feuver- 181. For references to the domes of al-Mansur’s heiligtiimer, 138. This feature has not been noted before. Baghdad in medieval sources, see Creswell, EMA’, u,

See Figure 77. 14. A fragment of a brick dome remains above the 103. For the dome at Sang Bast, see A. Hutt and L. sixth-century church at Qasr ibn Wardan, which is of

Harrow, Islamic Architecture: Iran 1, London, 1977, pl. Byzantine derivation. See H. Butler, Syria: Publications 15. For the mausoleum of Arslan Jadhib, see Grabar and of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Hill, Islamic Architecture, fig. 169. This lay was also used Syria in 1904/5 and 1909, 11, Princeton, 1919—20, pt. B, 1,

in the Seljuk tomb tower of Damavand and has been 26-54. aptly termed “concentric chevron bond” by D. Stron- 107. The central Asian domes are normally of radial ach and T. Young, “Three Seljuk Tomb Towers,” Iran, rings of brick laid with shallow mortar beds and joints

Iv, 1966, 4 and pl. IIIc. and covered over with plaster on their inner surfaces. 104. Bier negative no. 761R36.28. For a bibliography The plaster sometimes contains inscriptions. See the

of this monument, see Note §8 above. dome of the Arab-ata mausoleum near Tim (A.D. 977— 105. M. Smith, “Three Monuments at Yazd-i 78), in Pugachenkova, Istoriya, pl. 102; the mausoleum Khwast,” Ars Islamica, vil, 1940, 106 and fig. 3. At some of Ahmad (late tenth century), in Pugachenkova, Puti point the building was incorporated into a mosque. Razvittiia architektury, photograph, 179. The dome of 106. The relatively small domes of the Hammam this building has wide rising joints and shallow beds. al-Sarakh and the palace of Ukhaydir were constructed See also the Mazar Shir Kabir of Mestorian (late tenth of mortar and rough-hewn stone and were fluted on the century?), ibid.; the sketch on p. 170 shows brickwork

inner surfaces. The dome of the former rested on covered with stucco that contained inscriptions. pendentives (Creswell, EMA", 1, pl. 52), while at 108. The Seljuk mosque at Barsian (Isfahan), in Ukhaydir the domes were carried across the corners on Smith, “Manar and Masdjid, Barsian,” 21 and figs. 16— curved, horizontal brackets (Creswell, EMA’, 11, 59 pl. 19, employed decorative brickwork in the inner surface

10b, and fig. 40). The thick dome of the bath complex at of the dome. The dome of the Masjid-i Juma at Qusayr Amra is also of uncut stones in mortar Ghorvah was decorated with interlaced octagons and (Creswell, EMA‘, 1, 257). The fallen domes of the medallions of stucco in which foliated scrollwork was forecourt pavilion and bath hall of Khirbat al-Mafjar executed. The rest of the surface was plastered and the were apparently of brick, while the semidome of the joints were picked out in white paint. See R. Hillenbath was of dressed stone. See R. Hamilton, Khirbat brand, “Saljuq Monuments in Iran, 1,” Oriental Art, al-Mafjar, Oxford, 1959, I17, I20 and g1 with figs. 48, XVII, 1972, 7off. and pls. 9-14, 18. See also the dome of 49. If domes still stand at Samarra, there is no published the Masjid-i Juma at Gulpayagan, in Pope, ed., Survey,

technical documentation. The semidomes of the Bab IV, pl. 309. al-Amma were constructed of baked bricks laid with

42 SARVISTAN cases, the undersurface of the dome was divided into segments by salient brick ribs;*°? in others, recessed brick was used for decorative effects.

The domes of Sarvistan are unique in the architecture of Iran primarily in that their brickwork was intended to be seen, even though no special decorative devices in structure or surface treatment were employed. There is no evidence that the undersurfaces were ever plastered. On , the contrary, the even coursing, the use of smooth unfired bricks, the wide horizontal and vertical joints, which were brought up flush with the surface by careful pointing, all indicate that the bricks were intended to remain exposed.

THE SQUINCHES The use of squinches to effect a transition from a square plan to a domed ceiling has long been considered a Persian innovation because the technique occurs at Firuzabad, Sarvistan, and other presumably early (that is, pre-Islamic) buildings on the Iranian plateau.**® Theoretically, the squinch can assume a multitude of forms, consisting essentially of a spanning member such as an arch or lintel that rests on the walls and serves to carry the base of a dome across a corner. Before the development of the elaborate polylobed and mugarnas squinches in Iran and neighboring regions in the tenth century, a variety of relatively simple forms was employed. These

are illustrated and discussed by Creswell in a chapter of his corpus of early Muslim archi-

, tecture.**' In Iran, three basic types occur in buildings ascribed to the Sasanian period. The squinches at Firuzabad, which are perhaps the earliest known, exemplify the first type. They were constructed of rough slabs of stone laid across the corners in rings that increased in diameter until half-cones were achieved (fig. 82). Squinches of this type could be built up prior to the construction of the warped connecting walls of the transition zone, or both walls and squinches could be laid up together at a uniform rate. The builders of the palaces at Firuzabad apparently used the latter method. A second type of squinch found in buildings commonly designated Sasanian is essentially

cone-shaped, with the addition of a short lintel across the corner that appears as a small semicircular disc at the apex of the cone. This device occurs in a number of char tags in Fars that , have been tentatively designated by Huff as post-Sasanian.*” Sarvistan displays a third form of squinch in which the cone is replaced by segments of two tunnel vaults that arch forward from the supporting walls, intersecting in the corner at an angle that fades gradually into a rounded hood at the top (figs. 29, 54). Squinches of this kind are unusual in buildings attributed to the Sasanian period. The most conspicuous examples occur in the Char Qapu at Qasr-i Shirin, where they are faced with neat courses of rough-hewn stones like these at Sarvistan.*'? The squinches of these buildings differ in their geometry from the

109. M. Smith, “Manar and Mas djid, Barsian, ” of Definitions,” Art and Archaeology Research Papers, 1,

figs. 16-19; Pope, ed., Survey, Iv, pl. 310; R. Hillen- 1973, 131-37. Also, D. Jones and G. Michell, brand, “Saljuq Monuments in Iran, 3: The Domed “Squinches and Pendentives: Problems and DefiniMasgid-i Gami at Sugas,” Kunst des Orients, v, 1975, tions,” Art and Archaeology Research Papers, 1, 1972, 9-

54 and fig. 7. 33, where squinches from Sarvistan and Firuzabad are 110. For example, Creswell, EMA", u, tot. illustrated together (20, figs. I, 2).

111. Ibid., r1or—18. Fora recent attempt to establish a 112. Huff, “ ‘Sasanian’ Char Tags in Fars,” 247. terminology based on statics, see R. Mainstone, 113. A. Pope, Persian Architecture, New York, 1965, “Squinches and Pendentives: Comments on Problems fig. 54, incorrectly labeled “Palace at Sarvistan.”

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 43 archaic conical ones at Firuzabad and should perhaps be compared to the cusped squinches normally made of brick that are found in later Islamic buildings, such as the Masjid-i Juma in Isfahan and the Haydariyah in Qasvin.'"* Squinches of this form usually serve to sustain domes of greater complexity and are themselves more highly developed in that the angle formed by

the two cusps continues to the top, giving the squinch a pointed profile. The underlying geometric principle remains the same. In addition, the squinches of Sarvistan are stilted like those in later Islamic buildings. This quality is exaggerated in Room 10, where they continue below the transition zone as plaster

panels terminating at the bottom in double-offset moldings (figs. 53, 54). This rather elaborate | , form might be seen as prefiguring a form of the mugarnas squinch that occurs in some later Islamic buildings in Iran.'** The double offsets have parallels in the counterfeited squinches in a building on the citadel of Amman, which apparently dates to the Umayyad period (661—750).*’°

THE FENESTRATION The need for window openings at Sarvistan was in part eliminated by the numerous tall doorways and by the broad entrance iwans on the south and west. There are no windows in the sections of the exterior walls that have survived. Part of a small arched window is preserved in the southern wall of Room 5s, and the corresponding wall in the ruined Room 7 may also have contained one. The meager quantity of light admitted by the small rectangular holes in the

- dome of Room 10 was augmented by the four narrow arched windows at the level of the gallery. As noted above, the windows indicated in the published drawings between the squinches in Room I were actually niches, although these may have been pierced at the back to admit light. Finally, the tympana of the vaults reconstructed for Rooms 4, 9, and 12 probably included window openings, as suggested by Siroux.

THE MOLDINGS , The narrow moldings of triangular teeth that marked transitions between walls and vaults comprised the building’s only decoration (figs. 25, 27, 37). The teeth were not made of brick, as has generally been assumed,*’” but were cut into the edges of stucco slabs that were inserted into the masonry of the walls. An additional slab of equal thickness was set in on top, its outer edge flush with the points of the teeth and with the zone above. A third strip was applied to the wall below and extended up to the backs of the teeth. In Rooms 3 and 4 an additional strip was

applied, producing a double offset below the teeth (figs. 35, 42). When used in smaller spaces such as alcoves and niches, the moldings were correspondingly thinner and served only to separate the squinch zone from the lower walls instead of bracketing the transition zones, as in

Room 1. There were no moldings in Room 10, where the zones are simply marked by 114. Masjid-i Juma, Isfahan, in Pope, ed., Survey, rv, summary of recent archaeological work, see A. Northpl. 300; the Haydariyah, ibid., pls. 313, 314. Also, the edge, “The Qasr of Amman,” Art and Archaeology

Masjid-i Juma in Qasvin, ibid., pl. 305. Research Papers, Xv/XV1, 1979, 22-27.

115. See Pope, Persian Architecture, fig. 356. 117. Ibid., 106; Bell, Palace and Mosque, 79; Dieula116. Creswell, EMA’, u, fig. 111. For a date and foy, L’art, $1.

44 SARVISTAN offsets.""* The sawtooth moldings in rectangular halls extended parallel to the longitudinal axis and terminated abruptly against the short end walls (fig. 37). Sawtooth moldings first appear in the third-century palaces of Firuzabad, where they set off the squinch zones from the lower walls in the domed chambers.*? These moldings were made of stucco as at Sarvistan, but they were somewhat thicker in proportion to the distance between adjacent teeth. At Firuzabad, the bracketing stucco strips were omitted, the points of the teeth

being flush with the offset transition zone and the wedge-shaped spaces between them even with the lower walls. In the Ardashir palace, traces of sawteeth can also be seen at the springing of the vaults in the large rectangular rooms that surround the open court. Unlike the moldings at Sarvistan, these continued around all four walls.‘”° Sawtooth moldings were also employed in the third-century palace at Bishapur. Few of the

walls there are preserved to their full height, so it is impossible to determine the extent to which such moldings were used. Sections of molding are preserved at the tops of the walls in the corridor that flanks the great hall on the northeast.’*’ In technique and size they resemble those at Firuzabad, but they include, in addition, an upper strip that marks the springing of the vault. A stucco molding of minature teeth was also used in the little sirdab to separate the dome

from the squinch zone. **

Too few examples of the sawtooth molding are known from the following centuries to permit an account of the early history of this decorative device, but its use in three major buildings at Firuzabad and Bishapur suggests that it must have been a common feature of Sasanian architecture, at least in Fars, where it served the same function as the dentil frieze in

classical buildings in the West." , , Sawteeth occur not infrequently in post-Sasanian buildings in Iran and Mesopotamia up to the fifteenth century, when decorative brick architecture declines. Normally executed in brick and only rarely in stucco, such moldings were commonly applied to the exterior of minarets and other tower-type structures, both religious and civil, where they served to carry forward or set off zones of brick or bands of inscription.’** They also marked the tops of facades."*5 The 118. Although a sawtooth molding is indicated by Ila, fig. 4, and pl. 146. Stucco fragments of architectural

Siroux, “Sarvistan,” pl. XXIV. elements in miniature were found at Qasr-i abu Nasr, 119. Huff, “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar,” pl. 22:4; Reuther, including a molding of projecting sawteeth. See R.

“Sasanian Architecture,” pl. 146 A, B. Frye, ed., Sasanian Remains at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, Cam-

120. Bier negative no. 76I1R61.8. bridge, 1973, 15 and fig. IT.

121. R. Ghirshman, “Les fouilles de Chapour (Iran) 124. For the minaret at Bistam, see Pope, ed., (deuxiéme campagne 1936/37),” Revue des arts asiatiques, Survey, Iv, pl. 360 B; for the minaret of the Masjid-i

Xl, 1938, 16 and fig. I. Juma, Kashan, Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian

122. Ghirshman’s photographs show fragments of Art and Archaeology, Iv, 1936, 130 and fig. 1; for an the stucco strip into which the teeth were cut, but no uninscribed minaret in the village of Eda, 10 kilometers teeth are visible. Nor does he mention them in his text. east of Semnan, see Hutt, “Recent Discoveries,” 160 See Bichadpour, u, 16 and pl. IV: “Le petit serdab ne and pl. Va. Salient sawteeth of brick were used in the comprenait aucune decoration; rien n’y a été trouvé lors corner towers of the lesser enclosure of Qasr al-Hayr de son dégagement.” Bier negative no. 76I1R30.22 al~Sharki (c. A.D. 728); see O. Grabar et al., City in the

shows fragments of two adjacent teeth. Desert, 21 and ill. 18 and 16D. Nonprojecting sawteeth 123. Remains of a sawtooth frieze can be seen on the occur in the city wall of Yazd (twelfth to fourteenth interior of the char taq near Fasa, between the squinch century’); see Pope, ed., Survey, tv, pl. 374 B. zone and the lower walls. These have been indicated in 125. For example, R. Hillenbrand, “Saljug MonuHuff’s drawing but not described. See Huff, “ ‘Sasan- ments in Iran, 2: The ‘Pir’ Mausoleum at Takistan,”

ian’ Char Tags in Fars,” fig. 5. Brick sawteeth Iran, X, 1972, 51 and pls. I, Ila and c. Single or double employed at Tureng Tepe in the Sasanian fortress were tiers of salient sawtooth moldings often occur in tomb set into the wall above and below a frieze of lozenges. towers, where they separate the lower wall from the See J. Deshayes, “Rapport préliminaire sur la neuviéme conical roof. See Pope, ed., Survey, tv, pl. 350. campagne de fouille 4 Tureng Tepe,” Iran, x1, 1973, pl.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 45

employment of these moldings in interiors is less usual. In Qasr Kharana rows of pendant , sawteeth executed in the stucco surfaces of archivolts and engaged abacus capitals formed the . major portion of the building’s decoration.’*° In Room 59, strips of sawteeth set in normal : fashion (with teeth projecting outward) decorated corner piers and separated the semidome from its supporting squinches.'?? In Room 61 of the same building, the bases of rectangular ceiling coffers were accentuated by sawtooth moldings; these were set into the masonry above applied stucco strips, as at Sarvistan.’* , : Only in some Central Asian mausoleums of the tenth century are interior friezes of sawteeth

| used as they are at Sarvistan and Firuzabad to mark the base of a dome. In the mausoleum of “Arab-ata” near Tim, each tooth is a doubled brick set at an angle of 45 degrees to the radius of the dome.’”? Instead of carrying the dome forward, the teeth are set entirely into the brickwork

five courses above the actual base so that the points of the teeth are flush with the dome’s surface.

It should be clear from these comparisons that the sawtooth moldings found at Sarvistan were employed in a fashion that is common in Sasanian architecture but unknown in the monuments of early Islam. The use of stucco rather than brick also relates the building at Sarvistan to pre-Islamic practice, although the stucco friezes employed at Qasr Kharana in the eighth century are similar to those at Sarvistan in the application of a stucco strip immediately

below the teeth, an element lacking in all other monuments. ,

THE NICHES : The niches that occur at Sarvistan, in the lower walls of Rooms 4, 5, and 12 and in the squinch ,

zones of Rooms 3 and 1, are of four types: ,

Type A: Of the two identical niches in the long western wall of Room 12, the southernmost niche is better preserved (figs. 61, 62). It consists of a recessed shelf 1.30 meters wide and 1.12

, meters deep whose walls terminate at a height of 1.12 meters in a molding of triangular sawteeth. The teeth are cut into the edges of thin slabs of stucco that are set into deep slots in |

, the masonry. Applied to the niche walls directly below this molding are slightly projecting stucco strips, whose faces are aligned with the backs of the teeth. Similar strips are set in above

the molding flush with the points of the teeth, which bring forward a transition zone .34 meters high, of two small squinches. The squinches served a decorative rather than a structural function, since they are entirely modeled in stucco. Their profiles are defined by stucco arches

built across the corners on miniature centering frames. The semidome of the niche head springs , with a beveled offset from the top of the transition zone, rising to a total height of 2.35 meters. , _ above the shelf. The underside of the arch is lined with a projecting fillet of stucco that tapers from .o$ meters in thickness at the apex to only .o2 meters at the sides. This fillet descended into the transition zone, terminating .o1 meters below the tops of the squinches on both ends. Type B: The niche in the southern wall of Room 4 (figs. 45, 46) is built on a base 1.09 meters

wide and .58 meters deep, with a total height of 1.70 meters. It is covered by a semidome nearly circular in elevation but elliptical in section. Unlike the niches of type A, squinches were 126. Jaussen and Savignac, Les chdteaux arabes, pls. 128. Ibid., pl. XXVI, 2.

XXV-XXXIII. 129. Pugachenkova, Istoriya, pl. 102 127. Ibid., pl. XXXI, 1.

46 SARVISTAN not employed, the hood being carried across the corners on a horizontal stucco bracket. Bracket | and hood, made indistinguishable from one another by a coat of plaster, spring with a slight offset from a plain stucco molding, .10 meters high, that begins 1 meter above the shelf and projects .03 meters from the niche walls. A centering device used in the construction of the hood has left a recessed margin .10 meters wide and .03 meters deep around the arch. A second

7 niche of this type was employed in the northeast wall of Room 5. : Type C: The four niches in the transition zone of Room 1 generally resemble those of type A, but they have squatter proportions and lack sawtooth moldings. The relatively well-preserved northern niche is 2.03 meters wide, about 1.05 meters deep, and 2.36 meters high (figs. 2527).°° Its facing stones, somewhat smaller than those of the walls, were not used structurally; both transition zone and hood are carried forward by successive offsets executed in stucco. The little squinches and a fillet lining the arch are also of stucco. As noted above, the depth of these niches nearly equaled the thickness of the podium wall so that an extra layer of brick was necessary to accommodate them on the exterior. Such extensions, whose traces are visible on the eastern and western outer face, could have been pierced by window openings. Type D: A single example of the fourth type of niche occurs between the squinches of the

southern entrance iwan (Room 3) (figs. 32, 33). This niche, which is extremely broad in proportion to its height, combines elements of types A and B. The shelf of the original niche

, was 2.88 meters wide and about I meter deep. Its walls rose to a height of only 1.10 meters, where they supported a composite stucco molding of sawteeth set between plain rectangular strips. The lower strip, projecting slightly from the wall, extended to the backs of the teeth. — The upper strip completely covered the teeth and supported a curved stucco bracket on which the squat hood rested. The overall height of the niche was 1.95 meters. Wall niches were apparently common features of Sasanian palace architecture, at least in Fars. The great hall at Bishapur contained no fewer than sixty-eight semicircular niches elaborately decorated with carved stucco moldings.*** In the Ardashir palace at Firuzabad, each of the three domed halls included eight or nine large barrel-vaulted wall niches with stucco impost moldings and rectangular frames surmounted by foliate cavetto moldings."’* The other rooms display smaller undecorated niches, some with double- or triple-recessed jambs and arches." ? It is

important to note that rectangular niches are always covered with arched heads and round niches with semidomes. The combination of a rectangular shelf with a semidomical hood, as it

appears in nine examples at Sarvistan, is unknown in Sasanian buildings. Niches with semidomical hoods on squinches are an especially appropriate element of decoration at Sarvistan, since they reproduce in miniature a structural configuration used throughout the building. I can cite only a single parallel for this motif: A rock-cut sanctuary at the Buddhist site of Haybak in northern Afghanistan contains a rectangular wall niche with. a semidomical hood on squinches. There, as at Sarvistan, the form of the niche reflects the form of the larger structure that incorporates it. The niche, however, included neither a sawtooth molding nor a fillet on the underside of the arch."*+ Sawteeth, employed for this purpose, are peculiar to Sarvistan. Fillets are also used at Sarvistan to define the large semidomes of Rooms g and 4." 130. It was not possible to measure the depth of this 134. E. Schroeder, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, 948 and niche. The accessible western niche is 1.05 meters deep. fig. 325. 131. Ghirshman, “Les fouilles de Chapour, deux- 135. Fillets line the undersides of arches in a number

iéme campagne,” pl. XII, 1-3. of Il Khanid buildings. See the entrance Iwan of Pir-i 139ff., fig. 4, and pl. 26:1, 2. 26; see the rock-cut mosque called Masjid-i Sang near

, 132. Huff, “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad,” Bakran near Isfahan, in Wilber, The Il Khanid Period, pl.

133. Ibid., fig. 13. Darab, in Stein, “Archaeological Tour,” pl. XVIII, 30.

poe CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 47, , The device of using a horizontal bracket to carry a semidome across the corners of a square space, as in the niches of types B and D at Sarvistan, would appear to be almost primitive in its , simplicity. It is therefore surprising that this solution became common only in Early Islamic monuments. It is unknown in Sasanian architecture, which makes exclusive use of ‘the squinch a

46, 83). | ene , for this purpose. Such brackets made of stucco were employed throughout the palace of Ukhaydir in Irag, where they supported the two small domes of the entrance complex and the

| semidomical hoods of numerous niches and alcoves."?° These are closely related to the niches of — ' type B at Sarvistan by the application of plain stucco panels directly beneath the brackets (figs.

THE COLUMNS oe |

A number of allegedly Sasanian buildings in Iraq and Iran employed freestanding columns. , _ These were almost always made of baked brick and arranged in two rows in order to divide a | - long hall into a nave and side aisles. Aspects of the columns vary from one building to the next, 7 | especially in the treatment of their surfaces. The six columns in the main hall of Palace II at .

Kish, for example, had fluting worked in their plaster coating.” The same technique was. , employed in hall PB at Takht-i Sulayman."3* The columns at Damghan and Chal Tarkhan were provided with more elaborate carved stucco decoration.™? Sculpted capitals from Bisutun, = Isfahan, Kirmanshah, and elsewhere imply the existence of a Sasanian columnar architecturein 7 cut stone, but neither the columns nor the buildings to which they belonged have been. located."4° Aside from surface treatment, there is little evidence for the general. appearance: of. epee: ek,

Sasanian columns, which are usually discussed primarily: as elements ofthe ground plans Since; “3 , the columns are never preserved to their full height, little cary be'said'about their proportions:or ce ys

, the manner in which the transition between shaft and supported member was.effected.: In most LE

cases, Sasanian columns appear to have been squat and baseless." eke ee, ,

All of the columns at Sarvistan were built of rough-hewn drums laid with an equal thickness si of mortar and covered with a smooth, apparently undecorated coating of plaster. The baseless _ oo

shafts rested directly on the floor. The pairing of columns in Rooms 9 and 12 isasomewhat, > unusual feature in the East, where it is better known from representations than from actual architecture. One of the most notable examples appears on a capital from. Bisutun, which | shows a frieze of conch niches joined by double columns with abacus capitals.’ There is of course no way of knowing whether the columns represented were freestanding or engaged. The arrangement at Sarvistan has been compared to that of the long hall of the Mar Tahmaz136. Creswell, EMA’, u, pls. 10 b, c; 13 b, ¢. dischen Kapitelle aus Venderni,” AMI, 1, 1968, 143ff.; 137. L. Watelin, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, 587 and fig. Kleiss, in AMI, v1, 1973, 74f., for Sasanian capitals in : _

170. i _ Kermanshah. For attempts to determine the provenance | 138. Huff, in Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman of the capitals, see H. Trumpelmann, “Die Terrasse des

1965-1973,” col. 151 and fig. $0. | Hosrow,” AA, Lxxxi, 1968, col. 17, and Luschey, ;

139. F. Kimball, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, s80f. and “Bisutun: Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte,” AA, fig. 168; Thompson, Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqabad, = LXXXIX, 1974, cols. 128ff. :

65f. | 141. Kimball, in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, 580 and fig. 140. H. Luschey, “Zur Datierung der sasanidischen 167 a, b. , CO

Kapitelle aus Bisutun und des Monuments von Taq-i 142. Pope, ed. Survey, tv, pl. 153 A, B. 7

Bostan,” AMI, 1, 1968, 129ff.; W. Kleiss, “Die sasani- a |

48 SARVISTAN , | gird martyrium in Kirkuk, generally dated to the eighth or ninth centuries.'*? There, however,

the columns are carved in the corners of rectangular piers that separated the alcoves. Doubled , and tripled engaged columns occur also in the early eighth-century Qasr Kharana.* , The abacus capitals surmounting both paired and single columns at Sarvistan should probably be restored with the simple tapered and stepped profile suggested by what exists today. Possibly some kind of decoration, such as the pendant sawteeth that decorated the engaged abacus capitals at Qasr Kharana, was executed in the plaster coating, but nothing remains to warrant their inclusion in the present reconstruction. Plain abacus capitals used to support , arches had a Sasanian origin, judging from their depiction on the sculpted capital from Bisutun. They are also commonly found in buildings of early Islamic date in Iran and Mesopotamia. In addition to the engaged examples at Kirkuk and Qasr Kharana, abacus capitals surmount freestanding columns without bases at Ukhaydir and in the Tarikh Khanah at Damghan.*"*? In both of these buildings of the eighth century, the capitals are made of courses of brick covered with undecorated stucco and have simple stepped profiles.

THE ENGAGED COLUMNS The articulation of large wall surfaces by engaged columns was a common practice in Parthian times and became a characteristic of Sasanian palace architecture. Engaged columns, resting on half-round, cushionlike bases, relieved the four facades of Ardashir’s palace at Firuzabad and the two long walls of the large court to the southwest of the great hall at Bishapur."*° The great facade of the Taq-i Kisra at Ctesiphon is articulated by several stories of engaged columns joined by numerous arches to form blind arcades. ‘4’? Because the lower and upper portions of Sarvistan’s

facades have not survived, there is no way of knowing whether the columns on the west and south had bases or how they were terminated. Their elliptical cross section, however, relates them to engaged columns at Firuzabad and Bishapur. The massing of columns in groups of three on the southern facade at Sarvistan is paralleled in the upper stories of the Taq-i Kisra and in some rooms of the Qasr Kharana."** The application of columns directly to the walls, as at Sarvistan, does not occur in Sasanian buildings, where the columns front shallow, rectangular buttresses.

SARVISTAN’S DATE What has made us so ready to accept a Sasanian date for the building near Sarvistan is the vague resemblance it bears to Ardashir’s palace at Firuzabad. According to Reuther’s well-known and frequently reproduced drawings, both buildings contained, in series, an entrance iwan, a central domed hall, and an open court that is surrounded by a single range of rooms and closed at the 143. Sarre and Herzfeld, Archdologische Reise, 1, 146. See Archaeology, xxxv, 1982, photograph on

332f. and fig. 308. 30-31 (bottom) and plan, 35 (left); Ghirshman, 144. Jaussen and Savignac, Les chateaux arabes, pls. Bichdpour, u, plan V. XXVI,3 and XXVIII, 2. 147. Dieulafoy, L’art, v, pl. II. 145. Creswell, EMA'*, u, figs. 51, 52 and pls. 11a, 148. Jaussen and Savignac, Les chateaux arabes, pl. 1sd, 16a; Godard, “Le Tari Khana de Damghan,” 225ff. XXVI, 3. and figs. 4-6.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 49

back by a bayt that consists of a small iwan flanked by side chambers. In addition, both buildings made extensive use of stucco moldings of triangular sawteeth on the interiors to mark transitions between walls and vaults. But the differences between the two monuments are far greater than their similarities and have generally gone unrecognized. The plan of Firuzabad, for example, is symmetrical, if we ignore the staircase, while at Sarvistan no two rooms are alike. Firuzabad is a closed building with few entrances from the outside, and most of the rooms do not communicate directly with one another. Sarvistan is open; almost all of its rooms commu-

nicate both with adjacent rooms and with the outside. ,

The fabrics of the two buildings differ radically even where the same materials have been employed. The walls of Ardashir’s palace were built up solidly with slabs of unworked stone laid flat in discontinuous courses with little mortar. This singularly unattractive masonry, which inspired Robert Byron’s remark that “only archaeologists see beauty in Sasanian architecture,” was discreetly hidden beneath a layer of plaster and stucco moldings. The walls of Sarvistan were constructed essentially of a mortared rubble that was faced with roughly shaped stones set in regular courses. The excess pointing plaster was allowed to extend over the edges of each stone and was then trimmed away to produce a square area in the center, apparently intended to suggest brick or ashlar. In other words, at Sarvistan, the facing stones were always visible and no surface was provided for mural painting or decorative stucco paneling. The two buildings also display marked differences in structure. Arches at Firuzabad, for example, were set back on their imposts, which were provided with heavy stucco impost and intrados moldings, while at Sarvistan almost all arches are offset. The squinches supporting the great domes at Firuzabad were built up of concentric rings of stone employed structurally with relatively little mortar and then plastered over like the walls. In shape, they describe segments of a cone. Sarvistan’s squinches are essentially formed of mortared rubble that is faced, like the lower walls, with rough-hewn stones set in courses. These squinches are not conical but consist of arched segments meeting at an angle that fades into a rounded hood at the top. The large domes supported by these squinches also differ in the two buildings; in Firuzabad they are of |

stone and at Sarvistan they are of baked brick. , Finally, the great iwan at Firuzabad was in all probability not an iwan at all. The recent

clearing of debris from the front of the building has revealed that the actual entrance lay some I4 meters north of the massive niched wall that has, since Flandin and Coste, been identified as the main facade. "4? This is made clear by recent photographs (figs. 84, 85) that show the stumps of engaged columns fronting shallow, rectangular buttresses in a manner already known from

the other three facades. The reconstruction of a third pair of side rooms results in a long entrance-hall, which, in its proportions, is more of a corridor than an iwan. The actual facade is so poorly preserved that we cannot know whether the entrance doorway was equal in width to the entrance hall, as would be the case in a proper iwan, or narrower. In any case, its great length would give the building an aspect quite different from that suggested by the published

drawings, which invited comparison with Sarvistan in the first place.

All of this should indicate what misunderstandings can arise from the lack of adequate architectural documentation. Reuther’s wonderful reconstruction drawing (fig. 7), a drawing that has been instrumental in shaping our concept not only of Sarvistan but also of Sasanian 149. Flandin and Coste, Voyage, 1, pl. 40 (top), toward the north. The facade is correctly shown in a followed by Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 534f. plan published in G. Herrmann, The Iranian Revival, and fig. 150. Huff, “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad,” Oxford, 1977, 84, and by L. Bier in Archaeology, xxxv, plan, fig. 14, indicates continuation of the side walls 1982, 35, fig. (left).

50 SARVISTAN , architecture in general, sadly misrepresents the building’s character. Reuther has given the | building a closed plan by omitting three doorways in the southeast wall, even though these doorways are clearly visible in one of Dieulafoy’s photographs (fig. 19). He shows prominently near the east corner a type of arch that, while typical of Firuzabad, does not appear anywhere at Sarvistan. He follows Coste and Dieulafoy in placing four windows in the transition zone of the great hall (Room 1) as they appear at Firuzabad, even though a photograph by Dieulafoy (fig. 19) clearly shows remains of a hooded niche with miniature squinches. He also follows

Dieulafoy in roofing the main entrance iwan with a tunnel vault in spite of the large squinch in Dieulafoy’s photograph of Sarvistan that suggests a semidome. Most important, he makes all three entrance arches approximately the same size and incorporates them beneath a continuous parapet. In other words, Reuther, believing Sarvistan to be Sasanian, ignored the photographs and gave the building a suitably Sasanian appearance, using Dieulafoy’s drawings as a guide and

Firuzabad as a model. , ,

Once the building near Sarvistan is dissociated from Firuzabad, it becomes clear that there is little to support a Sasanian attribution. The question of elliptical versus pointed arches was laid

to rest years ago by Creswell, who ably demonstrated that the pointed form originated in Syria and was adopted only with reluctance in Persia, where it occurs for the first time alongside , rounded archaic arches in the eighth-century Tarikh Khanah at Damghan. Rounded arches continued in use even to the end of the ninth century, as, for example, in the Masjid-i Atiq in Shiraz. The appearance of elliptical arches at Sarvistan can therefore hardly be used as evidence |

for a Sasanian origin. Nor can the employment of a masonry consisting of mortared rubble , faced with rough-hewn stones be used to support a Sasanian date for the building. Although brick construction predominated in Iranian Islamic architecture during all periods, a significant number of structures built entirely or primarily of rough stone and mortar can be cited both for

Iran and Mesopotamia through the I] Khanid period.**® , Despite the dearth of architectural monuments in Iran during the first three or four Islamic centuries that can serve as comparative material for establishing the date of construction of our monument, a number of important features tie this building to the early Islamic period rather

than to Sasanian times. First among them is the original organization of the facade, which appears to have been very different from the reconstruction universally accepted until quite recently. Reuther’s drawing, which shows an unbroken parapet extending around the building at a uniform level, is clearly contradicted by the remains. When projected to their approximate original heights, the four entrance iwans rise well above the assumed levels of the exterior walls, suggesting that each entrance arch was set into a high rectangular frame of masonry called a pish taq (fig. 8). No special study has yet been devoted to the pish tag; both the origin and early development

of this ubiquitous feature of later Persian architecture are obscure."*' It appears to have been , fully evolved by the Il Khanid period, when it was commonly employed to front exterior and courtyard iwans. Few examples are known from Seljuk architecture in Iran,"** although the 150. For example, the Early Islamic Great Mosque at tive Structures, Notes and Documents,” Ars Orientalis,

Siraf, in D. Whitehouse, Siraf III. For Early Islamic VI, 1966, 40. buildings in Mesopotamia constructed with stone and 152. A large-scale projecting pish taq has been cited mortar, see Finster and Schmidt, “Sasanidische und for a Seljuk domed square in mud brick at Kurit near friihislamische Ruinen in Iraq.” For a later example, see Tabas in central Iran. See Hillenbrand, “The Developthe Jabel-i Sang in Kirman, in Pope, ed., Survey, Iv, pl. ment of Saljuk Mausolea in Iran,” in The Art of Iran and

281. Anatolia form the 11th to the 13th Century A.D. (Colloquies 11. O. Grabar, “The Earliest Islamic Commemora- on Art and Archaeology in Asia No. 4), London, 1974, $3.

; CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 51 device occurs in a whole series of Central Asian mausoleums, most of which have been dated

by Russian archaeologists in the eleventh century.’*? Certainly the earliest of these is the so-called Arab-ata mausoleum near Tim, dated a.p. 978.'** Its elaborate entrance facade, which

rises high above the other three sides, is of uniform height for its entire width and thus cannot strictly be compared with the typical Persian pish tag of later times, which merely frames the entrance arch. It is possible that the Arab-ata mausoleum represents an embryonic stage of development in which a building’s main facade could be emphasized simply by its greater height. The solution found at Sarvistan is somewhat more elaborate. Here, not only was the pish taq adapted to the triple-iwan facade, but the entrance arches of the two corner rooms were

framed by shallow porches. :

It is not necessary to see Sarvistan as part of a development taking place in the tenth and | eleventh centuries in Central Asia. Rather, it should be regarded as part of an earlier, indepen- | dent development occurring to the south and west, about which little is known at present. In any case, Creswell’s assertion that the pish taq was already used in the eighth-century palaces at

Kufa and Ukhaydir in Iraq and Mshatta in Jordan seems convincing." , oe Two things are clear. First, the pish taq, the tall masonry frame used to emphasize an entrance

arch, is unknown in pre-Islamic monuments, which typically display unified courtyard and , | exterior facades whose tops are unbroken by iwan arches. The great vault at Ctesiphon, for example, was incorporated within a lofty facade that extended to the height of its crown, and ,

the same is true of the “iwan” in the palace of Ardashir at Firuzabad.'®° Second, and most : important, the ensemble found at Sarvistan, which consists of a domed chamber fronted by a shallow semidomed iwan whose arch is set into a tall masonry frame or pish taq, is an important

and well-known feature of later Persian architecture. ok ; The variety and form of the vaults at Sarvistan also speak for a post-Sasanian origin. The semidome, which was employed extensively on both a monumental and a miniature scale

throughout the building, was never characteristic of the Sasanian period; it occurs only as niche

, heads in the strongly Hellenized palace at Bishapur. Only in the Islamic period does the _ semidome become an important element of design, especially in the Umayyad and Abbasid

palaces west of the plateau. a _ - | The transverse vaults, reconstructed on good evidence for columned hall 12, are another

feature best considered within the context of Islamic architecture. Arguments for an early | origin and development of this vaulting system have been based on its occurrence in three buildings that are widely separated geographically. The vaults of the Great Hall of the Parthian | palace at Assur, generally considered to be the earliest of the three, had to be reconstructed by

, the excavators from the deposition of the debris. Situated at the center of a large range of rooms north of the large open court, this hall did not terminate in any room or feature of

:

obvious importance and therefore had, unlike Room 12 at Sarvistan, no directional significance. A hall in the early Sasanian palace at Kuh-i Khwaja in Sistan preserves the springings of the mudbrick diaphragm arches that presumably supported transverse vaults, although the vaults ~-1§3. O. Grabar, “The Earliest Islamic Commemora- by Reuther, Ocheidir, 34, and accepted by Creswell,

. tive Structures,” 40. , EMA’, u, 66. For the pish tag at Kufa, see Creswell, 154. Pugachenkova, Istoriya, pl. 101; R. Ettinghau- EMA’, 49, and Mshatta, 49, 585.

| sen, “Some comments on Medieval Iranian Art (apro- 156. But see Huff, “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuza_ pos the Publication of the Cambridge History of Iran),” bad,” 150, fig. 10, who suggests that the iwan of the , Artibus Asiae, XXXI, 1969, 283; O. Grabar, “The Earliest upper palace may have risen to a higher level than its

Islamic Commemorative Structures,” 17. flanking rooms. — , ,

155. A pish tag was first reconstructed for Ukhaydir a ,

$2 SARVISTAN themselves have not survived. This hall terminated in a tall domed chamber and thus can be considered a prototype for Room 12 at Sarvistan whose vaults, however, were much larger in scale and rested on a more elaborate system of supports. The third of these buildings, the Iwan-i Kerkha in Khuzistan, appears to have had pointed arches and thus could not have been built much earlier than the eighth century. Thus there is no evidence that transverse vaults on diaphragm arches were an important or widespread phenomenon before the Islamic period.

The vaults in Room 12 at Sarvistan should be seen in the context of a small group of buildings of the first centuries of the Hegira, with which it shares common features of organization and construction. The late eighth-century palace of Ukhaydir in Irag contains transverse vaults of brick that rest on round, freestanding piers of mortar and rough-hewn stone. The halls that they roof flank a square room to which they are connected by doorways in their end walls. The position of this room at the core of the palace speaks for its importance and suggests an organizational and functional relationship with its flanking halls that is similar to the relationship between domed Room 1o at Sarvistan and the columned hall that precedes it. The transverse vaults of the Masjid-1 Atiq in Shiraz, built in A.D. 898, are also comparable to those at Sarvistan both in construction and scale. Furthermore, since they roofed a hall that focused on one end wall (1.e., gibla), they can be seen as having had directional significance similar to the analogous halls at Ukhaydir and Sarvistan. Their presence in this important building at Shiraz also suggest that this vaulting system may have been quite common in Fars in the early Islamic period, and it is not difficult to see Sarvistan, only 100 kilometers away, as

belonging to the same architectural tradition.

Additional evidence for an Islamic date for Sarvistan is provided by the form of its squinches. These are not of the archaic, conoid type found at Firuzabad and other Sasanian sites; rather, they are built up of cusplike segments that join at right angles in their lower courses. This method of squinch construction occurs in more elaborate pointed variations in numerous Seljuk buildings.

Certainly suggestive of an Islamic date is the building’s brickwork, which was always exposed, at least on the interior. As far as this brickwork is preserved, there are no elaborate patterns such as the well-known hazarbaf that occurs in Ukhaydir and in the Baghdad Gate at Raqqa, but clearly an attempt was made to use brick in a decorative fashion. The well-preserved vault in Room § contained alternating lays of horizontal and vertical bricks in equal amounts of mortar. More significant is the use of doubled common bond in the fragmentary vault of Room 11 (fig. 37). This lay is strongly characteristic of Iranian Seljuk architecture,

where carved brick plugs are usually inserted in the rising joints.'S? It occurs with such frequency in the northeast that it is often referred to as “Khurasani brickwork.” Sarvistan’s vault, which included only two courses of doubled stretchers at the springing and no brick plugs, might be seen as foreshadowing this technique. 7 The discussion above does little more than emphasize certain qualities of Sarvistan’s fabric and design that tend to distinguish it from what is known of Sasanian architecture and to connect it instead with the Islamic period. Very few elements at Sarvistan offer the possibility for direct and significant comparison with dated buildings. One feature that can be considered diagnostic in a — specific sense is the form of the wall niche in Room 4 (figs. 45, 46). The use there of a curved bracket to carry a niche head across the corners of a rectangular shelf or space is a common feature at Ukhaydir, where the supporting stucco molding is also present (fig. 83). 1§7. The bond is so common in the Seljuk period as to call for little comment.

CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND THE BUILDING’S DATE 53 In fact, other points of comparison between Sarvistan and Ukhaydir have been mentioned in the course of this study. These include the combination of pitched brick vaults on stone and mortar walls, single- and double-offset moldings for arches and vaults, and the use of transverse vaults in long, columned entrance halls. Also worthy of note is the fact that Ukhaydir is one of two buildings constructed with bricks identical in format to those used at Sarvistan. This

format (.27-.28 by .27-.28 by .o7-.08 meters) is unusual, and it is much smaller than the average format of the bricks used for buildings of the Sasanian period in both Iran and Mesopotamia. '***

The significance of this relationship for the dating of Sarvistan is difficult to evaluate because of the physical distance between these two buildings and the lack of comparative material of the

late Sasanian and Early Islamic periods in Fars. One does not know whether to postulate a |

direct connection between the two or a common development involving buildings that have | disappeared. In view of our present knowledge, Ukhaydir, which was almost certainly built in the second half of the eighth century,"*? should provide a terminus post quem for Sarvistan, a provincial building that exhibits so many features of Ukhaydir’s construction and design. An upper limit for the building’s date is even more elusive. Sarvistan has a decidedly archaic flavor in its general appearance and in the sparseness and severity of its decoration. It could certainly not have been constructed as late as the Seljuk period, unless one assumes an attempt by the builders to archaize drastically. Little is known of the architecture of the Buyids, whom the Seljuk conquerors deposed in A.D. 1051. Few of their monuments have survived, or at least few have been identified. Sarvistan bears little resemblance to the late tenth-century Jurjir portal

in Isfahan, with its elegant pointed arches and elaborate brickwork, or to the remains of a Buyid phase of the Masjid-i Juma nearby. Yet this is not conclusive proof that Sarvistan predates the Buyid period. We know little about Buyid architecture in Fars, and it may have displayed strong archaic traits. This would have been fully in keeping with the political concepts and ambitions of the Buyid rulers, who saw themselves as descendants of the ancient

Sasanian kings.'®" ,

Although, theoretically, an origin in the Buyid period is entirely possible, the building near Sarvistan should probably be placed in the second or third century of The Hegira (c. A.D. 750950) on the basis of its similarities with Ukhaydir and with the earliest portion of the Masjid-1 Atiq in Shiraz. It is not possible to be more specific about the date on purely architectural

grounds. ,

. 158. The bricks at Sarvistan measure .27—.28 by .27- 159. Creswell, EMA’, u, 94ff., dates the building .28 by .07—.08 meters. Herzfeld, Samarra Aufnahmen und “after 775/76 A.D. on historical grounds.” More re-

Untersuchungen zur islamischen Archdologie, Berlin, 1907, cently, W. Caskel, “al-Uhaidir,” Der Islam, xxxix, | 37, describes a building called “Lkuer” as being built of 1964, 29-37, has put forth the more specific date of A.D. bricks measuring .2875 by .2875 by .079 meters. Bricks 762 for the building’s construction.

measuring .27 by .27 by .o7 meters have been reported 160. For both buildings, see E. Galdieri, Isfahan: for Ukhaydir. See Tehr. Forsh., 1, 54. Some Sasanian Masgid-i Guma 2, The Al-i Buyide Period, Rome, 1973, building brick sizes: the Sasanian palace at Damghan, and “The Masgid-i Guma Isfahan: An Architectural

.37 by .37 by .o8 meters; the main palace at Chal Facade of the 3rd Century H.,” Art and Archaeology

Tarkhan, .40 by .40 by .og—.10 meters; the fort at Research Papers, V1, 1974, 24-34. |

Dastagird, .352 by .352 meters; Sasanian buildings at 161. Por the Buyids as successors of the Sasanian Kish, .36 by .36 by .09 meters; Taq-i Kisra at kings, see H. Busse, “The Revival of Persian Kingship

Ctesiphon, .39 by .39 by .12 meters. Comparison of under the Buyids,” in D. S. Richards, ed., Islamic

VIII, 1941, §. -

brick sizes is a significant criterion for dating only when Civilization, 950-1150 (Papers on Islamic History III),

used in conjunction with other methods. The uses and Oxford, 1973, 47-69. abuses of this method are summarized by Schroeder, in

Pope, ed., Survey, 0, 950. See also Godard, Ars Islamica, | |

BLANK PAGE

Palace or Fire Temple?

4 ENERAL acceptance of Herzfeld’s identification of the ruins near Sarvistan with a palace

a (5 mentioned by Tabari as having been built by the Sasanian vizier Mihr Narseh has . tended for many years to divert attention from the vexing problem of the building’s

original function. Now that the ruins have been dissociated from Bahram’s minister—and , indeed from the Sasanian period—this question must be raised anew. , : , A number of factors—historical and geographical as well as architectural—conspire to frus- , trate attempts to interpret the building. In the first place, our inability to assign to the monu| ment, which is anepigraphic and virtually devoid of decoration, a date more precise than a span of two or three centuries arrived at on the basis of architectural comparisons deprives us of a historical setting and thus of any hint as to where to look for the builder. Furthermore, the isolation of the monument in the countryside, one and two days’ journey from the important . urban centers of Fasa and Shiraz, and apparently unassociated with any town or settlement, © _ increases the difficulty of establishing a context that would enable us to understand its original | purpose. Finally, the building’s function, and thus its significance, must ultimately be related to its ground plan, which does not easily lend itself to comparison with particular buildings or

with any class of buildings in Persia or elsewhere. , The peculiarities of the layout, however, have not discouraged writers from relating isolated elements of Sarvistan’s plan to other buildings or from using these comparisons in discussions , of the problems of both date and function. The elements most often cited in these comparisons include the triple twan facade," the “bayt” to the north of the courtyard,’ the cruciform aspect of

1. Von Berchem and J. Stryzgowski, Amida: Materi- Bell, Palace and Mosque, 78. a

aux pour l’épigraphie et histoire musulmanes du Diyar-bekr, 2. Creswell, EMA’, 518; D. Rice, “The Oxford , Heidelberg, 1910, 180f.; Erdmann, Die Kunst Ivans, 31; Excavations at Hira,” Ars Islamica, 1, 1934, stf.

56 SARVISTAN | the large domed hall,? and the two lateral halls with paired columns.‘ Considerable attention, for example, has been given to the ensemble on the eastern side, consisting of the domed Room (10) and columned hall 12, which fronts it. This ensemble has frequently been compared with the “official part” of the so-called Sasanian palace at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, which it resembles in its general features.° The entrance hall at Damghan contains three pairs of round, freestanding columns and two engaged columns, which form a wide central nave and narrower side aisles. This hall communicated by means of a door in its northern end with a square room that was presumably domed. This arrangement especially resembles Sarvistan in the presence of lateral passageways that continue from the side aisles through the front and rear walls of the square room to a small chamber set at right angles to the main axis. A similar

concept is found in a series of rooms on the western side of the fire sanctuary of Takht-1 Sulayman, consisting of a long hall divided into three aisles by rows of piers and columns, and a square altar room made cruciform by four deep alcoves.° The arrangement also occurs in the Umayyad Dar al-Imara at Kufa in Iraq,’ where the number and organization of freestanding and engaged columns and the presence of doorways in each bay of the columned hall are similar to Damghan. Most of the other parallels cited for Rooms 12-10 at Sarvistan are not strictly comparable, as, for example, the Mesopotamian churches of Ctesiphon,* where the existence of a dome above the choir is problematic, or in Palace II at Kish.’ The value of piecemeal comparisons of this sort in determining the function of Sarvistan is dubious for several reasons. First, the combination of columned hall and domed chamber is found in such different types of buildings as palaces (both Sasanian and Early Islamic), Zoroastrian fire temples, and Christian churches. Second, the spatial and functional relationship of this unit to the surrounding rooms varies greatly. It could serve as the central focus of an architectural complex, as at Kufa and Ukhaydir, or as a monumental approach and gatehouse, if de Morgan’s reconstruction of the Imarat-1 Khusrau is correct.*° It could also stand alone, as in the Mesopotamian churches. At Takht-i Sulayman, where it formed part of a complex of irregular shape, it was the result of several building campaigns. The relationship between the “official part” of the building at Damghan and the rest of the structure is not known, and the same holds true for the “Sasanian palace” at Chal Tarkhan."* At Sarvistan this room grouping occupies one side of a rectangular plan and is completely open to adjacent rooms as well as to the exterior. Finally, and most important, except in the case of the churches, it is not known

3. Huff, “Der Takht-i Nishin,” cols. s31f. suggests that the small room at the south end of the 4. Creswell, EMA", 1, 88; Reuther, Ocheidir, 21. columned hall was roofed either with a dome or with a

_§. F. Kimball, “The Sasanian Building at Tepe tunnel vault and extended east and west by vaulted Hissar,” in E. Schmidt, Excavations at Tepe Hissar, alcoves. The apse in the southern wall has no parallel at Damghan, Philadelphia, 1937, 347f.; “The Sasanian Sarvistan.

Building at Damghan (Tepe Hisar),” in Pope, ed., 10. De Morgan, Mission scientifique, Iv, pl. XLII

Survey, 1, 580. (plan), indicates a columned hall preceding a domed 6. Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman, 1965-1973,” chamber. Bell, Palace and Mosque 45, saw no trace of

figs. I, 61. columns during her visit to the site. The entrance 7. Creswell, EMA’, fig. 18. complex at Ukhaydir consists of a long hall with

8. Comparison of columned halls in churches at engaged columns and a small domed chamber at each Ctesiphon to Sarvistan made, for example, by Bell, end. “The Churches and Monasteries of the Tur Abdin,” in 11. A plan of the “Main palace” at Chal Tarkhan can , Von Berchem and Stryzgowski, Amida, 28. See also be found in Thompson, Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqa-

Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” p. 561. bad, plan I. Thompson (3ff.) presents a rather confused 9. L. Watelin, “The Sasanian Buildings Near Kish,” description of the building, which she compares to in Pope, ed., Survey, 1, fig. 169b. The published plan Sarvistan and other “Sasanian” buildings. :

PALACE OR FIRE TEMPLE? 57

what function this ensemble of rooms served. , | The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that an architectural unit of planning existed in greater Iran, from the Sasanian period that consisted of a square or cruciform room, presumably covered by a dome and preceded by a columned hall, and that this plan, whose function is not clear but which apparently had directional significance, was taken over by builders of the Islamic period. It should be noted that this last point renders it useless as a dating criterion. A better approach to the problem of Sarvistan’s function than a piecemeal analysis of its plan would be to consider the building as a whole within the context of its physical environment. The widely held opinion that the ruins are those of a princely establishment—more specifically a hunting lodge or garden pavilion—is not unreasonable, at least judging from their scale and setting. The valley in which Sarvistan is located was not always the “plaine sauvage” that it is today. We know from the descriptions of medieval geographers that the area was once heavily forested with cypress trees that provided wood for the construction of buildings in Shiraz.” Situated precisely between the warm and cold lands, Sarvistan enjoyed a pleasant climate. without extreme variations of temperature and produced an abundance of fruits typical of both climes. Furthermore, the building itself seems to have been set in the middle of a rectangular enclosure that was subdivided by interior walls that we can assume to have enclosed gardens. This arrangement is well known in Persian garden pavilions from Timurid times and later.” The main difficulty in identifying the building as a pavilion or a temporary princely residence

has been its layout, which, in its asymmetry and in the diversity of its rooms, does not conform to the typical Persian pavilion as it is known to us from written sources and standing monuments. Some of the essential elements of this pavilion type are already to be seen in the two Sasanian palaces at Firuzabad.'* Both are freestanding structures that, aside from their

staircases, are bilaterally symmetrical along the longitudinal axis. The nucleus of each building , consists of a domed hall fronted by an iwan or long hall. Subsidiary chambers flanking this central unit support an upper story from which audiences or banquets taking place below might be viewed through window openings beneath the dome. The main facade of Ardashir’s palace faced a spring-fed pool that was enclosed by a circular basin of dressed ashlar blocks. A broken stone basin found in Court B of Qaleh-i Dukhtar could have occupied an analogous position in |

front of the facade of the official complex.” -

The fact that, in general terms, these features normally occur in Safavid pavilions has led Huff to postulate a continuity of design and function through more than a thousand years." Unfortunately, the successive phases of this development cannot be traced, since secular architecture is rare in Iran between the Sasanian and Safavid periods, and almost no examples of the freestanding pavilion have survived.*? Only for the Timurid period do we have ample docu-

12. Wilber, The Masjid-i “Atiq of Shiraz, 2. Mugad- D. Schlumberger, “Le palais ghaznévide de Lashkari dasi reports that cypress trees grew near Fasa and that Bazar,” Syria, XXIX, 1952, 251-70, and Lashkari Bazar: the wood was used in the buildings of that city. See Une résidence royale ghaznévide et ghoride (Mémoires de la

Schwarz, Iran, 1, 98f. délégation archéologique francaise en Afghanistan, xvi),

13. Wilber, Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions, Paris, 1978, pt. A, B. For the Il Khanid period at

Rutland, Vt., 1962, 53ff. Excavation is needed to prove Takht-i Sulayman, see AA (1965 suppl.), 697ff. Istakhri the contemporaneity of the building at Sarvistan and its and Mugqaddasi describe in some detail a Dar al-Imara

“parterres,” however. , built in the eighth century by Abu Muslim at Marv.

14. For recent plans of these buildings, see Huff, Using their accounts, Creswell, EMA’, u, 3, has ©

“Qual'a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad.” reconstructed a square building, about 200 meters on a

15. Ibid., 61. side, with a domed chamber in the center. Four iwans, 16. Ibid., 161ff., 164. fronting this chamber on the main axis, open into

17. However, a residential palace of the Ghaznawid square courtyards, which are accessible from the outside

period has been excavated in Afghanistan. See through narrow gateways in the exterior walls.

, 58 SARVISTAN | mentation for these pavillions, although the buildings themselves have entirely disappeared."

Contemporary descriptions, which emphasize the lushness and splendor of the surrounding , gardens and their elaborate irrigation systems, provide an occasional clue as to the nature of the

buildings themselves. Several are described as having been laid out on a cross plan. Upper stories were standard, and these opened on to a series of external balconies, each called a

shahneshin or “Imperial seat.” The portal, in which royal audiences could take place, was , probably a significant feature of the design.

, Judging from the remains and from the sources, the quality that most characterized the architecture of the Persian pavilion was an adherence to a strict system of design in which the planometric elements were disposed along the main axis in a bilaterally symmetrical fashion. It is precisely this quality that is conspicuously lacking at Sarvistan. Yet Sarvistan’s asymmetry,

which is the result of the dissimilarity of its rooms in both plan and elevation, should not in , itself preclude the identification as a garden pavilion. The Buyid ruler ‘Adud al-Dawla is said to have built a palace in Shiraz containing 360 rooms, of which no two were alike."? Sarvistan might be seen as embodying this concept on a smaller scale.

There are more serious objections to the pavilion hypothesis, however. The open plan at Sarvistan, with its apparent superfluity of internal and external doorways, most or all of which had no fittings for curtains or doorleaves, would have provided little privacy for the occupants of the building. Although the two iwans fronting the main domed hall might be understood as a setting for official audiences, there are no rooms that would have been suitable for living in,

, even for brief periods, especially during the colder months. The upper story, which provided such privacy in later Persian pavilions, is lacking at Sarvistan. Nor are there any indications that | other buildings of a residental nature stood nearby. For this reason, the interpretation of — Sarvistan as a pavilion or hunting lodge is extremely doubtful. The usual identification of Sarvistan as a palace or pavilion has recently been questioned by O. Grabar and by Huff.*° Both recognize the presence of courtly elements in the architecture but see its open and diversified plan as being better suited to religious ceremonies. Each has

| implied that the building might have been a Zoroastrian fire temple, although neither has ventured to assign specific functions to the various rooms. The German excavations at Takht-1 Sulayman, which have exposed the major part of a late-Sasanian fire sanctuary, now enable us to pursue this idea further. The complex to the west of what is generally believed to have been the temple nucleus at Takht-i Sulayman (fig. 86) has already been cited as a parallel for the eastern tract of rooms at Sarvistan.*' There, a long hall is divided into two unequal parts by a pair of heavy cruciform

piers. The halls thus formed are further subdivided into aisles by two rows of supports, rectangular in the southern hall and round in the north. Thin screen walls built in line with the cruciform piers limited direct access between the halls to narrow doors in the side aisles and a

third doorway cut through later in the nave. The southern part of the complex was entered by a triple portal in its facade and by at least one doorway in its west wall. The northern hall had at least one doorway in its west wall and three more in its northern wall, one for each aisle. Eleven meters to the north of the columned hall was a square structure whose interior consisted

53 ff. pl. 1.

18. Wilber, Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions, 21. Plan published in AA (1964, suppl.), col. 8 and 19. Schwarz, Iran, 1, 49.

20. O. Grabar, “Sarvistan,” 1-8, esp. 6; Huff, in

Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman, 1965-1973,” 158. a

PALACE OR FIRE TEMPLE? — 59

essentially of a domed square made cruciform by four deep vaulted alcoves. This structure

seems originally to have stood isolated in an open court, but at some point not long after its : construction an anteroom was built in the space between it and the columned hall, which

featured a long room flanked by four deep barrel-vaulted alcoves.” Less attention has been given to the adjacent central tract, which, in its general arrangement and sequence of elements, is remarkably similar to the corresponding rooms at Sarvistan. The

focus of this tract, and probably of the entire complex, is a char taq (A) surrounded by a | corridor (fig. 86). A doorway in the center of the southern wall of this corridor leads to an iwan

(S), which opens on to the lake. Another doorway in the northern wall leads to a small room, _ which in turn opens on to a large court (M) approximately square and fronted on four sides by arcades. The court is entered in the north from a small square room (N), which the excavators

take to be the entrance to the main complex, since it lies directly opposite the temenos gate.” , Doors in its eastern and western walls give access to rooms which originally may have been

open in the north. ee wh Fak eB BA Pete ©

_ Although the plans of Sarvistan and Takht-i Sulayman are essentially similar, they diverge ‘somewhat in certain details The char taq at Takht-i Sulayman, which corresponds to Sarvistan’s large domed hall, is square, not cruciform, in plan, and it is surrounded by a corridor that

Sarvistan lacks. The iwan fronting the char taq is not broad like Room 3 at Sarvistan but elongated, and it was certainly covered by a tunnel vault rather than a semidone. The domed hall (A) at Takht-i Sulayman does not open directly onto the court but is connected to it by an

| extra room, an arrangement also found in Ardashir’s palace at Firuzabad. The arcades fronting } nan the walls of the court at Takht-i Sulayman are absent at Sarvistan. The little entrance room (N)

to the north of the courtyard at Takht-i Sulayman is present at Sarvistan, where there are also , doorways leading to small flanking rooms. At Sarvistan the open end is turned inward toward

the court), while at Takht-1 Sulayman it faces out. .

Discrepancies between Sarvistan’s eastern rooms and the western tract of Takht-1 Sulayman , can also be cited. The paired columns, which are Sarvistan’s most salient feature, are single supports at Takht-i Sulayman. The domed room (PD) at Takht-1 Sulayman is proportionately much narrower than Sarvistan’s Room 10 and is not contiguous with the long hall. The most important difference between the two buildings is that at Sarvistan the tracts are closely interconnected by numerous doorways in their common wall, while at Takht-i Sulayman they are almost entirely separated by a long corridor. Their relative positions are also reversed. Yet despite these differences, the juxtaposition in both buildings of ranges of rooms that are essentially alike in the nature and organization of their component parts is striking enough to allow one to postulate a relationship between them, which can be explained only by assuming

that they shared a common purpose. ,

a The identification of Takht-i Sulayman as a fire sanctuary—more particularly as the seat of the Adur Gushnasp, one of the three great fires of the Sasanian empire—is now assured by the discovery there of seal impressions bearing the inscription “Magupat of the house of fire Atur-i Gushnasp.”*4 The precise manner in which the complex was used, however, remains problem- ,

atic and highly speculative, despite the fact that a number of major rooms have produced | , 22. Naumann, “Takht-i Suleiman und Zendan-i ‘Suleiman, ” Festschrift fiir Wilhelm Eilers, Wiesbaden, | Suleiman, Grabungsbericht 1963/64,” AA (196s, 1967, 189f. For an alternate reading, see R. Gobl, “Die oe

suppl.), 661. sasanidischen Tonbullen vom Takht-i Suleiman,” An-- — ae 23. Ibid., 463. — - ~ ; zeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie d. Wissenschaften, ee

24. H. Humbach, “Atur GuSnasp und Takht-i Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Cl, 1964, 49—SI. : ABI 8 8

60 SARVISTAN inventories of fittings that, if not precisely identifiable, may at least be interpreted in the light of what is known or presumed about ancient Zoroastrian cult practice. For example, the char tag, whose permanent fixtures were found almost intact, despite later occupation by squatters, contained two pairs of low sandstone socles, each perforated in the upper surface by a small hole, which flanked a small podium or altar, now gone, that had been

set into the paving at the center of the room.** Two smaller socles, also perforated in their upper surfaces, abutted the altar’s north side, while raised areas in the room’s northern corners suggested to the excavators additional podiums or tables. Immediately to the east of the char taq was a smaller room (B) of a cruciform plan with fittings for a podium or table in the center of its pavement. Naumann, utilizing a model for ancient fire temples already promulgated by Erdmann,” saw this smaller room as the atashgah, the place where the sacred fire was tended when it was not being used in a ceremony, and he took the char tag to be the public cult room, where the fire was displayed to the faithful who gathered in the surrounding corridors.*” The various features of this room he saw as supporting the long series of implements and sacred

substances that the Denkart describes as being used by the priests during the course of the ceremony.”* The utensils themselves have not been found. The western complex also contains numerous features apparently of cultic significance, including extensive water channels, a number of low, altarlike socles that rested on the footings of the colonnades in hall PB, and a large altar in the domed room PD.*? Naumann compared the columned halls to those of the presumed palace plans of Damghan, Qasr-i Shirin, Hawsh

Kuri, and Sarvistan and interpreted the entire western complex as a kind of palace chapel in which the king could play an active role in the cult of fire in the presence of his courtiers.*° Recent research by G. Gropp and by M. Boyce on the temples and cult practices of modern Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India has led to a reinterpretation of the ancient monuments believed to have been fire sanctuaries, including those of Takht-1 Sulayman.** Gropp, in an attempt to establish a model for the use of ancient fire temples, has distinguished three types of temple plans in use today.** The agyari, the most common type, consists of a rectangular

building in the middle of which there is a square vaulted room, called the adurian, that is surrounded by a broad corridor. On one side is a second room called dar-e mehr or izishngah that either communicates directly with the adurian or is separated from it by another corridor.

, The second type, or adurian temple, consists only of the square vaulted room and the surrounding corridor, which sometimes stands isolated in a large hall. The dar-e mehr is lacking. The third type, or dar-e mehr temple, consists of one or more izishngah without an adurian. Gropp finds it significant that many ancient “fire temples” have two prominent rooms. But on the basis of his own observations of modern Zoroastrian ritual and of the testimony of a Parsi informant, he rejects Erdmann’s theory that one room (atashgah) served to house the eternal flame that was periodically carried to the other room, where it received offerings from the Naumann, AA (1965, suppl.), 63o0ff. and figs. 2- Feuertempel der Zarathustrier,” AMI Iv, 1971, 263ff.; 4.25.review of Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, in Kunst des

26. Feuerheiligtum, 64f. Orients, IX, 1974, 144-47. M. Boyce, “The Fire

27. Naumann, AA (1965, suppl.), 632ff. Temples of Kerman,” Acta Orientalia, xxx, 1966, $I-

28. Ibid., 633; Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, 72; “On the Sacred Fires of the Zoroastrians,” Bulletin of Copenhagen, 1944, 157f.; Erdmann, Feuerheiligtum, 43. the Society of Oriental and African Studies, XXX1, 1968, 52-

29. Huff, in Naumann et al., “Takht-i Suleiman, 68; “On the Zoroastrian Temple Cult of Fire” (a review

1965-1973,” Istff. of Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer), Journal of the American 30. Naumann, AA (1964, suppl.), 662. Oriental Society, XCV, 1975, 454-65.

31. G. Gropp, “Die Funktion des Feuertempels der 32. Gropp, “Funktion des Feuertempels,” 148ff. Zoroastrier,” AMI, u, 1969, 147ff.; “Die rezenten

PALACE OR FIRE TEMPLE? 61 priests before the eyes of the congregation.*’ He sees the pairing of rooms in these plans simply as evidence that temples of the agyari type with an adurian and one or more dar-e mehr already

existed in antiquity and explains the functions of the two rooms by using modern ritual as a ~ model:*4 The adurian houses the purified sacred fire, which is solemnly fed by priests five times

daily. This fire is eternal; it is never extinguished or allowed to go out. It is not seen by the congregation and it is stationary rather than peripatetic. The dar-e mehr or izishngah is used for

rituals of a different sort. The most important is the complicated Haoma ceremony, which involves the ritual preparation of vegetable substances, including the Haoma plant, the manipulation of implements familiar from representations in ancient art such as the ring and the barsom, and the recitation of Avestan texts. The fire used here was kindled for each ceremony, sum-

marily consecreted, and later extinguished. ,

Although his study was apparently inspired at least in part by the discoveries at Takht-i Sulayman, Gropp proceeds with great caution in applying his model to the archaeological remains. The great domed hall (A) at the center of the complex he assumes to have been the adurian, where the Adur Gushnasp burned perpetually under the care of the priests.** Hall PB to

the west, with its elaborate water channels and stone socles, he sees as comprising several izishngah, which he suggests were used in the haoma offerings, but he concedes that the majority of rooms continues to defy interpretation. Later, in a review of Schippmann’s Die -iranischen Feuerheiligtiimer, Gropp reiterates his views and extends his interpretation of Takht-i Sulayman’s plan to include the other domed rooms (X, B, PD, and PF), which, he suggests,

might have sheltered temporary fires that were kindled for special rites.3°

Boyce, who has also studied modern Zoroastrian temple architecture and ritual firsthand, puts forth the theory, based on no compelling evidence, that the central tract at Takht-1 Sulayman served essentially as an entrance complex for pilgrims visiting the Adur Gushnasp, which, she says, was enthroned “in deep security at the remotest part of the temple” in room |

PD.*” According to her conception of the layout, visitors approaching from the north would ,

the shrine itself. , Se

have paused to make ablutions in the great domed hall (A), then continued through to the arcades fronting the building on the south before entering columned hall PA on their way to It is evident from the great variety of opinions that have been expressed about the functional

significance of the rooms at Takht-i Sulayman that the problem is far from solved. This is unfortunate, especially since an understanding of the plan of Sarvistan hinges on analogies that can be drawn between the two buildings, which share many features in their layouts. In light of

the above discussion, however, some suggestions may be made with regard to the use of Sarvistan’s plan, which, by virtue of its similarity to that of Takht-i Sulayman, could only have

served for a fire sanctuary. , ,

All of the accounts and theories concerning the ancient and modern Zoroastrian temple cult of fire agree essentially on the existence of an inner room in which the sacred flame burned eternally under the constant care of ritually purified priests. Whether stationary or movable, the fire had to be kept secure from weather and from contamination of all kinds. The only room that might have served this function at Sarvistan is Room 4, which is tucked away in the northwestern corner of the building. One can easily envision a fire enthroned here beneath the formal and imposing semidome. The fact that this room is connected with other parts of the

33. Ibid., 166f. 36. Kunst des Orients, 1X, 1974, 144-47. 34. Ibid. , 37. Boyce, “On the Zoroastrian Temple Cult of

35. Ibid., 170f. Fire,” 464f.

62 SARVISTAN ae , _ _ building by no fewer than three doorways should not present any difficulties for such an interpretation. A direct view of | the room’s west end seems to have been intentionally restricted. It is not visible from hall 9, which offers a bent-axis approach to this area. The doorway from Room ¢ has been awkwardly set so that a direct view of the semidome is limited

from there and impossible from entrance room 6. ,

Another hint of the importance of Room 4 lies in less-tangible elements of the ground plan. Despite the seemingly open and haphazard arrangement of the rooms at Sarvistan an inherent directional quality is strongly emphasized, if not actually created, by the vaulting systems. Movement is directed from south to north and particularly toward the northwestern corner. The directional significance of the transverse vaults in Room 12 has already been noted. The domed Room 10 is clearly the major focus of this eastern tract. But doorways in Rooms 12 and 10 (and also in Rooms 14 and 8) permit access all along its length to the central group of rooms whose orientation toward the north is suggested by an imposing entrance ensemble and by its similarity to the central rooms of Ardashir’s palace in Firuzabad, where a progression from entrance “iwan” to court is apparent. From this central tract, access to the corner room 4 1s

possible, both indirectly through Room § and directly by a doorway in the northwestern corner of the court, while other doorways communicate with the western range of rooms. In , this western sequence, motion from south to north is implied by the axis of the tunnel vault in columned hall 9, which terminates in a semidome directly above the entrance to Room 4. Strictly speaking, Room 4 does not have a proper counterpart at Takht-i Sulayman, but it can perhaps be compared with the domed room “X” there, which occupies a similar position at the

far corner of an open court. a , ,

If Room 4 is interpreted as the adurian, a permanent place for the sacred fire, the function of

the great domed hall 1 is probably to be compared with Room A at Takht-i Sulayman by virtue of its location at the core of a similar complex. Boyce’s theory that Room A served as a kind of ablution chamber, in which visitors washed before proceeding to the inner shrine, is not convincing. It is based. on the assumption that the depression in the pavement was originally a basin, whereas in fact the excavators believe that it held a podium for the display and worship of the fire.** The system of socles and platforms speaks for the identification of this

room as an izishngah, in which such fixtures would be required to support the numerous utensils and sacred substances that were used during the course of complicated rituals like the Haoma ceremony. Although Room 1 has no surrounding corridor, it is open on all four sides so that the fire would have been fully visible from the outside. It is likely that the smaller domed Room 1o was also used for fire ceremonies performed either regularly or on an occasional basis. In any case, it corresponds in its position at the end of a columned hall to Room PD at Takht-i Sulayman, which contained an altar and was used for the same purposes. It should be noted that the corner columns, which have previously been considered a curious feature of Room Io fully correspond to a set of four columns discovered at

Takht-i Sulayman beneath Room PC,*? These apparently belonged to an earlier phase of the temple and were not reintroduced in the new stone building PD. However, the quarter columns applied to the corners of Room PD may be seen as the continuation of the earlier concept | in an abbreviated form.*® The presence of corner columns in Room 10 at Sarvistan places the

38. See Naumann, AA (1965, suppl.), 633. |

39. Huff, in Naumann et al., “Takht-1 Suleiman, : 1965-1973, 144 and figs. 43, 39, OT. -

40. Ibid., 152 and figs. $3, 61.

, PALACE OR FIRE TEMPLE? 63 building at the end of a long series of ancient cult buildings generally believed to have been fire temples. These include the shrines at Susa (fifth/fourth century B.c.), Kuh-i Khwaja (second/ first century B.c.), and Surkh Kotal (second century a.p.).*" Each consists of a square cella with four interior columns. Anterooms containing two or more columns that precede the shrines may be seen as foreshadowing the organization of Room 12 at Sarvistan. The two columned halls, 9 and 12, probably served a more important purpose than simply functioning as entrance corridors. Boyce, in her study of modern fire temples in Iran, describes “a large common hall where worshippers come to pray singly or collectively.”** These halls, sometimes called gahambar khane, flanked an open court and often adjoined the fire chamber itself. I would therefore suggest that one or both of the columned halls served this function at Sarvistan.

The identification of the building as a Zoroastrian fire sanctuary would seem to require justification from points of view other than the merely architectural. After all, with the Arab conquest of Iran in the mid-seventh century, Zoroastrianism was suddenly reduced from the status of an official state religion with rich royal patronage and privileges to a religion that was at best tolerated and at worst despised and suppressed. Yet the monument near Sarvistan is imposing both in size and in general aspect, and considerable monetary resources must have been required to erect and to maintain it. It was also conspicuously situated on, or near, a main highway that connected two important towns and must therefore have been visible to travelers and to Muslim officialdom. Furthermore, aside from the fragmentary remains of a char taq recently excavated by the French at Tureng Tepe in Gurgan,*#’ no monuments from the post-

Sasanian period in Iran have as yet been interpreted as Zoroastrian cult buildings. A brief discussion of the status of the Zoroastrians in the early Islamic period will therefore be helpful “in establishing a context for Sarvistan.**

With the conquest of Sasanian Iran by the Arab armies in the seventh century, Zoroastrians , who declined to embrace Islam were permitted to practice their own religion on payment of the , jizya, a tax that amounted to tribute. As clients of the state, they were accorded the status of , ahlu dh-dhimmati, or “people of protection,” and were theoretically free from persecution and molestation. Even so, treatment of the Zoroastrians by their Muslim conquerors varied greatly

in different periods and from one region to another, depending as it did on the attitudes of individual caliphs and their agents. In the first century of Islam the majority of Muslim rulers and officials appear to have dealt leniently with the Zoroastrians and other “protected peoples” so long as the requisite taxes 41. See Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 48ff. Ghirsh- 42. Boyce, “The Fire Temples of Kerman,” $4, 51, man recently discussed the “tetrastyle temple” in con- n. 3. nection with buildings discovered during his excavations 43. J. Deshayes, “Un temple du feu d’époque at Bard-i Nishandeh. See his Terrasses sacrées de Bard-e islamique 4 Tureng Tepe,” in Le feu dans le proche-Orient Nechandeh et Masjid-i Solaiman; Mémoires de la Délégation antique (Actes du colloque de Strasbourg [9-10 June 1972)),

archéologigue en Ivan, XLV, Paris, 1976, 1, 197ff. He favors Leiden, 1973, 31-39.

an Iranian origin for this plan (223f.), which he considers 44. Concise accounts of Zoroastrianism in the Early “lexpression par excellence de l’architecture religieuse Islamic period can be found in B. Spuler, Iran in friihparthe.” Ghirshman believes the tetrastyle temple at Islamischer Zeit, Wiesbaden 1952, 183ff.; M. Boyce, Bard-i Nishandeh was a cult room for the worship of the Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London,

divine couple Anahita and Mithra. Ghirshman sees the 1979, 145-62; R. Frye, The Golden Age of Persia, Sasanian char tag as a logical development of the tetrastyle London, 1975, passim, and The Heritage of Persia, concept. It is interesting to note that square rooms with London, 1962, 263-85. For Iraq, see the recent study by four interior columns, preceded by long halls, occur in M. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, Princeton Sasanian houses at Ctesiphon. See E. Kuhnel, Die Studies on the Near East, Princeton, 1984, 277-305,

Ausgrabungen der zwieter Ktesiphon-Expedition, 1931/32, with bibliography. | Berlin, 1933, fig. 3.

64 SARVISTAN were paid and their religion was practiced unobtrusively. To be sure, instances of unprovoked aggression supported by the state are recorded. Hadjdjadj b. Yusuf, for example, the harsh Umayyad governor of Iraq, who outraged the Christians by extracting the jizya from monks, overwhelmed a village of Zoroastrians and destroyed their fire temple.‘ A commissioner sent by

another governor to destroy fire temples throughout Iran was able to extract, with official sanction, forty million dirhems in return for leaving the temples intact.*° But these incidents were sporadic rather than the rule and were usually inspired by financial rather than religious considerations. Treaties signed by Zoroastrian communities with Muslim commanders involving the

payment of money in return for guarantees of security for life and property were normally honored. Only under the devout caliph Umar II was pressure exerted upon dhimmis to convert. The Abbasid victory in A.D. 750 was aided by Iranian Muslims, who in turn gained caliphal

support and recognition. Indeed, so pro-Persian was the atmosphere at the new capital of Baghdad that some of the trappings of Sasanian royal splendor were revived at court and ancient Persian customs, such as the annual Now Ruz celebration, were reinstated, although they no longer had a religious meaning.*’ Prominent Persian families enjoyed not only special favor but also great influence in Islamic governmental agencies. This dispensation was not, however, extended to Iran’s still-significant Zoroastrian minority. On the contrary, despite invitations to Magian priests to debate at Baghdad with Muslim scholars on the relative merits of the two religions, instances of active and insidious persecution became increasingly numerous, culminating in the repressive measures of Mutawakkil in the mid-ninth century. Laws drawn up in the legal schools and promulgated by the caliphs regulated every aspect of the

social, economic, and religious lives of Zoroastrians and other non-Muslims: under Muslim dominion.** They affected dress and general behavior in public as well as relations with Muslims and with each other. Cult activity was controlled along with the location, size, decoration, and repair of religious buildings. These harsh policies, combined with increased Muslim missionary activity, led to mass conversions in Iran during the early Abbasid period, and by the second half of the ninth century large portions of the countryside followed the cities and towns that had already accepted Islam. The Magian clergy, recognizing a serious threat to the continued existence of Zoroastrianism as an organized religion, responded in the ninth century with a flurry of intellectual and literary activity. Most of the Pahlevi books, including the Denkart and the Bundahishn, received their final form during this period, which is often called the Zoroastrian Renaissance.*? Numerous polemical treatises and apologetic works reflect a religion under siege. The lay author of the Skand-gumanig Vizar, or “Doubt-dispelling Exposition,” for example, compares the teachings of Zoroastrianism with those of other religions and finds them to be the only ones acceptable to good and reasonable men.*° In shorter popular works the laity is exhorted by the priests to “be 45. Spuler, Iran in friih-Islamischer Zeit, 90, n. 8. 49. For the Zoroastrian Renaissance, see R. Frye, 46. A. Kremer, Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den The Heritage of Persia, 279f., and “The New Persian

Chalifen, Vienna, 1875/77, Il, 164. Renaissance in Western Iran,” Arabic and Islamic Studies 47. C. Bosworth, “The Heritage of Rulership in in Honour of Hamilton A. P. Gibb, Leiden, 1965, 227. Early Islamic Iran and the Search for Dynastic Connec- 50. Boyce, Zoroastrians, 155; P. J. de Menasce, Une

tions with the Past,” Ivan, x1, 1973, siff. apologétique mazdéenne du LX siécle. Skandgumanik vicar, 48. These laws are traditionally attributed to Umar I La solution décisive des doiites, Freiburg, Switzerland,

and are known collectively as the “Covenant of 1945. For a survey of Zoroastrian literature after the ‘Umar.” A. Tritton, The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Muslim conquest, see Menasce in Cambridge History of Subjects: A Critical Study of the Covenant of ‘Umar, Ivan, IV, §43—-6S.

London, 1930, has shown that many of these laws |

originated in later times, certainly after the second century A.H.

PALACE OR FIRE TEMPLE? 65

without doubt” and to resist the efforts of proselytizers. Much Zoroastrian literature of this period is preoccupied with providing instruction to communities in danger of becoming extinct

| through ignorance and indifference as well as through conversion. This desperate situation 1s , clearly reflected in the Dadistan-i Dinek, or “Religious Opinions and Decisions.”*' The author, a high priest of Fars and Kirman named Manushir, responds to ninety-two questions on a wide range of subjects, including religious practice, doctrines, and the duties of officials, put to him in an epistle by lay members of a Zoroastrian community somewhere in Iran. In his clearly

change in all forms.

reasoned reply Manushir emphasizes the necessity of maintaining traditions and resisting This literature was the last glimmer of a dying culture. Despite the efforts of Manushir and other defenders of Mazdian orthodoxy, apostasy to Islam continued unabated. The first half of the tenth century saw the first great migration of Zoroastrians to India.** Those who remained found themselves living under increasingly harsh conditions as local Iranian dynasties, fervently Muslim, began to emerge as vassals of the caliphs. Only under the Buyids, who gained control of Bagdad in a.p. 945 and who ruled most of western Iran in the tenth and early eleventh centuries, were the Zoroastrians able to attain a measure of real security. Little is known about the Zoroastrians under Seljuk rule (A.D. 1037-1157), but their position could not have been very secure. Nizam al Mulk, a chief minister under two Seljuk rulers, warns in his Book of Government against appointing non-Muslims to the office of tax collector, lest they take advantage of their position to inflict hardship on Muslims, and he prescribes punishment should this occur.*? The Mongol invasion of the early thirteenth century sealed the fate of Iran’s remaining Zoroastrian communities, which shared in the general devastation. The last great collections of their sacred books must have perished at that time, along with any major fire sanctuaries that still survived. Thereafter, the only significant concentrations of

Zoroastrians occurred in villages along the desert routes and particularly in the oasis cities of , Yazd and Kirman. During the Early Islamic period one area of Iran—Fars—provided relatively stable, even — favorable, conditions for Zoroastrians. This was due, in part, to its geographical position. Like Kirman to the east, which became predominantly Muslim only in the late ninth century, Fars was located in the heart of the country, away from the roads that facilitated the spread of Islam, and was not as readily accessible from the caliphal capitals as other regions such as Khuzistan and Khorisan. Even more important, Fars enjoyed prestige as the homeland of Iran’s great pre-Islamic dynasties—the Achamenids and the Sasanians. The massive residences at Firuzabad and Bishapur, and the numerous rock reliefs there as well as at Naqsh-i Rustam, must have

constantly reminded the inhabitants of the province of a time when “Mazda-worshipping” kings had held sway over vast portions of the ancient world. Nationalistic feelings no doubt inspired the fierce resistance that the invaders encountered in this region, whose major towns often had to be conquered more than once. Thus, while Islam made steady progress in Fars as in the rest of Iran, it did so much more slowly. After the initial period of conquest, in the course of which the ancient capital of Istakhr was 51. Trans. by E. West in F. Miiller, Sacred Books of Gesellschaft, XCVIl, 1948, 234ff. G. Nariman in Islamic

the East, xvi, Oxford, 1882. Culture, 1, 1927, 632ff., and vil, 1933, 277ff., denied that s2. For the Zoroastrian emigrations, see C. Inostran- the migrations were solely the result of Muslim

cev, “Baladuri and Hamza Isfahani on the Migration of fanaticism and stressed the fair-minded policies .of the

the Parsees,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1938), caliphs regarding the dhimmis. 84ff., and J. Travadia, “Zur Pflege des iranischen $3. The Siyasat Name, trans. H. Darke as The Book of

Schriftums,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Government of Nizam al-Mulk, London, 1960, 173. |

66 SARVISTAN , destroyed, Fars continued to be a major center of Zoroastrian activity. In the ninth century Abu Zaid al-Balkhi, an Abbasid official, could write: “The Zoroastrians have preserved the books, the fire temples and the customs of the era of their kings, thanks to an uninterrupted succession;

they retain their ancient usages and conform to them in their religion. There is no country where the Zoroastrians are more numerous than in Fars, because that country is the center of their power, rites and religious books.”** Al-Balkhi noted that almost every town and village had its own fire temple where Zoroastrian rites were continuously performed. The Arab geographers give the same impression of active Zoroastrian communities in Fars. In the early tenth century, Ibn al Faqih al Hamadani and Ibn Rusta list the fire temples known to them that were still in use in their time; these included the famous shrine at Kariyan, from which priests distributed the sacred fire to all parts of the country.* Zoroastrianism flourished in Fars for the last time under the Buyid rulers, who, in 934, made

Shiraz a major center of their power. The social and political status accorded the ancient religion by this dynasty must be seen as coincident with a final wave of Iranian national feeling

preceding the arrival of the Seljuks. Although staunchly Muslim, the Buyids traced their lineage back to the Sasanian king Bahram V, and a few of them are known to have displayed a keen interest in the ancient monarchy.*° “Adud al-Dawla, who rebuilt the Sasanian capital of Gur in southern Fars, renaming it Firuzabad, appears as a Sasanian ruler on coins minted in Fars that bear the Persian title Shahanshah.*” On the walls of a building at Persepolis he proudly recorded a visit he made to the site in the company of a Mobad from Kazerun who read to him an inscription in Middle Persian.** Mardawij b. Ziar (d. A.D. 935). founder of the Ziarid line from which the Buyids emerged, is said to have had a golden throne set with jewels made for himself and to have inquired about the crowns of the Persian kings. The medieval historians claim that he dreamed of conquering Iraq, rebuilding the great palace of the Kisras at Ctesi-

phon, and reestablishing an Iranian state based on the ancient Zoroastrian religion. , It was certainly this Iranian national sentiment in the tenth and early eleventh centuries that led the Buyid rulers to deal tenderly with the Zoroastrians, protecting their rights and appointing them to positions of prominence. In the capital city of Shiraz, Zoroastrians went about without the prescribed elements of costume normally worn to distinguish them from Muslims, and they celebrated their festivals openly.°° The influence enjoyed by the Zoroastrians in Fars emerges most dramatically in a biographical account of the life of Shaikh Abu Ishak al-Kazeruni, founder of a Sufi order, who died in a.D. 1034. The Shaikh converted numerous Zoroastrians to Islam and generally fomented conflict between the Muslim and Zoroastrian communities in Kazerun until, at the request of Khorshid, the Zoroastrian governor of Kazerun, he was summoned to

Shiraz and reprimanded for his behavior by the Buyid ruler.” 54. H. Nyberg, “Sassanid Mazdaism According to History of Iran, w, 273ff. See also R. Frye, “The New Moslem Sources,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Persian Renaissance in Western Iran,” 227, and “Die

Institute, Bombay, XxxXIx, 1958, 9. Wiedergeburt Persiens um die Jahrtausendwende,” Der

55. For accounts of fire temples in Fars in the Early Islam, XXXV, 1960, 42—SI. Islamic period, see B. Tirmidhi, “Zoroastrians and Their 57. Bosworth, “The Heritage of Rulership,” $7.

Fire Temples in Iran and Adjoining Countries from the 58. Frye, The Heritage of Persia, 290, n. 31; gth to the 14th Centuries as Gleaned from the Arabic L. Richter-Bernburg, “Amir-Malik-Shahanshah: Adud Geographical Works,” Islamic Culture, xxIv, 1950, 27I- ad-Daula’s Titulature Re-examined,” Ivan, xvi, 1980, 84; J. Kramers, “Die Feuertempel in Fars in Islamischer 87. Zeit,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesell- $9. Bosworth, “The Heritage of Rulership,” 57ff.

schaft, xcu, (N.F. 19), 1938, 10-12. 60. Spuler, Iran in friih-Islamischer Zeit, 191; 56. For Buyid interest in the Sasanians, see C. P. Schwarz, Ivan im Mittelalter, 45. Bosworth, “The Heritage of Rulership,” 57ff., and H. 61. F. Meier, ed., Die Vita des abi Ishaq al-Kazeruni, Busse, “Iran under the Buyids,” in The Cambridge Leipzig, 1948, 21f. and passim.

| PALACE OR FIRE TEMPLE? 67 It should be clear from this brief account of Zoroastrianism in the early centuries of Islam that despite the decline brought about by the loss of state patronage and suppression by Muslim

authorities, the religion continued to survive and even prosper after the fall of the Sasanians, , especially in Fars. This has a direct bearing on the problem of Sarvistan, for while the written sources are silent on the construction of new temples in post-Sasanian times, the erection of such buildings would at least have been theoretically possible. From the legal point of view, Zoroastrians, as dhimmis, were restricted in nearly all aspects of life, especially in regard to the visible manifestations of their faith. Nevertheless, some latitude was permitted in such matters. A. Tritton, for example, has shown that a great variety of legal opinion existed on the construction of sacred buildings by non-Muslims.” All four of the major schools of law disallowed

such buildings in cities and towns of Islam, and Malik, Shafi, and Ahmad did not permit them in the neighborhoods of such towns either. Abu Hanifa, however, considered the matter one of distance, recommending a limit of one mile from Muslim urban centers for the placement of these buildings. Nor did the treaties signed by Arab commanders with various towns always coincide with the legal view. Furthermore, since the enforcement of both laws and treaties depended on individuals whose personal views must have varied greatly and in any case are rarely known, it is hardly possible to determine with any degree of certainty when a building

like Sarvistan might have been constructed. One can only speculate on the moment when conditions would have been most favorable. Given the lack of more positive evidence, it seems most probable that the fire temple near Sarvistan was erected sometime during the ninth century, when the Zoroastrian clergy was marshaling its dwindling resources in a last frantic attempt to stem the decline of its religion

which was being brought about by conversions, emigration, and indifference. Apparently designed along the lines of Takht-i Sulayman and perhaps of other great temples of the Sasan-

ian period, the building would have been the physical embodiment of the ancient traditions extolled by Manushir and other defenders of the faith. It is tempting to see Sarvistan as a manifestation of the same pious energy that produced the Denkart and Bundahishn and other literary/religious works of the so-called Zoroastrian Renaissance. The enhanced status of Zoroastrianism in Fars during the Buyid period makes a slightly later origin feasible, but this point should not be overemphasized for the expedience of assigning a date of construction coincident with historical circumstances. It should be borne in mind that the interest that the Buyid rulers

took in the Zoroastrians and their religion was essentially antiquarian in nature. A movement , of A.D. 925/35 to reestablish an Iranian state based on Zoroastrianism did not succeed;°*? Zoroastrians remained dhimmis in a Muslim world. Nor were relations between this influential group

and the Muslim populations always good, as witnessed by the government’s suppression of riots against Zoroastrians in Shiraz in A.D. 979. Least likely, however, is a construction date in the Umayyad period, because conditions during the first century of Islam could not have been sufficiently stable for this newly subjugated people to encourage a building program of such magnitude. 62. Tritton, The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Sub- 63. Spuler, Iran in friih-Islamischer Zeit, 193. jects, 37ff., for restrictions affecting constructions and 64. Frye, The Heritage of Persia, 281 and n. 31. rebuilding of non-Muslim cult buildings. See also R. Gottheil, “An Answer to the Dhimmis,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1921), 426.

Sarvistan and Early Iranian

Architecture: A New

Perspective

UR reinterpretation of the ruins near Sarvistan from Sasanian palace to Zoroastrian fire _

(_) sss of the Early Islamic centuries 1s a radical one with important implications for

the study of Iranian architecture of both periods. The building has for many years been considered the major monument of middle Sasanian architecture on the plateau. Its significance for the architectural history of the region was enhanced by Herzfeld’s identification of the ruins with a palace mentioned by Tabari as having been built in a garden of cypresses somewhere in Fars by Mihr Narseh, the vizier of the Sasanian king Bahram V. Additional accounts by Tabari

were cited by Herzfeld and others in an attempt to associate a number of char tags in the Kazerun-Farashband region with the same builder, while comparisons of the masonry of these buildings with the “Sasanian” palace led to the gradual acceptance of a distinct architecture for the middle years of the Sasanian empire in Fars. But our comparative study of the fabric of these buildings has not borne out the theory that

they formed a coherent group attributable to a single builder. On the contrary, not only 1s Sarvistan unique in the method of its construction, but the char tags also display marked differences from one another. A strong regionalism might conceivably account for the differences in technique between Farashband and Sarvistan, but it can hardly be invoked to explain the extraordinary variety of masonry types found in char tags that are separated from one

another by less than a two-day journey over easy terrain. , Since there are no longer any grounds fora specific attribution of the char tags to the fifth century, and since Sarvistan must clearly be placed in the Early Islamic period, we are left with a conspicu-

ous lacuna in our knowledge of middle Sasanian architecture. Indeed, the reattribution of a building that has long been considered a keystone in the chronology of Sasanian architecture must

lead us to the question of what, in fact, is actually known of the architecture of Sasanian Iran.

70 SARVISTAN | | The ruins of architectural monuments in Iraq and Iran have been linked with the Sasanian dynasty since the early nineteenth century, but the concept of a discrete Sasanian architecture goes back barely five decades, to the appearance of Reuther’s study in Survey of Persian Art. More surprising perhaps is the fact that Reuther’s work remains to this day the most comprehensive treatment of the subject. Whether or not we care to admit it, our impressions and preconceptions regarding Sasanian architecture derive largely from this work and particularly from the often-attractive drawings with which it is illustrated. Today, Reuther would readily admit to the shortcomings of his study—shortcomings resulting for the most part from the nature of the material available to him. His firsthand experience of the buildings he presented was limited to Ctesiphon, which he excavated in the late 1920s. For almost everything else he had to defer to the accounts of early travelers and archaeologists such as Flandin and Coste, Dieulafoy, de Morgan, Stein, and Herzfeld. These, in turn, based their attributions of Sasanian origin either on intuition or on Eastern traditions embodied in the works of Muslim authors who wrote several centuries after the end of the Sasanian Empire. Needless to say, very few buildings had at that time been adequately documented, and even

fewer had been excavated. Add to this the fact that, as a group, the buildings generally designated Sasanian have tended to yield little inscriptional material, and it is easy to understand the problems Reuther faced in compiling his study.

A full revision of Reuther’s canonical list of Sasanian monuments must wait for future fieldwork. Proper attribution and interpretation of building remains, so vital to a definition of Sasanian architecture, can be based only on careful firsthand examination of the buildings themselves. In the meantime, this study suggests that other supposedly Sasanian buildings, in addition to the one at Sarvistan, may have originated in Islamic rather than in Sasanian times. This is certainly the case, for example, with the fragmentary brick hall at Iwan-i Kherka in Khuzistan, whose arches appear to have been pointed rather than elliptical, a detail that has

escaped previous visitors to the site. ,

Even more important for a history of early Iranian architecture are the well-known ruins of two palatial complexes at Qasr-i Shirin in Persian Kurdistan, known, respectively, as Imaret-i Khusrau and Char Qapu. The considerable literature dealing with this place has been concerned

primarily with the problem of whether Char Qapu, whose most conspicuous feature is a square-domed chamber with a doorway in each wall (char tag), was originally a palace or a fire temple;' the Sasanian date proposed by de Morgan and by Bell,* who published the first and only surveys at the turn of the century, has been universally accepted. Evidence for the pre-Islamic origin of these buildings, however, is more flimsy than we have been willing to recognize. It has been generally assumed that enthusiastic descriptions by early Muslim historians and geographers of throne rooms, columned halls, pavilions, terraces, courtyards, and gardens at Qasr-i Shirin must refer to one or both of these buildings,? whereas, in fact, it is just as likely that they refer to other complexes in the area that have not survived. Thus ibn Rusta’s description of a great pre-Islamic iwan built of stone and baked brick surrounded by subsidiary rooms is, despite recent assertions by J. Schmidt, not sufficiently specific to identify Char Qapu.‘ 1. For a summary of opinions, see Schippmann, rique et littéraire de la Perse et des contrées adjacentes, extrait Feuerheiligttimer, 282-91, and more recently, J. Schmidt, du Mo’djem el-Bouldan de Yagout, trans. C. Barbier de

“Qasr-i Sirin, Feuertempel oder Palast,” Baghdader Meynard, Paris, 1961, pp. 291ff; J. Schmidt, “Qasr-i Mitteilungen, 1x, 1978. Sirin,” passim.

2. Mission scientifique, 1v, pls. 40, 42, 46; Palace and _ 4. Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalter, p. 691; “Qasr-i

Mosque, 44—54 and plates. Sirin,” 44. 3. Yakut ar-Rumi, Dictionnaire géographique, histo-

SARVISTAN AND EARLY IRANIAN ARCHITECTURE 71

On the other hand, a case can be made for the Early Islamic origin of Char Qapu on the basis of comparison with the eighth-century palace of Ukhaydir, located only 200 kilometers to the southwest in Mesopotamia. Taking into account discrepancies in the published plans, which were produced with little or no excavation more than eighty years ago, the two buildings are, as Schmidt has pointed out, remarkably similar in their general layout.* They are approximately equal in their outer dimensions and almost identical in the proportions of their outer walls. Each contains an elaborate entrance complex consisting of a long hall terminated at both ends by small vestibules. In each case the second vestibule gives access to an open court. The corridors indicated in Bell’s plan of Char Qapu at the lower end of the court have analogies at Ukhaydir, where they continue around the two sides. The layout of the areas to both sides of the courts and the entrance units are also similar in both buildings, especially in their divisions into bayts and in the numerous doorways that pierce the walls. In addition the char tag at Qasr-1 Shirin may be readily compared with Room 30 at Ukhaydir, which also has a doorway in each wall and occupies an analogous position toward the rear of the building. In the light of these comparisons it is interesting to note once again that Sarvistan, which exhibits so many similarities in construction and design to Ukhaydir, also shares a number of major features with Char Qapu, including the form of its squinches, the combination of baked brick dome and stone walls, and a masonry consisting of mortared rubble faced with neatly

coursed, rough-hewn stones.° The probability of an origin in the Islamic period for Char Qapu—if not for the Imaret-1 Khusrau nearby—cannot be ignored.’ Finally, this question of Sasanian versus Islamic origin, rarely broached in the archaeological literature, has recently been raised by Huff. On the basis of his firsthand study of a number of

char tags in Fars, Huff has suggested that these monuments—which represent a major portion of the buildings generally believed to be Sasanian—should not be accepted a priori as pre-Islamic in date.* He has even suggested a post-Sasanian origin for several of these buildings, which, he

notes, may well have been Muslim tombs or Imamzadehs rather than Zoroastrian fire temples.? | A redating of Sarvistan and other monuments long believed to be pre-Islamic should not in any way be considered of negative value for the study of Sasanian architecture. Rather, their elimination from the accepted corpus of Sasanian monuments should help to clarify the problem by removing, once and for all, false standards, the dependence on which has tended over the years to distort the picture of architectural development in ancient and medieval Iran.*° Given the new dating for Sarvistan, it becomes difficult to discuss the monument within the context of a contemporary Iranian architecture because only a handful of buildings of the Early Islamic period has survived."' The most important—or rather the most accessible from the

5. “Qasr-i Sirin,” 4s5ff. bogenbauten) von Qasr-i Shirin und Izadkhast,” AMI,

6. Bell, Palace and Mosque, 53, n. 1, compared vu (N.F.), 1974, 197ff.. and fig. 1; Huff, “ ‘Sasanian’ : Sarvistan with Char Qapu in terms of building materials Char Tags in Fars,” 246. and considered them close in date, although she 8. “ ‘Sasanian’ Char Taqs in Fars,” 243-48.

assumed both were Sasanian. 9. Ibid., 247.

7. Bell made analogies with the plan of the Ukhaydir 10. For example, J. Schmidt’s and B. Finster’s

palace to clarify and reconstruct elements of the Imaret-1 tentative dating of some ruins in Iraq to the Sasanian Khusrau. See Palace and Mosque, 46-48. This depen- period on the basis of comparison with Sarvistan and dence on the better-preserved building in Mesopotamia Qasr-i Shirin should perhaps be reconsidered. See their may have influenced her surveys of both buildings at “Sasanidische und frtih-Islamische Ruinen in Iraq,”

Qasr-1 Shirin. Neither her plans nor those of De Baghdader Mitteilungen, vi, 1976, 28, 35. Morgan bear much resemblance to the ruins, at least I1. However, many buildings, mostly mosques and insofar as they are preserved today. Traces ofa corridor commemorative monuments, are known from the wall surrounding the char tag have recently been noted. written sources. See, for example, A. Dietrich, “Die See Kleiss, “Bemerkungen zu den Chahar Tags (Vier- Moscheen von Gurgan zur Omaijadenzeit,” Der Islam,

72 SARVISTAN standpoint of available documentation—are the mosques at Shiraz and Fahraj, Isfahan,’ Damghan,"? Nayin,'* Neyriz,’> Susa,'® Zavareh,’’ and Siraf.'® Of these, Isfahan, Susa, and Siraf have had to be excavated and are preserved only in their lower portions, while Shiraz, Damghan, Nayin, Neyriz, and Zavareh have been largely rebuilt. In any case, Sarvistan stands in virtual isolation in Fars, where the only securely dated architecture between the third century and the Seljuk period are the Masjid-i1 Atig in Shiraz and some buildings excavated at Siraf on the Persian Gulf.’ Nevertheless, it should be possible to make some tentative remarks about the architecture of Fars during the Early Islamic period, since in Sarvistan we now have a building that is both

remarkably well preserved and unencumbered by rebuilding or extensive restoration. Numerous descriptions of buildings in Iran by medieval authors, particularly Mugaddasi and Istakhri, make it clear that by the tenth century the most common material used for construction was mud.*° Indigenous woods like cypress are also mentioned, and there are occasional references to more exotic and expensive materials like Indian and African woods.’ But mud, laid down as pisé or molded into bricks that were either sun-dried or kiln-baked, provided medieval builders in Iran with an inexpensive and readily available material for both domestic and monumental building. The extensive use of stone at Sarvistan will therefore appear somewhat unusual until it is related to what little is known about construction in Shiraz, the main city of Fars. Here the archaeological record shows that a mortared rubble faced with rough_ hewn stones set in regular courses comprised the fabric of the great Friday mosque built by Ibn Layth in the last decade of the ninth century. The similarities of the mihrab hall, which is all that

- remained of the original building when the ruins were recorded fifty years ago, and the building near Sarvistan have been discussed above. Considering these two important and roughly contemporary buildings, it is likely that in the province of Fars, the homeland of the Sasanian dynasty, ancient building traditions died hard and that stone construction continued long after plain and decorative brickwork became standard in Iran. This conservatism may also account for the elliptical arches at Sarvistan and the extensive use there of the stucco sawtooth frieze, which was applied to the interior walls in a

similar, though not identical, manner, as at Firuzabad and Bishapur. It should be noted that XL, 1964, 1-17; Herzfeld, “Khorasan, Denkmalsgeogra- 13. Godard, “Le tari Khana de Damghan,” Gazette phische Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Islam in Iran,” des Beaux-Arts, XI, 1934, 225-35.

Der Islam, x1, 1921, esp. 163-71; Pope, “Architecture in 14. H. Viollet and S. Flury, “Un monument des the Early Periods According to Contemporary Docu- premiers siécles de l’hégire en Perse,” Syria, 1, 1921, ments,” Survey, 1, 975-80. For general studies of Early 226-316. Islamic architecture in Iran, see E. Schroeder, “Islamic 15. Godard, “Le masdjid-e Djuma de Niriz,” Architecture: Standing Monuments of the First Period Athan-é Ivan, 1, 1936, 163-72. (before 1000 A.D.),” in Pope, ed., Survey, 11, 930-66; 16. Ghirshman, “Une mosquée de Suse de début de Siroux, “L’évolution des antiques mosquées rurales de Phegire,” Bulletin d’Etudes Orientales, xm, 1946, 77-79. la région d’Ispahan,” Arts Asiatiques, XXVI, 1973, 65—- 17. S. Peterson, “The Masjid-1 Pa Minar at Zava112; Godard, “Les anciennes mosquées de I[’Iran,” reh,” Artibus Asiae, XXXIX, 1977, 60-90. Peterson dates Athar-é Iran, 1, 1936, 187-210; O. Grabar, The Forma- the initial phases of this building to the ninth century tion of Islamic Art, New Haven, 1973, passim, his article and earlier on the basis of the stucco decoration and on the visual arts in Cambridge History of Ivan, tv, 320ff., written sources.

and the review article by R. Ettinghausen in Artibus 18. Whitehouse, Iran, vii, 1970, 2ff. Asiae, XXXIX, 1969, 267ff. 19. See preliminary reports on excavations at Siraf in 12. Excavations in the Masjid-i Guma have exposed Ivan, Vl, 1969, 39ff.; vill, 1970, Iff.

pre-Seljuk phases of the mosque. See E. Galdieri, 20. Herzfeld, “Khorasan,” t1ooff., presents several Isfahan; Masgid-i Gum‘a, 2: Il periodo al-i Biiyide, Rome, dozen references to the use of specific building materials 1973; “Mosquée Gum‘a d’Ispahan,” Ivan, x1, 1973, 210- in Early Islamic Iran that he has gleaned from the early

14; and “The Masgid-i Guma Isfahan: An Architectural Muslim geographers.

Facade of the 3rd Century u.,” Art and Archaeology 21. Whitehouse, Iran, vi, 1968, 3. Research Papers, V1, 1974, 24-34.

SARVISTAN AND EARLY IRANIAN ARCHITECTURE 73

Fasa, which lies close to Sarvistan but was placed by the Arab geographers in the province of Darabgird, does not seem to have had stone buildings.** Muqaddasi describes the great Friday mosque there as being built of brick. Mud and cypress wood were used for the construction of houses, while the bazaar was built entirely of wood.* Relating Sarvistan to contemporary building practices in Fars thus may be justified, specifi-

cally in the main city of Shiraz. This is further supported by a passage in Muqaddasi that documents the use of rough-hewn stone for other buildings in Shiraz.** Mugqaddasi, whose well-known interest in building methods no doubt derived from having been the son of a builder, relates a conversation he had with a mason involved in building a house. After observing the workmen laboriously hacking away at the stone with crude, pointed hammers, Muqaddasi remarked to the mason, “If only you had chisels to make the stones square.” The mason replied that they were obliged to use a harder stone than was used in Palestine, Muqaddasi’s homeland, and that this necessitated coarser methods. Although this account gives no specific information about the way in which the walls were laid up or about their final appearance, other than the fact that the stones were roughly dressed on one side with a pointed hammer or

, pick, it is fairly certain that Mugaddasi was describing masonry of the same general type employed in the Masjid-i Atig and at Sarvistan. Regarding Sarvistan’s plan, it has already been noted that the nature and organization of the

rooms relate the building to the fire sanctuary excavated at Takht-i Sulayman. Indeed, the similarity between the two plans strongly suggests that Sarvistan served the same function. The irregularity of the plan at Takht-i Sulayman, resulting largely from the fact that it developed over a period of time, was smoothed out in the later building, which incorporated three ranges of rooms—of which the two lateral ones were of equal width—within a neat rectangular space.

Some unanswered questions still remain as a result of our new interpretation of Sarvistan’s | function. If the building was in fact a fire sanctuary, as the plan suggests, what type of community it served is still unclear, isolated as it is out in the countryside. Perhaps the sarv trees, which must have been an important, if not a dominant, feature of Sarvistan’s landscape in the Middle Ages and which gave the place its name, were a determining factor in the choice of

the site; certainly by the twelfth century and perhaps earlier, the sarv tree was sacred to Zoroaster.*> The solution to this problem will ultimately depend on future survey and excavation work in the Sarvistan region, which perhaps will clarify the ancient demography of the area and help to reconstruct the building’s original surroundings. The name of the building at Sarvistan and the circumstances and even the precise date of its construction remain unknown. This building has produced no inscriptions, and it is not mentioned in the sources. In fact, no candidate can even be suggested, since none of the numerous fire temples listed in the early geographical and historical works is said to have been built after , the Arab conquest. Nor is there any mention in the medieval Pahlevi literature of the founda-

tion of sanctuaries in post-Sasanian times.*°

It is likely that the function of the building near Sarvistan will continue to be argued about

for years to come. However, two important matters have been resolved. The form of the building has finally been established and a rough date of construction has been determined. Now this fascinating building can serve as a fixed point for the further study of ancient and

medieval architecture in Iran.

23. Ibid., 99. II3-IS. | 24. Ibid., m1, 143ff. 26. Personal communication from Dale Bishop, 22. Schwarz, Tran, Wl, $4. Uberlieferung des 12 Jt. n. Christ,” AMI, Iv, 1971, 25. Spuler, “Zoroaster’s Zeit nach einer Islamischen Columbia University, New York.

‘BLANK PAGE

Andrae, W., and Lenzen, H. Die Partherstadt Assur Deshayes, J. “Rapport préliminaire sur la neuvieme (Wissenschaftlische Vero ffentlichungen der Deutschen campagne de fouille 4 Tureng Tepe (1971).”

Orientgesellschaft, 57). Berlin, 1933. Iran, XI, 1973, 141-52. . .

Aubin, J. “Le mécénat timouride 4 Chiraz.” Studia ———. “Un temple du feu d’époque islamique 4

Islamica, Vu, 1957, 71-88. Tureng Tepe.” In Le Feu dans le Proche-orient

Bell, G. Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir; A Study in Early Antique, Aches du Colloque de Strasbourg (9-10

Mohammadan Architecture. Oxford, 1914. . _ June 1972). Leiden, 1973, 31-39. , Z

Bier, L. “Sasanian Palaces in Perspective.” Archaeology, Dietrich, A. “Die Moscheen von Gurgan zur Omaija-

XXXV, 1982, 29-36. denzeit.” Der Islam, xL, 1964, I-17.

Bosworth, C. “The Heritage of Rulership in Early Dieulafoy, M. L/’art antique de la Perse, achéménides, Islamic Iran and the Search for Dynastic Connec- parthes, sassanides. Paris, 1884-85. tions with the Past.” Iran, x1, 1973, 51-62. Erdmann, K. Das iranische Feuerheiligtum (Sendschrift der Boyce, M. “The Fire Temples of Kerman.” Acta Deutschen-Orient-Gesellschaft 11). Leipzig, 1941.

Orientalia, XXX, 1966, $1—72. Ettinghausen, R. “Some Comments on Medieval Iran—. “On the Sacred Fires of the Zoroastrians.” ian Art (apropos the publication of the Cam-

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African bridge History of Iran).” Artibus Asiae, xxxIx,

Studies, XXXI, 1968, 52-68. 1969, 276-300.

| ———. “On the Zoroastrian Temple Cult of Fire.” Finster, B., and Schmidt, J. “Sasanidische und Review of K. Schippmann, Die iranischen friihislamische Ruinen im Iraq.” Baghdader MitFeuerheiligtiimer. Journal of the American Oriental teilungen, VII, 1976.

Society, XCV, 1975, 454-65. Flandin, E., and Coste, P. Voyage en Perse, Perse

—. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Prac- ancienne. Paris, 1843-54.

tices. London, 1979. Frye, R. The Heritage of Persia. New York, 1963.

Caskel, W. “al-Uhaidir.” Der Islam xxxtx,:1964, 29- ——. The Golden Age of Persia. London, 1975.

37. —. “The New Persian Renaissance in Western

Christensen, A. L’Iran sous les Sassanides. Copenhagen, Iran.” In Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honour of

1944. Hamilton A. P. Gibb. Leiden, 196s.

| 40, I-Il. bridge, 1973. ; 1969, I. Period. Rome, 1973.

Creswell, K. Early Muslim Architecture. Oxford, 1932- ———. Sasanian Remains from Qasr-i Abu Nasr. Cam- :

———. Early Muslim Architecture. 2nd ed. Oxford, Galdieri, E. Isfahan: Masgid-i Gum‘a 2, the Al-i Biyide

76 BIBLIOGRAPHY ——. “Mosquée Gum’a d’Ispahan.” Iran x1, 1973, dien zur Kulturgeschichte des Islam in Iran.” Der

210—I4. Islam, XI, 1921, 107-74.

——. “The Masgid-i Guma Isfahan: An Architectural ——. “Reisebericht.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen MorFacade of the 3rd Century H.” Art and Archaeol- genlandischen Gesellschaft, LXxxX, 1926, 225-84.

ogy Research Papers, V1, 1974, 24-34. —. Archaeological History of Iran. London, 1935. Gaube, H. “Amman, Harane and Qastal: Vier —. “Damascus: Studies in Architecture, I.” Ars friihislamische Bauwerke in Mitteljordanien.” Islamica, IX, 1942, I-53. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins, XCIu, ———. “Damascus: Studies in Architecture, II.” Ars -

1977, 52-86. Islamica, X, 1943, 13-70.

Ghirshman, R. “Les fouilles de Chdapour (Iran) ———, and Sarre, F. Iranische Felsreliefs, Aufnahmen und (deuxiéme campagne 1936/37).” Revue des arts Untersuchungen von Denkmalern aus alt- und mittel-

asiatiques, XI, 1938, 12-19. persischer Zeit. Berlin, 1910.

———. “Une mosquée de Suse de début de Vhegire.” ——. Archdologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-

Bulletin d’études orientales, xtl, 1946, 77-79. Gebiet, 1, Berlin, 1911-20.

———. Cing campagnes de fouilles a Suse (1946-51) Hillenbrand, R. “Saljuq Monuments in Iran, I.” Orien(Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran, mission tal Art, XVIII, 1972, 64-77.

susiane, rapports préliminaires I). Paris, 1952. ———. “Saljuq Monuments in Iran: II. The “Pir” ———. Bichaépour. Vol. 2: Les mosaiques sassanides Mausoleum at Takistan.” Iran, X, 1972, 45-55. (Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités ——. “Saljuq Monuments in Iran: II.” Kunst des orientales, Série archéologique, VII). Paris, 1956. Orients, X, 1975, 49-79. ——. Terrasses sacrées de Bard-e Nechandeh et Masjid-i Huff, D. “Zur Reconstruktion des Turmes von Firuza-

Solaiman (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique bad.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen x1x/xx 1969-70,

en Iran, vol. XLV). Paris, 1976, I. 319-38.

Godard, A. “Le Tari Khana de Damghan.” Gazette des ——. “Der Tshahar Taq-e Gumbad bei Farrash-

Beaux-Arts, XII, 1934, 225-35. - band.” Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (N.F.)

———.. “Le masdjid-é Djuma de Niriz.” Athar-é Iran, Ill, 1970, 239-49.

I, 1936, 163-72. : ——.. “Qual'a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad: Ein Beitrag

———. “Les anciennes mosquées de l’Iran.” Athar-é zur sasanidischen Palastarchitektur.” Archdolo-

Iran, 1, 1936, 187-210. : gische Mitteilungen aus Iran (N.F.), IV, 1971, 127-

———. “Les monuments du feu.” Athar-é Ivan, 11, 71.

1938, 7—80. : ——. “Der Takht-i Nishen in Firuzabad: Mass-

———. “Votites iraniennes.” Athdr-é Ivan, Iv, 1949, systeme sasanidischer Bauwerke I.” Archdo-

187-256. logischer Anzeiger. LKXXVII 1972, 517-40.

Golombek, L. The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah (Royal ———. “ ‘Sasanian’ Char Taqs in Fars.” In F. Bagher-

Ontario Museum Art and Archaeology Occasional zadeh, ed., Proceedings of the IIrd Annual Sympo-

| Paper 15). Toronto, 1969. sium on Archaeological Research in Iran, November, Gottheil, R. “An Answer to the Dhimmis.” Journal of 1974. Teheran, 1975.

the American Oriental Society (1921), 383-457. ——. “Ausgrabungen auf Qal ‘a~ye Dukhtar, 1975.”

Grabar, O. “The Earliest Islamic Commemorative Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (N.F.), Ix,

Structures, Notes and Documents.” Ars Orienta- 1976, 157-73. lis, VI, 1966, 7-46. Humbach, H. “Atur GuSnasp und Takht-i Suleiman.”

—. “Sarvistan, a Note on Sasanian Palaces.” In In Festschrift fiir Wilhelm Eilers. Wiesbaden, 1967.

Forschungen zur Kunst Asiens: In Memorium Kurt Jaussen, J., and Savignac, J. Mission archéologique en

Erdmann. Istanbul, 1969. Arabie, vol. 3: Les chateaux arabes de Quseir’Amra, ———.. “The Visual Arts.” In Cambridge History of Iran, Hardneh et Tuba (Publications de la Société des

Iv. Cambridge, 1975. fouilles archéologiques). Paris, 1922.

Grabar, O., et al. City in the Desert, Qasr al-Hayr East. Kimball, F. “The Sasanian Building at Tepe Hissar.” In

(Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs xxu/ E. Schmidt, ed. Excavations at Tepe Hissar,

XXIV). Cambridge, 1978. Damghan. Philadelphia, 1937.

Gropp, G. “Die rezenten Feuertempel der Zarathus- ——. “The Sasanian Building at Damghan (Tepe trier.” Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (N.F.), Hisar).” In A. U. Pope, ed., Survey of Persian

IV, I97I, 263-88. Art, 1. Oxford, 1938, 579-83.

—. Die Funktion des Feuertempels der Zoroas- Kleiss, W. “Bericht tiber Erkundungsfahrten in Iran im trier.” Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (N.F.), Jahre 1971.” Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Il, 1969, 147-73. (N.F.) v, 1972, 135-242.

—. Review of K. Schippmann, Die iranischen ———. “Qal’eh Zohak in Azerbaidjan.” Archdologische Feuerheiligtiimer, Kunst des Orients, xml, 1972, Mitteilungen aus Iran (N.F.), V1, 1973, 163-88.

144-47. ——. “Bemerkungen zu den Chahar Tags (Vierbo-

Gullini, G. Architettura iranica dagli achemenidi ai sasanidi: genbauten) von Qasr-i Shirin und Izadkhast.” Il “palazzo” di Kuh-i Khwagia (Seistan). Turin, Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Ivan (N.F.), VU,

1964. 1974, 197-202.

Herzfeld, E. “Korasan, Denkmalsgeographische Stu- Kramers, J. “Die Feuertempel in Fars in islamischer

BIBLIOGRAPHY 77 Zeit.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Smith, M. “Material for a Corpus of Early Iranian

| Gesellschaft, xc (N.F. 19), 1938, 10-12. Islamic Architecture, II: Manar and Masdjid,

Le Strange, G. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate. Barsian (Isfahan).” Ars Islamica, tv, 1937, 7-40. —

Cambridge, 1930. ———. “Three Monuments at Yazd-i1 Khwast.” Ars

al-Mastidi. Les prairies d’or. Trans. C. Barbier de Islamica, vil, 1940, 104-6.

Meynard. Paris, 1861-77. ——. Review of K. Creswell, Early Muslim Architec-

Meier, F., ed. Die Vita des abu Ishaq al-Kazaruni. ture. Ars Islamica xm/xIv, 1948, 180-86.

Leipzig, 1948. Spuler, B. Iran in friih-Islamischer Zeit. Wiesbaden, 1952.

Morgan, J. de. Mission scientifique en Perse. Paris, 1894- —.. “Zoroasters Zeit einer Islamischen Uberliefer-

1904. ung des 12 Jh. n. Chr.” Archdologischer. Mittei-

Morony, M. Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, Princeton lungen aus Iran (N.F.) Iv, 1971, 113-15. Studies on the Near East, Princeton, 1984. Stein, Sir A. “An Archaeological Tour in Ancient

Naumann, R., et al. “Takht-i Suleiman und Zendan-i Persis.” Iraq, I, 1936, 111-225.

Suleiman, Vorlaufiger Bericht tiber die Grabun- Thompson, D. Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqabad near

gen im Jahre 1962.” Archdologischer Anzeiger Rayy. London, 1976.

, (1964, suppl.), 2-78. Tirmidhi, B. “Zoroastrians and Their Fire Temples in

————. “Takht-i Suleiman und Zendan-i Suleiman, Iran and Adjoining Countries from the 9th to the

Vorlaufiger Bericht tiber die Ausgrabungen in 14th Centuries as Gleaned from the Arabic , den Jahren 1963 und 1964” Archdologischer An- Geographical Works.” Islamic Culture, xxiv,

zeiger, (1965, suppl.), 619-799. 1950, 271-84.

, ———. “Takht-i Suleiman; Bericht tiber die Ausgra- Tritton, A. The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects. bungen 1965-1973.” Archdologischer Anzeiger, London, 1930.

XC, 1975, 109-204. ——. “Islam and the Protected Religions.” Journal of

Noldeke, T. Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der the Royal Asiatic Society (1931), 311-38. — Sasaniden aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari. Urice, S. Qasr Kharana: An Early Islamic Monument in the

Leiden, 1879. Transjordan, Ph.D. diss. Harvard University,

Ouseley, Sir W. Travels in Various Countries of the East; IQ8I. oe

More Particularly Persia. London, 1819-23. Vanden Berghe, L. “Reconnaissance archéologique

Pirnia, K. “Masjid-i Jami-i Fahraj.” Bastdn-shinast va dans le Fars meridional et en Laristan.” Akten des

Hunar-i Ivan, v, 1970. XXIV Internationalen Orientalisten Kongresses,

Pope, A. U., ed. A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Munchen, 1957. Wiesbaden, 1959.

, . Times to the Present. Oxford, 1938-39. —. Archéologie de I’Iran ancien. Leiden, 1959. —. “Architecture in the Early Periods According to ———. “Récentes découvertes de monuments sassaContemporary Documents,” in Survey of Persian nides dans le Fars.” Iranica Antiqua, I, 1961, 163-

Art. Oxford, 1938-39, I, 975—80. 98.

Pugachenkova, G. Puti Razvitiia architektury Iuzhnogo ——.. “Nouvelles découvertes de monuments du feu

Turkmenistana. Moscow, 1958. d’époque sassanide.” Iranica Antiqua, v, 1965,

——.. Istoriya iskusstv uzbekistana. Moscow, 1965. 128-47. Reuther, O. Ocheidir. Leipzig, 1912. ——. “On the Track of the Civilizations of Ancient ——. “Parthian Architecture,” in Survey of Persian Iran.” Memo from Belgium, 104-105 (1968), 1-70.

Art. Oxford, 1938, 1, 411-48. Viollet, H., and Flury, S. “Un monument des premiers

, ———. “Sasanian Architecture,” in Survey of Persian siécles de hégire en Perse.” Syria, 1, 1921, 226-

Art. Oxford, 1938, 1, 493-578. 316.

Schippmann, K. Die iranischen Feuerheiligtiimer. Berlin, Ward-Perkins, J. B. “Notes on the Structure and

1971. Building Methods of Early Byzantine Architec-

Schlumberger, D. “Le palais ghaznévide de Lashkari ture.” In D. Rice, The Great Palace of the

Bazar.” Syria, XxIx, 1952, 251-70. Byzantine Emperors, 2nd report. Edinburgh,

Schmidt, E. Flights over Ancient Cities of Iran. Chicago, 1958.

1940. Watelin, L. “The Sasanian Buildings near Kish.” In

Schroeder, E. “Islamic Architecture: Standing Monu- Survey of Persian Art. Oxford, 1938, 1, $84—-92. ments of the First Period (before 1000 A.D.),” in Whitehouse, D. “Excavations at Siraf: Second Interim Survey of Persian Art. Oxford, 1938, 1, 930-66. Report.” Iran, vil, 1969, 39-62. Schwarz, P. Ivan im Mittelalter nach den arabischen ——. Siraf III: The Congregational Mosque and Other Geographen. 9 vols. Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig, Mosques from the Ninth to the Twelfth Centuries.

1896-1936. London, 1980 (?). |

Siroux, M. “Petit monument sassanide prés de Wilber, D. The Architecture of Islamic Iran: The Il Khanid

Kazertn.” Athar-é Iran, m1, 1938, 135-39. Period. Princeton, 1955.

Iranica, U, 1973, 49ff. Vt., 1962. |

——. “Le palais de Sarvistdin et ses votites.” Studia ———. Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions. Rutland, ——.. “L’évolution des antiques mosquées rurales de ———. The Masjid-i “Atiq of Shiraz (The Asia Institute la région d’Ispahan.” Arts Asiatiques, XXV1, 1973, Monograph Series, No. 2, Pahlevi University,

65-112. Shiraz, Iran). Teheran, 1972.

BLANK PAGE.

Index Abbasids, 64 Parthian, 32, 33n. $8, 38, 40, 48 hazarbaf, 52

Abu ° 1-Fida, 4 Safavid, $7 | Khurasani, §2

Achaemenids, 2, 65 Sasanian, 2, 4, 28-29, 35, 42, 46— pitched, 31-34, 32n. 42, 33n. 58,

“ Adud al-Dawla, 58, 66 $1, $3, 56-57, 70-72 53

Adur Gushnasp, $9, 61 Seljuk, 21, 33, 36, 41, 50, 52-53 radial, 32-33, 33n. $8, 36

adurian, 60—62 Timurid, 37, $7 Bundahishn, 64, 67 | agyari, 60-61 Umayyad, 32, 41, 43, SI Buyids, $3, 65—66 ahlu dh-dhimmati; see dhimmis Ardashir’s palace; see Firuzabad Byron, R., 49

al-Balkhi, Abu Zaid, 66 ashpazkhaneh, 6

al-Kazeruni, Shaikh Abu Ishak, 66 Assur (Parthian palace at), 32, 33n.

Amman (citadel of), 43 58, 36-37, SI centering frames, 29 Amru ibn Layth, 36 Atshan, 33 Chal Tarkhan (Sasanian palace at),

Arab-ata mausoleum, 34n. $9, 45, A7, 56 :

| $1 Bahram V, 2, $5, 66, 69 | Char Qapu; see Qasr-i Shirin

arches, 29-30 Bandar Abbas, 3 char taq, 12, 26, 26n. II, 40, 42, diaphragm, 34, 36-38, 51-52 Bard-i Nishandeh, 63n. 41 59-60, 69-71

elliptical, 35, 72 barsom, 61 | Aviz, 27, 27n. 16

four-centered, 35-36 Bell, G., 70-71, 7In. 7 Baladeh, 27, 27n. 16, 41 offset, 29-30 Bishapur (Sasanian palace at), 26, Farashband Nr. 3, 27

Persian, 36 30n. 36, 39-40, 44, 46, 48, SI, Fasa, 44n. 123

pointed, 35-36, 38, 52 65, 72 Kazerun, 27, 27nn. 18, 19

stilted, 35 Bisutun (sculpted capitals at), 47-48 Malek, 27 n. 18 architecture Boyce, M., 60 Muk, 27 Abbasid, 33, 41, $I brickwork Natanz, 30n. 36

Buyid, $3 Byzantine, 33-34 Navish, 28n. 25

Il Khanid, 33, 37, 46n. 135, 50 doubled common bond (doubled Negar, 28n. 26 Islamic, 33, 39-41, 43-44, 47, $0, stretchers), 33-34, 34n. 59 Tall-i Jangi, 26-27, 29

§2, $6-$7, 70-72 format of bricks, 53, 53n. 158 Yazdkhwast, 41

80 INDEX

columns Ibn Rusta, 66, 70 Ouseley, W., I engaged, 48, 56 Imarat-i Khusrau; see Qasr-i Shirin

freestanding, 47-48, 56, 62-63, Isfahan Persepolis, 66 | 63n. 4I Jurjir portal, $3 pish tag, 21, 50-51, 5In. 155 Ctesiphon (Taq-i Kisra at), 32—33, Masjid-i Juma, 45, $3, 72 Pol-i Fasa, 3 48, 51, 56, 66, 70 Istakhr, 65 putlog holes, 25 Istakhri, 3, 72

Dadestan-i Dinek, 65 Iwan-i Kerkha, 32, 34-37, 39, §2, Qaleh-i Dukhtar; see Firuzabad

Damghan 70 Qaleh Zohak, 33n. 58 Tarikh Khanah, 33, 36, 48, 56, 72 izishngah, 60-62 Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi, 32, 44n. 124 Tepe Hisar (Sasanian palace at), Qasr al-Tuba, 32

47, 60 Jabal Says, 32, 34n. 60 Qasr-i Abu Nasr, 44n. 124 Darab, 3 jizya, 63-64 Qasr ibnShirin Wardan, 36 Darabgird, 3 Qasr-i

Dar al-Imara; see Kufa Kakh-i Sarvistan, 4, 4n. II Char Qapu, 28, 32, 34n. 60, 4I-

dar-e mehr, 60-61 Kariyan, 66 42, 60, 70-71

Dastagird, 32 Kazerun, 27, 66, 69 Imarat-i Khusrau, 30n. 36, 40, De Morgan, 70 Khan Ortma (Baghdad), 37, 39 56, 70-71 Denkart, 64, 67 Khawristan, 3-4 Qasr Kharana, 30, 38n. 83, 38-40, dhimmis, 63-67 Kirkuk (Mar Tamazgird), 47-48 45, 48

Dieulafoy, J., 1, 4 Kirman, 65 Qusayr, 28

Dieulafoy, M., I-2, 11-12, 17, 19- Kirmanshah (sculpted capitals at), 47. Qusayr al-Hallabat, 28n. 27

, 20, 35, 50, 70 Kish (Sasanian palace at), 47, $6 Qusayr Amra, 38-39

domes, 2, 40-42 Kleiss, W., 6

doorways, 30 Kufa (Dar al-Imara at), sI, 56 Raqqa (Baghdad Gate at), 36, 52

, Kuh-i Khwaja, 32, 36-37, 51, 63 Reuther, O., 1, 17-18, 20, 29, 31, Erdmann, K., 60 Kyrk Kyz, 39n. 87 35, 49-50, 70 Rudkhaneh Khushk, 3

Fahraj (mosque at), 72 Lenzen, H., 36 Farashband, 26-27, 69 lifts (in masonry walls), 28 Samarra, 4

Fars, 65-67, 72 | Sarvistan (town of), 3-4, $7 Fasa, 3, $5, 73 Maharlu, 3 Schippmann, K., 26n. 12 Firuzabad, 2, 66 Masjid-i Atiq; see Shiraz Schmidt, E., 6 Ardashir’s palace, 26, 29n. 33, 30, masonry (of walls), 24-29 Schmidt, J., 70 40, 44-46, 48-SI, $7, 65, 72 Mihr Narseh, 2, 26, 26n. 12, 29, Seljuks, 65-66

Qaleh-i Dukhtar, 44-45, $7 55, 69 semidomes, 39-40, 45-47, SI, 62

Takht-i Nishin, 32, 41 moldings shahneshin, 58

cavetto, 46 Shiraz, 3, 55, 66-67, 73 gahambar khane, 63 offset, 43 Masjid-i Atigq at, 4, 36-37, 39, Gazur Gah, 37 sawtooth, 5, 43-46, 72 $2-$3, $7, 72-73 Ghazi Nasir al-Din Bayzavi, 4 Mshatta (Umayyad palace at), 32, Shapur I, 26

Godard, A., 29n. 34 SI . Shaykh Yusuf Sarvistani, 4

Golembek, L., 37 Mugaddasi, 3, 72—73 Siraf (mosque at), 24 Grabar, O., 58 mugarnas, 39, 42-43 Siroux, M., 6, [I-12, 17, 20-21,

Gropp, G., 60 Mustawfi, 4 34, 43 Mutawakkil, 64 Skand-gumanig Vizar, 64

Hadjdjadj b. Yusuf, 64 squinches, I, 42-47, 49, $2

Hammam al-Sarakh, 28n. 27 Nagqsh-i Rustam, 65 Stein, Sir A., 2, 4, 6, 70

Haoma ceremony, 61—62 Naumann, R., 60 Surkh Kotal, 63 Hawsh Kuri, 60 Nayin (mosque at), 33n. 58, 72 Susa, 35, 63 Haybak, 46 Neyriz (mosque at), 33n. $8, 72

Herzfeld, E., 2, 26n. 12, $5, 69—70 niches, 45—47 Tabari, 2, 4, 26n. 12, $5, 69 Nizam al Mulk, 65 Takht-i Nishin; see Firuzabad

Ibn Battuta, 4 Nizam al Tavirikh, 4 Takht-i Sulayman, 32, 34n. 60, 47,

Ibn Khurdadbih, 3 Now Ruz, 64 56, 58-62, 67, 73

INDEX 81

Tall-i Jangi; see char tag Umayyads, 64 | Yazd

Taq-i Kisra; see Ctesiphon Urice, S., 38n. 83 city wall of, 44n. 124

Tarikh Khanah; see Damghan Masjid-i Juma, 37, 65 | Tepe Hisar; see Damghan Vanden Berghe, L., 27

Tritton, A., 67 vaults Zavareh, 72 Tulul al-Ukhaydir, 30n. 39 brick, 32-34, 34n. 60 Zoroastrians, 63-67, 73

Tureng Tepe, 44n. 123, 63 transverse (cross vaults), 34-39, fire temples of, 26n. I1, 56, $8,

S§I-§2, 62 60-64, 66-67, 66n. $5, 69, 7I

tunnel, 31-34, 62 rituals of, 60-63 Ukhaydir, 30-31, 33, 34n. 60, 37-

40, 47-48, §2-$3, 71 Whitehouse, D., 24

Umar II, 64 Wilber, D., 36 .

BLANK PAGE’

Illustrations

BLANK PAGE.

° | |1 | 32°

ESFAHAN

©a

4 ISTAKHR

0° ke Wwe , °BERSEPOLIS

“X\\KAZERUN BISHAPUR. e@ © ° ae LS ° SHIRAZ ie \ eeaN Ey)

re ©8 KUWAIT i SARVISTAN. Og susmee | UO

“ | Ne Rs2| Ao A CY SN

Soo SS FIRUZABAD DARAB

28° roe Ty ae

3 - : ' CA ° oy ~~ A

26° Renae | i CQATAR ypeas ob 48° 50° 52° 54° | Fic. 1. Map of southwestern Iran

FS an x , TO =4 pws NZS = == ‘ “Y,“7 ueec y == —IN" * PPP QW, —— ETEType, TEEE LEIwe ZS

| SHIRAZ SS SS SS == Lo awh EB ===... WA, EU ION

~ 7 \\ \ = ae

. } "onan - SARVISTAN

Nn, eo “TN \ “f, fe” oe \ Ay \\Mb, a an 2 wort ‘Y \ \ “4, re { N 1 ;My alt, a a“ \ S@\ 1 sh, BMP IS y\ an “S\N ae/ SUea)s 4iy,CV =oy ay \ “oe “7. A hy, V | 426 “TO ee Voy (ee WAG FASA. Ly. TX ‘\ \ s \ Foy Ny AT Why, ¢ ; ‘/, = /; ~ “L Vy, “2 an yy 1 \ = a x v[a ‘ t/ ! “a _ Os,14, aati ' Uh) ’ \ %. 7!= =LYyfLehy a t/ \\ “A AY

Ste, \] %

. ‘yy =

\A “ , Wynn, eA) Pel 7sadh PETS “ny \\yips Vp ps “Cy \ ‘ 4, Zo \

ee

Ly, QUES . 29°00' ; 53°00 5 LB. “VV 1Mh“py ly, ven ‘/:“o/ ty yl

YY), fafails iy S

Heppy por ,,

O° 10 20 30 KM

® LOCATION OF BUILDING — MAJOR ROAD Litt! BASE OF MOUNTAIN —— SECONDARY ROAD

=== SALT LAKE ---- TRACK

Fic. 2. Map of the Sarvistan area

a. fe

her ey

oe :A Se fe ae re . _ : ORE eae>ES is : ; ee Ce “ es _EOS Fr —. Be Oe. =eeEe ‘ Pin SS 8 oe Be ee = — eg eas : : Mm

ee. eS ‘ ae ee Sc i =

ee oo Ro : S : :: 20Se ee = ee Pee 3 ce : ] : Sk ae Bs aes ee > ae es ee ‘ ae Ss ee ss Soe es a aoeeges. a oe es : _ . . . Oe eee ee oc ee — SO ee ea

eecommana Pee ka Se & tagee ee ee 28 ee Sigeee cb eae cme Be é

oe a a=~ ee a... eS eeee oo — ce ‘“ — “ht ee Se ee : : ‘; ee SS Sa ee a ™ ee ee, cc tie oe \24 aeeaee = Se a8eS bebaSi.2 eeshew Baise a: :

—.—r-r—r—~—“‘—“‘iORCiésgckdéziNC RCE es : ee

Me cS Soke gc, Se ae ce Se Sekgee SOMMERS ann, on tamer ee — rrr—~—~—~sr—e eeC“‘CN eeeie— ee >, 4:2‘ keaes eoeae rr—“‘—_Oi—s—ss—sS—iC“(‘ CY ee= ee~~ Pecae

eeeSoe ef oe: ——“—i~—~—C—C—C—C—CS ees me : “> : fe —“‘—O—O—O—SO—C rr ee

.: bc‘ea ee a a wh Se ae oo Sek foe ee ae : ee _ ese ee oe Ee aeeeeBe

;See pe es ia cs ak .

& ee . ee ee es ee — -§ xg Fo fg A > i cS oe oe Se 8 N +. re as es Sok aa ee ES Se aoo si ee FFBrame caren *eea- ee SFG, ie .+Ya Pega aa. ‘: ee abe: es Bhs gate ee Mice URS ey BsSot bt os Se ES ae Sok ch ee sateSee ee ee a een ¢:= =: ‘ : 3 Se ee %y ; heer Sete ae eS My ty 2 hh e £3 : \ . PS : i: ae “, ee % ee ed 3 fees 3 ; . eS “ ‘sacl = Se i. Se eae LFee CU BSA z ea gee oe SS: perccecnor aera es pics same mea ee cca sy bf f os,

3‘4 oF “a==. Sea Ge Geta % Spe aes i oP % “* oc 4 ane .ieee eSeekk ea fee ‘ :** =:so 3*; 8. >gee +ee ee Sh> —— FEF teoe FU se She Soha cae aa'—. ;as Sees i coe he * 2 ee ae = ge ee a rr — et = 2 eg. afhaes aaae & oeee — _Se— »| 4t ee gee ; .2. :“2 a ee \ = ee ee — », ae ae a US rr—sO S 2 ~— PS a = ies *ie Se. ~ =e ee ee a a — . 2 eRe. 4 ee Mk eS oe ee ee 9

‘oe ee ee °. eer es :

ee eeOR. a eeC—O Feaee Rhee eeoe: | ge ee eeRe |+ _ eS oo’ .ee —. A"ee -y eT Oe ae ee aahI ace a ae oe. : Ee ee eSer lCt«~i“‘CSOsOOCSCSCisCCSCN ~—sF.. FF ae j : * oC SEG. oe ee ee Gao eee ee ee a 3 ; oe a.fF ——r—~— os 8 fae ee si Baca pe eet oes ee a Pg] * it Fg ee eeAe ce Pore arenes se ne ae pete carers oe ee a CF : oe Sead PS fe er eg 4 ee é ers oe eo “es bee ee -—. as ee eo ¥xRe if SS 2 eegh eea eee ey

ae ks a i... age ie Sagal = we a ee Be ee OR oe ee ee ee a ee oe sk eee ae oe EE ee pee Fe eo — eho ot a. oe ee pee ge Me ieFe ee ee eB ee>. om % ee . Beas sat te ee ; eg 4Se esSah 3Sr & BE See ae :2 Spice esoe o;g Sage : : ee Ee ee cee Bee : a€a8ae eo fete LeFS “.ee oe meer teage os gee oe oe Be >: eae es ee. ee -ps oe =. :. sane = oe See i eee eS i eae ae Se oe oS ee, é ae “i J CS : ee a ee ee i a Ra ge te ‘ ee ee .Gee woe Ok sa be—.be ‘ —aeeee eSeen ‘ —— SUgeo ee ge eee eeSON oe ee ee oe .:oe eePPE ‘ie 4 eo Fe a sil gs eS be Se ee a fe aaae ee 2 ee ee rr “3 Fee ee. i = os BRS: Sas ‘ ic ee eee eee i og taal es a oS ; cS os, yar? fo es i ee ll a= 2 = eS ._ oe * Pa ee ee 4. ee Be ee ret eS : hie : : s Hage eg ke es es a Be aes ee ee a 4 = SS =ae 5i:aae hess a ee. *eeSo er me 2eeaeS :aeas ee A ee tdi és eg i: «ee ae ok WE ee eae ee : Be EO ee ee i ie a es gee Cg 5 a rr : ll _—— ee ee Poe ic ee eae 2. ee al Se oe ee ee ee : oo fe a ee ee % : a — aaBey ae ee ss So Um es So re, LB, “eee « Bx Bee es Re Se ee Re Ra egg + RMR, Someta See eee a ok Bc 6 aa a ‘ 8 2 a OT oo a ee . ieBG er ee SE og meee:wee a < : : es ee ee ee all See pee BS ee ee ae ‘ ea a eee a ee ee % = ee ee : oe —.. . e — ti < or el : % ee ee OP ot te “4 * | a i :

elae= se = :elBe anxe=:eo. ie Pete a ae eo -as a aeeEe ie aoe es ee Bxeee Be .ee° et i saee gs % aoeeeoe=tat ae ae x Pes s es ee :s ee Po — ee -ee oeaa SePe es :eaeaeSs: as Es

geo = ie eC a a a {. S* ee a ee ee oe. A rl le ls —

ii Ce 3 Sap teea sie Bits Mann Gea Re eSeeSS BeaePiear es aiiSane % Be te tee ge ey Poa i :Se gg Sgr ae fesete Se 3peed pu gigi Se cite thertg ee ieseee er eae * see3 ae 4 .¥ieSe ii eee comin nettsetae een Chan rc ™ se vs 7 ie=aeee ee

ee eaetePee Boi te ae See ee neee Niguel Sire a as#eese eaeaeee es ES ie: NB oe aeee Ene aGh ye ig, eT eee aSteOU. ot,a ‘Y eeeeee 3 Be ee ee eePers eeaoe ee nae ee teehSgeee esgeES RB SeMeMS. a Te ee Ssa ee eewie ee eeee :

ee Rr ee eget eega eeps éRe pie : id aoe Beeg ew eS Pi aees eeiaate te caee t ie ea cee kgee ihOE AE Seaee : gee: See afeee sgee co Rtg ee Se en Se tn” esa egies esea“ ata a gs tk — ee ee. se es Sa ce Se ee Fins eeMien eeSaeeee eeag ieEe OS ee _eeAE ok er. eh

te ee ee eg FTE ae es xe ee

a eis of Pot ee ee rr eerrr. em aaa : i—ge eee Se tas Ree eae es8eraes a.oe Sleis Ssee Pee 3S LU oo -eea ett as ™2 ee 2xe-cs ‘Ree ees ae eS=e hee oe ba Se oe eS ~~. ge eS Be : SP ee eek Co Past ee ie ee ce 25 : eee ee a ce & ie Se ee a ie ee ee oe oe: — =a : ae ae 3 Spots Sete Seam ct ett a er eS RE ga eR ks se ir gee EE BR RS ae Ry see ¥ =k, pee Be Sone ee ee eR Ra a a ata eee tg ORT e.g eR ge EM Wa. tig, RE Ri PORE ne ee ; Page : * rE 2 eeeee . ae Page = :ee ee ee Ee Beg ee eePe ee en ee Re ee Mee é i ee aeeeaSa eg eeteOe RE esEeaeGa eei ES a sf

....

di diandCourt f the Oriental of Fic. 4. Aerial photo of the building its surroundings (Courtesy ofInstitute the Oriental Ins

Chi )

the University of

i |... La

Yeo 4 fg a) eee j / “ NN ] A a 0 oy ! | oe YY i ener ed 77,

F } al a | toot Sy Can ann 2 ZZ.| ooWi NAA. a Sn / i Lyee BoeOS ey

ae Me 87 ae an 7 i. Ce? Te

a Z ne een ce SARVISTAN, am ~ZZ WALLS WALL & EXPOSED FOOTING | av

SSN ADDITIONS MODERN REBUILDING —_—=_ MAG. NORTH (MAY, 1976) Fic. 5. Plan (L. Bier)

O s a D ; A> ILI CI She ID63) [~ PAC we nee ;

o° | (521

B Q 8 63,1 | | oO 1 o a SILI LI il

We: b%, »-9fia a2Ses VEN SNES) °4 © a! t- Sac sit. IN aa SS edEa LEage A 5 ed ie es OS PEE FS NS Pad sal Z nt ae WS Git SAE = \. Ssea ia 5 (iy ‘ ‘ rr oa = aalte | fy obi Zi SP ante. reporeees., ee wre ‘ Gshe bi ay) *Za ts { cial C::... Ng ffheh coal ..EnSeen ot Be

raWS aS SN : ~ oo aty Hae °lgi} pe"ya L “a ~ oa .A Sat ve;| 4ae q cghtny “aie7\ ap

Se G at Ry Lt |

A HR ge

ZEA Nn} qo. - Cae"-|: | , Q Ai WD willie Bil FP Meer VW LOY

OL1>s NRE CF . c‘ ,|tyWy ; ST “adgilt Ob ° ' “ss , RR een.ee a i h te ree * = SR

oea scyLee ai «es —Bae ee ee re afieye - fix cy: py we ed | e aghy: oS ris Sea: £ eae r eeclkaes Reg aoeAe :a ae eee: ~~vere See SR itSug ORE AO gyCS emma eS es bot; 0heed * —oad ee . _a-. Zi4Fs ie ‘ bd Pet ee® % count — rss sii. m4 t,.“ey - v Sinoe & o~ ‘ eg :a - : oe e.

* cogs aodie: ee te ‘ # abe & as A vn eee * 4 aie de Sonsfgee sel ‘Koes % a:im:P= reget eegery Yer: id .eo teeetesi aeFset ee_a eee award We -* vita ae Mlare sea ha ad Sse ‘usRi Theae Fi Moe os eeae alin I 7

a *. = see : _ : Aa ii

—ss — ark EE rhlegas eg Bee bia aa hile aeooeeOg Peeae aeeegh See 3 ee BePe aones ee ik iBoe ig. eeee —gape oe oe_ ee E oe Oa i he So ee Se eer ee Oe a ee i pagte ees ee ‘ : SE ag Mee Meg ge gt oe. a oe See — rrr =e eeeSoe —0t—~—e | Tet £¢ oe —— — ed hrlrll—e oe Vie PEP ee ee Ro pteerr ee Sag eeCEA ed ee ,— eeae ee OS RO.Shek i, ee byeee ON ae Ge ic tO eS a Se A

f be ry 3 ae . — Ee x BaP E>: % Sa s shes gue Tle cast FB y Sixteen ee Po oO a t. F o 10 lea “4 nas! ot “Sos ee eit te f22 , 2° t fetae *b F*mae Rs i# a“ €, ear *ait . Jbaits : Se 6:5a‘ sre, fae# a3 >'"Ee tks y.& 4# re soe at7p, o%% reae 7-.mee ay! *rT~".abejee ae 4 , Sida b¥ af > ae 6? r be ~ ¥ te wa & ed F .. e43A : fite f-as ¥,&Ba at “ ae +g Fe=, ie ‘a.’ 4“Zi Ti:‘ ah ey oe. tie ; at Hf s ee — tar om B® at a eats es > rar igs aed Mer: 5 : hn _ id i! * ef". a ‘ ; r b tl ie e se ‘ et, A ean, : se Saag res = ; ’ .= es. rch _ SC magihe : Ae owe: ' ws 6 peste ne A < 4% ‘ > $ "XA? Bees i Oe: ro agate le gtd le ec Pe a; To ? whe . er ’ .Seae —e : ° |eBac. ee - $ ee, NEY 5 alAe ED f: Oe== oy pts ee 289i SP | PALE

$ : é to a ¢ &

SR IA 2G RP II OP Bhi a ire ae ae ir SS Ne a leet ke fag

a peti Soe fe2.okee:car ni cdl es ee See AeaBiting Erg tsPt a aod Meeen mit ie Sees Rr Sgts os F‘ ae a re Ys +3ow pee. wt:Fi fol PieSO So ras: Be ee.~% re AOe ae eg gO aee Soe ME see es Pre ; AERO. wre hs, ae ees Sits OGRE “pai Pe on sieeeong ..8FoF °: bt a ,te7mY “ee z aeSS eeCone S ‘ :to rie x_gos ee geo hes Fi .ee yWy 2~ = ty .”. States Zt ee é :.2Aa aa ee < is . See we siaSoe wo ae = » an ; Ging *be o aj *"e. ae } ama Th ‘.

Pek o =ce igs *oe bs 55teataeie Vyeei eo>? ee TS SS8 geerce §oe es al ee orgs 2tele, e 4 ‘fe "4 ‘tcl‘ Bd & oe ee *ig:oeRS > 3~ he hs ee ee =‘ ‘ “4 *rye te ty Pere am’ re ~~ . C. Adie 4 a ny ¢ "="eg cf ne |a ele |\ :¥by ieNY a Late Sie he Berries or te ie oe Sa PIE Sige ota) ee ok, bate RET 4F 8 heSs2 eg SS& cP pttamee , :-: :E 8 castpa Littl hes WE ot igshe anhoe as ey LL! ae : Steae fet .it‘i 3 Ti. . a ie : a 2“% Lor *, ,, +»My # “ oe 3 Rar “rat +H ae sige eee. mee &.. Ei a ¢ a Le ™ % Ses Fees iy ; a hd ANS wit f :

Se OL IgaSe Saami hE, name hie Pi andl — ‘hee ieWE eeod eesge PaSg gg has oP Na) =PG +Se eS. Aea ee ee petty ie: oo a, Pe gee EE. PR,” teiTe Fie. aaSR ea ee Te Rn ee ee PS a ke ae * eG Aa, t77< b eee re ek Te RN Vc med Ak ees oe eee | SO a OO een ey Nities eee ge ihe iy PER Boats eos ee ; igi ee eee beh i oy tt, Ry Oe ean Be Ceres Cie oe r Se oe a ee tet "6 ae oh Fi ei ake Sate eS fo ee es 1 og] tee ike Ry th Re A ee

eee, oS ey ok Se ar ae A: yy eg ag SS rata RASS Cai Ea So RS, Paancty a SER ope Re. La ae A ae . ne es " re a et S _ % tg > ee a “- Mt eee oh 4 eae i sg ~ : Mf vy ae s* je ey Si ‘ S e% os mn : ze x; eee yy kes bie & A #. -

:eeea res Ae. ee ee ees oygeYe Say i oe Se Padeo guaetSsaGane ag as ke : io " Cswae ee cmtm “ peck ete ie ee ee Mey A, oe te, Fae

Pe Rt i one = he: i SRR My = mee, aresRA < “ge. ie ee Sle i eee 1? erMN Ps ON kn oS 5 ees A er eeSieg Loahaai oink eae%Ee a, ee, Baad Sng mm AD es reie

i af ‘9 oad eae 5: Ne os ie ae te oF i og Ue ae oy ee ge a PLE . Witee ER e PS m. hy aa ey oe - e £2-°oa x:=! SOosBins, incom see ac call aa, ali * ee 2 Fa: ee we “a. ws 3 - ies: ”llegar siti, “ 7x©: ~~ a mene wi J : at aetbigs aa si a a/esPod iy se , a jt”a Ngee nigel3 ag spitC ; Con!

Se ee a Sees © ee ee ee » ' 3 is — _ * i >

~ ee . eo 4 3 “3 - ~ ” “ s va ‘ ee ww ae . wa ae on ae e x*~~ ZF —_— : : theaters : < ie “ss»“a i +aesiveeave¢’ Ke 3 Me : i s ae , *~ = et a get

” i — we ‘6 aaa anton x Ry ‘&. » %, = : at ee ae ee Moe : —-

:5 ts " a . : * Je ae ia oe ie ‘ , fe 4 ty an Ae ‘ | of oe. Vi Pere es oy: e . 3 ae ee te be BO >. ie AA A | sions ¥ oa Pp ee Ot ag wie = Oak! & & reey.ot*. .~ 3 ss soil ‘ee ee...«— teOo i to Pggt»cpeee snssabaues %. i oe

“: oe... x 5! see ee —_ 7 ot EMM! Fy,. ;=eRe ar Oe: a ee GIN! *soP ewe fa oo oS ee ~~om eena :cat osee ae oe .awees, Ts i ‘-” ¥ in aeee ae ee ig OO OS ee. ee seace, eene ie, ~ ee ee oe 5 — oS ee isee ee i, ' i ae Fg ee js iii a es a 4 ea sc oui me Be % ge iS 4 et ae ae a Te ae as , * “ i; ar. ea ot gad 4 — a .Fore _ Fg oa : FSegatesRE See

en a ee — Eaeatiett ee : Ss 33 Neg sien,Se Rec :ee> Fo . eees“se ee : ——— : a 4 ee See ee re ; - - pi ee a ee é % Bg AE ting ee bia:

we es- :. F&... ~ fisine” oei eeses sieare a “ae. ty oe 'Ps - eeMigs mS o ok ewe et iia —— re sete ‘fz2eeiF = ss ae > —ae: ee BO: ligt ; i pot we,

‘

a i OTOL. AOCEOOORE IED. A: ORR e. Macc nec ese . : > é s ae ‘ Pa Se ee * 4 e Be ee . — he 4 +, r. : a : ~~” . iy. agama = i ete

Fic. 26. Room 1. Detail of niche and molding of the north Fic. 27. Room 1. Niche of the north wall viewed from the

We gt ‘ : 4% a re, 4 y a # Pe fe = ee e

te 2p (sa a : : ite a cy oN he : Fs i ; // i “ia?

: f 2 A if fr VY. oa Ct, Wy . i .

ae 2 oe

i SB ‘ > Fs s A ee ‘ 4

“¥=

sat é

Fic. 28. Room 1. North wall with niche, squinch, and molding

7. i a . ’ a ; > Yo ‘. Ss ge

. _— . ee - * ~ 2 ee. Pr ype = ope gale = j

Me , % ee

*:£

a Oe dl 5 eas i et OE id etme” 9 tA ase SEELEY Gf. :er; a _ : VAT fe Sei ay * Lah Oa on fFate ie a.Mee? iawe” a ' pie

Fic. 29. Room 1. Squinch in the southwest corner

2 z or Oe le ane nea poe Seg ee : gee’ 4 4 > % “a : »

ra « hg «7 éj 7 £ ge ae ¢' l hp . 13 ae Mf avies¥baits ‘ - a. Ms Oh uF paBatt eHE | saeéoP ae Lipsip fca ” i% agp4esAG : eo DP” Se foe, 3 a- e* ——ad; AS P i sa 2 ._lled OO BePe?:-asat a”eer- lle

a IYgs 6 SSDS ged A. gt Lael ee Meee”? Ee

Bae ashe‘ 0 ’. eo : ;4-‘RES * $2 ,iSAS Agit? ;4 é{PL a *Pia se ht Ph” AF Mend iim -— ee r— 7. ’4, Jf, éA Fe F4(-¢Le f Oe fit + )al| “or ad y~4| Fr ngé qv4 aPa"a at Se ey ist ee ! “4 . ot“= z* we o afd Pe‘ i-% Es i: e=he a as - oe tac $— é +p* C23 oo Pin ME diggs

& pod, Pi - pigs eesfos 4 aeb“om — és. Ps 4% » ‘;: Pé ie Pa ug = . ‘&,Z: ‘‘ Ps a be9doeBy ra Page ae frikh > r Le

a - erBe. ::xafirRE ia“geaot: .- 44 sesh ‘5 ag“a ae Oeaiaece f.Ga Soe Se pet

ae ¥ * “j sf ae Pig s je preAS i : *ue bs rs be os2 at Seya gt gketGaal ee>FO

#we .i4 2ee 3° pees —— F- «. oes ;a

% ® aWeer “ sg4%ne Stea Roe ; oeeeaeSe ee _ oo -asag j — 5 ‘Se owe oS 4 iw ee St ~~” “nA te = . e eroy aMaes Paes f Pe co s ae”: ce, alt i #|.eae| 5 Qa” os sii, see ee ra Z, eo : - wes * “ , i i Pl a & : oe Peat OOS ree

ee a es oe ay ba = * eye Sa me x a 4 ae ae ee ee ; a cliadhe = whe = a as = i ali “St iy ty ‘ 4 . we meg iee % 7 Ne a x

te Py * 3) ;= es oo Rte is : . | ee ., nm ee A gs : winded on : 2 i i ee = a 1 . i ~~) Be ge ie* coll ¥ a i i. Pe 1 , So ~> : a oce ef } . : . : : a." Lit) — Aa . f

., =. :ne. = é ‘si. a ee, ra :oe re PO tial

gi &s ey &ifqi 4- &* ‘ ;% og tyee beeeid: > i2|4 >. 4 “SF: — A 1s 3. sailsae ie I -. :©eeaa4ae=hn hae ae ied | hp Fi ‘ee, a 2 @. of).

oe ~, Hy) *= -oy = L* 3 eeoe a sak . zt= OF~— a mee q vsBae. hg 3 os) i +2 Ree a 1 :ie! aa i ieee =~=ae ‘o; »si :— a a ~“ig _~wii- sa - oo . ae = — ta e a & —~ ee - i * “hy ee a” * 3 . és a 4 ‘ . — te, ‘. — ee‘ wi Os Ss otea¥wt Sa=%, 23#st2. et* ; - 37tt os « eo _— wie ;__— “ iee. me p Be ae5 €=.ee a“%, ras eS weei.-at a— ‘eg:ce is ‘on ?oe ed eewa F si — ee os.

4 ‘a:*s%. —_— 7 : r a :he. Se jet :z #‘*. aod Pigg % 4aa= i “Rs r a6 im > si ge » ; * £ F : £ : a £3 a se a # ge : od bs Sh a on.f AEF’ ’ oe dhe eo. )ones ~ Fic. 38. Room g. View from the east

a . io

w hee ee ee (oe. : iia ss A EN US, Foe eS | Te aye

We eaOCR Va 4QE > om aEs ieBale. >>Oe. >- ,a|i3ee < %, ae eas. ae 2 , en et : “ we, } Re ey. ™ ._ une 4 X an RR > + Oe lea i 6: Tiei»Sind go eei Py fe a.ier .Ps. : cig. | f“ ‘.e*Sa % aoe te eg ge ae re : A) Mase ae é ee rhe ~~ i ie Os a Ve 4 re : ¢ i oo itl -..” a eet . -. = ao i i 7 : he. . eS Foes ee TT oat aah a * ny ° — = y ng ). | = Fy Me * ‘ ee. tJ ; : : * Pees Ee ff hie 6 ee Ss : i nae i ‘rs“2 : . :Ae : aaya YY. 4 —ee aaee > _Weg. : : ; ~ oa) ee oe

Aid a oS ae med wo An gis bane i . io = — . ;

: eBe seca i a *“ey Renee sae: ae aeer “7% 4 ereOey — ~~i :esOM » ieee : F see 3 Si

¥7L‘— inva” lee 8 4 iy =” & fF : a. i : ie Be ee —— pi *7. er lg weed Le eat tnt Ss s ean wt ‘ :--—. ‘ at ee=.eee ae.J ee este| aoe ee roail : fa Wg . ~ ie Re ae te :Re SR og c,*7.*‘. :*%eee = oe > ~~Bias =. ww...

+ gea at%POa Bin Ms,, a, * ~

ie : ‘“.3—.¢2‘ —. ‘ ~~ | SM ee 2 phe : 3 i. wy | oe a ee oo. — a, i ico. eee 073Se Se 7A,: P, eei: .ee a Fg ee ee: |La 7S 2oo Rx = iWw ee :aes é Ee a fe ;ww - 4 . ~~ & * —, *. - a =arrePe — -oeeg ae ed gt : ae ti eeco Pe i fies oo# ee

: a! * e ae ® a be ei ‘ : :. Bs 3 ‘ * %. % Be : F . o of 4 cat i » : : e ee = | » .

# i = oe * Fo. oa Pe eS : ies oe 8, Pas ee ae a Pe - - ro. ' -

eae — > se se : 3 ae ee

Ps b si‘ £—f pone a. eS —— ‘ er eeOP ekhd ogoteeMeg te . Linge id a 4 :‘ “a -. ;. .oo. oo re ae Stee Se es .) {ee eC i * %& » Fad i aee ye Srer ee os- geoo ys— Se % i éie Se|Se: Fae ee ee he. ag ge ae

et Olle ee i belowat”|asia

“yI3aesoe % séee em,oom se ke *=ace 2 ‘- set + Ae 4 : : wh. i . ite a ee —.* +: ~ee ees Lise? =e ee! : FPO = bath “ i. RR icewieoee™ i si ntl : :_ id indt..., “teoe“i < aeo evost: — :ieae 1G. 45. Room 4. Niche head in the south wall seen from ett

4 ce : * : et * : ae ee Pie Be oe ese > ae $8 tee : ek: a Ss . 8 gi oe ee oe eos ik ee

& .es = ot ae se Fae eGa,_— aS

rea No “ 4 oe th a 3 hog i i 3 -— ee ¥ ie . ae F 1 ; ee see ae 4

eee ee | * - rs ee pe25eea ee 4 Pe a “yrs i g s . “ =< 3° Pa. oe IG. 46. Room 4. Niche in the south wall [eee Pe Re ia, +

‘OO ' weg ey

4 fe o cd ee

a oem wt — : s ee eA

orate see ay _ oo. * = % "ae -

aeahtscase a etOO SasOea... oe,47,‘ é‘ é Pes GeO ce ge ge ame ame ar

; Fs a eo age Bi, 4

&~ oe pees LO ae ae een geelo tal *Y

an i eS ge ae tet ptt ee a he a eR.sige ae : é a S.ae —. res + J < 4 j ~a 3 oeeewed eSOeoe# see Se . pees Le ea, er te: Se ‘ pie wail : .: ge : = RN z—— < = .> > *Sas ~~ ente a> al ee e, tsPebeoe be aie. .Sar = . Sees _ ae 3 %e Sas in £ a i ae we .&. Sa Ix ea aon =‘

| alae helen ie View of the northwest pier support 11 the northern wall niche and eg ed columns ~one == eeNe. SS Se ported by doubled an SS | 2a Res ee : FSSwe = ae %, 7 |aSee rm i Rs mal ene te a em Bg See ES ae AES: ‘

a er Ogee Fe a ae | | a5 = 2 = . eee i ia . ae om te = oe 2 + eng ek ‘G:tie a. \ rt se See “e 1 as Map as te See | ; ‘ ) ==: Ae = yee aa"4— Sinnae eh ahy J SanPat ‘ z x Risse eer ~*basin = TSR ie me —

> ' :os a = rat, = 4a~ ‘ae BediX=~ % ‘“ ‘.bsJ: $te ae «* -= ai ot az = — a wt Se os mee a ome te tat * j eS .ae: a.ceiy iee -. Sake ve Aes .— ay, “bn i fae 4ieBes A Te, |i =pe“ae.v 25Fs“is So F‘ane ag pe, Nate eeSeas re Seg > KAO ME esa ag go . >ol-” =: =a= = ey a Ne. ~ k * 2% Caleoso aa ke +. —, were % ..ay s i kd oSfA % —' 4 PeCO oodgg! Soe AO ba. Sssae os hag ee a—Pe | reog ot :ds ‘ awk ~¥Be oe et ae : heena seeieee =* RN = en a ed . i.xaefeteite,=5swy 1m, Cae “ERBePaes aiea > Cai eae »= : Sat ae4 . cA *et Pie ca mes bas :/_ ,oa 3 -.iee 2> bee +yw. is+:: % xi*¢ =4 ke;|< ‘eSx) :7Bi 3:at :?r 2a Sa be? pe Ay _. : ; -f Bs -) ] a Z ee sg panes a ‘ = mv ae 6. * aes a rh Oe Qe Rota Oe e ee ee Be scctemntns seb s, = aR ™" : |> ws &Sy, _. — me, ‘ 4eh Pyek Sy‘79 Se EE 4: (tf ' ie etoea = ~~5:a= se “i Se °)Pin Ee a a%, oy es, *ee Oh ee ares vy 2| aad.De #7Pe _rie sey ah Ne igany Oe tay CUTVENN res5faRe Fi, 2. : = ‘ | : i , : 7 * , ‘ a ee * Bx * eg we ree — < a : z = tne bs as Fae ie “4 5 : 4 e ~ ®: ,

| Se ae es wie gYe wi 5me ® yAN Keg a «&%. :| eh =:**yj :agl um. fig te Jo. *:| .,) :| |re oo ‘’HE, zwote® ratte taslaw -:iw..¥aa“% ning ¥-__ :rea2#ee '*me »* -bs ee Boris ae -E_& ( Ear co .NO ° . eee _“ + ‘ oe ” a * Pe © egg a Ei ; ern * &. F 2 = ~ a . * a4 a ee & ‘ . 5. 4 i = » eg e oy % ¥ * ua a. | Kg re + a O + . = = 2< ':Pe ® :#. : ,Nigel | | “ 6 ; * a he we a Fe es) | |:3:i«@ ; ‘_ aesah FS ee & “A Seam ae Fe et | fy ade aw 2 See ut Pied i; “ }oe si ee S e el eN 5 Be at a « ® “x sical S 2 z “iti tg i ig pat ae * aie Ped ye “ Br, : — . 4oe .7aMe moe 3 SS a 2 Ne ‘gor oe Air. Sa” Pe es e “ ¥y ts , ‘ee ‘ ; ke i— ~~ a eee Boe aay De é i ~ :oa $A. be ee te er shee ~*~ . :* \ “i nie ; : ¥ ee . ge — 2% % i Pi oat Phe gt “ — ie = | "2 . : | : be , ‘ a7-—we : :, ye Pe: “* ae5m, >seg +. mS al 5 -% -aNae Bs ;thas i nee aeme eePs .a, eree wil Min gatieatt oS ‘as: ris aSe ee-lt¥4a eS Ls a.‘oe 2viii 2Son eris¥ ‘ *ee %4

SeENRNNNE , ‘§ he =. £Ee AeAae a —— nd aiatetoan 2 ; te . : ith a ; fi: e. ’ i ‘ -* Fe ~ »— - : oe ‘ : :fie cS sj sage < yt tin.3SePyci,: aSE * ae _ kee : -"

ae eg ee as ee +o pee ees Sy i ey rs i. a .

2 . ms 3 5 % a = ae Be Be ¥. beg $ iS ip Re Pte » ee ba 3 SS - ps7 ee aa y Se ye sa

. é ~ A ee * eG ; 2 rae is os ‘ aR Mts th 4 . hil Coa ie. hice - ES be pee , a = & , a33de be 3, = . ime % m7 : i§ Peoo “3ay : eeoaks = — ee “é ae ap .4=eeane —? 4. 'Sa—oRint a ae om

. * fees » ‘Sa. 5e ¢eo2. =eeae-“.a % Ceeeee ~~ aF:. sei *~ ‘ "e : ”. & oe3 ee .. o, omse: .ig; aw TOi gag ie e9 Be fh on es el Gees ooEe = , se : ¥ = ne: +. e te eha oo * Se ee iAé & —ce. &e&ae"ge = ;, Py . oe ee ee : 4oe: ;EPyne NE : aJ- —_— eg” Ee ‘a: m a ge :gi} ieee - 4ae aeaon. ii oe lie. oe j 2% ra Be mn fe », a ae x awe .;;‘‘g ek a = * “on 2 | “ch le a 2

vr. re ae al ha ‘> ; = on ne ' as 2 “i | rahe — | a ae : a # ve A ae wan’ ie St pe . ‘ : x= ba fo ieaea—" re IT eee Be arr*ae Ti“3 ‘e FSYe ;Seee FTi FA. .* 3ae iv éereo 2le ee5ws at ~* ‘Ci E3Se by ey‘ fa. % - eet : pe ee" ’.. -ae eoEe :en ss =™%, ao os, ‘5 . ooe '¥ fit, +. :‘3{gee Fe an

el Le Veiga eA ‘wie ‘ *& ini ee ea. ee ~8 fis he Jp ,

. -‘eS: ie3 ite a oo ‘Se a? the=RE: >.ae Pod pl 4; cadet “Gere ' #Pi ss -:mene aa :% .ha Peee ae ae 2ge 8sil FS . ate2te feae a‘J roe ro Ee ‘ , 4, ae >=: cd ae ws ae. .+4, fk oF.44, Ej a; fy gtby~-. --.prone ¥ ade -.'| .ete mu +“‘2 os. ..ga Es pf “ef (e

Eaex :wt Le -Bole « ree aw, | a&. 4 =|+ee aes oe24 i t= ha) Ra! i =se .oh .5 es & aea “4 j:< tert éoe ie i See | Pees \ She 7 Ped, oi : ‘ ff ie OG . : . ,ee&mS _ x.Le x ‘ee a .Pe a a" MM... 4“ 44 - @3ee 8beh oo 7, "Ce” Ne oe, De ¢er Fg oe9anMote gd F« — et ae

per é a- ?‘ 7% « rea ee, ae :# fi )tse ae oo ae nee = = ee42os f. ¢a€ cal me Gy . | SeKi:eke >ee fs. — g 6Gee ”i oeee: es a.ae ? cnpeoles ‘ a :Ee. .*f ee : Lie are : ‘3:Se éx4 F: Ps 3a&.;ra te eee *~~ , = ' _— — . meme iosmalitaiiaataiatesiia ae ‘ee e. Sese. ©

‘ a. , a b Py : : : a. es

Shower) = Beran esPure. ee ee Me eae Gpafe.2etoo 2 es ne? os ora +£.% ee . " ‘ Paste Fores A he ee es eel ee ¥ “% NS NS Re kN ere ey See ee Doane: tana Mas Rees Tee ee

hg Wes i f oo Se tie eS)oo oreSensei at ‘ i aS Ss es 3 es ae ‘ Se ws..e4% a "Ea SeBe > 2. f—efSenile qillea?. pe i bie, ace ~a ‘a «. se oh PatSNS accent ni sai permet ee iay # n‘ -* oo Sie PR. - ee _~a*

es Rei tae le Wiptic Oe a ee % ‘i ‘ ee i é a Se re a J *, f gt 4g , ow a. ‘ i whetYe Ne oe ete ee ,ae,’\4s ,€.i*;.2:ix." big wo Ca gre» oFRatt Ae:aeri ::UPN ‘ots" ‘ ‘haMe eeieer PES . Prat «lala_». “eo =CS dere. :2Pe c.fy *GEASS age hae eame” .ae=a eae Ss # a So ato: & FL foe OE ixeene *‘éSe eR :ath. AS:an oi BtKe * ERS BS agra i ge\ *heGoee ae3ie’ aa¥sé ms ioe si ti J ge are asea Sees oe wre ae Sro =¥; aSey i = eee ihe;a se ¥ * a Say Atte an 2 s a ote es , 3 ae ee *t. . & bot SEehiaee A: .Li's ee eoSwSgt ee&. of eee +* riedoo : : sy sertoks es “a Hs A i -ae wieit2al Fs as ta -*imro ee ,ue 4¥x ee ;Fi. Se SF he ® :aot & ' xCe 2ai.+f . i 2 =. :-‘4*“SER :so =‘:nace be : %: Ee : es cas i cgi “3 sie : Wa, £2 35ee7 a* am ¢ Mice See See ae ‘F4ete . 4+3. _gioeaeAo Re RE, Se ‘©aaf2 sc ih. ,r,ns“eas so Se eS hs 5.2‘ i

egeohig} Mahi nepayee %fe.f £mlno Ca: éBeeh, ¢ ‘ass 1 x ? . : ;ee es “a a beae: . eS+Me fR %a) sg._Sh oe Se F : *: de: soe»ee " ~Se fy Py ; Mia wn

. || oo xtoca * “> ep PUD os Ss de 2 er. -: ely “se wey ae yA Re ts. * ,f* a:ae i. tas ae, ekaye * ate é *‘ OMe a* wets? Oe 4i %. ate*Sh ¢Ja”eS eee 62nee ngsae oe ‘ Se oeee ee tt a Fo : .ti‘és g es * a3 ‘. .3% si~ ye aseae 4g etScat ee bate me ck i : *to oe be’ *s ueJ: é ' ‘ ¥-™— aNe * os. ;Pe. _ Qe"RR i“A me ie — 4 + ea ‘«if J. 2% ae : on 2S . : bask : : ai % ag Z. 3 * % ®= a zok ;st7 sat BEES . Re eee , : ‘ \ OE a % “di , Sy re a le ‘= eee i “t oy. “ . é ae ee A \ ha *% Je “, ; * ee ae ~ le ‘ *% aoe : wis ace ee : * : je &° Sana ae & AG % 3 (we og $ $ 3 . : ‘ ra a % ey %e apo er ee pat a ae 8 ‘ .. \ - : pe rss a : ” : : < a 2 : a

|RE aSS). ee wee te , he 4 ; oe a a Tea ae eee ae “A ce... wee

i ‘:. — fhe a St . a Ve Oe ys A o2WE oe : 3%Le et Dine o ig She i i eae es | a .-ieeo ee 2Fa By zeot=+3 *.. . es‘ #e: 25 is id Re Syie ae? Ws 7 ae :4Pox Pee is « *aoe% ‘ bd Se %reSl my ei oeeeeR Ee SS ee WO a iok= meee? cage eee ee gee Se i ee eG ye ee fe = . ae? s oe —— “s ea “ ee et 5 ke hs ; : i es mt se Py ~ pone. pe eee re inno ee 8 — “* i. . $ a . 2 ee * + See is ye 2 < is eS ee ati ee Bolte & “ey a SE Ein Cee 2 me a ee ote fee ey ng 3 Mico— Mn. oo 2 2 ueSe mA Se ew Bs Sint : Me Sop ‘weai % S oe . a & aOs * Ss ~Pee mt [ . a Fe. ‘ So Ce Se ; tae BE i et ete rEse eS en — as : ee ee oe wk ae raPsaon ee eS -— ey ge OK oe fe i * y on ee . Ct a A a : ; oF i” ig ¢3 ae a +

pee ee * a : X Bg oe

ae ee iPe (otgtSee ee ge eae + erees * :APE :% ae ee | NUNN ee Sn pe : ie ta: ge ee eB be eek OES ot eee ee i & sh3 cnt * i ee ae 3 ge ge ei sae” te 3 He ‘ aS es, : ooRah, aeat te eee 4A hh sibel ee

Rs Pg hg Sime he ee. oe er he Me a Re ae wee A eseeOe ee oe | ee eesOe i eeeNE BAY FOa ee * ee #a TE ek:Big * ee .eaek gil isee aa3.geht ia§ oet BeBR a ag 4sk” “ ee cs * ee * i OR Lie :te‘Fee: ‘ ~.ies As : . eee v3 a oF. Ue te 3 .aePa oeat. #epee sg- m5 befy% 3aifs . oe ‘ ee + ;ee5,4 ~ ‘ a... a %=e 4Pag re 4om sehm5) eet me. s ee ak * : Pa P aaa a Z “ = 3 By = Bs a ae Fa 4 uf é onal Pe. x 4 i F Fa Hig is 80" ae € oe Liles? AED go | $y x.) Leet 2

a ; so eS . : if lam : ‘ i sim Py .pays oa LO a os eePe :af =, . =.ace gg gs gre agePe. —— : ed _ Oe * me ©eea*"5ey dest Sgt ‘gia Boo 3

Se & ie . «= ty” sige - hy ce itn ee i: ea

Yd - vx Pe. - eae % *:Se. ee % & aRB.aioe es sa eS , _ rd gpaeOgg Bes See le ae ee Re Csage ek 3 ‘* Be ia aeS ORut eae ae RES goes eS ps nah Se SS

i a : 2 . +eePea 3we es Va if Ce ees go he —Re. gw

a ii cided ee * asgai nevos ee.«geate : oe: *g} Ss tle, Se waei‘ ameae Fepee . : OES oe j ‘ i g oo . * Shi Me De =, ; : ba Ss ~~ = S sees

i;Ss ‘eS oe -—. yg ,™ee FY :: ‘‘$Se. ; +y. ire ; $:. — ee poae 3 ss: « fefind aie eeBeOS ee

Wis -Wb) ea ee=snsOCd 4 hegg es Orig ae Pek ‘A en:oe he"avd pe ets 3 pe i®Ce se ’ . os : ge oatte ar, » t45oy eae San SegKXwh : we -oe ee‘ail =Agere ih ee| Peete ees ee f ip) : pepe ayn te.>ceh Se ¢f He - r -43IE éFsiiFet °Hef Tee ,%3 ee3ee BoE Pane s;. greets i PO"ee, tteoe Se ths“~ =Ra Psta ieee - 3. ’x, BOE pee f ee : ge 3“};

i. : oc) ‘ sa . 5 : 2 S wut oe he eae S

rae *¥sa3be: ; sages 3 {Pt i ate : *; es i ,: 3ae xee2OY Ts eeng fos Pe F::ad Be aeTe al44 4eoc# ngs .em Dien ae oe 3 > = oe ie. he rd *¢ Ta r oem . , at sy os. ops an a “= siti oy s PM a + 4as sagt “orbs 2or% es 4+be’ee : tf aia Fie) eae i ip # t\ :hee * 6“ -,.Pe: . oe i, =peg a ;—ae; oe i

J\* 3} ' aaoe @|ee See ee he Pa fate Ge oe ents=ee — ee < 3 ;a.*A:iSFag" dept, wan ie ee Ra, . on \4 | si; Reo 2s es etn —— Pe aati 8 +. % . BP Ping) be * ” oe oh : +f : ie i fi He %

a eo oF aia yx a > ~ lp %, a BS ee © . ies gts oo rapins espera thes é F a s ey, a 2 : ie i if £ foie z fe hag? a é

Ss tp ite rie ee se Re|ei.eeeeta ate Pt 95 Wnnsinoeeall PSory oe$me =Sm ce ee keer oeoF cn 7 cad ae *oe Po~ |pe Meh My Pee rite eo POT >a Pk aire: ee zoe Sam EA, Ve 7 he “a si ; at i Pu , 4 ie i Le : Pg Ps ia sail * a :

: ~~. A.%. iA ol hm = % *,ee Be, a*E wae éa . a Ow, oea———— i . >.eee Cot : at ys, oa —/'. *2me 4SET ga 2eE 76. Aviz. oa 3 & >Bim & cms 4. SD regFO _aaboagtag aes is NY ET ie testss < ge zone ten, a ~ S: > a 2 & a» ee (a9 » ™“ by e ea a og — ca tae i . > song r & —, .hg, ~ Se P. peers 2s we cat | isa ie ..“: * oo

“ rss ™ : %~~exoe. ©Interior Fic A 1iew Ma EWNye be Sr os taq.77. view showing squinch

QC [7% < %, weMA He ae wt.Rte ‘ wkCo . 4& oxPe t- eeca-T4eee”. 4,‘Se ” an ome ~ i“Bs” Pd . : R.. UN ee a «ehew, 4vi oat SS AQ, 4 :th.*4x +‘> on,sight ;ont se =% 'a he6 "eazee ’ .- -te | pet a.‘ap i Wik Re eh ne |. “eee We OSMe a» ’aoh. i oe ee SM. i ieeee oe ;ax,ee . aeea , Rye ~~" some: oe: * #it 2

5. | HX . in, 4

|| eh 4 a:ee§ ok . \ “pal 8 ae Mees ~ ta {8Se, : we {: _—ts -a*eS o> ;“Was ‘ y my te a ey we ‘hte ee “ot we ace 4 le se ‘ _# ae ky 3 + - sa Wel g's ’ ee 4 " 4 : x f ae *

: Ls. wes ® x”~ aa Poem, a lle SS “Se:“5* 4* " éan 4 Sh die = ,ey Sar+ i: “tt. : a%, ites” ee a> e8hoe ee3% * *, Sei. -
i. ee: wae ee og >) ak & Po ‘ £ — ie aes oun, oo ES tee “Binz. ee, oem ggSeNG ee Slt apcs. aewi oeae - eX, 3geNe aBeBe oe. JSoe . 33i :ae ie Ge : oo ne eo? ee ee wy :,— % ' ae4 aetage Linge es x3 Py— ee 8 oe i>WL ie ee a isF* ‘ F‘

oe Se Poe wig a SE edb eS a ee , a eee me ee V Se er ge. ee ee as ,i ae RSCee Bd aeale ~ ee ag te teen ee re: Se ae Meee aeiecfaCt

Be gat * mu, onthe ee waeme ies** eM, AL: eeRs 4g Fe Oowe ee, TO ae A ae ae —=a*Ey ™; Se i: fae: ellen =ee [ve 7ete oe a Pp ee 2 ee ge aFs, eSespe ‘Bo Mp es — os bs ae ok oe &, a oe mi can ‘i >= : ot , oe. hp Seely OC Ee Pee ere hae Se Miles xr 2. Sa” aEiee Piero, ee m ee ee Ce SE Re ee fl EE oe ge &, eoei » %”RsMe nn re .ae ” % td Ee otaae*Spee Se. “4£0, Se Ral£be ot, 3 i a he oe aad beee Pes PS a 2 a aee eteoe a‘ Si ae3 Pee . *. %aLon Ase. 2S‘ aea‘ sei Pe

“ ee Fe ts le Pa? Miter ST ee, OP a Pe ia — oe ee # Cos ? go oe Po ok wiike a a.otwht aSs Serere aeiear. eaeegOy, Mr eee eeéwee BE ieee 4oe gti: ti eB: —San giana ee os wet ge trRES ges er: Le ;*ee ee oe ; er wa.el aa eg ee soks aePee é* ane (2ee =Oe eee 4Se ee Stee fsee Seti Pe.zae DS POO ap: Re ‘age he. Se ee Prt aoe gt ssee ete 5*ee , oa ;aeaeaCS 7éeeeeii:— We en i—Ss ee De agee. ty%t oT ohoats Mae >BS aings » 2 ‘oR SS : -_. 3h a 46 oerstae” ee ‘gee eg: tae ee ae ea Fae ow 8: Cam ae See oe Pas, Boe ee aeeePe Wee Bers .< *.ee ;r.Rea eee, = 5,; Ve Fak aeea"POMS fig. ~4 sa aee:Be aoe ee ge a=: bie eA ee oe atee ee“taPi ofiy eee oF: UF. Utioe «| ts ~ae ©25 ae +8 5 » oe Ber oe Me %= ee ; ‘iae{paar es. ae me, a Blt.acial po ee eee uesi 4eeie& pee: 28 pg eeee ee ae Ps siti on ae a

awal i eeae : Se aes ee eB eR ty of ee 4ae eeZ3. — IG. 78. QasR-I SHIRIN. Char Qapu. Squinch STseaeaeeee ey 2 Age AeS>eoae es Peeee aojie

ee re. ae ee ee sag »Ls aeoe sie Se ee aiS ae ig a ee sa a oey= : ee ee Se,

FIG. 79. KAZERUN. Char taq. Masonry of the walls

»,: jLe ilies 23 2g %£iMg (7; oo oe Mise eePx. ag.>ti-~ eaSe, eee B i pa ey = Pe Bo nt Ae ae | a, . ee ee : . ea anh 2% 3d :“ays a*bsSE =Sseee x EL pe Ww”,ele 3 ae ~*~ i% en Pe:ond Re ts arms pat Vente és’rise *eo) ie!oe ; >8, ‘ aRae in eia8 yerefia its SEae a seg Tae nit ae ae aby © ey 7 oo ; See! . eg a Me i n, E Fa a the ae aaa > ke wae, i :4;oe: § obs i Ode ay andES at aBe By Billi ag ra i seWig bees ‘‘ 3hin et S*~‘iPaoe 4— > ss : ; >r oo feyba¢hyjaf~ *iseytt Fj :a. ESS BeatOe ; be ihea oes Et gs SShseeig : Te ee 5aTe gle ip TS re= phBe : 7 ale / :2> ERGAS Re Bee Like Ue ed BO # : ee On ee ee aOe, ee ee "Os. he ona

a ss —* = oe pon Rx sy EP , » ee % aes as Z eo Rien a 8 % ee “Pe ade | a * ? ye ¢ gm - : i % » er ; ~SSong et . 3 et ae. *iwe EP -‘aoe ¢* ee ” 7ee bet: teeS8é% ey >— *te Pine #¥ra iss+Py - :ee oe ee éteaa By i : Pox %4 .vt i 3oy ©iatas*St;aes ;LS ex2oeave Lg 4: *!. ee ee! ome Nget Saree, a ey + eal $> F ¥ éae: Be Fpee ie item =:— éee : oeBeg é j 5ae 5 eee oo. " 385 3 « " * eal . : ~*~ 3 ¢ at + * a ‘ ¢ ef 4 yy a a F pt | : bis, * ~ ee: : i fo it, ‘ig oe | 5 a mer Seal 3 a. tees . en Sad ; * * = ye RS Sine i ee . ; if, : ® : is / 64 ‘e A - oie ee. 5 3 eo it aod f9 x. 4g a 4 : pe = yt 4 ear oo an, ’ ae OE " . % a, ams x ‘eae ~ ig ce on : Es a ee 3 — ae 8 . Fic. 84. FIRUZABAD. Palace of Ardashir. North facade with engaged columns

. rs :ce 69 goo Pg.=*- Se gsFZ i wes ae -é_.=ed . # g. Fa re wl = es ‘ rg : 2 ’

ee Gh ge ee at iz Fis VEYe4 ;ae Pe

= ; “ 4 a # ve te ’ eres , ee 5 ~

-. xhg re *‘Se _ ja S8 SS.oe aesee és $abefae et ¢ rGF A a : ects : ee ?

“y 2: ifs i Focas ‘ et a ie ‘ é , ieeen atu as _— ee aee; Sd aonidig” at ge eeePri oe. ne oe Laites SSfee Merge ee

y lof ie LEE EF ae 3 , —~~ng Pavone Fe oeig a yaS hese Ue é ome ina: : ",wesie ee eee: i a“ers Z%agr EE PE ice a ee— gi Sg EE —_ar ee ee~Bif Py ee oe bak be : am. on 6ishsaSe Peeet | a PT Se EI IS ahr agian aE i a®ge OP Be ROE RO a 5a NS Sg keoege eee ots FS Leah BO OE,aEe pemmamle * a se —_—Gee wa a ss a e moa: i . 2 Z- ; se BM cs, * rad : A mtFn Sg ge og ATe *aa Ss ee — =oe ce ee “ i Relient —_ a os 4 ii esate ip: % ro i er # en ¢. a

geee ee tee ag- ae oe—* 5* ot ee. Bec nsapie es: * a: +PF 7Bing * ie teashe ail “ Cty f git 3 # :cae i, gage esPen, -= “aeat *% ; re aaBe 4a. iebh. > Ve eS , : “ i. *ea 7 PED ae oe aN

Fic. 85. Palace of Ardashir. Engaged columns of the north facade

| |i. [(eae, ia @ : —e iL 2Be£I Dee pp” || _ i : ee ia ee er *. B ; ' 3 ee Fl : oe —! a a « aan ee. "1 [ |s “ ipasectaspadpisissibiseatotenneonnes :

os | i aa. ; c — . ree a « ae |

ie i aSako -TT 2 [ |e M i * } : oEi: Fi 53 ES fond pe | 8 | | ; | (i= Pr i — Ce a ee i _ oe rt i 4 i ‘le; =ey % os cof a me onl & E | w I ae 6a : : @ a fea

ab4m|£y a) i*| )ae2sree i 3|oo2F: $4 4 es i rc i | . Pf Le sae i i 4 i i i i i i : t } . seae 0 | a oe —3 i | oe 1 ee bee | | i PA i} i [| i : oo i ~ ‘ by ” $ i;ti§tb iee ; : i i aaa nea enaeecaeraanaaa oro oe oe oIoTRTo eH sae. Sa . meen x 2 7 ; : a a ‘ | : Ss G ee pee ; :

oO |]peas id. See ae 4 | oeai [|‘| @ rey” Lad

||4 Lj ; e pon ff ; fe goscse +8 Cc D be

k $ ' oe aati : ae - . : t

i & : f resi i ae Lines 5 r es 3 Eyi oy ia ¥i3 [4]mtmC} | i (S|) rit 3 i

fia w 0 i 8 | ity [| es a _a aa|iESo4 Ie—— = —= — _ — iJ ro i .— I aoS , aes eae ee | ee B ; ii i : goFidi Pot i | ii :iscsi oe eS

| | Titre $ T U }

Pw

— ¢ é e Yr Pa Pe. © e weiter poe an ER Ee Be ee ee ee ee ee ee RABEL LS ALES FREE ES eed

Li,SPATERE qm =—s ERSTER ZUSTAND ‘e : :—ee F34 PERIODEN ee SS ERGANZUNG Fic. 86. TAKHT-I SULAYMAN. Plan of the fire temple (after Naumann, AA 1965, 623, fig. 1)

iNe Om aN

i a} iy KT car, 2 i:

ek en

|eS as 7 | [a

| LL,

|a

acpl, | -

SEQ . ,

Fic. 88. Cross vaults on diaphragm arches. (a) UKHAYDIR (b) QAsR KHARANA (c) Masjip-1 Juma, Yazd (d) KHAN OrtTMA, Baghdad

BLANK PAGE