Rayy: from Its Origins to the Mongol Invasion : An Archaeological and Historiographical Study [1 ed.] 9789004280700, 9789004279292

Citation preview

Rayy: From Its Origins to the Mongol Invasion

Arts and Archaeology of the Islamic World Edited by Marcus Milwright (University of Victoria) Mariam Rosser-Owen (Victoria and Albert Museum) Lorenz Korn (University of Bamberg) VOLUME 4

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/aaiw

Rayy: From Its Origins to the Mongol Invasion An Archaeological and Historiographical Study By

Rocco Rante With a Contribution of Ghadir Afround

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, external facade (R. Rante 2005). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rante, Rocco.  Rayy : from its origins to the Mongol invasion : an archaeological and historiographical study / by Rocco Rante ; with a contribution of Ghadir Afround.   pages cm. -- (Arts and archaeology of the Islamic world ; 4)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-27929-2 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-90-04-28070-0 (e-book) 1. Ray (Iran)--Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)--Iran--Ray. 3. Ray (Iran)--History. I. Afround, Ghadir. II. Title.  DS325.R3R36 2014  955’.25--dc23 2014037398

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2213-3844 isbn 978-90-04-27929-2 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-28070-0 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

In Memoriam Aeternam Cari Patris Mei Antonio Rante

∵

Contents Foreword  ix Acknowledgements x Note on Transliteration xi List of Figures xii Introduction 1 1 Geographical Setting 4 2 Historical Setting 11 The Pre-Islamic Era 11 The Islamic Era 13 The First Conquest of Rayy and the First Caliphs 13 The Umayyad Period 15 The ʿAbbāsid Period 17 The Sāmānīd Period 20 The Būyid Period 21 The Ġaznawid Period 23 The Salğūq Period 24 The Mongol Invasion 25 3 Previous Surveys and Excavations at Rayy 26 Plans of Rayy in the 19th Century 26 Pascal Coste’s Plan of Rayy 27 Pascal Coste’s Views of Rayy (1840) 28 Eastern Elevation (Folio 62bis) 28 Western Elevation (Folio 63) 31 Previous Archaeological Works at Rayy 32 4 Topography of Rayy 34 Topography of Rayy 34 The Citadel 36 The Šahrestān 41 Rayy Today: Between Modern Urbanisation and Preservation of the Site 49 5 Excavations at Rayy 51 The Šahrestān Rampart 51 Test T1 67 Tests T3 and T4 69 Test T2: Šahrestān 71 The Mosque 79 Citadel Excavation (in Collaboration with Ghadir Afround) 87

viii

contents 

The West Fortress 90 The East Fortress 98 6 The Ceramics of the Excavation (2006–2007) 101 Analysis of the Ceramics 101 Description of the Fabrics 101 Chronological Study of the Ceramics: Synthesis and Interpretation 102 7 Urban Development 119 The Urban Framework at the Origins of Rayy 119 Urban Development during the Parthian Period 120 Urban Development during the Sasanian Period 123 Urban Development in the Islamic Period 126 A Glimpse of the Urban Development of Some Major Iranian Cities 139 Conclusion 143 Appendix: The Governors of Rayy 149 Bibliography 156 Index 163

Foreword Renata Holod It is a distinct pleasure to introduce this investigation of Rayy (today Shah ʿAbd al-ʿAzīm or Shahr-e Rayy) a key, and still understudied, site on the Iranian plateau. Rocco Rante’s new monograph goes a long way to presenting and detailing the long and complex life of this ancient and medieval urban site whose ruins lay to the south of the capital of Iran, Tehran, and which has now effectively melted into its southern outskirts. The Rayy plain was the location of earlier settlements including the very important pre-historic site of Cheshme ʿAli, and a major Sasanian fire temple. Rayy itself started from a small lron Age settlement, was thoroughly transformed into a fortified urban center under the Parthians, and then again extended under the Abbasids, and flourished until the Mongol invasions. Rante’s work presents the results of the test trenches and surveys carried out in 2005 and 2007, and contextualizes these within available historical and geographical sources. Out of this effort comes a new, clearer understanding of the nature of Rayy: as a city, as a stronghold, as a nexus of trade, and as a locus of cultural life and influence on the geo-political arena of the Iranian plateau. Rante, working at times in collaboration of the Iranian archaeologist, Ghadir Afround, opened strategically selected test trenches at the site of Rayy. These new soundings clarify the nature and extension of activities through the longue durée of this urban center. New trenches on the citadel (qal’eh) and in the lower city (shahrestan), and even more importantly a deep stratigraphic test trench in the lower city establish the sequence and most significant moments of occupation. Urban life centered first on the citadel and the walled urban nucleus. At the same time that the city’s

citadel was fortified and re-fortified, its success as an urban center and its new status as a major regional center drew an influx of new populations into its orbit, among these Arab tribes after the Islamic conquest. Settlement extended past the old fortified town into the immediately surrounding suburban zones, while still maintaining the great citadel. The data acquired during these archae­ ological campaigns has physically anchored the textual history of the city, otherwise reconstructable from texts and numismatics from its antique origins (2nd–1st centuries bce for foundations of the ramparts) to its destruction during Mongol invasions of the early thirteenth century ce. Rante’s new work also helps to situate and extend interpretation of artifacts retrieved from earlier excavations on the site. Specifically, materials recorded in the fairly extensive and carefully excavated trenches on the site under the directorship of Eric Schmidt in the late 1930s can now be more fully understood within the context of the site, and of the Rayy plain. These materials found mainly in the Muze-ye Iran-e Bastan and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum), with small groups also located the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago are ready for closer scrutiny. I look forward to further expanding our collaborative effort. Further, and thanks to continuing and new work on key late antique and medieval sites in Iran and Central Asia, such as Merv and Nishapur, the earlier and newly excavated material from Rayy can now be incorporated into the archaeological record of the historic periods.

Acknowledgements This book is the result of my PhD research which was carried out with the support of the French Institute of Research in Iran (ifri) and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is the product of several years of topography, survey, excavation and the study of the material culture in Rayy. This book is also the result of a meticulous study of the historical and archaeological data, realised above all here in France and in Philadelphia, usa. Firstly, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Renata Holod, for her suggestions, corrections and patience. My deep gratitude is also offered to Chahryar Adle, for his suggestions. Special thanks are offered to Rémy Boucharlat and Christian Bromberger, but also to David

Durand-Guedy, who supported me during my thesis in Iran. I am grateful to Annabelle Collinet for her extremely valuable work on ceramics, in the field as well as during the post-excavation analyses. My thanks are also extended to Olivia Fairless for her translations. I am also very grateful to Manuel Sartori, who kindly helped me with the transliteration from Arabic and Persian. Many thanks to Kristina, Lavinia and Antonio for their patience and understanding. Finally, I would like to thank my father, who left me too soon, and my mother, who continues to support and encourage me.

Note on Transliteration In the present book the system of Arabica has been be used. For a few proper names, such as Karaj, Jājerud, Tehrān, Elborz, but also Herāt, Gyaur Kala, Erk

‫ء‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ح‬ ‫خ‬ ‫د‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ز‬ ‫س‬

ʾ b t ṯ ǧ ḥ ḫ d ḏ r z s

‫ش‬ ‫ص‬ ‫ض‬ ‫ط‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ع‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬ ‫م‬

š ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m

‫ن‬ ‫ه‬ ‫و‬ ‫ى‬ ‫پ‬ ‫چ‬ ‫ژ‬ ‫گ‬ ◌َ ◌ُ ◌ِ

n h w y p č ž g a/ā u/ū i/ī

Kala, Sultan Kala, Merv or Rey-ye Barin and Rey-ye Zirin, I have chosen to deviate from the Arabica system and follow the transliteration commonly used in publications of specialists of these regions.

List of Figures 1 Geographical map of Iran 4 2 Rayy, satellite view 5 3.1 Shaded relief map of Iran with major geomorphological features 7 3.2 Map showing the bioclimatic zonation of Iran based on Global Bioclimatic Classification System. Macrobioclimates have been illustrated in the inset picture at the top right corner 8 3.3 (a) Simplified vegetation map of Iran based on Frey and Kurschner (1989), (b) Phytogeographical zonation of Iran according to Zohary (1973), (c) Phytogeographical zonation of Iran according to White and Leonard (1991) 9 4 Historical map of the provinces in the Abbasid Caliphate 10 5 Rayy, plan of the old city (© Ker Porter 1820–21); Plan of the old city, down-right 27 6 Rayy, plan of the old city 29 7 Rayy, eastern section of the city 30 8 Rayy, north-western section of the city 30 9 Rayy, topography of the ‘Governmental Quarter’ 33 10 Rayy, topography of the Cheshmeh ʿAli area 33 11 Rayy, topography of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli 34 12 Rayy, vertical aerial view of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli 35 13 Rayy, oblique aerial view of the fortified city and the Elborz mountain range 37 14 Rayy, view of the northern part of the citadel today 37 15 Rayy, oblique aerial view of the citadel 38 16 Rayy, topography of the citadel 39 17 Rayy, view of the eastern fortress of the citadel 39 18 Rayy, view of the upper tower of the citadel 40 19 Rayy, view of the eastern fortress and the tower of the citadel 41 20 Rayy, view of the eastern fortress from the top of the citadel 42 21 Rayy, detail of two architectonical phases of the eastern fortress of the citadel 43 22 Rayy, eastern fortress of the citadel, decorated bricks 44 23 Rayy, view of the stone rampart of the eastern fortress of the citadel 45 24 Rayy, view of a part of the rampart of the eastern fortress of the citadel 45 25 Rayy, view of one of the stone rampart towers of the eastern fortress of the citadel 46 26 Rayy, view of the southern part of the citadel and a part of the šahrestān cultivated fields 46 27 Rayy, sketch-plan of the fortified city area 47 28 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, external facade 47 29 Rayy, aerial view of the two eastern medieval ramparts 49 30 Rayy, topographical plan of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli with previous and recent archaeological tests 51 31 Rayy, detail of the southern rampart 52 32 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, external façade with three phases 53 33 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, external refection 54 34 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, thickness of the external refection 55 35 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, internal refection 56

List of Figures 36 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, gate of the fortified city 56 37 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, upper right limit of the southern gate of the city 57 38 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, view of the slop 58 39 Rayy, view of the upper part of the southern rampart of the šahrestān 59 40 Rayy, view of the section of the southern part of the šahrestān rampart 60 41 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, nucleus in pisé blocks alternated with mud bricks 61 42 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, view from the top and detail of the mud bricks 62 43 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, unique façade belonging to the Phase 1 63 44 Rayy, tower 1 of the southern rampart, detail of two different phases 63 45 Rayy, eastern section and localised structures 64 46 Rayy, view of the tower 2 of the southern šahrestān rampart 65 47 Rayy, view of one of the sides of the tower 2, southern rampart 66 48 Rayy, view of tower 3 of the southern rampat of the šahrestān 67 49 Rayy, lateral detail of the tower 3 of the southern rampart of the šahrestān 68 50 Rayy, view of the tower 4 of the southern rampart of the šahrestān 69 51 Rayy, view of the tower 5 of the southern rampart of the šahrestān 70 52 Rayy, view of the internal façade of the southern rampart of the šahrestān 70 53 Rayy, view of the excavation of the southern rampart of the šahrestān at the cross-section point 71 54 Rayy, view of the niche on the internal façade of the southern šahrestān 72 55 Rayy, view from the top of the refection of the internal façade of the southern rampart of the šahrestān 73 56 Rayy, plan of the Test 1, T1 74 57 Rayy, croass-section of the southern rampart 75 58 Rayy, T1, niche on the southern rampart of the šahrestān 76 59 Rayy, T1, view from the top of the southern rampart 77 60 Rayy, T3, detail of the rampart foundations and the probable Phase 2 78 61 Rayy, T3, detail of the foundations and of the rock 79 62 Rayy, T4, the southern rampart in its Phase 1 80 63 Rayy, T4, detail of the foundation 81 64 Rayy, T4, detail of the rock on which the southern rampart has benne erected at the origin 82 65 Rayy, šahrestān, location of Test 2 83 66 Rayy, plan of the Test 2, T2 84 67 Rayy, T2, cross-section 85 68 Rayy, plan of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli, detail of the mosque 86 69 Plan of the Kufa mosque 87 70 Plan of the different architectural phases of the Isfahan mosque 88 71 Rayy, western fortress, view from south of the excavation 89 72 Rayy, western fortress, view from south of the excavated southern part of the fortress 90 73 Rayy, western fortress, view from the top of the citadel 91 74 Rayy, western fortress, view and detail of the architectural structures 92 75 Rayy, plan of the western fortress 93 76 Rayy, cross-sections of the northern side of the western fortress (above); cross-section of the western side of the western fortress (below) 94 77 Rayy, western fortress, small courtyard 95 78 Rayy, western fortress, view of the western side 95

xiii

xiv 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

list of figures Rayy, plan of the western fortress, detail of the mud brick soil 96 Rayy, western fortress, northern slit 97 Rayy, plans of the eastern fortress 98 Rayy, plans of the eastern fortress 99 Rayy, detail of the thick burned layer on the citadel 99 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 1 103 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 2 105 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 2 106 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 3 107 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4 108 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4 109 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4 110 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4 112 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4 113 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 5 114 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 5 115 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 6 116 Rayy, šahrestān some fragments of Phases 1–6 117 Rayy, ceramics coming from the Schmidt excavation conserved in the Tehran Islamic Museum 118 Rayy, archaeological area, Parthian occupation 121 Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Parthian occupation 122 Rayy, plan of the Parthian occupation 124 Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Parthian occupation 125 Rayy, archaeological area, Sasanian occupation 127 Rayy, Islamic occupation of the city at the end of 8th–9th centuries 128 Rayy, archaeological area, Islamic occupation 129 Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Islamic occupation, 8th–9th centuries 131 Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Islamic occupation, 10th-1st half of the 11th centuries 137 Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Islamic occupation, 2nd half of the 11th–1221 138

Introduction The aim of this work is to examine the history and the development of the urban and material culture of Rayy, from the foundation of the city until the Mongol invasion, utilizing the results of the latest excavations and surveys carried out between 2005 and 2007, and in the light of historical and geographical texts. This excavation was undertaken thanks to the Iranian Centre of Archaeological Research, directed by Dr. Masud Azarnoush and by his successor Dr. Hassan Fazeli. The archaeological mission was in cooperation with Ghadir Afround, archaeologist of Mirās-e Ostān-e Tehrān,1 who moreover carried out a very useful work on touristic land settlement. Thanks to Ghadir Afround, the archaeological site can today be visited and its vestiges appreciated. This study has emerged from the PhD dissertation which I defended at Aix-Marseille University in 2009. The long original text has obviously been uncluttered of all overly academic matters, and the long analytical section concerning the study of the unpublished material at the Tehran Museum and a smaller part concerning the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (subsequently the Penn Museum) have been omitted. The latter will be integrated into the study of material from Eric Schmidt’s excavations now at the Penn Museum (the ‘Rayy project’), which I am now undertaking with Professor Renata Holod. Data, results and hypotheses, however, follow those in my dissertation. Rayy was a key site on the Iranian plateau geopolitically. It is located south of the Elborz 1 Ghadir Afround worked on the citadel, while I worked on the šahrestān and rampart; the entire record of the material was taken under my responsibility. The ceramics were drawn in collaboration with Ms. Mohammadi. The entire study of the historical archaeological data and material was carried out by myself. I would like to thank Annabelle Collinet for having given me very useful suggestions in undertaking ceramic assemblages.

mountain range and is crossed by the major artery of the Silk Road, and lies between Mesopotamia and the Roman-Byzantine territories on one hand, and the Turkic lands and China on the other. The major interest (and paradox) of this site is in the dichotomy between its long history recorded in ancient and medieval texts, and the absence of a clearly presented archaeological record. The older research on this site focused exclusively on the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, forever leaving a major lacuna between these ancient layers and the more recent periods. The first question to raise, therefore, would be the date of the foundation of the later site, today called Dej-e Rashkān, enclosed within the modern city of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm or Šāhr-e Rayy, and situated in the south-eastern suburb of Tehran. What were the political and economic connections with the different political centres during its history? How did the city develop through the centuries, and when did the city acquire the role of a capital? Was the city one of the key urban centres in the political and administrative formation of ancient Media (or the early Islamic province of Ğibāl)? And did the city play a major role in this region, and in the Iranian and Mesopotamian worlds? What was the material culture specifically belonging to Rayy, and in which way did it contribute to the evolution of material culture in the pre-Islamic and Islamic worlds? To study the numerous questions about Rayy intensively, an archaeological project was initiated in 2005 with the cooperation of the Iranian Centre of Archaeological Research of Iran and the Mirās-e Ostān-e Tehrān. Several archaeological campaigns were carried out through 2007. The city of Rayy (Šāhr-e Rayy) is today situated in the south-east suburb of Tehran, which has absorbed this site with its tentacle-like network of roads and motorways. Only fifty years ago, Rayy was still completely separated from Tehran by tracts of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_���

2 large gardens and vast stretches of open countryside. However, the city has been slowly devoured by the urbanising momentum of the capital, which is spreading in all directions without a carefully thought out urban plan to take historical Iranian heritage into consideration. Today everything has been submerged by frenetic human activity. Rayy appears to have lost its ancient historical identity as an economic and political centre, to be replaced with a more religious recent identity which is crystallised around the mausoleum of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm, the brother of the eighth Shia Imam, ʿAlī al-Riḍā, whose mausoleum in Mashhad is the archetypal pilgrimage site of Iran. Moreover, the waves of urbanization and industrial activity, which have continued since the beginning of the 20th century, have definitively erased certain traces of this historical identity. Today, a few vestiges of the old city still show on the surface, but even those have essentially been continuously exploited by farmers, who use their mud bricks to render the fields more fertile. Formerly the vestiges also provided shelter for refugees. During recent years the main interest of European, American and Iranian archaeologists and historians in this site, whose history is – as we shall see – brimming with information, was exclusively concentrated on the site of Češmeh ʿAlī, where the traces of the first occupation, dating back to the late Neolithic period, were found, and overall focused on research into the ancient traces of the Avestic Raġā. This monograph takes into consideration both the site itself and its regional environment. The former has been treated through the archaeological excavation and the second through the study of the regional material culture recovered by our recent surveys as well by the previous studies, published and unpublished. The excavations were conducted on the citadel and the šahrestān (or lower city), the political and administrative nucleus of the city in all periods. These two urban entities, more so the šahrestān, could be understood as a barometer of the processes of population and depopulation in the urban

introduction

agglomeration. Several areas have been excavated on the southern part of the citadel, with the collaboration of the Iranian archaeologist Ghadir Afround, a number around the more ancient rampart of the šahrestān, and a large stratigraphical test-pit was dug into the šahrestān itself. The data acquired through these different archaeological operations brought to light the complete occupation sequence of the city from its foundation in the Iron Age,2 up to the Mongol invasions and rapid depopulation in the 13th century ce. All these elements come together to complete the historical and cultural framework of Rayy. This work is divided into seven parts: the geographical setting; the historical setting; the previous works at Rayy; the topography of the site; the archaeological excavation; the ceramic study and the urban development. After having determined the geographical location of Rayy thanks to the latest satellite technologies and aerial photos, an extensive work concerning the history was undertaken. The second part is dedicated to the history of the city beginning from the archaeo­ logical discoveries and through the historical sources. Concerning the recent studies, the works of Schwarz (1926), Marquart (1901) and Miles (1938) on numismatic finds were indispensible. This last study was undertaken on the coins recovered during Schmidt’s excavation of Rayy, and deals exclusively with the coins minted in Rayy.3 In the third part the previous works carried out at Rayy are examined. Above all, the discovery of plans produced in the 19th century by English and French travellers allowed the verification of the expanse of the city in this period, thanks to the list of the ramparts still standing then. These would correspond to the last urbanisation of the ancient city. Among these cartographical documents, the unpublished ones by the French architect Pascal 2 The vestiges still visible today and drawn on the plan correspond to the Iron Age i–iii and Parthian reconstructions (or refounding) of the city. 3 In the framework of the ‘Rayy Project’ in collaboration with Renata Holod, University of Pennsylvania.

Introduction

Coste are presented here in detail. Coste’s plan of Rayy has been reproduced in a recent article (Rante 2007). The original plan of the French architect as well as two elevation-sections showing the whole city as viewed from outside the ramparts in 1840–41 are presented here for the first time. Next, the archaeological excavations of Erich Schmidt were the subject of study in the archives and storage at the Penn Museum in order to connect them with the recent excavations and to shed light on the previous archaeological framework.4 In the fourth part, a new topography of the fortified city has been elaborated.5 This was necessary from the point of view of analysis on the ground. Erich Schmidt (1940) had already produced excellent topographical plans, which, however, were presented divided into segments and, in certain parts, were incomplete. It was thus necessary to first collect Schmidt’s plans, part of which are conserved at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and the Penn Museum in the United States, and join them into one plan. Next, a satellite map and several aerial photos6 from the 1950s were used to complete the unfinished parts. The analysis on the ground was in the end indispensable in completing the topography, but above all to highlight the problems of urbanisation and agricultural exploitation, often despite conservation efforts at the site. The part ends, therefore, with a chapter dedicated to the present urban situation at Rayy, showing the uncontrolled urban activity despite the presence of archaeological sites, and highlighting concerns about subsequent possible destruction. The fifth part concerns the excavation of the site. The city, as already stated, had already been explored previously. Erich Schmidt’s excavations (1934–1936), although they had been able to explore the greatest part of the site, did not leave 4 Concerning the few articles published, see Schmidt 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939. 5 See also Rante 2007. 6 These aerial photos were purchased from Sazemān-e Naqsh-e Bardarī in Tehran in 2005.

3 any traces or documentation relating to the stratigraphy. Only a few sections of trenches and pits were rediscovered in the archives of the mission. The archaeologist excavated on the citadel of Rayy and the šahrestān, as well as in other parts of the archaeological areas of the vast site of Rayy. In this work it was considered necessary to consider an excavation in a zone of the fortified city, which allowed us to have the maximum amount of information. This part publishes, for the first time, the newly acquired precise stratigraphic sequence. The sequence provides a solid stratigraphical base with all the different occupations of the city clearly identified, from the Parthian to the Mongol periods. The excavation has also allowed further differentiation within each period, above all during the ʿAbbāsid era, testifying to the dynamic rise of activity in Rayy’s urban nucleus. Plans, sections and objects present the architectural and material  cultural discoveries on the citadel and the šahrestān. A ceramic study takes up the sixth part. It shows the pottery assemblages for each occupation, providing a detailed look at the material culture in Rayy. The ceramic study has also been used to plot settlement patterns as a measurement of urban dynamics. In the seventh and final part the cultural data are discussed. All the archaeological data, both recently excavated and from Schmidt’s excavations, have been calibrated with Arabic sources to analyse and demonstrate the evolution of the city, not only inside the fortified areas but also outside them, where the large Sasanian fire-temple and other pre-Islamic residences once stood. For the medieval periods, the data testifies to a Ḫurāsāni (ne Iranian) cultural presence, but also to a major Irāqi and western Iranian occurrence from the Būyid layers through the Salğūq period. In this last occupation major shifts in the patterns of site occupation can be traced, namely the gradual depopulation of Rayy’s urban nucleus, the citadel and Šāhrestan, and a population increase in the outlying parts of the medieval city.

chapter 1

Geographical Setting The site of Rayy, today’s Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm but also Šāhr-e Rayy, was located on the Iranian Plateau, more precisely at the foot of the Elborz (or Alborz) mountain range which passes just to the south of the Caspian Sea (Fig. 1). To the north of the site rise the southern slopes of the Elborz range, and Iran’s modern day capital Tehran. To the south extends the desert plateau that corresponds to the most westerly branch of the Dašt Kawīr, the Great Desert of Iran. The location of the ancient and

medieval settlements of Rayy was thus ideal for control of east–west as well as north–south communication and trade. The origins of occupation in the area date to back to the Neolithic period. Situated on a small hill called Češmeh ʿAlī, the continuing settlement owes its existence to the presence of a spring issuing from the hill. This hill (tepe) is the westernmost branch of the mountain called Bībī Šahrbānū, part of the foothills of the larger Elborz range.

Figure 1  Geographical map of Iran © Google Map 2012

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_��3

Geographical Setting

FigURE 2

5

Rayy, satellite view © Landsat 2008

Approximately 300 m to the east of Češmeh ʿAlī, on a nearby hill called Kuh-e Sorsore, the fortified city arose, constituting the citadel on Kuh-e Sorsore and the šahrestān. Both citadel and town lay several metres above the level of the plain, about 1100 m above sea level. This southern part of the Elborz range, as well as the hills on which Rayy developed, consists of a series of geological layers dating to the Mesozoic era. These are constituted of limestone over a core of granite. This type of formation also belongs to the orogeny of the alpine type, which is identifiable in more or less all parts of present-day Iran.1 To the north of the site, where

1 For a detailed description of the geology of Irān, see Jenny, J.G. (1977). This work, while not very recent, gives one an insight into the geology and stratigraphy of the Elborz, but also of Irān.

today the metropolis of Tehran stands, stretches coarse and impermeable gravel. The site of Rayy itself and its southern extensions lay on alluvial deposits. The site of Rayy is situated in a zone where significant watercourses are not numerous (Fig. 2). It is located on the interfluve between two great watercourses: the larger one, Karaj to the west, which supplies the town of Karaj itself, and that of Jājerud2 to the east, which supplies the town of Warāmīn. Probably already during the period of the foundation of the fortified city the water which arrived in Rayy through smaller basins came from that of Jājerud. In fact, geographically this last lies higher in comparison to the basin of Karaj, thus allowing the water to flow more easily 2 Concerning the structure of this basin, see Valles, Gholami, Lambert (1990).

6 towards the plain. The construction of underground water galleries or qanats datable most likely to Antiquity significantly expanded the available water supply, and therefore the potential for demographic and economic growth. Climatically, Rayy is located in a zone where the barriers of the Elborz range to the north and the western Zagros range allow a more direct access to Indian Ocean influences. Indeed Rayy, and all of Iran in general, are not subject to the climate of the Caspian Sea nor to that of the steppes to the north. These natural barriers determine a climate type for Rayy. In fact, its climate is slightly drier than cool and humid (Fig. 3.2). Rather, the town is subject to the climate coming from the south and south-east, and not from the north, which is blocked by the mountains. Moreover, the warm winds and hot temperatures of the south are mitigated by the Zagros Mountains, thus giving the town a more agreeable climate in winter and summer. Geopolitically, Rayy was situated in strategic point between Mesopotamia to the west, and Ḫurāsān and Central Asia to the east (Fig. 4). For

chapter 1

several centuries the town was to be an important crossroads. It lay on a busy artery of east–west communication, the so-called Silk Road. It was a site of commercial exchange not only for the caravans travelling from west to east and vice versa, but also for those coming from the south, from the port towns of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean littoral. This location assured the town a highest degree of prosperity from among the centres of Ğibāl,3 but at the same time also exposed it to enemy invasions. Rayy, thus, long played the role of an outpost and base for the Islamic conquest towards the east, and even earlier, probably for the Parthian advance towards the west. 3 Ǧibāl is the plural of the Arabic word ğabal, which means mountains, but in fact has been recently rendered as ‘the Highlands’ by D.S. Richards in his translation of Ibn al-Aṯīr’s history (D.S. Richards, trans. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fil-tārīkh, part 3: The Years 589–629/1193–1231 (Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2008), reflecting the basic geographical aspect of this area, i.e. the plateau.

7

Geographical Setting

40˚N

Caspian Sea

38

Sofidrud defile

36

34

32

30

r Pe

28

si a

26 44

46

48

50

nG 52

u lf

Gu l

54

FigURE 3.1  Shaded relief map of Iran with major geomorphological features © Djamali et al. 2011

56

f of O

m an

58

60

62

64˚E

8

chapter 1

40

Caspian Sea

38

36

34

0 32

200 km

At 25˚N latitude

Bioclimates Toc (Temperate oceanic)

30

28

n sia Per

Mpo (Mediterranean pluviseasonal oceanic) Mxo (Mediterranean xeric oceanic) Mdo (Mediterranean desertic oceanic) Mpc (Mediterranean pluviseasonal continental) Mxc (Mediterranean xeric continental) Mdc (Mediterranean desertic continental) Trx (Tropical xeric)

Gu

lf

Trd (Tropical desertic)

26

Trhd (Tropical hyperdesertic)

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

FigURE 3.2 Map showing the bioclimatic zonation of Iran based on Global Bioclimatic Classification System. Macrobioclimates have been illustrated in the inset picture at the top right corner © Djamali et al. 2011

9

Geographical Setting 40˚N

ES

Caspian Sea

38

SA

(b)

Aquatic plant formations

Su

Lake

(c)

ES IT

36

Grasslands Mangroves

IT Su

Subalpine vegetation

SS

Salt desert Herbaceous and semi-woody salt swamps Halophytic open xerophytic scrub Mixed halophytic open microphyflous scrub-ephemeral forb-halophytic semi-woody shrub communities Sand desert with shrub Plant formations of the subalpine region Evergreen needle-leaved woodland resistant to cold

34

Cold-deciduous broad-leaved montane woodland Cold-deciduous montane forest Cold-deciduous scrub of lowland and montane region Mixed cold-deciduous and evergreen scrub

32

Cold-deciduous lowland forest Herbaceous and semi-woody salt swamps Cultivated land Not-irrigated arable land Mixed cold deciduous broad-leaved woodland and xeromorphic dwarf shrublands with thorn-cushions Mixed dwarf-scrub and herbaceous formations Mixed open xeromorphic scrub and dwarf scrubherbaceous formations Cold deciduous open xeromorphic scrub

30

an rsi Pe

(a) 28

Xeromorphic dwarf-shrublands with trees/shrubs

f

100 200 km

Xeromorphic dwarf-shrublands

l

26

Xeromorphic very open scrub

Gu

0

Xeromorphic very open dwarf-shrublands

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62˚E

Mixed formations of forb communities with/without trees Ziziphus-Prosopis zone Acacia soyal zone Thorn woodlands

FigURE 3.3 (a) Simplified vegetation map of Iran based on Frey and Kurschner (1989), (b) Phytogeographical zonation of Iran according to Zohary (1973), (c) Phytogeographical zonation of Iran according to White and Leonard (1991) © Djamali et al. 2011

© Le Strange 1930

FigURE 4  Historical map of the provinces in the Abbasid Caliphate

10 chapter 1

chapter 2

Historical Setting This following historical setting presents the history of Rayy through written sources and numismatic data, reviewed in the light of new archaeological data and of the in-depth study directed on topography and survey. Through this, the historical discussion follows the archaeological discoveries without developing the overall account of the city through the centuries. Concerning the very few Tīmūrid traces brought to light by Erich Schmidt in the citadel excavation (see Chapter 5), nevertheless, the data are so few that they are of no use to our revisiting analysis. This part will therefore end with the Mongol invasion, also brought to light during recent excavations. A detailed history of the town of Rayy is still little developed. Minorsky’s entry ‘Rayy’ in the Encyc­ lopédie de l’Islam (1994, 487–489) provides a historical overview still useful for historical sources, but today, in the light of the recent archaeological discoveries, it appears incomplete in some parts. The most complete historical work is that of Ḥusayn Kerīmān, Rayy-e Bāstān (1345 H.), also mentioned by Minorsky (1994, 488). This work nevertheless presents very few data for the pre-Islamic periods, and for the Islamic ones it focuses above all on the Salğūq era. Without a deeper analysis of vestiges and topography, the author frequently ascribes data to the Salğūq period. Mottahedeh’s work (2001) is at present a unique study of the social dynamics of the Early Islamic periods, especially focused on the 10th century. It is however deprived of any archaeological information, which in our case gave the necessary details to complete the historical reconstruction and render it more precise. The limited excavations on this too large a site have meant that its micro-history and the physical changes as such remain unstudied. The latest research has, nevertheless, helped to shed some light on the origins of certain parts of this vast site.

For the antique and medieval periods a better reconstruction of its phases has now become possible. The main framework of its historical narrative generated out of existing textual sources can now be enriched and detailed by incorporating new archaeological and numismatic data. The site presents different periods of occupation, from the Neolithic to the Mongol invasion and, afterwards, to the 15th–16th centuries. Within the area of settlement of Rayy, no studied zone presents a continuous succession of all these occupations. This chapter is divided into two major parts: the pre-Islamic and Islamic eras.1

The Pre-Islamic Era

For the pre-Islamic era, textual sources mentioning the town of Rayy are sparse. Furthermore, the limited research carried out on the site itself has not allowed for an elaboration of its life cycles. The first occupations in the late Neolithic period were concentrated above all on the tepe of Češmeh ʿAlī; these levels were next reoccupied only in the Parthian period.2 The recent excavations (2006– 2007) in the šahrestān, which is situated barely 300 m to the south-east of Češmeh ʿAlī, as well as the old excavation of Schmidt on the citadel, show an occupation during Iron Age i–ii and a few data relating to Iron Age iii.3 This first, still poorly 1 In the two cases, the research taken into consideration are the numismatic studies (1934–1936), which still remain incomplete, the study of maps, stratigraphy and the study of excavated material. The results from this research were then re-read and completed by historical sources. 2 These earlier phases are now studied in detail by Matney et al. (forthcoming). 3 The tl analyses of a few ceramic fragments support this dating. These analyses, still unpublished, have been

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_���

12 known settlement, of which some occupation floors and only a few rampart segments remain visible, is directly covered by – and sometime mixed with – the Parthian occupation. The floors, exclusively in mud brick, as seen in the šahrestān and the citadel related to this last period, are richer in artefacts. The excavations targeted the structures, and a detailed study of this occupation can now demonstrate the existence of a new town, or at least one that had been considerably reconstructed. From the Iron Age until the 2nd century bce the structures of this area have been reused, even if there are not enough data to enable the entire occupation to be developed. Rayy assumed the urban morphology still visible today during the Parthian era (2nd century bce–3rd century ce).4 Textual sources support evidence of life at the site, above all concerning the Sasanian and Islamic periods, while some written references are also found in previous periods, already from the 3rd century bce. In the Avesta (Vidēvdād: i, 15)5 one finds the old name of the town, Raġā, which is said to have been ‘the second holy place created by Ahūrā-Mazdā (Minorsky 1994, 487). Raġā was one of the principal towns of Media during the Iron Age according to the sources and one of the main cities of a satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire,6 even if recent archaeological research can only demonstrate a still little known occupation here. Archaeological traces from this period until the

realised in the Centre de Recherche et Restau­ration des Musées de France. The analyses have been performed on 2 sigma (95%), which explains the large time interval. 4 The architectural structures already were noted by Pascal Coste in the 19th century, by Eric Schmidt in the early 20th century (Schmidt 1940, pl. 33B), and then corrected and completed in 2008–2009 (Rante 2007). 5 See Gnoli 1989, 44–47. 6 See Rüdiger Schmitt, The Bisitun inscriptions of Darius the Great (Old Persian text), in Corpus Inscriptionum Irānicarum, Part 1, Volume 1, London (s.o.a.s.) 1991; see also P.O. Skjærvø (1995, 165).

chapter 2

Parthian epoch are few or absent. The town changed its name under the different dynasties that governed Iran in the interim. At the time of the Achaemenid defeat by the forces of Alexander the Great, the town bore the name Raghae (Arrian: 3, 20, 2)7 and it was later called Europos under Seleucos Nicator (Strabo, xi, 13, 6). In the Parthian period the city took the name of the founding dynasty of the Arsacids: Arsakia (Weissbach 1895, 1270). No specific indication can verify, at present, that the city whose foundations we have brought to light and can be dated archaeologically to this period, in fact corresponds to the toponymy of Arsakia (Weissbach 1895, 1270; see also Chaumont 1973 and concerning the Parthian state, Wolsky 1959; Isidore de Charax (translated by Schoff 1914, i, 7). Numerous copper coins dating to this period, uncovered during Schmidt’s excavations, have not been analysed.8 The Sasanian period is better known, thanks to numismatic studies (Miles 1938, 3)9 and to exca­ vations. The archaeological zone that spreads above all to the south and the south-west follows the route which today leads to Qum and Iṣfahān. It is constituted of several areas occupied in this period. Here, the prosperous residences and religious buildings provide a clear idea of the political 7 See Minorsky 1994, 487. 8 There is no longer any trace of these coins, either at the Irān Bāstān Museum or at the Penn Museum, where the finds were deposited, even though they are noted in his daybooks. 9 Among the different issues, certain ones reflect the different political phases of Rayy. An example from among the most interesting ones concerns the period of the reign of Ḫosrow ii. At this time Rayy was a very important town (Miles 1938, 3–4). Al-Ṭabarī (992) tells of Bistām (according to Miles, probably confused with Bahrām Čūbīn), the governor of Rayy, who led a rebellion against the Sasanian king during the years 592–596 ce. He thus struck coins in his name concerning the years of his reign 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and perhaps 10 (Christensen 1936, 439–442). In addition, Miles (1938, 3) specifies, besides, that the hotbed of this rebellion was in Ḫurāsān, of which Rayy is sometimes mentioned as being an important town.

13

Historical Setting

and cultural importance of the town.10 Called Raġā under the Sasanians, the name of the town was transformed into that of al-Rayy in the first Arab sources.

The Islamic Era

Modern commentary on historic sources presents the Islamic conquest of Rayy as occurring over a period of several years. Frye (1975, 20), Minorsky (1994, 487), Schwarz (1969, 746) but also Pour­ shariati (2008) argue that the town was not definitively conquered during the first invasion of Iran. There were numerous rebellions and changes of authority before a stable political control of the town was finally established. The year of the first conquest differs according to the sources, but as Minorsky (1994, 487) and Schwarz (1969, 747) note, Muslim power was progressively consolidated in Rayy, as was probably the case for all of the newly conquered cities and territories. The policy of the preservation of local administration at the beginning of the conquest was a pragmatic one favouring continuity and avoiding trauma and rupture. In this interim period, however, this tolerant attitude revealed itself as a source of troubles: Persian pockets of resistance so carefully dealt with during the initial days of conquest must inevitably have caused local uprisings. These troubles ceased only with the arrival of a strong central power, that of the ʿAbbāsids. One should, therefore, differentiate between the first conflicts of the conquest and the successive repressions of the rebellions, although the sources sometimes confuse or assimilate the two. As regards the conquest, the historical sources report a duration of six years (18–24 ah/639–643 ce) (Minorsky 1994, 487; Schwarz 1969, 746).

10

Excavations of the 1930s and 2005–2007 have retrieved an extensive material inventory of objects as well as buildings of a religious and secular nature.



The First Conquest of Rayy and the First Caliphs The famous battle of Nihawānd11 marks the defeat of Sasanian state power, and thus the immediate and rapid conquest of the Ğibāl and of its towns by the Muslim armies. All the Arab sources agree that the leader of the expedition was Nuʿaym b. Muqarrin. The exact dating of the battle, which does not appear to have lasted more than three days, still remains uncertain, but certain suppositions can be made. According to the sources we understand that the Muslim troops began their advances into the Ğibāl from Baṣra in 14 ah/635 ce, and from Kūfa in 17 ah/638–639 ce. It should be possible to speak about the conquest of the Ğibāl, therefore, from later date, approximately 17 ah/638 ce, as is shown by the first incursions into the adjacent mountainous Iranian territory which forms its boundaries, and by the taking of the town of al-Sus (al-Ṭabarī 2551–2; Juynboll 1989, 142). The battle of Nihawānd, which the sources mention as taking place between 19 ah/640 ce and 20 ah/641 ce, occurred shortly after the first incursions into the Ğibāl. The victorious armies would not have delayed in conquering Rayy and Hamaḏān. We thus suggest that the conquest of Rayy12 or, at 11

12

Al-Ṭabarī (2596; Juynboll 1989, 179) relates the battle of Nihawānd in the year 21 ah/641–642 ce, according to the testimony of al-Wāqidī, Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Ḥumayd, Salāma. On the other hand, Sayf b. ʿUmar (one of the sources most mentioned by al-Ṭabarī), al-Sarī and Šuʿayb speak of this event in the year 18 ah/639–640 ce. Al-Balāḏurī (302; Hitti 1969, 471f.) reports that in the year 19 ah/640 ce Yazdağird iii left Ḥulwān and, in the year 20 ah/641 ce, the Persian armies joined him with the population of Rayy, Kūmis, Iṣfahān, Hamaḏān and Māhayn. According to Sayf b. ʿUmar, the conquest of Rayy took place during the year 18 ah/640 ce, the same year as those of Hamaḏān, Ğurğān, Āḏarbāyğān and Ṭabaristān (al-Ṭabarī, 2647–48; Rex Smith 1994, 17). On the other hand, al-Ṭabarī declared that in 21 ah/641-642 ce ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb ordered the entry into Persia (Rex Smith 1994, 1). The same author mentions the conquest of Rayy in 22 ah/642-643 ce. According to al-Wāqidī, al-Ṭabarī only dates the conquest of Rayy to the year 23

14

chapter 2

least, its first occupation would have taken place in the year 19 ah/640 ce or in 20 ah/641 ce under the caliphate of ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb, rather than from 13 ah/634 ce to 23 ah/644 ce as stated by Sourdel (1997, 937–947).13 The first occupying force of the town was headed by ʿUrwa b. al-Zayd.14 It was immediately followed, as has been mentioned, by local rebellions and their repressions of the Muslim army. The accounts of al-Balāḏurī and al-Ṭabarī relate two different events in the same conquest and leave a margin for hesitation in its dating of nearly five or six years. However, both sources emphasise two events perceived as the most important: the initial conquest of the town and the repression of a rebellion. This repression set off a major event in the history of Rayy, namely the destruction of the old town and the construction of the new by a certain al-Zīnabī b. Qulā (al-Ṭabarī 2655; Rex Smith 1994, 25), father of al-Farruḫān who we will meet again in 71 ah/690 ce at the side of an Arab governor (Minorsky 1994, 487). This last action can perhaps be the affirmation of the definitive taking of the town which, despite the final bursts of revolt, became a Muslim town from then on. After the Nihawānd defeat the Sasanian monarch, Yazdağird iii, moved into the Ğibāl during and after the first conquest of this region. Ābān

13

14

ah/643–644 ce, a dating also given by al-Yaʿqūbī (276f.; Wiet 1937, 79). Nevertheless, according to al-Wādih (Schwarz 1969, 746), the town was conquered in 24 ah/644–645 ce, after the death of Caliph ʿUmar. Al-Ḥamawī (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 276) reported that God granted victory to the Muslims in 20 ah/642 ce, or, according to other sources, 19 ah/641 ce. Al-Ṭabarī (2561; Juynboll 1989, 141) attests that during the year 17 ah/638 ce, ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb, after having been informed by letter of a massing of Persians at Nihāwand, commanded the Muslim military to enter into Persian territory. On the other hand, according to al-Balāḏurī (Hitti 1969, 387f.), during 13 ah/634 ce the Muslims were already engaged in the conquest of Sasanian territories. Marquart also refers to the account of al-Balāḏurī (317f.; Hitti 1994, 4).

Ğāḏawayh,15 likely of the Mihrān family16 (Maricq 1965, 72), was probably the governor of the town.17 A coin bearing the name and image of Yazdağird iii has been dated to the year 21 H (Miles 1938, 5). According to al-Ṭabarī, in 22 H (al-Ṭabarī 2681; Rex Smith 1994, 52) the Sasanian king was, in rapid succession, imprisoned, stripped of the town seals and compelled to flee. This same year also witnessed the disappearance of the coins in the name and image of this king, replaced by those of Ḫosrow ii (590–628 ce) (Miles 1938, 5–7).18 During this year also Nuʿaym b. Muqarrin went to Rayy19 and then Hamaḏān in order to put down a rebellion organised by Siyāwaḫš b. Mihrān b. Bahrām Čubīn (al-Ṭabarī 2654; Rex Smith 1994, 24–25). While the Bahrām family was eventually pardoned, Nuʿaym b. Muqarrin nevertheless saw to it that their citadel, called al-ʿAtīqa (‘the ancient [citadel]’) was destroyed, and ordered a new one to be built in the area nearby (al-Ṭabarī 2655; Rex Smith 1994, 25). Circa 23 ah/644 ce ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb died and ʿUṯmān b. ʿAffān succeeded him (r. 23–35 H). If the historical sources are to be believed, the period of ʿUṯmān b. ʿAffān was a period of a certain political stability for the town of Rayy. During his reign, in fact, sources record few events, an implication that after the rebellions had been crushed in the 15

16

17 18

19

Al-Ṭabarī is the sole source to evoke Ābān Ğāḏawayh, who would have been the governor of Rayy in 22 H. The same author relates the imprisonment of Yazdağird by the latter and the usurpation of the seals of the town (al-Ṭabarī 2681; Rex Smith 1994, 52). Al-Rayy at the time of the first conquest was the fief of the Mihrān family and, as Minorsky has proven (1994, 487), the Arabs greatly played on the dissensions of the noble families of the town. Perhaps in 22 H, according to the account of al-Ṭabarī. The numismatic evidence allows one to date the ‘betrayal’ of Ābān Ğāḏawayh to around 21 H, probably during 22 H, as al-Ṭabarī affirms. According to the prestigious places occupied by the members of al-Zīnabī and their main role in this conquest dynamic, it would seem legitimate to present this family as very powerful in Rayy.

15

Historical Setting

last years of the caliphate of ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb a short-lived calm would have prevailed. The troubled period between the death of the third caliph, ʿUṯmān, and the reign of the fourth, ʿAlī, had profound repercussions on the life of Rayy. After the murder of ʿUṯmān and the victory called that ‘of the Camel’ (Caetani 1912, 224), ʿAlī entered Baṣra and proclaimed himself caliph of the believers. During his caliphate (35–40 ah/655– 660 ce), the climate of suspicion and numerous quarrels over the succession caused Arabia to undergo a deep and lasting political and religious division. The internecine war triggered a period of instability that would only end with the victory of the Umayyads.20 In 36 H ʿAlī still retained a certain authority in the Ğibāl although, as Caetani supposes (1912, 227), the governors named by the caliph in the Persian provinces probably never assumed their office in a real sense, or at least never respected the caliphal orders. Towards 37 ah/657 ce political and ideological quarrels concerning the nature of the caliphate attained an unprecedented complexity. The suspicion and rancour which had divided the Muslim community after the murder of ʿUṯmān had degenerated into civil war and the confrontation of the armies of Muʿāwiya and ʿAlī.21 With secession from ʿAlī’s camp, the Ḫāriğī (literally ‘those who exit’) from Kūfa began their singular ideo­logical route disputing caliphal power through political assassinations and rebellions against one or another party. At this time Rayy became an important and strategic centre. After consultation with the Ḫāriğīte 20

21

During these troubles the Ḫāriği movement played, despite itself, a very important role in the victory of Muʿāwiya. During the battle of Siffin (July 37 H), the two chiefs found the means to come to agreement in accepting the arbitration of two judges who had to decide the validity or invalidity of the caliphate of ʿAlī. This decision provoked the anger of a fraction of ʿAlī’s partisans who affirmed that this judgment only belonged to God and that it did not fall to men to pronounce themselves on the legitimacy of the caliph (al-Ṭabarī 3350–3354; Hawting 1994, 100–104).

leaders, ʿAlī made Yazīd b. Qays al-Hamaḏāni governor of Rayy and Iṣfahān.22 The joint assignment of the two towns to the same governorate was an indication that the Ğibāl no longer constituted a series of independent urban centres and distinct provinces, but had become a unified regional entity. In this period Rayy is understood, de facto, as one of the bases of the Ḫāriğites (Schwarz 1969, 751). The Umayyad Period In comparison with the preceding and following periods, the Umayyad period at Rayy remains the least known. As the Umayyads established their capital, and thus the centre of their empire, in Damascus, the Ğibāl fell into the periphery of the conquered territories. This part of the Iranian plateau and its cities probably remained a very unstable area. In addition to local revolts, the Ḫāriğī had found refuge in this region to keep their distance from the potential reprisals of the caliphate: in all, a situation that made the Ğibāl very difficult to control by the central power. In contrast, the following period, that of the ʿAbbāsids, is described often and in detail by the contem­ poraneous sources. They present Ğibāl as a more central territory in the ʿAbbāsid Empire. To corroborate these political and cultural changes through archaeological discoveries, the ceramics brought to light in the šahrestān during the 2006–2007s excavation show important changes concerning fabrics and function. The fine and medium fine grey ceramics, so characteristic of Parthian and Sasanian strata, disappear. In general, ceramic fabric becomes coarser and of lighter colour. The objects for common domestic use become rare in comparison to those for storage. This area, after the conquest and during the Umayyad occupation, seems to change its urban 22

In 37 ah/657 ce, al-Ṭabarī reported (3352; Hawting 1994, 102), ʿAlī sent Ziyād b. al-Nadr to the Ḫāriğites to learn which man had the most influence among them. The envoy, after having carried out his research, delivered to him the name of Yazid b. Qays al-Hamaḏāni.

16

chapter 2

function slightly, which it is not unlikely if one considers that in this short period Rayy became one of the major military outposts for the eastern Islamic conquests. After the conquest, the Iranian elite classes seem to have been temporarily depopulated from this part of the urban area. The historical and numismatic sources provide a similar picture during these years. According to the numismatic record,23 from 60 ah/679 ce until 68 ah/687 ce, the governor of Rayy was ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād. Ibn al-Aṯīr (iv, 71, 19; 139, 24; 140, 29) reports that in 64 ah/683 ce, after the death of Caliph Yazīd, the town of Rayy was once more under the control of the independent family/clan of Farruḫān.24 In 68 ah/687 ce, after having signed a new alliance with the Ḫāriğī, Rayy fell to the assaults of the Umayyad army and Farruḫān lost his life on the battlefield. Still in 71 ah/690 ce, a Ḫāriğī, Yazīd b. al-Ḥāriṯ b. Ruwaym,25 was governor of the town (al-Balāḏurī, V, 354; al-Ṭabarī 817; Fishbein 1990, 192 n. 695). In the same year Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik besieged the city and the Ḫāriğīte chief was killed during the battle. Rayy also suffered sieges led by the Ḫāriğītes. For example, Ibn Durayd (207, 8) mentions a siege led by the Ḫāriğī chief Sufyān b. al-Abrad against the town after 76 ah/696 ce. A coin from Rayy bears the name of Bišr b. Marwān [b. al-Ḥakam] in 74 ah/693 ce, who, according to al-Ṭabarī (862; Rowson 1989, 11) and Yaʿqūbī (ii, 307, 324), was the

23

24

25

The coins of this period were still of the AraboSasanian type, on which the image of Ḫosrow ii was the most common. Moreover, from this period the governor of Rayy would no longer appear on the coins. The formulae on the coins would simply consist of the name of the town, the year and Quranic verses. According to al-Ḥamawī (Schwarz 1969, 751), the Ḫāriğī chief al-Zubayr al-Majur furnished Farruḫān with money and troops in exchange for support against the Umayyads. According to the Anonymous Chronicle (32), Ḥawšab b. Yazīd b. Ruwaym (Yazīd b. al-Ḥāriṯ b. Ruwaym accordingly to al-Balāḏurī, al-Ṭabarī as in the text) was the governor of Rayy.

governor of Irāq26 in 74 ah/693 ce. Rayy thus appears to have been simultaneously under Irāqi and Ḫurāsāni administration. In order to repress the rebellion in Rayy (al-Ṭabarī 996; Rowson 1989, 143), in 77 ah/696 ce Mutarrif b. Muġīra undertook the coordination of the military forces from Rayy and Jayy-Iṣfahān. This action again underlines that the two towns were politically linked and seem to have formed the pillars of a regional strategy in the Ğibāl. During this period, Arab communities (the tribes of the Ṯaqif, a tribal clan of which al-Hağğāğ was a member, and the Bağīla) began to settle in Rayy (al-Ṭabarī 1001, Rowson 1989, 147).27 The archaeological studies, the study of the topography and the development of Rayy’s town plan indicate that for the first time the core of the city (the citadel and šahrestān) underwent a territorial expansion towards the south and the east. The installation of these Arab communities might have triggered such an urban expansion. It is from 81 ah/700 ce that one finds the first coin of the Arab type at Rayy28 (Miles 1938, 8). Issues of this type do not mention the name of governors, whose names appear again after the ʿAbbāsid revolution. From 90 ah/708 ce and until 94 ah/712 ce, Qutayba b. Muslim was the governor of all Ḫurāsān (al-Ṭabarī, 1208; Hinds 1990, 156), probably at first retaining the government of Rayy. From 95–96 ah/713–714 ce, the provinces of this part of the eastern Islamic empire began a transformation, above all caused by the political movement coming from the east.29 In 120 ah/737 26

27 28

29

Al-Ṭabarī more precisely affirms that the same person was governor of Kūfa and Baṣra. Concerning Rayy’s belonging to Irāq, see Vanden Berghe 1966, 121 ff. Yaʿqūbī also testifies to this Arab sub-representation in the town in this period (Wiet 1937, 79). The Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik had imposed his monetary reform in 77 ah/696–7 ce, which was the year of the rebellion of Mutarrif b. Muġīra. The reform could have taken several years, in light of the troubles in the region, before making themselves felt in Rayy. Dated to 110 ah/728 ce, a coin presents on its obverse, in the last line of text, an inscription in Pahlavi

17

Historical Setting

ce Yūsuf b. ʿUmar became governor of the provinces of the east. He placed Naṣr b. Sayyār as governor of Ḫurāsān, who is mentioned by al-Ṭabarī as being the lieutenant for the provinces of Balḫ, Marw al-Rūḏ, Herāt, Abaršahr, Ḫawārizm and Suġd (al-Ṭabarī 1664; Blankinship 1989, 192). As to the absence of Rayy among the list of the port towns, Miles (1938, 14) has suggested that at that time Rayy was placed under the government of Irāq.30 Rayy’s definitive passage under ʿAbbāsid domination was carried out in 131 ah/748 ce, when al-Ḥasan b. Qaḥtaba of Qūmis drove out Ḥabīb b. Budayl before Qaḥtaba seized the government of the town in the name of Abū Muslim (al-Ṭabarī 3; Williams 1985, 125–6). Numismatic analysis and textual sources reflect the continuing political instability of the town. The choice of the city to pass up on numerous alliances with the Ḫāriğī was not really dictated by religion, but was rather the result of an attitude of constant opposition to the Islamic regime. In fact, since the conquest of the city, Muslims had remained a minority. Rayy, as was the case with the other towns of the Ğibāl, was controlled by the Muslim armies, but the majority of the population remained nonMuslim and likely hostile to the new power. This state of affairs could be one explanation of the slow spread of Islam in the region. It was only towards the end of the Umayyad period, when the ʿAbbāsid propaganda supporting their claim to the caliphate began to make itself felt, that Islam affirmed itself in the Ğibāl as a social and ideological reality. The ʿAbbāsid Period The ʿAbbāsid period is the better-known period of the history of Rayy, from texts as well as archaeological investigations. The recent excavation

30

(Miles 1938, 11). One finds a similar coin coming from Rayy, with an inscription of the same type, dated to 116 ah/734 ce. According to numismatic analyses, the geopolitical situation of the east remained thus until 127 ah/744 ce, the date at which there is the first trace in Rayy of the expansion of ʿAbbāsid propaganda.

within the fortified city brought to light important architectural structures and a large amount of material, of which ceramics were the most numerous. From the lower layers of the first ʿAbbāsid phase, it becomes clear that the šahrestān and the citadel resumed their roles as the political and administrative centre of the entire settlement zone. The ceramic material includes a large variety of objects, and its production shows the new typologies and innovations in production. Addi­tionally, the texts and numismatics confirm that this area of the city not only reacquired its administrative and political role, but became the religious centre of the city. As specified in a subsequent chapter, the ceramic observations in the field also confirm an important demographic increase. The beginning of the ʿAbbāsid era saw Ḫurāsān governed by Abū Dāwūd Ḫālid Ibrāhīm, while Baṣra and its province were governed by Sulaymān b. ʿAlī (al-Ṭabarī 121; McAuliffe 1995, 47). The assassination of Abū Muslim had initiated a series of rebellions. Rayy, as a military outpost, again found itself at the centre of these attacks.31 In 141 ah/758 ce, Caliph al-Manṣūr sent his son al-Mahdī to Ḫurāsān; his mission was to re-establish order in this difficult and unstable province. Al-Mahdī took the entire eastern empire under his command (al-Ṭabarī 141–142; McAuliffe 1995, 81, 82–83).32 He established his headquarters at Rayy, where he settled for several years. Hassan al-Baṣrī relates: ‘In the land of Rayy a person named Shuʿayb ibn Sālih will appear having broad shoulders, a dark complexion, and beardless. There will be an army of four thousand men under his command whose 31

32

Sinbāḏ launched an attack from Ḫurāsān against the armies of the caliph, marching towards al-Irāq to avenge the assassination of Abū Muslim by the caliph. The caliph ordered Ğawhar b. al-Marrār, governor of Rayy, to repress this rebellion. The battle took place between Rayy and Hamaḏān (al-Ṭabarī 119; McAuliffe 1995, 44–45). In 145 ah/762 ce the name of al-Mahdī, who probably moved around to the other towns of Ḫurāsān, appeared on a coin accompanied by the name of Salīm b. Qutayba b. Muslim al-Bāhilī (Miles 1938, 27), prefect of the town in that year (al-Ṭabarī 206; McAuliffe 1995, 164).

18

chapter 2

garments will be white and their banners will be black. They will constitute the vanguard of the Mahdī’s army’ (Ibn Ṭāwūs 1398/1989, 53). The representative of al-Mahdī in Ḫurāsān was al-Sirrī b. ʿAbd Allāh. The governors of Kūfa and Baṣra in 139 ah/756 ce were, respectively, ʿĪsā b. Mūsā and Sufyān b. Muʿāwiya. Following the death of al-Manṣūr, al-Mahdī became caliph in 158 ah/774–5 ce.33 The year 148 ah/765 ce marked an important change for Rayy, a moment which is attested to in the numismatic record; the name of the city now appears as Muḥammadiyya.34 The old toponym ‘Rayy’, nevertheless, has been observed several times after the year 148 ah/765 ce.35 33

34

35

According to al-Ṭabarī (385; Kennedy 1990, 86) he went to Baġdād during the month of Ramadan. From 159 ah/775 ce the new governor of Ḫurāsān, sent by al-Mahdī, was ʿAbd al-Malik b. Yazīd. It appears that this change took place during this year as several coins still bore the name of Rayy for the year 148 ah/765 ah (Miles 1938, 30). As early as 149 ah/766 ce (Miles 1938, 32). Then, in 160 ah/776 ce, 163 ah/779 ce (Miles 1938, 42) and 164 ah/780 ce. Belonging to 168 ah/784 ce is an example of a coin with a Pahlavi inscription of the Sasanian type of Ṭabaristān (Miles 1938, 47, n. 68E). On the obverse of the coin the head of Ḫosrow ii can be noticed accompanied by an inscription in Pahlavi ‘crescat majestas!’; on the other a fire temple is represented accompanied by Kufic inscriptions. The discovery of this coin is unique. Miles (1938, 48) affirms that Saʿd, prefect of Rayy in that year, could have originated from Ṭabaristān, the only province to still retain the Sasanian traditions. This province used a different calendar, which had the Islamic era begin in 31 ah/651 ce, upon the death of Yazdağird. One coin from 179 ah/795 ce also bears the name of Rayy. On the same coin it is written ‘struck in Rayy in the province of Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā’. Here one notices for the first time the mention of Rayy not only as a city, but also as a province. Moreover, al-Ṭabarī (645; Bosworth 1989, 163) declares that Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā had received the governorship of Rayy in 180 ah/796 ce. Numismatic analysis proves that the latter was, in this period, already governor of the city and the province. Here, the province does not appear under the ‘Ğibāl’, but under that of ‘Rayy’ (Miles 1938, 67).

The written sources diverge from the numismatic evidence in tracking the change in the site’s name. Al-Balāḏurī (319–320; Hitti 1969, 523–526) and al-Hamaḏāni (269, ii 4–9) date this change to 158 ah/774–5 ce, the date at which al-Mahdī constructed the mosque in the šahrestān, the urban centre.36 Miles’s study confirms the existence of the name of Muḥammadiyya before 158 ah/774–5 ce (already in 148 ah/765 ce).37 It appears, however, that the toponym ‘Muḥammadiyya’ had only temporary usage, as noted by other historical sources like Muqaddasi (386, 1)38 and al-Ḥamawī (Barbier de Maynard 1861, 277).39 Concerning the urban changes in the city, al-Balāḏurī (319–320; Hitti 1969, 524–526) states that al-Mahdī constructed a rampart for the city to protect its periphery in 158 ah/774–5 ce. This ‘rampart’ constructed of bricks was encircled by a ditch. At that time, the people of Rayy called the šahrestān and citadel the ‘inner city’; the ‘outer city’ should correspond to the parts added by al-Mahdī. Still according to the same source, the latter also had the fortress of the citadel and the šahrestān reconstructed. According to Schwarz’s interpretation (1969, 753–54), al-Mahdī never constructed the ramparts of the ‘outer city’ and contented himself with reconstructing the citadel, the šahrestān and their walls.40 Al-Ḥamawī reports 36

The literary sources very probably take the events related to important urban works begun by al-Mahdī in 158 H as the date at which this change occurred. 37 Miles (1938, 31) affirms that the strict meaning of the new toponym, which pays homage to the name of alMehdi (Muḥammad), only concerned the ‘fortified town’, composed of the citadel and the šahrestān. 38 Al-Muqaddasī appears not to have known the use of a name other than that of Rayy. 39 Al-Ḥamawī declares that he did not remember Muḥammadiyya and did not know where that place was to be found; it is only after having been made aware of the reconstruction carried out by al-Mahdī that he views the two events in relation to one another. 40 The affirmations of Schwarz are firstly based on the fact that al-Mahdī had been sent to Rayy to ensure the control of Ḫurāsān and to win over the hearts of

19

Historical Setting

that under the caliphate of Saffah the city governor, Naṣr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, added the quarter of Naṣrābād in the eastern part of the city, towards Bībī Šahrbānū (Schwarz 1969, 752).41 As the archaeological surveys have shown, the urban enlargement works are visible in the eastern part of the city at the end of the 8th century and the 9th century. In 170 ah/786 ce, the title ‘al-Ḫalīfa al-Rašīd’ (Miles 1938, 51) appeared on coins struck in Rayy, announcing the accession to caliphal power of Hārūn al-Rašīd, the son of al-Mahdī. On a coin of 189 ah/804 ce, the inscription ʿal-Amīr al-Maʾmūn, ʿAbd Allāh b. Amīr al-Muʾminīn, walī of the walī ʿahd of the Muslims’ (Miles 1938, 77–80) testifies to the presence of Caliph Hārūn al-Rašīd in Muḥammadiyya when his son al-Maʾmūn resided there (the latter also followed his predecessors in the governorate of the territories to the east, and was resident in Rayy). However, upon the death of Hārūn al-Rašīd in 193 ah/808–9 ce, his youngest son al-Amīn succeeded him as caliph. From 194 ah/810 ce the two rival brothers began a war of succession, which was played out above all in the western territories of Iran.42 The town of Rayy again fell into a period of political troubles that did not draw to an end until the arrival of the Būyid dynasty (Miles 1938, 114). The material consequences of these troubles are illustrated by the chronological lacunae in the numismatic evidence and by the absence of definitely datable archaeological materials. It was only in 198 ah/813 ce when al-Amīn

41

42

the town’s inhabitants. Such a costly operation, which comprised mass expropriations, would have gravely encumbered his chances of success. On the other hand, an enlargement of the town took place, according to him, a few centuries later. It is difficult to verify this information. It apparently does not appear elsewhere and thus must be accepted with reservations, in view of the time gap that separates the account of the historian from the event. This is how the fortress of Rayy regained its defensive and political importance (Schwarz 1969, 756–757). The same event is also mentioned by Theophanes Confessor (497; Mango, Scott 1997, 680–681).

died that the caliphate definitively passed to al-Maʾmūn. From 205 ah/820 ce, when the Caliph al-Maʾmūn sent Ṭāhir b. al-Ḥusayn, the founder of the Ṭāhirid dynasty, to Ḫurāsān as governor (al-Ṭabarī, 1039; Bosworth 1987, 99), the political history of Rayy is difficult to reconstitute.43 It seems, nevertheless, that the city had been included in the Tāhirid political sphere. In 206 ah/821 ce, Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd seems to have come from Rayy. In the same year he is named on the coins found in Nīšābūr, as well as on an issue of 208 ah/823 ce in Samarqand. It thus appears that Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd was governor (or prefect) of both Rayy and Ḫurāsān, again underlining the political and administrative links between them. During the caliphate of al-Muʿtaṣim (the third son of Hārūn al-Rašīd), from 218 ah/833 ce, Rayy figured as an important city, one of the centres of power of the eastern ʿAbbāsid Empire, a major stage on the Silk Road branch towards Transoxiana, and a military outpost for the control of Ḫurāsān and of the regions further to the east. This is also confirmed by the revenues of the city, which in 221 ah/835 ce amounted to 20,200,000 dirhams (al-Ḫurdādbīh, 244, ii. 14–16). Schwarz (1969, 757) dates to 247 ah/861 ce the earthquake which destroyed a great part of Rayy.44 In spite of the fact that there is a historical record of an earthquake in 247 H, our archaeological investigations were unable to precisely locate its results, even if some suggestions are expressed below. From 250 ah/864 ce, Rayy became the site of a struggle between two rival factions: the Alids of Ṭabaristān and the Ṭāhirids. Two years later, in 252 ah/866 ce, al-Ṭabarī (1686; Saliba 1985, 144) 43

44

The coins found in Rayy, which bear a reference to the Ṭāhirid dynasty, are considered to be authentic. On the other hand, the coins that do not present any name, which refers to this dynasty, are considered as inauthentic of this dynasty and thus ranged in the category of ʿAbbāsid coins. According to al-Ṭabarī (1515; Saliba 1985, 14), this same earthquake occurred in 249 ah/863 ce.

20

chapter 2

notes the payment of two million dirhams by the Ṭāhirids to the Alids, following their defeat. Nonetheless, these combats did not cease, continuing the weakening of Rayy which, in 260 ah/873 ce, saw the Saffārid Yaʿqūb b. al-Layṯ at the town gates (al-Ṭabarī, 1885; Waines 1992, 161). It was within this political framework that in the same year the caliph offered the government of the provinces of Ḫurāsān, Ṭabaristān, Fārs, Ğurğān and Rayy (not to mention the office of general of the guard of Baġdād) to the Saffārid Yaʿqūb b. al-Layṯ (al-Ṭabarī, 1892; Waines 1992, 168). Also during this period the Ğibāl and the town of Rayy were exposed to the first Turkish incursions from Ḫurāsān.45 In 276 ah/889 ce, al-Ḥamawī (ii, 901, ii. 2–7) notes the rise of Shiism among the citizens of Rayy.46 In 278 ah/891 ce Rāfiʿ b. Ḥarṯama, the governor of the city, reconstructed al-Mahdī’s mosque (al-Ḥamawī ii, 895, ii. 13–2247 which was, none­ theless, again destroyed by the people for undefined reasons after his departure from the city. The archaeological data show perturbations of the terrain and significant destruction zones, even if it is suggested here that these perturbations could correspond with the earthquake that occurred in the 10th century. 45

46

47

In 266 ah/879 ce the Turk Asātekīn and his son Aḏutekīn seized Rayy. They pursued their advantage and took Qazwīn, and then they returned to Rayy to assure their conquest (al-Ṭabarī, 1936; Waines 1992, 1; Schwarz 1969, 759). In 272 ah/885 ce, Aḏutekīn vanquished Muḥammad b. Zayd in the environs of Rayy and, after having entered the town as the victor (Ibn al-Aṯīr, vii, 168, 13ff.), he imposed a tribute of 100 million dinars on the population to punish them for having dared to rebel against the Turkish invader (Ibn al-Aṯīr, vii, 293, ii. 8–16). The sum paid by the people of Rayy testifies to the prosperity of the town at that time. According to al-Ḥamawī, during the 276 ah/889 ce Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Māridānī, the agent of Shia propaganda, came to Rayy. Here the sources present incongruence as Ibn al-Aṯīr (vii, 303, ii. 5–22) terminated the governorate of Rāfiʿ b. Ḥarṯama in 276 ah/889 ce.

After having briefly passed under the domination of the Turkish general Ugurtmish, who was then expelled by the troops of Ismāʿīl the Sāmānīd in 290 ah/902 ce (al-Ṭabarī, 2207; Rosenthal 1985, 101), Rayy was officially accorded to the governorate of Ismāʿīl the Sāmānīd by the the new caliph, al-Muktafī (al-Ṭabarī, 2221; Rosenthal 1985, 118). The Sāmānīd Period The Sāmānīd period in Rayy was above all characterised by the alternation of actual power between the Sāmānīds and the ʿAbbāsids.48 De facto, the town remained within the ʿAbbāsid political sphere, but numismatic record has revealed the existence of several coins minted under Sāmānīd authority. Archaeological excavations have not brought forth any specific cultural elements of a Ḫurāsāni type, even if within the uncovered material one can recognise some major technologies of the ornaments originating in Ḫurāsān. In a period in which Sāmānīd culture irradiated not only Ḫurāsān but also the bordering regions, this deficiency drives us to suppose that the material found during the excavation should be classified within the cultural sphere of the Būyids. After the brief domination of the semiindependent Sāğid clan from Āḏarbāyğān (304 ah/ 916 ce to 306 ah/918 ce) over the town (Ibn al-Aṯīr viii, 74, ii. 19–23),49 in 304 ah/916 ce the ʿAlid of Ṭabaristān then in power, Abū al-Qāsim Ğaʿfar b. al-Nāṣir, accepted ʿAbbāsid supremacy via Sāmānīd suzerainty by minting coins in their name and by integrating the name of the Sāmānīd prince in the ḫuṭba (Ibn Isfandiyār, 204–5). In 314 ah/926 ce, 48

49

Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Ṣaʿlūk was the governor of Rayy under Ismāʿīl the Sāmānīd and Naṣr b. Aḥmad. He was town governor in an alternating manner until 314 ah/926 ce (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 121, ii. 18–20). Miles (1938, 137), according to numismatic analysis, advanced the hypothesis that in 302 ah/914 ce Rayy again came into the ʿAbbāsid orbit. Yūsuf b. Abī al-Sāğ, chief of the Sāğid clan, was in 310 ah/922 ce granted by the caliph the governance of Rayy, Qazwīn, Abhar, Zanğān and Āḏarbāyğān (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 100, i. 7).

21

Historical Setting

Caliph al-Muqtadir confirmed the Sāmānīd prince Naṣr b. Aḥmad who settled in Buḫārā as the governor of Rayy (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 121, ii. 10–20) and charged Simjur al-Dawāti with the prefecture of the city. It was at this time that the Daylamite population made its entry into the history of Rayy. The head of the Daylamite army, Asfār b. Šīrūya, having occupied Ṭabaristān in 316 ah/928 ce, was charged with the administration of Rayy, Ṭabaristān, Ğurğān, Zanğān, Abhar, Qum and Karağ under the Sāmānīd aegis (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 142, i. 11–144, i. 20).50 This same Daylamite held the honorific title of ʿAmīd al-Dawla, apparently for the first time, in 320 ah/932 ce (Miles 1938, 147–49). While in 323 ah/935 ce Rayy was under the government of the Ziyārid Washmgīr (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 227, ii. 18ff.), the Būyid chiefs ʿImād al-Dawla and Rukn al-Dawla were about to definitively conquer the Ğibāl (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 233, ii. 6–11). The year 331 ah/942 ce marks the definitive passage of Rayy under the Būyid aegis, at least from a territorial point of view, as only several years later one finds the Būyid chief mentioned on coins (Miles 1938, 153). Rukn al-Dawla benefited from the situation of instability after the death of the Sāmānīd, Naṣr b. Aḥmad, to seize control of the town (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 293, ii. 1–11). During the following years (942–1040 ce), with the exception of a few intervals, Rayy remained under Būyid domination. The Būyid Period The arrival of the Būyid dynasty marks a turning point, not only for Rayy but also for the whole Ğibāl. It was in fact at this time that this mountainous area, firstly defined by its geographical aspect, took on the appearance of a political region and marks its proximity with ʿIrāq. Certainly, the political situation at that period was extremely fragile and unstable, but for the first time the whole territory was under a unique family. Therefore to better understand this historical chapter, dominant in

50

The Sāmānīd rule of Naṣr b. Aḥmad was still present in 317 ah/929 ce.

the history of Rayy, it would be necessary to examine the cultural origins of the Būyids. The time of the Būyid dynasty signals a permanent religious and political change. The dynasty takes its name from its founder ʿAlī b. Būya who, in the 10th century, was the vassal of Mardāvich, founder of the Ziyarid dynasty. The Būyid dynasty traces its roots to the Daylamis, a population that lived in the mountainous area of Daylam, today considered as the southern antechamber of Ğīlān. The first mention of the Daylamis is to be found in the universal history of Polybius (V, 44, 9; Pédech 1977), under the name Delymaioi, also strangely read as Elymaioi (Susiane). Other historians of antiquity mention the people of the Daylamis; Ptolemy (6, 2)51 places Daylam in the north of Choromithrene, a region situated to the south-east of Rayy and to the west of Tapuroi (Ṭabaristān). This latter toponym, indicating a people who were probably non-Iranian (Minorsky 1932, 3), was also confused with Elymais (Marquart 1901, 126 n. 1). The most precise information comes from the Parthian and Sassanid periods, above all from Greek sources. The Pahlavi text Kār-nāmag (Nöldeke 1878, 47) reports the presence of troops from Daylam in the armies of Artaban v (or iv). Procopius (De Bello Gothico iv, 14, 5–7, iv, 14, 9)52 and Agathias (iii, 17, 6–9; iii, 17, 18–22)53 provide information on their presence within the Persian Empire as well as their customs. The former reports on their presence in the Persian military, and on their independent status within the framework of alliances and military services; they lived in inaccessible places in the mountains of Media. They were young and were each armed with a sword, shield and three spears. Agathias defines them as independent allies of the Persians, and refers to catapults among their military equipment. Thus, it seems probable that the Daylamis were mercenaries in the service of the Persians from the Parthian era, and perhaps even prior to 51 52 53

See Felix 2002, 342. See Felix 2002, 342. See Felix 2002, 342–343.

22

chapter 2

that. Their language differed from Persian and Arabic; Muqaddasī (368) recounts that their language was very close to ‘Gilite’ (Gilaki), a neighbouring population/ethnic group. As Minorsky recalls (1932, 4), the Daylamites also organised military expeditions on their own account. Daylamite society appears to have been a tribal one, under the authority of a chief. Women played an important role in the family clan. According to al-Miskawayh (iii, 313), the most important source for the Būyid period, ‘women equalled men in their power of decision, their justice of judgment and their participation in affairs’. According to al-Ṭabarī (ii, 285, 320, 722, 748, 1391), the Daylamis had been one of the most savage and implacable enemies of the Muslims. In fact, the Būyids were principally mountain peoples, and their power expressed itself in raids and rapid incursions from which they could then return to their lair, the mountains. Among their military techniques (Busse 1975, 251) was the ability to form an impenetrable wall with their shields as they advanced. Their battle corps relied mainly on the infantry, although, as a result of the wars against the growing Islamic power, the Daylamites also began to equip themselves with cavalry. This corps was made up chiefly of Turkish mercenaries, who could provide the Daylami armies with this type of support. The excavation in the šahrestān and on the rampart shows no real changes from the previous period. The ceramics brought to light show that this area still was reserved for an elite, administrative as well as religious function. The characteristic ceramics similar to the slip-painted ceramics originating in Ḫurāsān have been observed. Its production seems, nevertheless, to belong to Rayy itself. The previous architectural structures seem to have been reused, after some reconstructions. Rukn al-Dawla, younger of the three brothers who founded the Būyid dynasty,54 definitively conquered Rayy in 334 ah/945 ce (Miles 1938, 155).55 54 55

See also Madelung 1995, 343–347. A coin dated to this year bears the name of the Caliph associated with that of Rukn al-Dawla.

From 337 ah/948 ce the Ğibāl was divided between three Būyid chiefs,56 ʿImād al-Dawla, Rukn alDawla and Muʿizz al-Dawla. In the same period Rukn al-Dawla officially took Ḫurāsān (Miskawayh, ii, 117, i. 20–118, i. 1). Nevertheless, Rayy underwent repeated changes in power, as numismatic evidence has shown.57 In 346 ah/957–958 ce Rayy was hit by several earthquakes, which caused terrible damage to its buildings and the population. It was to this period that the destruction layers relating to the collapse of the possible mosque in the šahrestān can be definitively assigned (Ambraseys and Melville 1982, 39, fig. 3.3). After the death of Rukn al-Dawla in 366 ah/976 ce (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 492, 11. 2–4, i. 22), his sons ʿAsud al-Dawla, Muʾayyid al-Dawla and Fakhr alDawla divided the Būyid kingdom among themselves. ʿAsud al-Dawla took control of the already declining ʿAbbāsid centre;58 Muʾayyid 56

57

58

By the 10th century the chefs of these new semiindependent dynasties used to call themselves ‘Kings’, a title already employed in the pre-Islamic period and depending on the pagan associations still existent in that era (Mottahedeh 2001, 18). It was in fact already in 229 ah/950 ce that the Sāmānīd Manṣūr b. Qarātekīn entered Rayy, driving out the Būyid governor ʿAlī b. Kāma (Miles 1938, 157–158). In 340 ah/951 ce Rukn al-Dawla regained possession of Rayy after having defeated and driven out Manṣūr b. Qarātekīn (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 370, i. 14–371, i. 2). In 324 ah/953 ce Rayy was again besieged for three months by an ally of the Sāmānīd Washmgīr, Abū ʿAlī b. al-Muhāğ, who was then defeated and driven out from Ṭabaristān and Ğurğān (Miskawayh, ii, 154, i. 7–1555, i. 15). He was later charged with the governorate of Ḫurāsān by the caliph (Miskawayh, ii, 156, ii. 13–17; 157, ii. 4–11). In 390 H the last Sāmānīd prince, Ismāʿīl b. Nūḥ al-Muntaṣir, led a final military campaign against Rayy, but he withdrew, lacking the power to take over the town (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 111, i. 24–112, 1.5). The Caliphal centre and ʿIrāqi region suffered a sharp impoverishment during the 10th century because of several factors. It is undeniable that the fragmentation of the Islamic Empire and the direct supply of precious material as gold and silver, and the subsequent political

23

Historical Setting

al-Dawla of the government of Iṣfahān and its province; and Fakhr al-Dawla of Hamaḏān and all the provinces of the Ğibāl (Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 492, ii. 2–21; Miskawayh, ii, 361, i. 14–364). Here the sources mention Iṣfahān separately from Hamaḏān and the Ğibāl. However, it is completely possible that this division of the territory resulted from the different centres of power of the Būyid chiefs, independent of the traditional geographical divisions. In a particularly interesting manner, Rayy was indirectly assimilated into the provinces of the plateau and, certainly, as the principal town of this province. It appears to have been mentioned in a framework which always referred to the Ğibāl, unlike the other two cities. Between 366 ah/976 ce and 373 ah/983 ce, Rayy and the Ğibāl appeared under the government of Muʾayyid al-Dawla. Following the death of Muʾayyid alDawla in 373 ah/983 ce, Fakhr al-Dawla managed to retake the town and the whole of the province of the Ğibāl (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 18, ii. 17ff; 19, ii. 5–6).59 After the death of Fakhr al-Dawla (387 ah/996–7 ce), the precocious accession to the throne of Abū Ṭālib Rustam (Mağd al-Dawla),60 at an age estimated to be between four and eleven years

confusion, created a hard economic crisis. This last inevitably caused an inner Būyid crisis. To avoid an economic and financial collapse, the Būyids made extensive use of the iqtāʿ, a financial arrangement in which revenues were assigned to specific employees of the government, through which this last was freed from the burden of anticipating fluctuations in currency (Mottahedeh 2001, 35–36). 59 In 374 ah/984 ce one finds on a coin the new governor of the Ğibāl and Rayy designated as the Shāhanshāh, which is to say the King of Kings. In his analysis, Miles (1938, 170) underlines the importance of this type of title. In effect, the etymological analysis demonstrates the close relations between this title, for the first time written in modern Persian, and the old Achaemenid titles of Khshāyathiya Khshāyathiyānām and the Pahlavi titles of malkān malkā (Shāhan Shāh). This is the first time that this appellation is to be found on a coin. 60 The caliph al-Qādir officially invested Abū Ṭālib with his rights to the seat of Rayy and of the Ğibāl (Ruḏrāwarī, 311, ii. 1–4).

(Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 93, ii. 4–16), allowed his mother Sayyida to hold power in the name of her son. Sayyida’s hold was so strong that when her son attained his maturity, she appealed to Badr b. Ḥasanwayh to stop him and place her other son, Šams al-Dawla, governor of Hamaḏān, on the throne (Miles 1938, 180). One year later, in 398 ah/1007 ce, Sayyidah was reconciled with Mağd alDawla and reinstalled him on the throne of Rayy. The successive internal struggles among the three claimants to the throne,61 and the consequent political weakening, opened the town to Ġaznawid conquest in 420 ah/1029 ce (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 260). The Ġaznawid Period After the conquest of the city, Maḥmūd of Ġazna returned to Ḫurāsān, leaving his son Masʿūd behind as governor of Rayy and the neighbouring provinces as far north as Armenia. Masʿūd also extended Ġaznawid influence by seizing Iṣfahān from ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 362, ii. 15–20). He also campaigned on the western front of Iran, fighting against al-Sālār Ibrāhīm b. al-Marzubān, who still controlled the towns of Qazwīn, Zanğān, Abhar and other areas to the west of the Ğibāl (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 262, i. 21–263, i. 19). This era was above all characterised by ceaseless political instability in Rayy, as is shown, among others, by a coin belonging to the Kākwayhid dynasty (Miles 1938, 189–190).62 In 422 ah/1031 ce, Masʿūd was in Ġazna 61 62

In this regard, see Miles (1938, 185–186) and Ibn al-Aṯīr (ix, 175, ii. 13–20). In fact, in 421 ah/1030 ce Sultan Maḥmūd died (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 281, ii. 5–8). His son Masʿūd, after the fall of Iṣfahān, was occupied with the conquest of Hamaḏān. However, the announcement of the death of his father brought him back to Ḫurāsān (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 279, ii. 2–13; 281, ii. 22–23). These events allowed ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla to reconquer the lost towns and to push forward up to the provinces belonging to Anūširwān b. Minušihr b. Qābūs. The latter, to counter this advance, called Masʿūd to his aid who without delay again marched on the Ğibāl, retaking control (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 267, ii. 13–15, 20–21). In 424 ah/1033 ce Masʿūd re-established ʿAlāʾ alDawla the Kākwayhid in the government of Iṣfahān.

24

chapter 2

to receive the homage of the governors of the provinces of Sind, Siğistān, Kirmān, Makrān, Rayy, Iṣfahān, Bilād al-Ğibāl and others (Ibn al-Aṯīr ix, 283, ii. 6–11). It was probably during 422 ah/1031 ce that Rayy, and the west of the Iranian world, confronted the first Ghuzz invasions in their advance towards Baġdād. Between 432 ah/1040 ce and 433 ah/1041 ce there occurred, on the other hand, the inexorable advance of Ṭuġril Bek, signalling the beginning of definitive control of the city by the Salğūqs. The city again found the political stability it had known only very rarely and became a major centre of production, trade and cultural activity. The Salğūq Period In this period Rayy became one of the most politically important cities of the Iranian world. Previously, under the Būyid dynasty, the city had been integrated in a political territory and shared political power with three other cities: Hamaḏān, Iṣfahān and Šīrāz. During the first years of Salğūq rule Rayy became the capital of their large domains. The discoveries in the excavation do not change what was seen previously, however. The ceramics brought to light in these layers display a continuity of fabrics and functions, but are slightly lesser in quantity, probably announcing a gradual abandonment of the šahrestān. In contrast, in his excavation in the periphery of the central nucleus of the city Schmidt brought to light a much larger quantity of ceramics. Probably, as the Salğūqs moved to Iṣfahān63 the citadel and šahrestān underwent gradual depopulation, perhaps to the advantage of the other areas of the city. The numismatic study of Miles supports this social-economical fact: ‘Unfortunately, as the Empire began to decline, the art and quality of the coinage declined with it, and in the later Salğūq days there is almost nothing on which to base the numismatic history of the city’ (Miles 1938, 196). Recent studies and archaeological discoveries, above all in Nīšābūr (Rante and Collinet 2013), show that the Salğūq polity did not decline in a 63

Concerning Salğūq Iṣfahān, see David Durand-Guedy 2010.

homogeneous way in all the regions and cities it held. De facto, Rayy lost its political role in the Iranian Ğibāl after the end of Ṭuġril Bek’s rule to the advantage of Iṣfahān and later Ḫurāsān. In 434 ah/1042 ce Ṭuġril Bek came to Rayy and received the city from his brother (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 347, i.21-349, i.12), ordered the rebuilding of the city, which had suffered several periods of destructions, and made his residence there (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 347, i.25–348, i.1). At the same time, Caliph al-Qāʾim sent an emissary ordering Ṭuġril Bek and the Būyid Ğalāl al-Dawla, one of the last kings of the Būyid dynasty who controlled the ʿIrāqian province, to make peace. He returned to the Caliph with the news of Ṭuġril’s ‘obedience’ (Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 357, ii. 13–19).64 Ṭuġril Bek died in 455 ah/1063 ce; his successor Alp Arslān (Ibn al-Aṯīr, X, 12, i.14, i. 15) settled in Nīšābūr. This latter held the reins of power until the year of his death, 465 ah/1072 ce, and was succeeded by Malik Šāh (Ibn al-Aṯīr, X, 50, i. 15; 51; ii. 22ff). The period of Malik Šāh’s reign was important above all because of the definitive move of Salğūq political and religious power into Iṣfahān.65 Rayy seems to have retained its economic importance, as is demonstrated more by Schmidt’s excavations in the outlying areas of the city rather than by the recent ones in the šahrestān. In fact, the objects discovered and today conserved between the Tehran Museums and the UPenn Museum clearly show a richness of material culture during this period. Malik Šāh died after a twenty-year reign, leaving the domain politically stable. However, the following years are famous for the rivalries between Malik Šāh’s four-year-old son and Barkiyāruq, his eleven-year-old brother (Ibn al-Aṯīr, X, 145, i. 12–14, i. 1). The latter seems to have remained in charge of the polity, although with difficulty, until 498 ah/1104 ce. He was succeeded by his son Malik Šāh, also four years old (Ibn al-Aṯīr, X, 260, i. 18–261, i. 10), who was immediately confronted by the rebellion of 64 65

Ṭuġril Bek imprisoned the last Būyid al-Malik al-Raḥīm, who died in 450 ah/1071 in the fortress of Tabarek, in Rayy. For a deeper study concerning this event, see David Durand-Guedy (2010, 67–74; 83–90).

25

Historical Setting

Muḥammad, Barkiyāruq’s brother, who rapidly took up the leadership of the Salğūq dynasty in the same year (Ibn al-Aṯīr, X, 266, ii. 10–11). In 511 ah/ 1116 ce, the death of this last ruler left the place open to the succession of Sanjar. He was flanked in 512 ah/ 1117 ce by Maḥmūd, ruler of the ʿIrāq branch of the Salğūq dynasty. The leadership of the ʿIrāqi branch was headed by Ṭuġril, who succeeded him in 526 ah/ 1131 ce, and then by Ġiyāṯ al-Dīn Masʿūd from 529 ah/1133 ce until 547 ah/1152 ce. During this period Sanjar always remained at the head of the Iranian Salğūq dynasty. After the succession of Sulaymān Šāh in 555 ah/ 1159 ce the ʿIrāqi dynasty became more unstable. The following years are marked by troubles in Rayy. As Miles (1938, 196 ff.) mentions, this phenomenon was due to the decentralisation of the Salğūq Empire and the harassed state of the eastern lands. During the second half of the 6th/12th century Rayy belonged nominally to the political sphere of ʿIrāq. As already noted by Miles,66 the Salğūq Empire’s degeneration is paradoxically paralleled by a flowering of artisanal production, at least of ceramics. In fact, this period is known for a very copious production of good quality ceramics like lustreware or under-glazed painted pottery, probably due to the prosperity and stability of the several local dynasties. The last Salğūq, Ṭuġril iii, was killed by Kutluġ Inanğ b. Pahlawān in 590 ah/1194 ce in a battle near Rayy. According to Ibn al-Aṯīr (xi, 237), during this period Rayy was struck by a civil war between Sunnīs and Shī‘īs; the source adds that the inhabitants were killed or scattered and the city left in ruins. The city was later occupied in 614 ah/1217 by the atābeg of Fārs, Saʿd b. Zanğī, who was rapidly driven out by the Ḫawārazmšāh Ğalāl al-Dīn (Minorsky 1994, 472). As is known, some years later, in 1220, the Mongols entered Rayy.

Mongol generals Jaba (Jebe) and Subādāy (Sübedei) left to the pursuit of the Ḫawārazmšāh ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad and invaded the northern Iranian lands, Rayy included. The conquest of the city and the degree of violence adopted are still unclear. Ibn al-Aṯīr (xii, 184) affirms that the population at Rayy was massacred in 1220. Other sources such as Ğuwaynī (i, 115) are more moderate and relate some executions. The recent archaeological data (see Chapter 5, Phase 6) show clear traces of destruction within the šahrestān and the citadel, both at the same chronological level, and an absence of manufactures which are known as belonging to this period. This datum has also been confirmed by the Oriental Institute’s collection of Rayy objects, in which this lacuna is clear (Treptow 2007, 38).67 As previously mentioned, this part dedicated to the Mongol invasion of Rayy will end, perhaps abruptly (the more experienced reader will excuse me), following our archaeological traces, which also abruptly mark the end of the previous splendour of the city. However, Rayy was never abandoned. Certainly after the Mongol conquest the city was strongly depopulated,68 but only a few decades later, between 1295 and 1304, Ġazan Ḫān rebuilt the citadel of Ṭabarak,69 of which no archaeological trace has been observed. After the Mongol invasion, a large part of the inhabitants of Rayy migrated to nearby places, Warāmīn and Tehran (Bosworth 2002, 143). The centre of the new administrative Mongol division became Warāmīn (Minorsky 1994, 472). 67

68

The Mongol Invasion The conquest of Iran by the Mongols was accomplished in several stages. During the first, the two 66

See also Yves Porter (2005).

69

The study of Rayy’s ceramics conserved in the UPenn Museum, and that conserved in the Tehran Museum, both belonging to Schmidt’s excavation, will be very useful to finally verify these data. The traces of destruction found in the šahrestān and the citadel would exclusively concern these political and administrative places. In my opinion, although the outer city was still inhabited, it lost its political role after the destruction, probably accompanied by economical difficulties, and the city underwent a gradual migration which could explain the occupation of Warāmīn. For more in-depth information on this matter, see Chapter 7.

chapter 3

Previous Surveys and Excavations at Rayy

Plans of Rayy in the 19th Century

The first explorations at Rayy, as has previously been mentioned, were driven by the search for the ancient vestiges of old Raġā/Raghae. The first investigations on the site of the current Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm are summed up in two topographical plans that had already been made in the first half of the 19th century. Robert Ker Porter (1777–1842) drew the first plan of old Rayy in 1821–22, showing it enclosed by a strong rampart (1821–22, 358–60). In 1840 another traveller, the French architect Pascal Coste, visited Rayy. The latter drew a more precise plan of the old city (see Rante 2007, Fig. 7).1 The plan of Ker Porter (Fig.  5), the only cartographic reference used in the subsequently published works, shows a reconstitution of the town which today is considered as the most reliable. The plan of Pascal Coste2 (Fig. 6) shows the totality of the site with all its architectural parts. Neither of these two plans is entirely accurate. The orientation is distorted on the plan of Ker Porter. One has only to compare the aerial photo3 provided in 1979 by Adle with the two plans to notice that the north indicated on the plan of Ker Porter is inaccurate. Pascal Coste, on the other hand, provides the correct orientation in his sketch. If one follows the orientation of Ker Porter’s plan the hill of Češmeh ʿAlī, for example, would be situated towards the north, while its actual situation is to the northwest. Moreover, Ker Porter omits to indicate the spring of Češmeh ʿAlī, noted several times in the old sources. In Pascal Coste’s plan the hill in question can be perfectly located on the site and it 1 In the title of these documents, Pascal Coste wrote ‘Ruines de Rhey l’ancienne Rages’. 2 Départment Patrimoine: Fonds Rares et Précieux et Documentation Régionale of the Alcazar Library, Marseille. 3 It is also possible to see it through Google Earth.

corresponds to the aerial photo. Moreover, the spring which issues out of the rock of the hill and runs towards the south, crossing the medieval town and cutting it in two, is noted by Coste. Ker Porter places Češmeh ʿAlī in the continuity of the rampart of the šahrestān. Coste more precisely situates this part of the town between the ramparts of the medieval town. Nevertheless, the latter surveyor does not show the boundaries of the šahrestān clearly on his map, doubtless because by that time they had already been destroyed. One of the possible reasons for this destruction could be the construction of the road leading to Tehran, which cut across the whole medieval town, passing by the foot of the citadel. In fact, Pascal Coste only draws one end of the rampart that disappears beside the road. This interpretation seems reliable and accords with Schmidt’s plan (see below). The second part of the wall as drawn by Coste, further to the west, could have joined up with the rock of Češmeh ʿAlī, and in this case the two 19th century plans (Porter and Coste) would show the same boundaries of the town. However, this possibility would not be compatible with Schmidt’s topography, elaborated when there was still the possibility of visualizing the different parts of the rampart. The orientation of the rampart of the šahrestān on Schmidt’s plan does not correspond with that of the medieval rampart. Coste’s plan is also clearer at indicating the water sources of the town.4 The French architect has drawn three canals in his plan, one of which goes directly towards Češmeh ʿAlī. Of the two others, one encircles the Kuh-e Sorsore (as in Ker Porter’s plan), while the other runs past the šahrestān.5 4 Only one of the sources shown supplying water to the town on Ker Porter’s plan corresponds with Coste’s plan. 5 Concerning the boundaries of the town in the medieval period, see Adle (1990).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_��5

27

Previous Surveys And Excavations At Rayy

Figure 5  Rayy, plan of the old city (© Ker Porter 1820–21); Plan of the old city, down-right © Hussein Kerimān 1385H



Pascal Coste’s Plan of Rayy

Coste presents a list of the characteristics and major landmarks on the top left of his plan. It seems clear that the architect began his description with the nucleus of the ancient site, the citadel (A). This is situated on a relief (Kuh-e Sorsore), the most westerly part of which forms a pointed headland; towards the east, the relief seems to flatten out and then ascends to join Bībī Šahrbānū. Coste notes some ‘debris from construction in baked bricks, in which can be observed pieces of stucco decoration’ (C), and other structures in mud brick and pisé on the citadel, probably in a tower. Two ramparts run from the summit of the citadel towards a point in the middle of its east–west axis, one towards the north-west and the other

towards the south. The latter (still visible today and indicated on the recently made plans, Fig. 11) crosses a tower (round on Coste’s plan) and follows towards the west; before crossing the road drawn by Coste, it again crosses a tower and turns towards the north (slightly north-west) to reach the citadel. This latter rampart, although it is not indicated with the letter ‘K’ (‘rampart’ in Coste’s plan), must correspond to that of the citadel.6 The rampart descends from the citadel, after having given rise to the citadel’s rampart, and continues on its route towards the south, 6 The extreme fragility of this rampart and its much-damaged state, seemingly already so at that period, makes its recognition difficult. Coste, in fact, does not see it and draws the road. Only the recent excavations have been able to bring it to light, identify it as the rampart of the citadel and date it.

28 crossing a large tower (L).7 It then redoubles towards the west. Before crossing the road towards Tehran, it bends back towards the north from a small round tower (not very visible on the plan) and is suddenly interrupted.8 This rampart, from this small round tower, later on continues towards the west. At the intersection with another small round tower, a wall leaving towards the north seems to form another space. The rampart whose departure from the citadel was towards the north joins up with Češmeh ʿAlī, continues on its way towards the west and, just as in the plan it is presented with some hesitations, then bends back towards the south in order to join the southern rampart. The profile of this long rampart, whose length runs approximately 1.5 km and today cuts across the whole town of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm from east to west, is broken by round towers, not indicated on the plan, and square towers indicated by the letter ‘L’. These are large towers constructed of mud brick and rammed earth. Two of these towers are situated on the western and north-western side; that on the western side, located at the south-eastern corner of the šahrestān, is of a round shape (although it corresponds to the square tower of one of Coste’s elevations). Within the interior of this great surface area circumscribed by the ramparts three canals, oriented from north to south, demarcate different urban spaces. The first space encircles the citadel, the second cuts through the whole medieval town, and the third is the canal of Češmeh ʿAlī. The tombtower of Ṭuġril Bek (Sarre 1910, 1311) is close to this last canal. Further to the west, beyond the second 7 All the large towers in mud brick and pisé are indicated with the letter ‘L’. 8 This rampart was one of the first to have been engulfed by the urbanisation of the town of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm and the construction of the main road leading to Tehran. It was, therefore, already barely visible in its entirety at the time, as the last readings show. Recent research shows the existence and continuity of this rampart until it rejoins the citadel and its rampart, thus drawing the surround of the šahrestān.

chapter 3

road to Tehran, two large tombs have also been identified, namely Naqqāreh Ḫāneh (Schmidt 1936).9 This area, towards the east and behind the šahrestān, is part of the town that leads towards Bībī Šahrbānū, seeming to have been the locus in the medieval period of the construction of several defensive ramparts. As aerial photos and recent plans show, these two ramparts present a double defensive line of the eastern part of Rayy. The inner of these two ramparts, that closest to the fortified town (the citadel and šahrestān), also leaves the citadel, runs towards the south up to the fortress called Qalʿat Ğabr (probably of Sassanid origin, indicated with the letter ‘M’), and then returns towards the north/north-west, encircling the village of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm to join up with one of the square towers of the western boundary of the first part of the town identified. The outer rampart, closer to Bībī Šahrbānū, seems to carry out an arced route, thus blocking a passage between the latter relief and that of the citadel.

Pascal Coste’s Views of Rayy (1840)

Among Pascal Coste’s drawings two elevations of Rayy, dated to 1840, are particularly noteworthy.10 Folio 62 bis (Fig. 7) is a view of the town which the French architect drew from the heights of Bībī Šahrbānū, and was therefore seen from the east (western elevation); the other, folio 63 (Fig. 8), was drawn from the west (eastern elevation). Eastern Elevation (Folio 62bis) Moving from right to left (or from north to south), the eastern elevation shows mud brick and pisé ramparts and towers of the citadel drawn in the background. They run along the ridge of the relief, sheltering structures. In his elevation of the 9 10

This reference is in a manuscript housed in the Archives of the Oriental Institute (Treptow 2007, 18). Départment Patrimoine: Fonds Rares et Précieux et Documentation Régionale of the Alcazar Library, Marseille.

© Pascal Coste 1840–41

Figure 6  Rayy, plan of the old city

Previous Surveys And Excavations At Rayy

29

© Pascal Coste 1840–41

Figure 8  Rayy, north-western section of the city

© Pascal Coste 1840–41

Figure 7  Rayy, eastern section of the city

30 chapter 3

31

Previous Surveys And Excavations At Rayy

citadel, Coste only indicates the towers in mud bricks and pisé. On the eastern side of the citadel, always presented in the background, a ridge descends from the upper part of the hill towards the bottom towards a large square tower.11 From this square tower a rampart leaves towards the left and joins up with a large round tower.12 This rampart corresponds to that of the šahrestān. It is not very clear if Coste drew both medieval ramparts, the outer defence, or if he limited himself to drawing only the inner oldest wall. It is suggested here that he drew both, of which that more to the interior is by logic covered (above all its right-hand part) by the more external rampart. In fact, the round towers in the foreground seem to abruptly end their route towards the left. The mausoleum of Ṭuġril Bek, identified by Coste as a ‘tower of fired bricks’, is drawn more or less in the centre of the elevation but in the background. The inner medieval rampart embraces the south of the town towards Qalʿat Ğabr, indicated by Coste as ‘Château en briques crues et pisé’. In the medieval era this ‘castle’ constituted the southern gate of Rayy. Western Elevation (Folio 63) This elevation is very interesting, not only for its identification of structures still visible in 1840, but also because this part of the town and above all the citadel no longer exist today. It seems probable that Coste had drawn this view of Rayy from the interior of the rampart constituting the western end of the town. The town of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm has absorbed all that lay to the west of Rayy and the cement factory, already functioning at the beginning of the 20th century, destroyed all the northern part of Kuh-e Sorsore, the relief sheltering the citadel. The motorway constructed

11 12

In his description, Coste does not indicate that this tower is square, although it has been drawn thus. The individualized profile between these two large towers corresponds to the part of the rampart originating from the fortified town of Rayy, still visible in 2009.

between this relief and Bībī Šahrbānū destroyed what remained. Starting from the left end of the western elevation, the first structure visible should be a large tower in mud brick and pisé. Is this one of the two square towers which, in the plan, appear at the western end of the town? The rampart visible towards the right, descending the roadway on which stands the first square tower identified, seems to correspond to that of Češmeh ʿAlī, even though neither this, nor the connection with the citadel, seems to be evident. In the second plan, just in front of Bībī Šahrbānū (which is shown in the background), stands the relief of the citadel. From here it is easier to determine and perceive  the paucity of existing structures at that time. Was the mud brick already being exploited for the cultivation of the fields? In the background, the tower-mausoleum of Naqqāreh Ḫāneh stands at the foot of Bībī Šahrbānū. What follows to the right becomes even more difficult to read. The ‘castle’ of Qalʿat Gabr (the southern gate of medieval Rayy) is certainly visible in the foreground, followed towards the right, and closer, by the tower-mausoleum of Ṭuġril Bek. Next, in the background, the village of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm already stretches out over several hundred metres. The right-hand end of the folio is marked by another large tower, which seems to correspond to that closer to Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm on the plan. It seems probable that Coste had drawn this view of Rayy from the interior of the rampart constituting the western end of the town.

Previous Archaeological Works at Rayy

In the past, two archaeological projects were carried out at the site. The first of these, directed by the archaeologist Erich F. Schmidt, then working at of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (and subsequently at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), was accomplished between 1934 and 1936 in three archaeological missions (Schmidt

32

chapter 3

1940). It was in this project that the only topographal plan of Rayy was made, although it remained incomplete (Figs. 9–10) overall because the method at that time carried out topography on excavated mounds and vestiges and probably the end of the mission impeded its completion. By the time of Schmidt’s excavations the citadel of the ancient site of Rayy had already been deprived of its northern part, and only the southern part was taken into consideration (Fig.  9).13 This archaeologist also proposed the analysis of the site called Češmeh ʿAlī (Fig. 10). The two plans drawn up by the ‘Joint Expedition to Persia’ (the mission was jointly supported by the Philadelphia Museum of Art (pma) and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (bmfa)) presented two isolated parts of the site and omitted to show the links between them. The two plots of land encircled by enclosing walls are from different periods, and the lack of a link between the two plans did not allow a complete understanding of the site. What renders corrections necessary is a new restitution of the fortified town. Moreover, the site still presents today a lack of stratigraphical analysis. The analysis of the site in all its complexity still remains to be performed. The second project was born from a collaboration between Professor Renata Holod (University of Pennsylvania), Professor E.J. Keall (University of Toronto) and Dr. Chahryar Adle (cnrs, Paris) during the 1970s. Renata Holod has since been 13

The northern part of the citadel no longer existed because a cement factory was constructed on the site at the beginning of the 20th century.

responsible for the material and the archives of the excavations, while Keall and Adle became the authors of the articles that presented a better understanding of the site. In the first of his two articles Adle (1979) draws up a report on the funerary constructions of the archaeological area of Rayy. He also presents an aerial photograph that clarifies the understanding of the ancient site and its surroundings. In the second article, Adle (1990) analyses the interior of the walls from the medieval period. His archaeological analysis shows the different phases and construction periods based on a meticulous study of ceramics and stratigraphy. Unfortunately he does not provide any topographical plan of the site. Moreover, Adle does not present any analysis of the oldest wall that encircles the šahrestān and is still visible today. In his article, Keall (1979) presents an account of the archaeological work already undertaken at Rayy and proposes a project of the reopening of archaeological activities. After having summed up in detail all the work of Schmidt and set out the problems, Keall outlines a schematic plan of the site which has the merit of bringing together in an overall view the site of Češmeh ʿAlī and the old town of Rayy. The author highlights two important aspects: first, the complexity of this archaeological site, characterised by several parts which are both distinct and yet linked and interdependent, as they appear in previous works (Keall 1979, 538). Secondly, he notes the failures of the ‘Joint Expedition to Persia’ arising from to a general misunderstanding of the site and the archaeological ignorance of that earlier period.

Figure 9  Rayy, topography of the ‘Governmental Quarter’ © E. Schmidt 1940

Figure 10  Rayy, topography of the Cheshmeh ʿAli area © E. Schmidt 1940

chapter 4

Topography of Rayy

Topography of Rayy

This section is dedicated to an explanation of the structures that are currently visible in order to clarify, where possible, the phases and periods of their construction. This will be done on the basis of archaeological and topographical data, completed by historical sources. The new plan of the fortified city of Rayy (Fig. 11), the citadel and šahrestān, was elaborated from several plans, each showing a different aspect of the fortified town, both from Schmidt’s excavation and from the present day. The first

topographical plan produced by Schmidt was used as a base and an aerial photo of the same scale was superimposed onto it.1 Obviously, the parts of the town which were not present on Schmidt’s plan had to be identified while respecting the outline found on the 1930s photographs taken by Schmidt. It was also important to show the current state of the site with the widespread damage caused by urbanisation and agricultural exploitation. According to the excavations, the fortified city represents the oldest part of the site. The citadel was constructed on the summit of a rocky hill (Kuh-e Sorsore), largely constituted of limestone

Figure 11  Rayy, topography of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli Reconstituted by V. Bernard and R. Rante 2007

1 I would like to thank the architect Vincent Bernard, who assisted me in this study on the new topography of the old town.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_��6

35

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 12  Rayy, vertical aerial view of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli © E. Schmidt 1940

dating from the Mesozoic era. The hill on which the citadel sits has an almost triangular profile and a longer ridge extends eastwards where it joins the Bībī Šahrbānū mountain range. The base of the hill was encircled by an artificial canal (Fig. 12) and is still visible today. The defensive walls surrounding the citadel follow the whole profile of the hill, also extending towards the east where they join more medieval walls. Today, nothing remains of this defensive complex as a result of devastating agricultural exploitation. What is left of the old artificial canal was evidently redirected to irrigate the fields that today occupy the greatest part of the šahrestān. As noted above, Adle (1979) published an aerial photograph of the archaeological area of Rayy, clearly showing the layout of the town in the Islamic and pre-Islamic periods. Drawing on

statements by the anonymous 12th century author of Mojmal al-Tavārikh va al-Qessas,2 Adle highlights the distinction between a sector of ancient urbanisation and a more recent sector (Adle 1979, 512). The part of the site between Kuh-e Sorsore (the citadel) and Bībī Šahrbānū is the oldest Islamic section, called Rey-ye Barin (upper town) by the author, while the area to the south of Bībī Šahrbānū is later and is called Rey-ye Zirin (lower town). Hussein Kerīmān (1345 H.)3 also provides a ‘theoretical’ (Keall 1979, 539) reconstitution of the town in the medieval period. 2 The book was written in 520 H/1126 ce (unpublished). 3 In Kerīmān’s work one can note that at that period Rayy extended towards the south-east (Kerīmān 1345 H., fig. 3). The author takes Ker Porter’s plan as a base, whose topographical and historiographical boundaries have previously been demonstrated.

36 In the 10th century, Iṣṭaḫrī (Kramers 1967, 202, 207) declared that ‘the citadel is in a district of the town and there is a mosque there’. It can be argued, given that the geographer was writing in the 10th century, that he was describing the contemporary urban organisation of Rayy. What is today designated as ‘the citadel’ was thus the whole of the urban nucleus and comprised the hill and the šahrestān, which were themselves included in the medieval boundaries. Al-Ḥamawī (Barbier de Maynard 1861, 273–280), writing in the 13th century, affirmed that the citadel was not included in the town but that it was to be found in the suburb of Rayy called Muḥammadiyya. Moreover, Ibn Ḫurdādbīh (Kramers 1939, 133) relates that the oldest authors affirmed that ‘the town most favoured by nature was Rayy, with its upmarket districts al-Sūr and al-Sarbān’. This description allows one to have more elements and formulate hypotheses. According to the account of Ibn Hawqal, one of the two rivers crossing Rayy was called Surqāna, which passed by the suburb of Rūḏa. A second river, called al-Ğilānī, crossed the suburb of Sārbānān (Le Strange 1930, 215), a toponym that seems very close to Ḫurdādbīh’s al-Sarbān. Al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī al-Hamaḏānī (Massé 1973, 323) declares that the first, al-Sūr, was identified as the current Sorsore – the hill which shelters the citadel – and the second, as-Sarbān, was situated towards the mountain to the east of the town, Šahrbānū. Al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī, being one of the oldest sources of Islamic history (first or second half of the 9th century), tells about the two oldest districts of Rayy. The more recent one was probably situated near the šahrestān or included in it; Adle wrote that the two outermost ramparts, visible in the era of Ibn Hawqal and al-Ḥamawī, had been erected in the ca. 9th century. In the period of al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī the name al-Sarbān perhaps indicated the šahrestān, and very probably the part nearest Bībī Šahrbānū.4 4 To have further and more precise information on the urban constitution and above all the urban evolution of Rayy, see the below chapter The urban development.

chapter 4



The Citadel

The citadel is situated in an elevated area and is composed of two lower parts that lie opposite one another, called the north and south terraces. The topography of the north terrace is difficult to analyse due to the presence of the cement factory. It is clear from Schmidt’s photographs that this factory was already functioning at that time (Figs. 13–15). However, luckily the north terrace had not yet been completely destroyed, allowing for the partial reconstitution of this side of the hill, and the south terrace was almost completely intact. Keall (1979, 540–541) provides some information on the excavation carried out in this part of the citadel, showing that the results were not encouraging, or better that no interesting structures were found. However, the expedition (Schmidt 1936; Hall 1935) reached the lowest layers, confirming not only the presence of the occupation level of the beginnings of Islam and the medieval period, but also the presence of Iron Age occupations reaching the recent discoveries in the šahrestān. Today nothing remains of the old boundaries of the citadel. All the walls of the ramparts have been destroyed, and the mud bricks and pisé construction material was used by farmers as fertiliser. The terrace of the southern section was razed by several metres, wiping out all traces of Schmidt’s excavation, and in the meantime this had been partially filled in. The green line on the plan of the citadel (Fig. 16) shows the boundaries of the hill in its current state, still threatened by modern urbanisation. However, erosion and weathering on this south side of the hill have brought to light some architectural structures visible in Schmidt’s time (Fig. 17); these structures are visible on the lower part of the hill towards the west. The eastern part is today completely covered with agricultural activity. The plan of Figure 16 shows, further to the west, a rectangular structure excavated by Afround in 2006 and 2007. The position of the boundary of the hill on the western keep and the presence of loopholes and robust walls identify this ensemble as a defensive complex, known as the western fortress.

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 13  Rayy, oblique aerial view of the fortified city and the Elborz mountain range © E. Schmidt 1940

Figure 14  Rayy, view of the northern part of the citadel today © R. Rante 2005

37

38

chapter 4

Figure 15  Rayy, oblique aerial view of the citadel E. Schmidt 1940

At the top of the hill, a round structure dominates the landscape of Rayy between the modern city of Tehran towards the north and antiquity (Fig.  18). The structure does not appear to have formed a complete circle; in fact, a segment of the wall extends outwards in a southerly direction (also shown by Pascal Coste), and probably a similar symmetrical part extended to the north of the edifice. The function of this structure appears also to have been defensive, although there were some difficulties in recognising its true nature given that a large part is still covered by collapsed debris and earth. The construction material is stones and mortar, and in the lowest part of the structure a layer of plaster can be seen. The destruction caused by the cement factory is in the immediate vicinity of this part of the citadel. Close to the top of the hill the vestiges of a larger construction, of which nothing remains today except part of a solid wall, probably formed a single complex (Fig. 19). It is probable that the latter and the round structure on the hilltop formed a

single complex; the material used is identical to that of the whole architectural system. Some way further south, close to the rampart of the citadel, an architectural structure (Fig. 20) composed of two rectangular rooms, one above the other, occupies the highest part, on the slope of the hill. The construction material is the same, but the walls of the upper room are better conserved than those of the lower room (Fig.  21). The two rooms would appear to belong to two different phases of construction and a thick layer of plaster is visible between the two structures. The western wall of the upper room is partly constructed with decorated reused bricks (Fig.  22), which were probably reused as simple construction materials to cover the mixture of stones and mortar (Scerrato 1977b, 83). These bricks were originally conceived to be integrated into the wall and were set in a perpendicular direction (slightly oblique), so that the decorated part faced downwards in such a way that they would be visible from below, in the form of a small vault or arch, which covered access

39

Topography Of Rayy Figure 16  Rayy, topography of the citadel

Reconstituted by V. Bernard and R. Rante

Figure 17  Rayy, view of the eastern fortress of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

to a door or an entrance. Other examples of such bricks are known and have been discussed by Scerrato. He analyses this type of decorated ‘architectural bricks’ found in the levels of the Masğid al-Ğumʿa of Iṣfahān and declares that they belong to a period corresponding to the construction of

the second mosque (225–226  H/840–841 ce). The author compares these with other examples, among others those found in the mosque of Fahrāğ, near Yazd in central Iran. He dates these last examples of the bricks to the same period as those of Iṣfahān, which is to say to the first half of the 9th century

40

chapter 4

Figure 18  Rayy, view of the upper tower of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

(Scerrato 1977b, 83). In the case of the citadel of Rayy, the use of this type of decorated brick on the upper parts of constructions could suggest some dating hypotheses. Admittedly, there is no stratigraphical data for this part of the citadel, but comparison with the bricks of Iṣfahān and Fahrāğ suggest that this structure could belong to the first phase of the ʿAbbāsid period. As for the upper room, it shows a system of arches and doors, sometimes blocked by other walls, indicating several phases belonging to the same architectural complex. The more southerly part of the complex is most likely a defensive wall as it is very robust, measuring almost two metres across, and was constructed to defend the structures behind it (Fig. 23). The wall’s plan is ellipsoidal and in its central part, that is the part most exposed to the exterior, it is significantly thicker. This structure does not form part of the defensive wall that surrounds the citadel, and is constructed of mud bricks measuring 45×45×15 cm.

The ellipsoidal wall, built of stones and mortar, probably formed part of the structure located inside the citadel and was differentiated from the surrounding wall. Almost on the same axis, but further to the east, there remains a section of wall that is perfectly oriented with the large ellipsoidal wall and is made of the same material (stones and mortar), although it is less robustly constructed (Fig.  24). It probably formed part of the same defensive system but without further archaeological investigation one cannot provide more precise information in terms of its function or its relationship with the other structures. This latter wall almost completely covers two semi-circular structures, whose form again evokes a defensive system (Fig.  25). More to the east one again notes the presence of another semicircular system that probably also had a defensive function. Beyond these last structures, the hill is entirely occupied by a vast plantation of fruit trees

41

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 19  Rayy, view of the eastern fortress and the tower of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

and nothing of this eastern part of the citadel remains visible today (Fig. 26). The citadel of Rayy had long been a fortress so it is not surprising that all the afore-mentioned architectural complexes could have had a defensive nature and then, according to the sources, become a prison (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 277). The citadel underwent several occupations and several reconstructions, and the poor state of conservation of the structures has not allowed a plan to be formulated. Before analysing the other parts of the town, it would seem a good idea to mention some structures among the constructions that have disappeared. Given that they are no longer visible today, one can only mention them according to the reconstitution of the plan (Fig. 27). A rectangular structure fitted with towers was observed on the northern part of the hill, leaning on the now disappeared rampart to the east of the hill and descending from the summit towards the northern part.

The outermost part of this structure probably represents the northern boundary of the citadel’s rampart. Given that from this side the rampart goes beyond the geomorphologic boundary of the hill, one may suppose that it joined up with the rampart of the šahrestān. At a later period this wall reached the summit of the rock of Češmeh ʿAlī. The western part of the citadel is occupied by a rectangular structure built of stone and mortar on two levels, visible from the exterior. Its defensive nature is clearly expressed through its position, on the western edge of the citadel hill, as well as its military characteristics, with thick walls pierced by arrow slits. This structure was systematically excavated between 2006 and 2007 and the archaeological data will be discussed below. The Šahrestān The šahrestān is situated at the foot of the citadel in the south/south-western section. On the basis of information given to him by the city’s

© R. Rante 2005

Figure 20  Rayy, view of the eastern fortress from the top of the citadel

42 chapter 4

43

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 21  Rayy, detail of two architectonical phases of the eastern fortress of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

inhabitants, Schmidt described the area as the ‘Government Quarter’, but it is also known as the ‘inner city’.5 A large square tower forms a corner at its south-eastern extremity. From there a section of the rampart on the eastern side of the šahrestān, which has today completely disappeared, probably provided one of the entrances to the town. The entrance should have been situated between the northern part of the northern tower and the south of the slope of the citadel hill, on a small section of wall of about 100 metres. The reduced size of the wall in this part of the town and therefore its ease for defence could have been one of the reasons for installing an entrance in this place. Moreover, beginning from the end of the 8th–9th centuries, this eastern side underwent urban expansion and would have had to provide further urban and protected spaces for the new communities living in Rayy, supporting the possibility of creating a doorway between the two urban entities. 5 ‘According to the inhabitants of the city’ (Schwarz 1969, 753).

This large tower is constructed of mud bricks measuring 42×42×12 cm. The southern part of the city’s rampart, running from the tower in a westwards direction, is robustly built (Fig.  28). The wall, also constructed of mud bricks, is slightly curved in its central part, towards the north, because of the geographical relief and terminates with another tower to the east, now of reduced size probably due to deterioration. The outer façade of the wall is punctuated with towers which are smaller than the two preceding ones. Some sections of the rampart were reinforced by other sections of wall, around 25–30  cm thick, still in mud brick. The size of the bricks of these reinforcing walls is rather small, measuring circa 27/28 ×27/28×9×10 cm. These smaller dimensions and the material collected lead one to think that the reinforcement is from a later period. The other large tower, at the western end of this section of rampart, must have resembled the square one. Nothing remains of the ancient ramparts of the šahrestān or of the šahrestān itself beyond this tower. The modern town and its factories occupy

44

chapter 4

Figure 22  Rayy, eastern fortress of the citadel, decorated bricks © R. Rante 2005

all of this part of the old site of Rayy. And yet the walls of the šahrestān as drawn by Ker Porter, Coste and Schmidt, even allowing for some inaccuracies in the drawing of the ramparts, present a rectangular plan. The rampart must have joined the walls of the citadel in its northern part. Today the historic inner city is almost totally obscured by the modern town, whereas during the 1930s non-urbanised and non-industrialised spaces still survived. The few pages that Schmidt published of his excavation reports and the short, dense articles by Keall (1979) and Adle (1979) can help to clarify the discoveries in this part of Rayy. In the central part of the šahrestān (Schmidt 1940, pl.

33B; Keall 1979, Fig. 3B), the squares drawn on the plan from the 1930s represent the tests carried out there (Fig.  9). In the more easterly part, several foundation pillars were brought to light; these were correctly oriented in the direction of the qibla, and according to Schmidt belonged to the hypostyle mosque of the ʿAbbāsid period described by the sources.6 Unfortunately no traces of the mihrab were found but the archaeological and historical 6 According to the sources, the mosque belongs to the period corresponding to the reconstruction of the town ordered by al-Mahdī (regarding the sources and the different suppositions, see Schwarz 1969, 753–754).

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 23  Rayy, view of the stone rampart of the eastern fortress of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

Figure 24  Rayy, view of a part of the rampart of the eastern fortress of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

45

46

chapter 4

Figure 25  Rayy, view of one of the stone rampart towers of the eastern fortress of the citadel © R. Rante 2005

Figure 26  Rayy, view of the southern part of the citadel and a part of the šahrestān cultivated fields © R. Rante 2005

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 27  Rayy, sketch-plan of the fortified city area © V. Bernard

Figure 28 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, external facade © R. Rante 2005

47

48 evidence would suggest its existence, and indeed this large monument has been identified as a mosque (see Fig. 68). Umayyad levels were discovered under the floor level of the mosque, confirmed by the discovery of numerous coins corresponding to this period.7 Schmidt declares that he did not find proof of Sassanid occupation. In Rayy, as we will see in detail in the stratigraphical analysis, the Umayyad levels precede the first mosque and very probably reused the structures of the pre-Islamic period, probably explaining the reason why Schmidt had not identified any Sasanian traces. Further to the west, in another test trench, an open court with an iwan was found and Schmidt suggested it might be a madrasa. In 1951, André Godard (1951, 4, Fig. 3) mentioned and published the plan of another monument found in Rayy, probably within the boundaries of the šahrestān, and datable through its stucco panels to the 6th century H.,8 which was also identified as an ‘Islamic school’.9 The šahrestān underwent a few transformations during the ʿAbbāsid period and, although lesser known, during under the Būyid and Salğūq periods. As previously mentioned, 7 Manuscript housed in the Schmidt Archives in the UPenn Museum. 8 Today one can admire the stuccoes of this monument in the gallery of the National Islamic Museum in Tehran. Other stuccoes, collected by the missions that followed, are conserved in the National Islamic Museum in Tehran and in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. 9 I find it useless to enter into a discussion on this architecture and its organisation and meaning in this part of the city, since at this state of the researches they are only supposed to be madrasa. Development of this matter, leaning on suppositions, would only result in speculation. Certainly, I am tempted to better define the place around the šahrestān where a mosque, a madrasa and a tomb-tower were built at the same time, but our archaeological data are still too poor and it could lead the reader to conclusions which are inaccurate. It is different for the probable mosque, whose the foundations were also brought to light during recent excavations; the material found has been studied to verify the chronology and function of the monument, and the historical sources would definitively corroborate this suggestion.

chapter 4

al-Ḥamawī reports that under the caliphate of Saffāḥ the governor of the town, Naṣr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, added the district of Naṣrābād in the eastern part of the city, in the direction of Bībī Šahrbānū (Schwarz 1969, 752). Al-Ṭabarī mentions that the Arab quarter of Azdān was also added during the ʿAbbāsid period (Schwarz 1969, 751 n.7). According to Schwarz, the toponym ‘Azdān’ refers to the ‘Azd’ population an ancient tribal grouping originating in the highlands of ʿAsīr (Azd Sarāt) and ʿUmān (Azd ʿUmān), which were united in Baṣra and Ḫurāsān in Islamic times (Strenziok 1986, 811). The cities which were divided into a citadel, a šahrestān and suburbs, present during the early Islamic period, had ramparts to defend the citadel and šahrestān, while the suburbs were not protected. Nevertheless in some cases the suburbs also began to be circumscribed by ramparts, which was due to different reasons: the geographical location of the city, political and economical reasons, or general cultural motivations. This modification of the urban space is the architectural embodiment of the new development of the town, and the construction of new ramparts attests to the problem of protecting the economic sectors, more susceptible to incursions and to devastation. It is for this reason that the suburbs of Rayy, very probably already from the ʿAbbāsid period, were protected by walls. Today these can only be noted as several segments in Schmidt’s photos (Fig.  29). Following Adle’s excavation (1979 and 1990) it can be estimated that the walls constructed in the period of the extension of the town are approximately datable to the end of the 8th–10th centuries. These were revisited through the recent excavations, which showed the important city planning performed by al-Mahdī, and can now be dated to the end of the 8th–9th centuries with 10th century reconstructions. Today, these walls have completely disappeared. As the traveller Williams Jackson had already noted at the beginning of the 20th century (1906, 435), the bricks used in the construction of the defensive rampart were of a large size. He also reports that in Tehran, at the beginning of the century, this type of large-sized brick was called

49

Topography Of Rayy

Figure 29  Rayy, aerial view of the two eastern medieval ramparts © E. Schmidt 1940

‘Gabr brick’ (1906, 435). Given that the Persian word ‘Gabr’ indicated the Zoroastrians (Bausani 1991, 970), one could suggest that this type of brick relates to the pre-Islamic period. Very close to the fortified city of Rayy, Qalʿat Gabr,10 dated to the Sassanid period, is constructed from the same type of mud bricks. Furthermore, the fire temple of Tepe Mil (Naumann 1964, 75–77) is also built with mud bricks of the same shape and size.

Rayy Today: Between Modern Urbanisation and Preservation of the Site

The greatest part of the šahrestān has not been excavated, for the reasons already mentioned, and 10

This monument is still unpublished.

therefore remains unknown. However, a schematic plan has been drawn to render the current state of the site of the old town of Rayy more comprehensible (Fig.  27). The old boundaries of the citadel and the hill on which it is situated are marked in green. The cement factory, already present at the time of the ‘Joint Expedition to Persia’ of 1934–1936, is visible to the north. Between the time of his expedition and the present the extent of the factory has entirely covered the northern part of the hill. The eastern part of the hill was also destroyed by the passage of a large artificial canal that runs from the north-east of the citadel and continues towards the south; it cuts across the eastern part of the whole archaeological site. To the south, the siting of the glycerine factory destroyed a great part of the šahrestān and, still today, threatens what little remains of the citadel.

50 In the south, the major part of the archaeological area has been occupied with agricultural activity; and the western part, omitted in the plan, has completely disappeared with the expansion of the modern town of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm. Beyond the large canal, all sorts of structures have disappeared, the medieval ramparts included. In the past the principal obstacle to understanding the lay-out and structure of the old town of Rayy was the absence of a stratigraphical and analytical study that would allow one to visualise

chapter 4

successive construction phases according to the different periods of occupation. The archives left by Schmidt, although incomplete, allowed certain questions to be answered. Thanks to the work carried out by Adle, the succession of different walls making up the medieval ramparts is more easily comprehensible. The work undertaken during the excavation in 2007 revealed new information on the oldest ramparts, the šahrestān and citadel ramparts, as well as the different occupations of the fortified town.

chapter 5

Excavations at Rayy The surveys carried out at the site in 2005 and 2006, and also the work undertaken at the Penn Museum archives and stores, allowed for deeper reflection concerning the excavation. The choice of the sites of the tests was weighed at length. The intersection of data, those of Schmidt’s archives and those of the first surveys, allowed two sites to be chosen (Fig.  30): one in the šahrestān (T2), between the numerous cultivated fields, and the other against the inner façade of the southern rampart (T1). Other test trenches were carried out

during the excavation, providing a dating of the rampart and to bring up to date the fortification of the lower city of Rayy.

The Šahrestān Rampart

The vestiges of the šahrestān rampart (Fig.  31) form a small part of its overall perimeter. The first surveys on the site rapidly showed the complexity and major interest of the rampart. The wall is

Figure 30 Rayy, topographical plan of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli with previous and recent archaeological tests Reconstituted by V. Bernard and R. Rante 2007

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.����/�������������_���

52

chapter 5

Figure 31  Rayy, detail of the southern rampart

composed of several parts, corresponding to its different reconstructions and periods (Fig.  32). Each side of the wall presents different phases of construction and repair. The side of the wall, which apparently was subject to the greatest amount of modification, seems to be the outer side. The rampart appears to have been constituted of four principal periods, as may be seen in detail later, each of which was itself broken down into several phases of construction or repair. The two ends of the rampart were marked by towers, which currently present a round plan, although they had been square originally: Tower1 and Tower 5 (Fig. 31). The more easterly of the towers, larger and better conserved, is extant to the height of approximately 1103.30 m above sea-level. Next, the two towers Tower 2 and Tower 4 are square. In the centre of the rampart appears a small semi-circular tower, Tower 3. One of the individuated repairs, the most clear on the outer façade of the rampart, consists of a facing of sections of mud bricks (27/28×27/28×10 cm (Fig. 33) and with a thickness of about 25–30 cm (Fig. 34). These pieces of repaired wall were fixed directly

onto the destroyed wall. This type of restoration was also used on the interior of the rampart, as was noticed during the excavation of test T1 (Fig. 35). As has been observed during the architectural surveys, the portion of wall between the semi-circular tower and the tower further to the west shows traces of a large gate (Fig. 36) whose piers may be perceived up until the springing of the vault (Fig. 37). The gateway is today completely blocked by large blocks of rammed earth. In this outer part of the rampart, defence was also ensured by the rock on which the wall had been built. In fact, several metres separate the level of the plain and the beginning of the rampart (except at the level of the gate, where the difference in level is very slight), to which can be added the total height of the rampart itself. Viewed from the exterior, the rampart seems to leave no possibility for  enemy attack (Fig.  38). The morphological configuration of the terrain where the fortified city was founded is not entirely rock. The rock seems to be a branch of the Kuh-e Sorsore, which reappears on the surface from this level to the curve of the rampart. The rest of the rampart

53

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 32 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān external façade with three phases © R. Rante 2005

follows a north-westerly direction to then ascend towards the citadel in a north-easterly direction and encircle it in all its northern part. It is unfortunately no longer visible due to the modern urban development that has left nothing of these portions of wall, neither of the lower town. The study of the morphological and geomorphological maps, but above all Schmidt’s plan and elevations, show that the rest of the perimeter of the rampart of the šahrestān was constructed directly over an earth level and not the rock (Schmidt 1940, Fig. 33B).1 The external side of the šahrestān rampart presents, in some segments, characteristics that could also have been found in both pre-Islamic and Islamic architecture in Central Asia and on the

Iranian plateau. This is confirmed by a comparison of the architectural elements and the ceramics as well as by the thermoluminescence analyses. Concerning these last two, in some structures of the southern rampart the presence of grey fabric ceramic has been observed. The first archaeological layers of the test trenches of the šahrestān, T1 and T2, revealed the presence of red and buff, but especially grey, ceramics. The ceramic with a grey fabric is of different types, of which a ‘clinky’ one is present. The grey ceramic of Rayy is of a light to medium-dark (grey-black) colour. Some of these sherds, the darker ones, have been dated through thermoluminescence to Iron Age i, while the lighter or medium darker ones date to Iron Age ii–iii.2

1 Schmidt shows the curves from a level which refers simply to the slopes of debris around the walls. The geological maps do not show reliefs in these zones.

2 A systematic work on analyses of the various grey ceramic types could complete this chronological tableau.

54

chapter 5

Figure 33 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān external refection © R. Rante 2005

The rampart presents different characteristics that show the complexity and the high quality of the structural work (Fig.  39). The analysis of the upper part of the rampart was essentially aimed at the identification of the construction technique and the identification of the materials employed. To determine the origin of the techniques noted, the targeted destruction of some clean bricks was considered necessary to provide information. Therefore, a meticulous operation on the two parts of the wall highlighted the proof of their contemporaneity. In these two cases, a considerable number of ceramics within the mud bricks, as well as between the bricks, in their joints, were brought to light. The ceramics found were grey, fine and coarse, but also with a buff body, often very damaged due to the large quantity of water received over the centuries. The same work was also carried out on a transverse section of the wall, whose destruction was caused naturally by the poor

maintenance of the rampart (Fig. 40). This operation revealed the different thicknesses of the walls and their successive constructions. The oldest rampart was designed using of two different techniques: the first reserved for the exterior side of the wall, which seems to be an ancient part of it, and the second for its interior side. In a short part of it, towards the east, a distinct construction phase has been detected which constituted a central nucleus (Fig.  41). This was designed in alternating horizontal fields of blocks of pisé and mud bricks, the blocks of pisé measuring nearly 1 m in length and height. This nucleus of the rampart was not very thick as the entire rampart must have been comprised of a rather restricted surface, which is to say the ridge of the rock. From the interior of the šahrestān, this nucleus had also been constituted of some mud bricks arranged vertically between the bands of pisé and the mud bricks. It

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 34 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān thickness of the external refection © R. Rante 2005

55

56

chapter 5

Figure 35  Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān internal refection © R. Rante 2005

Figure 36 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān, gate of the fortified city © E. Schmidt 1940, revisited by R. Rante 2011

is still soon to assign a more precise identity to this wall fragment, different from the others. Could it be possible, however, that this latter would belong to an earlier period? It could also be possible that this structure constituted a

nucleus which was later covered by two strong facades, an internal and an external. Other architectural and archaeometrical analyses will be necessary to answer these questions more profoundly.

57

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 37  Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān upper right limit of the southern gate of the city © R. Rante 2005

Some portions of the outer side of the rampart, the most ancient (Iron Age) considered as its earlier parts, were constructed with large bricks of 45×45×15 cm (Fig. 42).3 The thickness of this part of the rampart is irregular and rather weak, nearly 2 m at an altitude of around 1091 m, directly on the rock, and around 1.70 m on the ridge of the rampart. This outer part presents a façade characterised by large ‘cannelures’ or engaged columns, prominent rounded vertical bands of mud bricks (Fig. 43). Approximately every 70 cm of the wall, the bricks are arranged so that they jut out 25 cm. The column of jutting out bricks was around 70 cm wide. These engaged columns of large bricks created an undulation of the wall. Thanks to this technique, the rampart must have acquired a greater resilience to the assaults of enemy armies. This 3 Regarding the brick size, see Lecomte 1999, 149–153.

ribbing thus had the effect of shock absorbers to the blows of the assailants’ projectiles.4 The rampart is in a very poor state of conservation; the oldest parts of the wall still visible today are few in number. The reasons for this poor state are in part attributable to negligence in conservation. Nevertheless, the portions of the ramparts and the towers, which have been restored, are numerous. The easternmost tower (Tower 1), the largest, shows at first sight a round profile (Fig. 31). The analysis of its contour at the base and on the 4 For more information regarding the defensive systems in Central Asia, see Lecomte 1999, but also Semenov, G.L., Sogdijskaya fortifikatsiya V–VIII vekov, Saint Petersburg 2002 and Semenov, G.L., Sogdijskij gorod v rannem srednevekov’e: formirovanie plana, in Itogi rabot arxeologiceskix ekspedicij Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaza, ed. G.I. Smirnova, Leningrad 1989, 128–140.

58

chapter 5

Figure 38 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān view of the slop © R. Rante 2005

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 39 Rayy, view of the upper part of the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

59

60

chapter 5

Figure 40 Rayy, view of the section of the southern part of the šahrestān rampart © R. Rante 2005

61

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 41  Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān nucleus in pisé blocks alternated with mud bricks © R. Rante 2005

upper part shows, nevertheless, that the tower was originally conceived with a square plan. Some old repairs are easily visible at its highest point (Fig. 44). The tower presents a thick inner layer of larger mud bricks. While the French architect Pascal Coste, during his travel in 1840–1842, noted a general view of the site of Rayy from Bībī Šahrbānū, he noticed a large corner tower of square shape (Fig. 45). At that time the tower was certainly the same as today, but the architect had probably wanted to point out this astonishing characteristic in noting the older shape of the edifice. Without this explanation – admittedly very personal and devoid of scientific data – the detail of Coste’s drawing remains a mystery. Further to the west another tower is to be found, jutting out and without any doubt square (Tower 2); it is very dilapidated and its outer part shows significant damage (Fig.  46). The tower today

serves as an improvised shelter. On its eastern side it presents an arrangement of two bricks in the form of an arrowhead (Fig.  47). This special feature may sometimes be found, to name only a few examples, in the loopholes of the fortifications at Bactres I (Le Berre and Schlumberger 1064, Fig.  14) or in Samarqand (Shishkina 1986, Figs.  289–290). The bricks of which this tower is constituted are of the same size as those of the oldest rampart. Further to the west another tower presents a completely different type. This tower (Tower 3) is a perfectly semi-circular form (Fig. 48). The eastern side of the tower leans on the oldest rampart, and the western side on a repair to the rampart. The tower is placed between two ramparts but, because of weathering and erosion, today it is almost totally detached from the oldest rampart on its eastern side (Fig.  49). Analysis of the

62

chapter 5

Figure 42 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān view from the top and detail of the mud bricks © R. Rante 2005

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 43 Rayy, southern rampart of the šahrestān unique façade belonging to the Phase 1 © E. Schmidt 1940, reconstituted by R. Rante

Figure 44 Rayy, Tower 1 of the southern rampart, detail of two different phases © E. Schmidt 1940, reconstituted by R. Rante

63

64

Figure 45 Rayy, eastern section and localised structures

© Pascal Coste, 1840–41, reconstituted by R. Rante

chapter 5

architectonic context has revealed that the tower is still well attached to the repair of the west side; on the other hand, the part that had been attached to the old rampart shows a complete detachment. The massive tower is constructed with mud bricks of 42×42×10 cm, the same as have been found in the second layer covering the corner tower, Tower 1. Further still to the west, after the remains of the gate previously mentioned, stands another tower (Tower 4) with, again, a square plan (Fig. 31). This tower is much damaged, making analysis difficult. The tower is constructed of mud bricks of 45×45 ×15 cm, with repairs visible to the naked eye on certain parts, above all those highest (Fig.  50). It seems to belong to the same type of square tower previously encountered. In his plan of the šahrestān, Schmidt draws this tower as perfectly square (Schmidt 1940, pl. 33B). The last tower (Tower 5), also a corner one according to the topography, is very probably round (Fig. 51). The analysis of this tower could not be completed because of its proximity to the glycerine factory. The rock on which the rampart was built gradually diminishes as one descends towards the last tower mentioned. Next, as the topography shows (Fig. 11), the rampart turns a corner at nearly 90° towards the north-west and then, after about 250 m, another, to join the north side of the citadel. After this last tower the outcrop rock seems to disappear, but research on this subject could not be carried out due to the growing urbanisation which from that point almost engulfs the southern slope of the citadel. The inner side of the rampart seems more difficult to analyse. It is now reduced to an imposing pile of debris caused by weathering and agricultural exploitation (Fig. 52). To have an immediate comparison, the inner portions were analysed and they correspond to the exterior. The inner part had been constructed in the same manner as the outer facade, but with smaller bricks of 38×38×10  cm, belonging to another construction

65

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 46 Rayy, view of the Tower 2 of the southern šahrestān rampart © R. Rante 2005

phase. The thickness of this section of the wall is nearly 3 metres at an altitude of around 1091 m, just on the rock, and about 1.70 at the summit at an altitude of approximately 1095 m (Fig. 53). On its interior the rampart presents several openings along its facade. Today, because of the slope of debris one can only note two (not to be confused with the modern cavities created by locals to serve as their shelter). If one looks at the wall from the citadel, therefore at the interior of the town, one can perceive the difference in height of these two openings because of the slope of the rock. Only the top of their vaults is visible (Fig. 54). The inner part of the rampart shows clear traces of late repairs on its westernmost portion. The same traces of repairs that could be noted on the exterior also appear on the interior. However, on this side the characteristics of the repair are even clearer. In fact, the analysis carried out inside a

‘shelter-hole’ created by locals who evacuated the old rampart and its repairs showed a wide fault dividing the two walls. The fault had essentially been provoked by bad weather (Fig. 55). In it can be found plastic bags and other objects brought by the wind and rain. On the other hand, some other places on the wall had not been subject to repairs. These restored parts of the rampart were constituted of mud bricks of 33×33×7/8  cm, the same type of brick that one had been able to note in certain repairs to the exterior. In order to study the rampart and the šahrestān with a view to determining the different phases of construction and occupation from their origins,  it appeared necessary to us to open a test trench (T1) leaning on the inner side of the rampart. Some operations were also carried out on the exterior of the šahrestān, on the outer side of the rampart.

66

chapter 5

Figure 47  Rayy, view of one of the sides of the Tower 2, southern rampart © R. Rante 2005

67

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 48 Rayy, view of Tower 3 of the southern rampat of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

Test T1 Test T1 (Fig.  56) was opened beside one of the openings noticed in 2005 (Fig. 54). The trench was rectangular at the beginning, and then was modified according to necessity. It was situated not opposite this possible opening but away from it and moving 6 m towards the west, thus avoiding the pile of debris. The length of the test was 8 m, following the slope of debris up to the path leading to the cultivated fields. This test allowed four principal phases to be discerned (Fig.  57). These phases, in agreement with the analysis of the associated ceramics, are grouped into four large periods. The first phase is constituted of rampart S1, directly constructed on the rock outcrop under this southern portion of the fortified town. Given that the slope of the rock slightly inclines from the east towards the west, the rampart also shows this slight slope, noticed throughout the length of test

T1. At an altitude of 1087 m, rampart S1 presents a thickness of around 6 m.5 The collected ceramics associated with these rampart sections (Fig.  43) trace back to the early period of construction, the Iron Age i–early ii. The layers connected with it and the further observed restorations also show numerous ceramic typologies datable to the Parthian period, testifying to a reuse. The few excavated areas have limited the complete understanding of the several reuses and reconstructions of the rampart, probably generating the time gap between the Iron Age and the Parthian period.6 Considering that the Iron Age 5 The plain is found at approximately 1082 m, the šahrestān at 1087 m and the beginning of the citadel, and therefore the height of the terrace today, at about 1100–1101 m. 6 Concerning the long reoccupation of the site and the preservation of previous traditions on material culture, see Lecomte 1999, 156.

68

chapter 5

Figure 49 Rayy, lateral detail of the Tower 3 of the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

parts are too few to consider it as totally of Phase 1, and since several wall segments appear to be of Parthian period, it is preferable here to present the Phase 1 of the whole rampart profile as Parthian. The second phase seems to be related to a unique internal transformation. According to comparisons with other rampart portions, it has been observed that at that phase the defensive structure was reconstituted and somewhat reconstructed. It seems that niches and alcoves were thus created on the length of the internal façade, of which one has been found during the excavation of the Test T1 (Fig. 58). These two structures were probably set to guard the ramparts, as the discovery of a metal bowl and an arrow-point could suggest. One can also propose passages between the corridor and the rampart, and these guard rooms, which are at present impossible to reconstruct. Other types of mud bricks, of 33×33×7/8  cm, were used to construct these rooms. In this locus a well-organised

mixture of mud bricks of two types can also be found. This phase can be dated to the Sasanian period thanks to the discovery of ceramics of the same type as on other Sasanian sites in the area of Rayy, as Tepe Mil and Chal Tarkhan. A shallow moulding which folds back towards the interior can be noticed at the top of each pier of the two structures. This small architectonic feature, repeated in all other niches of the internal façade of the rampart, could be comparable to that of several Partho-Sasanian monuments (cf. among others Kühnel 1933, abb. 4). The niche today presents a large hole, approximately 2  m deep, recently enlarged. This hole (made by local users) allowed us to analyse the interior of wall S1, with its massive architectonic construction with any excavation. This hole has been not represented on the cross-sections. The third phase should be characterised by a repair to the wall on its inner façade, even if the

69

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 50 Rayy, view of the Tower 4 of the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

traces are few and damaged. Probably dressed as wall-block about 25 cm thick, it was attached to the damaged facades of rampart S1. The wall is constructed with mud bricks of 33  cm on each side and 7/8 cm thick. It is not possible to ascertain at present if this block-wall has covered the niche in the rampart. The use of the same type of mud brick and the study of the material leads one to suppose that the repairing wall had been also constructed at the Sasanian period. If this block-wall has been conceived to repair all the surface of the internal façade, the rampart should have attained a thickness of 8.30 m at an altitude of 1087 m. The fourth phase is that of the construction of a semi-circular structure (S3) (Fig. 59). The analysis of this test trench in all its complexity highlighted its defensive and structural function. This structure has been identified as a buttress. It was probably created to protect a wall portion which

suffered great damage or, as seems more probable, the entire length of the wall, in its internal façade, was paralleled by this semi-circular buttress, thus rendering the rampart much stronger than previously. Tests T3 and T4 Test trenches T3 and T4 were opened at the foot of the southern rampart on its outer façade. It was considered necessary to carry out these two tests to identify the foundations of the wall and to highlight the parts that had benefited from repairs on the exterior as well. Concerning this last aspect, it was only possible to locate two excavation sites due to the ruinous state of the walls. Test T3 (Fig. 60) was opened opposite test T1, but at the foot of the outer side. Here the entire base of this portion of rampart was brought to light. It appeared clear that this part of the outer side had been completely reconstructed in a period later

70

chapter 5

Figure 51  Rayy, view of the Tower 5 of the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

Figure 52  Rayy, view of the internal façade of the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

71

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 53  Rayy, view of the excavation of the southern rampart of the šahrestān at the cross-section point © R. Rante 2005

than the first phase of the construction of the wall. The key indication here is the trace of a drip of white plaster on the rock, very close to the foundations (Fig.  61), the same as in rooms S5 and S6. Moreover, the wall and its foundations in this location are constituted of mud bricks of 33/38×33/38×8/10  cm.7 The assemblages of ceramics found in this test thus date from the late Sasanian period or from the late 7th century and the beginning of the 8th century.8 After having been the theatre of numerous rebellions and therefore of frequent destructions, Rayy had not 7 The risk of the wall collapsing rendered it impossible to carry out targeted operations on the interior section of the outer façade. 8 There is not the intention to determinate the chronology through the mud brick size, even if today it is known that it is possible, in some cases, to better define chronology through specific material culture.

been definitively brought under submission until the arrival of al-Mahdī. With the installation of the future ʿAbbāsid Caliph as governor, the šahrestān, and Rayy in general, benefited from several restructurings and repairs; it seems that during this time the šahrestān became the main governmental quarter of a larger city. Test T4 (Fig. 62) was opened at the foot of the oldest wall, between the square tower (Tower 2) and the semi-circular tower (Tower 3). This test aimed to bring the foundations of the rampart to light (Figs. 63–64). Here also the rock was quickly reached. This oldest rampart is composed of mud bricks of 45×45×15 cm.

Test T2: Šahrestān

The choice of area for this test trench took into consideration the boundaries of Schmidt’s old

72

chapter 5

Figure 54 Rayy, view of the niche on the internal façade of the southern šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

excavation, the boundaries of the cultivated fields and the glycerine factory (Fig. 65). The few spaces to open the test-pit were located in a zone between the glycerine factory and the citadel. The test trench began from an altitude of 1087.10  m and measures 4×5  m, oriented north–south (Fig.  66). This šahrestān area had always presented itself as geographically ideal for human occupation. The water courses, above all Češmeh ʿAlī, the geographical relief, as well as the great mountain range of the Elborz, the vast fertile plain and also its position on the Silk Road made this zone a very privileged place. As previously mentioned, human presence is attested to from the Neolithic period at Češmeh ʿAlī, comparable to those of other neighbouring regions such as Tepe Hīssār (to the north-east), Tepe Siyalk (to the south), Tepe Ġabristān (to the north-west) and Zāġah (to the west). Yet it seems that, according to the shards

analysed, the citadel and the šahrestān had not presented an occupation at this period. In these two areas, human occupations dated from the Iron Age i–iii have been observed firstly by Schmidt and recently confirmed and demonstrated by the Irano-French mission. Nevertheless, since the material and the data are minimal, it had been impossible to study this occupation completely. The non-anthropogenic layers are characterised by a thick level of friable alluvions of red earth and numerous pebbles. The first phase, connected to the presence of architectural vestiges, for example at the Test T1, begins at an altitude of 1083.50 m (Fig. 67). It seems that this phase had been occupied for a long time, as is shown by the presence of types of ceramics which seem to belong to two different periods. The ceramic associated with these layers is almost totally grey, in two tones, grey-black/medium dark

73

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 55  Rayy, view from the top of the refection of the internal façade of the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

and grey lighter. A group has been dated to the Iron Age i–ii,9 and it corresponds to the layers of the earlier rampart foundation. The other corresponds to the late Iron Age iii (and probably also Achaemenid)10 and Parthian periods, thus clearly testifying to a reuse and several remakings of the ancient rampart.11 The Iron Age group of pottery is very heterogeneous and not representative enough to make an assemblage. It is, however, assumed that in larger test-pits this type and its characteristics would have been clearer. There were also fragments of grey ceramics of the ‘clinky’ types. The ceramics of this occupation of the 9

10 11

A pottery sherd of lighter grey fabric has been dated by tl to the late Iron Age ii–early Iron Age iii, testifying a probable Median occupation (data not yet published). See Lecomte 1999, 156. Cfr., among others, Hansman and Stronach 1970, 55–56.

šahrestān were viewed in relation to the ceramics found in the rampart excavation. This allowed the close similarities between the two to be highlighted, and a common occupation to be assigned less clearly to the Iron Age and more reliably to the Parthian era. The second phase (us 224, 226–229), at an altitude of 1083.75  m, was very difficult to identify. Nevertheless, the analysis carried out allowed us to recognise different types. The layers associated with this phase showed assemblages of ceramics similar enough to those of phase 1, but also some ceramics which presented changes in their ornamental vocabulary. These were often carved, champlevé and combed. The fabrics identified are rather chamois and grey. There is, therefore, a continuity in production of the numerous typologies of ceramics to which are associated the different types which underline the changes. This second

74

chapter 5

Figure 56 Rayy, plan of the Test 1, T1 © D. Rosati 2007

phase was identified as belonging to the late Parthian and Sasanian periods. The break with its ancient types is clearly visible from the 5th–6th centuries. The third phase (us 222–223), at the altitude of 1084  m, is identifiable as a transition phase between the Sasanian and Islamic periods. This transition phase is recognisable in the change of the fabric of the ceramics, which becomes increasingly of the chamois-orange colour but also brick red, and in the change in forms; more and more

jars are found, with a more or less coarse fabric. The frequency of temper, often mica, in the fabrics also increases. Phase 4 (us 211–219, 221), which begins at an altitude of approximately 1084.30  m, is that of the construction of the building whose stone foundations have been found (S3–S4), without doubt the same as that identified by Schmidt as being the mosque of al-Mahdī. In fact, his notes mention the discovery of several coins from the time of al-Mahdī, before his investiture as the Caliph and

© D. Rosati 2007

Figure 57  Rayy, croass-section of the southern rampart

Excavations At Rayy

75

76

chapter 5

Figure 58 Rayy, T1, niche on the southern rampart of the šahrestān © R. Rante 2005

thus before his definitive departure from Rayy. The excavation archives show that the foundations and the floor of the mosque found by Schmidt do not comprise any material indicating another dating than that which corresponds to the stay of al-Mahdī in Rayy. Although the relation between the buildings – the mosque of al-Mahdī and our structure – is a hypothesis which depends on new research in the sector in question, the idea of this same identity between the two buildings is strongly supported. This rests on a series of indications. First of all, the excavation shows that the building is oriented south-west, therefore respecting the direction of the qibla. The relation between the foundations of test T2 and Schmidt’s tests is proof of the link between our structures and those discovered by him. us 208 and 255 are therefore identifiable as the foundation pit of the piers of the mosque.

The discovery of ceramics with a white opaque glaze and with a yellowish fabric in these foundation pits allowed them to be viewed in relation with the period at the beginning of the construction of the mosque, dating from 775 at the latest. This chronology agrees with the dating given in Sūsa, where this type of ceramic had been dated to between 750 and 800 (Kervran 1977).12 In this phase 4 of test T2, which chronologically extends from the end of the 8th century just to the beginning of the 10th century, other types of glazes were also present, like the monochrome turquoise or green ceramics and also splashed-wares. A massive destruction identified in the test trench, whose chronology remains uncertain, also seems to be associated with this phase. This destruction would be identifiable with one, or 12

Concerning the site of Sūsa, also see Rosen-Ayalon 1972 and 1974 and Steve, Vallat and Gasche 2002–2003.

77

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 59 Rayy, T1, view from the top of the southern rampart © R. Rante 2005

several, earthquakes. Following this devastation the mosque was reconstructed several times, thus creating a thickening of this layer. The following phases indicate a probable gradual abandonment of this place of worship in favour of other buildings probably constructed outside the walls of the šahrestān. Phase 5 (us 204–207, 209–210), which begins at the altitude of 1085.75 m, is to be linked with an era of the progressive depopulation of the šahrestān. This undoubtedly does not impede the specific and exclusive utilisation of the site as an administrative or governmental quarter, given its strategic interest. This phase seems to be able to correspond to the Būyid period, from the 10th to the beginning of the 11th centuries. Phase 6, the last as far as the šahrestān is concerned, which begins at the altitude of 1086.20 m, is the phase of the abandonment of the site. The

town in this period had become enlarged towards the south and it was reinforced by powerful defensive walls constructed in the Būyid period. Ceramics with a siliceous fabric with turquoise glaze and also a shard of lustre ceramic were found in the last occupation layers.13 Above this phase appears a burnt layer on the whole surface of the test trench seeming to mark the end of the stratigraphy of the site. It is not known whether this great phase of the burnt layer is identifiable with the last great destruction of the site under the blows of the Mongols, but the same traces of burnt layers also found at the citadel would appear to 13

The production of metallic lustre at Rayy is still uncertain, as attested by Watson (1985, 40–41). Nevertheless, recent researches, above all realised from archaeological material, stress the possibility of a local production of lustreware at Rayy (Treptow 2007, 51).

78

chapter 5

Figure 60 Rayy, T3, detail of the rampart foundations and the probable Phase 2 © R. Rante 2005

Excavations At Rayy

79

Figure 61  Rayy, T3, detail of the foundations and of the rock © R. Rante 2005

confirm this suggestion. The town of Rayy then lost its political and religious importance. The urban life was moved to Warāmīn, a few kilometres to the south-east. Rayy underwent a final occupation, of which some traces are to be found in the superficial layers. Schmidt’s archives concerning the excavation on the south terrace of the Citadel report the discovery of shards from the Tīmūrid period. In 2007 the excavation brought to light, in the most superficial layers (us 201–202), the presence of shards datable to the 14th–15th centuries, marking a late occupation of minor importance. At this time the town already extended to the south and the south-west. It was in this direction that the public and political life definitively moved onto the site that would become the current-day Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm.

The Mosque The monument discovered in the šahrestān, previously excavated by Schmidt and highlighted during the 2007 campaign, would have probably been designed as being the mosque of al-Mahdī. Our reasons for this supposition are founded on the stratigraphical succession which dates this phase and the associated layers to the 8th century, and also on the relation between these structures and those found by Schmidt. However, are the structures discovered during the 2007 campaign incontestably from the same context as those discovered during the 1934 campaign? To answer this question it would have been necessary to have at our disposal an excavation covering over a hectare, in order to excavate the whole sector of the building. However, we possess elements that can help us to formulate concrete

80

chapter 5

Figure 62 Rayy, T4, the southern rampart in its Phase 1 © R. Rante 2005

hypotheses on the origins and the function of this building. The very strong foundations already noted by Schmidt must have supported a building of considerable dimensions (cfr. Galdieri 1972). Its perimeter and internal walls must have been designed in mud bricks, materials which are found in the remains of the structures of the south-east corner of test T2. Moreover, a north-west/south-east orientation of the great axes of the building would be unlikely.14 In fact, at around 60 m south-east of this structure rises the southern rampart of the šahrestān. This proximity between the structure and the rampart prevents one from envisaging a development of the mosque to the south-east where such an extension would have constrained the passage and movement of military forces around the wall. This could, therefore, indicate that the building was developed on its short side to the north-west rather than to the south-east (where it would have 14

Cfr. Treptow 2007, 14.

been constrained by the rampart), all the while respecting the general orientation of the šahrestān (Fig.  68); therefore, towards the foundations discovered during the 2007 campaign. Thus, admitting that the large building of Schmidt’s excavation was developed towards the north-west, therefore towards test T2 (2007), considering that the direction of the pillars in a test of 4x5 m is perfectly oriented towards Schmidt’s test, and considering that the structure of the foundations is imposing in both excavations, one can easily imagine that Schmidt’s building is the same as that revealed by test T2 in 2007. Unfortunately the boundaries of ‘the mosque’ have never been brought to light. The discovery of the foundations of the piers or supports of ‘the mosque’ has nevertheless given us its orientation. We have therefore tried to take into consideration the measurements of known mosques to propose a reconstructed plan of this monument (Fig. 68).

Excavations At Rayy

81

Figure 63 Rayy, T4, detail of the foundation © R. Rante 2005

The mosques constructed during the first centuries of Islam have provided the reference proportions. The mosque born in the house of the Prophet was modified several times. The

mosque of ʿAmr in Fustat was the first to benefit from a rectangular perimeter (26×17  m) which was next re-employed in the reconstructions of other mosques (Monneret de Villard 1966, 124).

82

chapter 5

Figure 64 Rayy, T4, detail of the rock on which the southern rampart has benne erected at the origin © R. Rante 2005

That of Medina also next had a rectangular perimeter (about 80×75 m), although larger than that of the mosque of ʿAmr (Monneret de Villard 1966, 125). However, the mosque which would finally prevail as one of the models most followed by others was that of Kūfa (Fig. 69). This mosque at first encompassed a square perimeter of approximately 103.60 m each side. The reconstruction of 670 carried out by Ziyād b. Abīhi was the mosque model called the ‘Arab type’ (Galdieri 1972, 366, n. 3). As far as Rayy is concerned, the foundations of the supports in the north-western part of the monument, thus the part corresponding to the axis opposite that of the mihrab, easily makes one think of a building surrounded by columns or piers. For this period of the 8th century mosques are found presenting similar characteristics. In

Dāmġān and Sīraf15 there are examples of this type of mosque dating to about the second half of the 8th century (Ettinghausen and Grabar 1987, 211). However, the closest analogue to the mosque of Rayy is the mosque of Iṣfahān. In fact, according to the sources (Abū Nuʿaym and al-Māfarrūḫī) and the archaeological excavations carried out by Umberto Scerrato between 1972 and 1978, we know that the first mosque was constructed in around 772 (Fig.  70). The sources also declare that this mosque had been completely constructed in mud bricks (Scerrato 1977a, 451–455; Scerrato 2001, xxxix). The archaeological excavations brought to light the qibla wall, covered in superbly decorated stuccoes, with a different orientation from that of the later mosque still visible today. Research has 15

See the articles of Whitehouse 1968–1972 and 1974.

© R. Rante 2005

Figure 65 Rayy, šahrestān, location of Test 2

Excavations At Rayy

83

84

chapter 5

Figure 66 Rayy, plan of the Test 2, T2 © R. Rante 2007

shown that this first mosque was destroyed to construct another one on top of it, of the same hypostyle type, but much wider and with a different and more precise orientation (225–226 H/840–841 ce). Of this first mosque, that of 772, several column bases have been brought to light. However,

the discovery of a column covered in decorated stucco, very probably from the Sasanian period, which rested on a very strong foundation, immediately confirmed the presence of a large and important building which, according to certain sources, would correspond to the Sasanian monument

85

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 67  Rayy, T2, cross-section © R. Rante 2007

(probably a temple) on which the mosque had been installed. Unfortu­nately the archaeological research in Iṣfahān could not be completed due to political troubles caused by the Islamic revolution in 1979.16 This left certain elements unknown, such 16

Between 2003 and 2010 an Italian team commenced a large project studying the material brought to the light during the previous excavations. Unfortunately, despite

as, for example, the discovery of the corners of the monument. Thus Scerrato opted for a comparative study with mosques of the Arab type. This gave to the restored mosque of Iṣfahān a profile which,

the considerable resources, both financial and economic, none of this work has been made available. The scientific world is waiting for these results, which could be very useful for the future research on this matter.

Figure 68 Rayy, plan of the fortified city and Cheshmeh ʿAli, detail of the mosque

86 chapter 5

87

Excavations At Rayy

Nevertheless, the question arises as to why this mosque of al-Mahdī in Rayy was so imposing in comparison to other mosques of the same period, such as those of Dāmġān, Sīraf or Iṣfahān. First of all, precise information on the dating of the religious monuments is still only provided for the mosque of Iṣfahān. Next, among all the mosques of this period, that of Rayy would have been the only one to have been constructed by a prince, at the time governor of Rayy, who would become caliph a few years later. As has been previously noted, al-Mahdī would have started a dynamic policy of town development in Rayy, so much so that the town rapidly enlarged and was called al-Muḥammadiyya. Figure 69 Plan of the Kufa mosque



with a small margin of error, must have respected its true measurements. One is therefore a party to these measurements and this schema in order to complete the profile of ‘the mosque’ of Rayy datable to 775. In this way the mosque of al-Mahdī would have been of rectangular form, whose longest axis was oriented south-west. The measurements of these two sides would have exceeded 83 m for the short side and 130 m for the long side. If these measurements were exact, the mosque would have presented itself as a majestic building whose proportions would have however been equal to other religious monuments in Rayy. In fact, the mosque of the šahrestān seems to have occupied a large part of the surface of the lower town. This is not surprising if one considers that at that time the town had begun its expansion as is confirmed by the sources and as archaeological discoveries seem to confirm. Al-Mahdī would have considerably enlarged the town of Rayy, above all its eastern and western sides. The šahrestān, therefore, would have become a neighbourhood in the town. It certainly retained its function as the administrative and religious quarter of the town throughout the period.

During 2006, the excavations on the citadel took place under the direction of the Iranian archaeologist Ghadir Afround, who considered it advantageous to undertake this excavation by concentrating on pre-existing structures. This is how the structures of the large monument situated on the south terrace of the Kuh-e Sorsore, still visible today, were brought to light. In fact, the only structures which remain today on the Kuh-e Sorsore are those of the southern part (Figs.  19–20), which however suffered serious damage. The structures were divided into two principal parts; the first dealt with the fortress situated on the western end of the citadel, while the second focussed on the structures which break through the soil in the centre-east of the citadel. The strategy of the Iranian archaeologist aimed rather at analysing the architecture to better show the site to advantage. This allowed the discovery of certain structures, and above all objects, which provided information on the history of Rayy. This also allowed one to conveniently clear the entire zone of the citadel, which had become a haunt of the homeless. For the sake of clarity the analysis of the great fortress of the citadel has been divided into two parts,

after Creswell, revisited by J. Allan 1989

Citadel Excavation (in Collaboration with Ghadir Afround)

88

chapter 5

Figure 70 Plan of the different architectural phases of the Iṣfahān mosque © D. Rosati 2003

© R. Rante 2007

Figure 71  Rayy, western fortress, view from south of the excavation

Excavations At Rayy

89

90

chapter 5

Figure 72  Rayy, western fortress, view from south of the excavated southern part of the fortress © R. Rante 2007

the ‘west fortress’ and the ‘east fortress’, even though it is one and the same architectural complex. The West Fortress In a context of highlighting the site and its architectural structures, the choice of the location of the tests was never really a question taken up by the Iranian team. The excavation took place in the perimeter of the monument where the structure emerges to the surface above the accumulation of debris. Some large structures were brought to light (Fig. 71) rather easily given the lack of depth of the layers of accumulation on this part of the site. These layers were composed of friable earth, never compacted. There were numerous fragments of ceramics, which, at first sight, belong to a late period. The entire southern part of the monument was excavated, and the structures are increasingly related to military buildings, recognisable by loopholes. The discovery of the southern part of the

rooms collapsed towards the cultivated fields gives an indication of an opening of a door which would allow access to the citadel (Figs. 72–74). In fact, its surrounding wall, today completely destroyed by farmers, would pass exactly on this part of the citadel, slightly more to the south, to then turn back to the north to encircle the hill. The monument was principally designed in stone, covered with a layer of plaster, much damaged today. The excavation of the centre of the building brought to light a series of passages and staircases showing its complex layout (Fig. 75). The section of the building also shows a storey of fired bricks, which seems to cut it into two parts (Fig. 76). An analysis of this ‘floor’ in fired brick was carried out through a hole in the west side of the building opened, according to the Iranian team, by the refugees who lived in these places. The analysis showed a continuity of this ‘floor’ in fired bricks which would suggest a division of the building into two phases. This floor was probably not designed from

.

© R. Rante 2007

Figure 73  Rayy, western fortress, view from the top of the citadel

Excavations At Rayy

91

© R. Rante 2007

Figure 74  Rayy, western fortress, view and detail of the architectural structures

92 chapter 5

© Gh. Afround 2007

Figure 75  Rayy, plan of the western fortress

Excavations At Rayy

93

© Gh. Afround 2007

Figure 76  Rayy, cross-sections of the northern side of the western fortress (above); cross-section of the western side of the western fortress (below)

94 chapter 5

Excavations At Rayy

Figure 77  Rayy, western fortress, small courtyard © R. Rante 2007

Figure 78  Rayy, western fortress, view of the western side © R. Rante 2007

95

© Gh. Afround 2007

Figure 79  Rayy, plan of the western fortress, detail of the mud brick soil

96 chapter 5

Excavations At Rayy

97

Figure 80 Rayy, western fortress, northern slit © R. Rante 2007

the beginning; it would have taken place during a later reconstruction following a first destruction. Nevertheless, the exterior of this monument, on its west side (Fig.  76), shows a certain continuity between the façade underneath the floor of fired bricks and that above it. The Franco-Iranian excavation of 2007 was again targeted at excavating the interior of this monument. The deepest test trench (approximately – 4 m) was opened in the north-east corner of the building. This did not provide information relating to the possible division into two floors. On the other hand, this trench showed a continuity of the layers and the material of the building. From the exterior the construction technique of this part of the building below the baked bricks seems to be coarser than of the part above it (Figs. 77–78). However, this could simply have been

due to the poor state of the building. The fired bricks, in contrast, was very well preserved and arranged in three levels. The first level, the highest, presents bricks arranged vertically, sideways. The level below shows the bricks still arranged vertically, but flat, that is to say with the square side exposed to the exterior. The lower level presents itself as the first one. According to a more meticulous study, the middle level assumes the same characteristics as the others. In fact, the bricks present themselves as previously described on a façade of the building, but on the façade to the left or right side the bricks are arranged vertically and sideways. In the south-western part, in a small room, Afround brought to light a piece of pavement of mud bricks of 40×40 cm (Figs. 79–80). The excavation of the northern part, on the exterior of the

98

chapter 5 Stone

Baked brick Indefinite dig Floor Mud brick Virgin soil

E XVI

E XVII

E XVIII

F XVI

F XVII

F XVIII

–0.24

F XV

–0.42

G XV

Ghadir Afround 2005–2006

Figure 81  Rayy, plans of the eastern fortress © Gh. Afround 2007

building, found a series of mud bricks of a large size which reach 42/43×42/43×11/12  cm and 45×45×13/15  cm. The arrangement of the mud bricks, and their size, clearly demonstrate their link with the building and reinforce a defensive character for the structure. It was very probably the surrounding wall of the citadel, probably designed in the Parthian period and in part reconstructed afterwards, as was the case for the šahrestān rampart. Thus, two principal phases are found: the first concerns the wall which surrounds the citadel, perhaps dating from the Parthian period, and the west fortress; the second comprises this southern part of the west fortress, constructed after the fortress itself, given that this part covers the loopholes of the south side. The East Fortress The structures which appear towards the east of the citadel, still on the south terrace, are also

constructed of stone, often covered with plaster. Some structures present several floors and could easily be distinguished in the ruins without any need to excavate. These floors were probably the product of several phases of successive destructions and reconstructions (Rante 2007, 173). In fact, if one considers the Arabic sources, one knows that the citadel had been destroyed and reconstructed several times since the arrival of the Arab armies. The test trenches dug by Afround are located around these structures, above all on the southern part, which is not sloping (Figs. 81–82). This location presents itself as more heterogeneous than the preceding one to the west, and therefore more difficult to interpret. The first distinct structures, visible from before the excavation, consisted of several open rooms. Analysis has shown that the walls which encircle these rooms are slightly thicker on the exterior, an indication of an increased defence for the building.

99

Excavations At Rayy Stone Baked brick Indefinite dig

D XIX

D XX

D XXI

Floor

E XIX

E XX

E XXI

F XIX

F XX

F XXI

Mud brick

G XIX

Ghadir Afround 2005–2006

Figure 82 Rayy, plans of the eastern fortress © Gh. Afround 2007

Figure 83 Rayy, detail of the thick burned layer on the citadel © R. Rante 2007

100

chapter 5

Further to the east the structures become increasingly damaged and therefore very difficult to interpret. It appears that the external profile of the ensemble of the structures shows at the eastern end some semi-circular towers, still in stone, and covered with plaster.17 The excavation carried 17

The excavation here unfortunately stopped at a very high level.

out with test trenches on a wide scale did not really provide useful stratigraphical information. Nevertheless, the presence of a rather thick burnt layer between the first building described on this eastern part and the semi-circular towers of the eastern end was revealed (Fig. 83). The layer comes through the earth a few centimetres below the current surface. This layer presents the same thickness and consistency as that of T2.

chapter 6

The Ceramics of the Excavation (2006–2007) The results presented in this part brought to light some social and economic features through the study of the ceramic assemblages coming from the excavation. The material conserved in the Islamic National Museum in Tehran, and that conserved in the Penn Museum, will not treated here; only a few examples will be mentioned. The entire museographic material will be studied and highlighted in another publication concerning the materials discovered in Rayy by Erich Schmidt.1

Analysis of the Ceramics

The ceramic is firstly treated by phases, which correspond to the periods (Phases 1–6). These, in turn, have been determined following work on stratigraphical and typological data. Each phase has been further divided by categories dealing with the glazed and unglazed material. These two categories will be indicated with the two first Roman numerals: i for the unglazed ceramics and ii for the glazed ceramics. Concerning the unglazed material, capital letters of the Latin alphabet (A fine; B medium fine; C medium coarse; D coarse; E fritware) indicate the fabrics. Depending on each fabric and the size of the object corresponds a category of objects in relation to its function (a jar; b bowl; c basin; d cooking pot; e large jar; f jug; t lid). To these groups correspond some categories of the principal characteristics of the forms. Study was first of all carried out on the rims, then on the bases and then on the handles and the decorations. The latter are not taken into account during the creation of the 1 The material conserved in the Tehran National Museum has been previously studied by myself but not yet published. That conserved in the Penn Museum is under the care of Renata Holod.

ceramic typologies. As far as the rims are concerned, four different typologies were indicated: those flared outwards: type 1; rounded: type 2; flat: type 3; flared inwards: type 9. The bases have been individuated into four: pedestal: type 5; flat: type 6; disc: type 7; ring: type 8.2 Concerning the glazed material, a more precise study was carried out on the glaze to determine its typology and thus convenient comparisons. Therefore, after having determined the fabric and the form, the type of glaze was determined. The types of individual glazes are six in number: turquoise: type g; white opaque: type h; slip-painted: type i; lustre: type l; Warāmīn type: type m; cobalt blue: type n. Description of the Fabrics Fabric A (fine) presents a uniform texture, very clean on the surface, without vacuoles and sometimes, but not always, with the presence of minuscule inclusions of quartz. The colour varies slightly from red to buff, but above all grey is found. In this category a significant number of ceramics of the ‘clinky-ware’ type are to be noted, and a certain number of sherds of polished red ceramic. Fabric B (medium fine) also presents a uniform texture with a clean surface, but with a more significant presence of temper elements such as quartz and limestone, and often also muscovite mica. Also present are a few very small vacuoles. The colour is above all grey, but it also varies to red and buff. This category is also differentiated from the first by a greater thickness of the sherds. Fabric C (medium coarse) presents a more friable texture to contact. Vacuoles and inclusions 2 The numbers given to each type of rim are not always in chronological order, as some were included when the analysis was already underway.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_���

102

chapter 6

of quartz, muscovite mica and apparently biotite are widely present. However, the surface remains rather clean in comparison with the following one. The colour is rather buff, but also red-pink. The colour grey is also present but less frequently than in the preceding fabrics. Fabric D (coarse) presents a very friable and heterogeneous texture. Vacuoles and inclusions of mica, muscovite and biotite, quartz and organics are widely present. The colour is rather red-pink and buff, with grey being very rare, almost non-existent. Fabric E (siliceous or fritware) is very rare in this excavation, although present. It made an appearance during the analysis of the last phases of occupation of the šahrestān, which correspond to a rather late Islamic period in comparison to our temporal range.

Chronological Study of the Ceramics: Synthesis and Interpretation

The synthesis and interpretation of the excavated elements will focus on the Rayy results and the relations with the other historical sites of the Iranian world. This synthesis provides answers to the questions of typologies during the different occupations of the city, as well as to the ruptures and continuities of some of these typologies. It finally sheds light on the comparison with other sites. Phase 1 mostly corresponds to the Parthian period, even if a part not sufficiently defined due to the poor archaeological data belongs to the Iron Age. Phase 1 corresponds to the fortified city, as it is visible on the topography, according to the results of the archaeological excavations. The contemporary material is only unglazed and this is characterised by the large presence of grey wares and a well frequency of ‘clinky-ware’ types (Fig. 84). It is composed of jars (a), bowls (b), among which bowls with pedestal feet are found, basins (c), cooking pots (d) and large jars (e), or storage containers. In these five fabrics have been identified. A clear majority of fine to medium fine material is perceived (IA and IB). The most represented

material is the red and grey (IA). The shapes are jars (types 1 and 7; Fig. 84/3, 8, 20) and bowls (types 2, 3, 5, 7; Fig. 84/4–7, 13–14). A few basins (type 2; Fig. 84/10–11) have also been recorded. The same shapes were recorded for the medium fine fabrics (IB). A close type (1) of medium-sized jar has been found in Turkmenistan (Bader, Gaibov et al. 2002, Fig. 28/2). One additional shape in the IB category corresponds to large jar. The medium coarse (IC) and coarse (ID) fabrics are mainly employed for large utilitarian objects: jars (types 1 et 6; Fig.  84/21), basins (type 2; Fig.  84/12) and cooking pots (type 3; Fig.  84/15) close to some found in Turkmenistan (Bader, Gaibov et al. 2002, Fig. 27/1–2). Some grey sherds present burnished and/or engraved surfaces. The grey burnished ware can be found during the Iron Age occupation, and a grey pottery also in the Parthian period. The excavations of Tepe Ğalāliya (Adachi 2005, 31) showed close typologies. Some complete objects coming from the Schmidt’s excavation and corresponding to our layers present the same fabrics (IA and IB), but other shapes (Fig.  97/1). Moreover, some monochrome green glazed wares were associated to these layers, showing that the glazed material appeared as early as Parthian period in Rayy (Fig. 97/2). Pertaining to this phase, regarding the Iron Age sequence, close relations between the Rayy material and that of Tureng Tepe, Yaz Tepe i–ii, Tepe Hissar and the archaic Dehistan (Lecomte 1999) are seen; regarding the Parthian period, close relations could be mostly with Šāhr-i Qūmis (Hansman 1968; Hansman and Stronach 1970, 1974; Stronach 1979) and some with Tureng Tepe (Boucharlat and Lecomte 1987) have been observed.3 Very close comparisons with the Parthian material published by Haerinck (1983) have also been noticed. Through this last, close relations can be noted between the material of 3

Also see Debevoise 1934 and Ettinghausen 1938 who, however, do not provide us with many similarities.

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

Figure 84 Rayy, šahrestān, Phase 1

103

104 Rayy and that of the regions of the northern Iran, from the north-west to the north-east, and to a lesser degree to the south-west (Sūsa, for example). According to the analysis conducted by Haerinck, one is led to assert that very few similarities exist with the Mesopotamian material. The similarities with the material of the north-east that of Turkmenistan and Merv, are more numerous (Puschnigg 2006, 201–202, 295–206 and 211). This confirms that the ceramic material of Rayy, during the Parthian period, could be identified as that of the entire northern region of presentday Iran.4 A typical form belonging to this period attracts our attention because of its continuity through the following phases, until the Islamic period, on different sites. This typology ‘with low enclosures’ (Gardin 1987, pl. 83/g-l, j-o) is, for example, presented as cooking pot at Tureng Tepe in the Islamic period. However the same typology is presented as jar in Rayy, types IBa1 and IBa2. The analysis of the fabric shows that it constitutes jars and not cooking pots, at least in the Parthian context in Rayy. The same form was later found in Rayy in the Islamic phases with a changed fabric, which could be closer to that of Tureng Tepe and so identified as cooking pot. In Merv, a type has been observed dated to the Sasanian period which, although with some differences, could correspond to that of Rayy (Puschnigg 2006, 189/R240). Also in Sūsa, among the material of the Islamic period, one could perceive a cooking pot whose typology is similar to that of Rayy (Kervran 1977, Fig. 32/5). Phase 2 is contemporary to the Sasanian period (Figs.  85–86). The ceramic material shows some differences from the preceding one: the fabrics are generally coarser than in the previous phase, but the shapes seems to remain the same. The material is, nevertheless, much more heterogeneous in the fabric preparation and firing. It seems that the ‘clinky-ware’ types disappeared during this phase. Some sherds, nevertheless, are still encountered, 4 Also see the forms of the much more ancient period, Median, in which can be noted a few with slight similarities.

chapter 6

but in lesser quantity. In the later layers of this phase a monochrome green glazed sherd was discovered (Fig. 85/23). A finer material has been documented during the survey performed in the areas to the south of Rayy’s fortified city, namely Tepe Mil, Čāl Ṭarḫān, Niẓāmābād and ʿEšqābād, brought to light a significant occurrence of fine sherds belonging to this period, or Phase 2. This area seems, therefore, to have harboured an elitist establishment during the Sasanian period, confirmed by the presence of the large fire temple of Tepe Mil. Three fabric types are represented in the excavated material (IA, IB, IC). The fine to medium fine (IA and IB) wares are proportionally few and are jars (types 1, 6, 7; Fig. 85/1–4, 8–10, 14–15, 17–18, 20) and bowls (types 1, 2, 5, 7; Fig.  86/1–8). Some adorned sherds present oblique stripes. This kind of decoration has been observed among the excavated sherds as well as in the Tehran Museum material. The same type of ceramics has also been found in Merv (Puschnigg 2006, see below). The medium coarse (ic) ceramics constitutes the major part of this corpus. The fabric colours range from grey to buff. The shapes observed are jars (type 2, Fig. 85/5, 11–13, 16, 19, 21–22), storage jars (type 6; Fig. 85/22), basins (type 3; Fig. 85/7), and cooking pots (type 9; Fig. 85/5). In Rayy some differences with the preceding phase can be clearly identified, above all in the change in fabrics (Boucharlat and Haerinck 1996). In this phase there is an impoverishment of the characteristic Parthian ceramic; furthermore there is a continuity in certain forms which have also been found in the following phases. The ceramic characteristics observed in Rayy could be compared with some other Iranian sites, such as Tureng Tepe, Qasr-i Abū Naṣr,5 Nīšābūr6 and also Merv.7 Among the jars one finds shapes common 5 Whitcomb 1985. 6 Wilkinson 1973 and concerning the recent studies Rante and Collinet 2013. 7 See also Azarnoush 1983 who, however, does not provide us with adjacent examples, and Keall and Keall 1980.

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

Figure 85 Rayy, šahrestān, Phase 2

105

106

chapter 6

Figure 86 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 2

to Merv (Puschnigg 2006, 191, R33), with a type 1 rim and a very short neck (Fig. 97/3). Among the bowls can also be found type 1 rims, as in Merv (Puschnigg 2006,194, R63) and in the same site also type 2, with a wall which ends straight (Puschnigg 2006, 180, R102). Tureng Tepe presents some characteristic shapes, which have also been located in Rayy.8 Among these, the rounded rim is noted, whether slightly flared outward or not, and the oblique wall forming a very globular belly (Lecomte 1987, pl. 53/8; pl. 63/2). There are also examples of these shapes in Nīšābūr.9 The bowls with swollen rims which end straight, or slightly flared inwards, are also present at Tureng Tepe (Lecomte 1987, pl. 55/11) and the whole series of bowls with type 1 rims (Lecomte 1987, pl. 50/11–15). The cooking pot shape (ICd9) present in Rayy (Fig. 85/5) has also been observed in Tureng Tepe, but as a bowl (Lecomte 1987, pl. 51/7). 8 See also Besenval (1987). 9 See Rante and Collinet 2013.

In Rayy this shape is very much less represented and moreover is never associated with bowls, but rather with jars or cooking pots. The ceramics of Qasr-i Abū Naṣr present few analogies with those of Rayy. Among the jars, disc bases, very frequent in Rayy, are apparently absent. There, these are often flat. The rims are also hardly similar to those of Rayy. In Qasr-i Abū Naṣr flat rims are frequent but almost completely absent in Rayy, where they are most often of types 1 and 2. In one single case (Fig.  85/7), a flat rim is found on a basin. As for Tureng Tepe, also in Qasr-i Abū Naṣr, one notes a carinated type of bowl (Whitcomb 1985, Fig. 51/r, s, t, z) also familiar in Rayy but associated with a cooking pot (Fig.  85/5). The other types of bowls conform to the most classical typology found in all the sites already mentioned. The Mesopotamian material, as has been indicated, does not present strong analogies with the Rayy material (Venco Ricciardi 1970–71, 427–428; 1977, 11–14).10 At the site of Tell 10

See also Venco Ricciardi 1967.

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

Figure 87  Rayy, šahrestān Phase 3

107

108

Figure 88 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4

chapter 6

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

Figure 89 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4

109

110

chapter 6

Figure 90 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4

Abū Sarīfa, situated in the south of the centre of present-day ʿIrāq, one finds shapes far from the Rayy typologies. It has however a type of carinated basin (Adams 1970, Fig. 6/az), which could approach the shape of cooking pot ICd9 in figure 85. Some shapes are close to the pre-Islamic period in Rayy and above all in Merv (Adams 1970, Fig. 6/an). Phase 3 corresponds to late Sasanian – early Islamic layers. It is poor in material in comparison to the other phases. The same three types of fabrics (IA, IB, IC) are still produced in Rayy, with the most represented being the medium coarse one. The shapes observed are as previously: jars, bowls, basins, cooking pots. A new type, jugs, appears during this period. Jugs excluded, in this phase a less fine material than the previous phases has been observed. Most of the diagnostic sherds

are jars; bowls are few. The fine to medium-fine fabrics are used for jars (types 2, 7; Fig. 87/1, 3–4, 11–14), bowls (type 1), basins (type 3; Fig. 87/7) and jugs (type 2; Fig. 87/6). The medium coarse fabrics, which colours range from buff to buff-orange, are used for jars (type 2, 7; Fig. 87/2, 7), basins (type 2; Fig. 87/8), cooking pots (type 2; Fig. 87/9) and jugs (types 1, 2), of which the type 1 is of greenish clay (Fig. 87/5). The jug shape (ICf1) has also been found in Tureng Tepe in the phases corresponding to the 7th-8th centuries (Lecomte 1987, pl. 68/5; pl. 69/7). Examples of jars are also found among the material of Tureng Tepe (Lecomte 1987, pl. 69/8). Phase 4 (second half of the 8th-9th centuries) is characterised by an urban change of the šahrestān, where the probable Great Mosque of al-Mahdī was

111

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

built (completed in 158 H/775 ce). A clear increase in the number of sherds shows social modifications in the type of occupation. This part of the city seems henceforth to be opened to a large part of the population, and is no longer reserved for an administrative role. In this phase, the types of fabrics (IA, IB, IC) previously observed are still produced. The most represented one is the unglazed medium fine type (IB). The glazed material, much more numerous than before, is also characterised by the medium fine fabric type (IIB). Fine to medium fine unglazed wares are jars, bowls and jugs. The finest ones (IA) are pink, orange-buff and red in colour. Closed shapes, as jars (types 1, 6–7; Fig. 88/1, 17; Fig. 89/8) and jugs (type 2; Fig. 88/10), seem to be few. These shapes are much more numerous within the medium fine fabrics (IBa), which are orange-buff, buff and red in colour. The jar rims are of four different types (1–3, 9), among which the handle types have been well identified (Fig. 88/3–8, 12–15, 19). The jars present the well-known types of flat and ring bases (types 6–8; Fig. 89/3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 18–20), and the pedestal type has disappeared. The jars can be decorated with combed and engraved designs on the neck and the body (Fig.  88/21). The jug (IBf) rims are of three types (1–2, 9; Fig. 88/9, 11), and the bases recognised are of disc type (7; Fig.  89/1–2). Roped decorations on the shoulder often occur; these have been recorded on sherds brought to light during the recent excavations, and on complete objects coming from the Schmidt’s excavations (Fig.  97/4). The bowls of fine and medium fine fabrics have rims of three types (1–3; Fig.  91/2–10), with flat and disc bases (types 6–7; Fig.  91/17–18). Rim type 3 seems to be associated with the finest fabrics (IAb; Fig.  91/1). The basins found are only of medium fine fabric (IBc) and present closed or opened walls, with sharp or rounded rims (Fig. 90/1–4). Medium coarse fabrics (IC) include jars, cooking pots, basins and bowls. The colours of the fabrics are the same as the finest ones. In these fabrics inclusions of mica (or limestone) and quartz are

identifiable. Large jars with wide opening and jars with neck have been discovered (Fig. 88/2, 16, 18, 20, 22). The jar bases are of the flat, disc and ring types (6–8; Fig.  89/4, 6–7, 10, 12–13, 15–17). The cooking pots have simple oblique or rounded rims (types 1–2; Fig. 91/–15). The large basins identified present a carinated wall (Fig. 90/5–7). The glazed material is of medium fine fabrics (IIB). The only shapes identified are bowls (Fig. 92). The glazes are monochrome turquoise (type g; Fig.  92/2, 4 and Fig.  96/1) and opaque white (type h; Fig. 92/1, 5–6 and Fig. 96/2). Both coexist in the same assemblages. The fabrics of the opaque white wares are pinkish-beige in colour.11 Some complete objects found by Schmidt and belonging to the same phase show that green-painted decorations over opaque white glaze were also present in Rayy during the same period (Fig. 97/5). The jar typologies seem to be different compared with the Tureng Tepe and Sūsa published material, especially considering the numerous jars and jugs with ‘staggered rims’, which are completely absent in Rayy (Gardin 1987, pl. 75–76; Kervran 1977, Fig.  25/3–4). More common in the previously mentioned Iranian sites is the jar type with rounded rim on a straight, slightly flared neck (Fig. 88/IBa1). The latter, moreover, is very frequent in Nīšābūr in Periods ii and iiia (Rante and Collinet 2013, Fig. 83/17, 19). The opaque white wares, their dating, and their provenance had already been subject to discussion.12 On the other hand, in his study of the ceramics, notably those of Sāmarrāʾ, Northedge enhances the ʿIrāqi provenance of this opaque white type while respecting the previously provided dating, namely the first half of the 9th century (Northedge 1997b, 218; Northedge 1997a; Mason 2004, 32, 200–201, 211, plate 3.1, 246). The 11

12

This type of fabric differed from the characteristic Baṣra opaque white production. One of these fragments, the base of a bowl, presents the ‘marks of spurs’ on the interior, which Williamson (1987, 16) presents as the characteristic marks of the opaque white Rayy production. See Kervran 1977, 89.

112

Figure 91  Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4

chapter 6

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

113

Figure 92 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 4

study of the ceramics of Rayy highlights the strong possibility of an Iranian production. The significant quantity of this type of ceramic conserved in the Museum of Tehran and in the Penn Museum would corroborate this suggestion. Phase 5 is characterised by the same type of occupation as in Phase 4. As in this period, the ceramic material is numerous, showing the same social configuration. The fabric colours are mainly buff, buff-orange and red, and fine to medium coarse in quality (IA, IB, IC). The most represented shapes are jars (rim types 1–2, 9; base types 6–8), jugs (type 2) and bowls (types 1–2, 9); cooking wares seem to be less present. Besides, the glazed wares are more diversified, and show the development of polychrome wares. The fine and medium fine unglazed wares are jars, jugs, basins and bowls. The most represented fabrics are medium fine (IB). The finest unglazed wares (Fig.  93/1–3, 14) show a different typology compared to the medium fine ones (Fig. 93/4, 6–10,

12–13, 15–19, 21). A previously unknown type of bowl may appear during that phase (Fig. 93/8–9). Among the objects conserved in the storage of the Islamic Museum of Tehran, there is a very uncommon unglazed jar (Fig.  97/6), of fine red fabric, discovered by Schmidt in a pit and dated by coin to the 10th century, our Phase 5. The medium coarse fabrics (IC) seem less represented. The numerous inclusions visible in the fabric section are mainly metamorphic. It is employed for large storage jars and medium size jars (Fig. 93/5, 20, 22) and handled basins (Fig. 93/11). The diagnostic glazed sherds recorded are few (Fig. 94/1–2, 5). They belong to the finest category of fabric (IIA). As with the undiagnostic sherds, the identifiable shapes are only bowls. Mono­ chrome glazed wares are turquoise (type g) and green. The opaque white wares seem to have totally disappeared. The polychrome glazes brought to light are splash, black on white slip-painted and splash sgraffiato wares (Fig.  96/3–5). These last

114

Figure 93 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 5

chapter 6

115

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

Figure 94 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 5

types are well represented among the Rayy material in the Tehran Museum (Fig.  97/7–8). Some bowls present a carinated profile (Fig. 97/7). Some examples of comparison are also present in Nīšābūr, of the ‘sgraffiato’ style (datable to the 10th century), and with carinated profile. This type of shape seems to be rare in the material of Sāmarrāʾ. The most common profiles and rims are rounded and flared outward (Sarre 1925, taf. xix–xx, xxvi, xxix–xxx). Turquoise glaze inlaid wares (Fig. 96/6) seem to be associated with the slightly later layers. This very peculiar type, which has been previously published for Rayy (Treptow 2007, 27) was also recognised in Nīšābūr (Rante and Collinet 2013, Fig. 107). Phase 6 ceramic seems to be very close to the Phase 5 material: there is a continuity of shapes and fabrics. The presence of two lustre sherds suggests the association of this Phase to the ca. 12th century ce. Some fine unglazed jugs and basins (IA) have been found. The fabrics are red, orange and buff and coated with yellowish slip (Fig.  95/2, 14). The medium fine fabrics (IB) are mostly employed for jars (types 2–3; Fig. 95/1, 3–5, 7), basins (type 3; Fig.  95/8) and bowls (type 2; Fig.  95/12–13). The fabrics are orange-buff in colour and the objects are often covered with a yellowish slip. Fabric C is the most common. It is used for large handled and storage jars (types 2–3; Fig. 95/6, 10–11) and basins

(type 1; Fig.  95/9) with champlevé and fingerprinted ornaments. The glazed material can be divided in two groups: the clayey glazed wares seem to be mostly monochrome green and turquoise jars (Fig. 95/15–16). A lid fragment with turquoise glaze inlays shows the continuity of this type of decoration, even if it should belong to the upper layers of this phase (Fig. 96/7). The contemporary fritwares (E) found are monochrome turquoise (type g; Fig. 95/17) and lustre (Fig. 96/8). Another example of fritware lustreware (Fig.  97/7), conserved at the Islamic Museum of Tehran, testifies to the rich production of this epoch. As in Tureng Tepe (Gardin 1987, pl. 91/a, 93/h, n) in phases viii and ix respectively, jugs and jars with rather long and narrow straight necks (Fig.  95/2–3) have been observed in Rayy. These kinds of shapes, with rounded rims, are very characteristic of this Phase 6 and uncommon in the preceding ones. The level above the destruction layers, corresponding to the Post-Mongol Phase, represents a light reoccupation of the šahrestān. This has been observed through the discovery of some glazed sherds just below the surface layers: some are of the Amol type (Fig. 96/9) and others are later and belong to the ca. 15th century (Fig. 96/10).13 13

See also Reitlinger 1938.

116

Figure 95 Rayy, šahrestān Phase 6

chapter 6

The Ceramics Of The Excavation

Figure 96 Rayy, šahrestān some fragments of Phases 1–6

117

118

Figure 97 Rayy, ceramics coming from the Schmidt excavation conserved in the Tehran Islamic Museum

chapter 6

chapter 7

Urban Development On the basis of the topographical analysis and the pottery study of Rayy, the study of Schmidt’s archives and recent excavations, an attempt is made by the present author to analyse the urban development of the archaeological area of the city since its origins. Where the archaeological data are insufficient, the analysis refers to cartographical or to historical sources. These last pieces of information were completed through the analysis of 19th century maps and more recent ones from the beginning of the 20th century. The archaeological data was derived from studying the ceramics of Rayy coming from the excavations of the 1930s and now conserved in the reserves of the museums of Iran Bāstān in Tehran and the Penn Museum, Philadelphia. This work highlighted certain characteristics not only of the material culture of the town during different periods, but also about the locations and the degree of occupation in the entire archaeological area.

The Urban Framework at the Origins of Rayy

The first occupation attested to by the excavation dates to the end of the Neolithic era. In this large archaeological area the most clearly identifiable mound concerning this occupation was that of Češmeh ʿAlī. This, which today has almost totally disappeared, was the first locus where Schmidt excavated. This location was considered to be of prime importance because of its water source (in a later period revered locally as a shrine) and for its mound. This first excavation produced important results that helped to reconstruct the earliest occupations of the Iranian plateau. The more ancient layers showed a first occupation dated by Schmidt to the Anau I period (Schmidt, 1935, 140). However, the recent studies of Voigt and Dyson

(1992), confirmed by Fazeli (2001), and above all of Matney (Matney et al. forthcoming; see also Matney 1995) now define the ‘horizon pottery of Češmeh ʿAlī’ at about 5500–5200 bce, therefore earlier than Anau I (Hiebert 2003). The major prehistoric wares found at Češmeh ʿAlī during this period are brown-red, painted in black. The decorative motifs varied from geometric (often zigzag) to zoomorphic patterns. These vessels were handmade and the fabric of the sherds range from thin, ‘egg-shell’ pots to thick storage vessels. Among the different sherds of this period there is also a bowl showing an unusual motif of detached ibex heads (Schmidt, 1935, fig. 4). Successive prehistoric occupations ranged in time from 5000 to 3000 bce. The pottery is lighter brown-red, and the decorative patterns often are floral scrolls or palmettes with several branches. Characteristic is a jar with a high foot painted in dark brown and a body covered with geometric and vegetal motifs (Schmidt, 1935, fig.  3), the type corresponding to the early ware found at Tepe Hīssār. The excavation on the citadel provided Schmidt with some interesting results. In 1935 he started a trench of 400 sq. metres on the south terrace of the citadel, the northern part having been already damaged by the cement factory. To the lower layers belonged a grey ware type, indicating an occupation of the Early Iron Age. The layers below these presented a few painted sherds of pottery (Hissar IB) corresponding to the 3rd millennium (too sporadic and not present in our recent excavation to represent an occupation). The citadel mound was, therefore, occupied later than Češmeh ʿAlī and the Iron Age pottery should correspond to the sherds found in the recent šahrestān excavations, confirming a more homogeneous Iron Age occupation throughout the site. The archaeological data show a lacuna between the late-Neolithic occupation and the following

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_���

120

chapter 7

Iron Age one. It has nevertheless been observed that the grey Iron Age pottery had a long life and had been produced for a long time, even if with some changes. This grey ware presents close characteristics with the material of the north-eastern Iran (Ğurğān and Dahistān), and later also with that belonging to the Median (Young 1965; Henrickson 1991) but also Urartian (Kleiss 1976; Kroll 1976) sites. As previously noted, we do not have sufficient data at our disposal to reconstruct an urban setting during the Iron Age. It is however assumed that the city was already composed of the known citadel and šahrestān. As previously mentioned, it is quite probable, though not yet confirmed, that the city perimeter and form of that period correspond to the plan shown in figure 11, that reoccupied during the Parthian epoch. No trace was found of the Seleucid town of Europos, which according to sources was built on the ruins of the first.

Urban Development during the Parthian Period

At Češmeh ʿAlī, the layers above this first Neolithic occupation revealed the presence of an important mud brick structure. This was part of a unique complex, described by Schmidt as a temple (Schmidt, 1935, 56) and dated by coins to the Parthian period, thus showing an occupation lapse of 3000 years. This architectural complex was composed of a central court surrounded by rooms. Some coins dating to Mithradates I (171–138 bce) and to Pacorus ii (78–105 bce) were found inside this building. Outside the complex, on the same level of construction, were found 500 copper coins dating to Mithradates ii (123–88 bce), Orodes I (57–37 bce), Phraates ii (37–2 bce) and Vonones I (8–12 ce). Glazed greenish-blue sherds also occurred. Grey bowls belonging to this area are conserved today in the National Museum of Iran. Some of these bowls, whose vertical loci have been established thanks to Schmidt’s excavation notes,

corresponding to the Parthian building, are light grey, have a very fine fabric, and correspond to some pottery types (Haerinck 1983) found during the recent excavation in the šahrestān and dated to the early Parthian period (Rante 2008, 192–194; see also Hansman and Stronach, Fig. 14). The excavations of the complex in the šahrestān and of the ramparts showed its re-foundation to be of the early Parthian period (Fig. 99). As previously mentioned, the rampart is situated over a rock outcrop about 6 m above the plain. It was constructed in two different manners: 45×45 ×15 cm mud bricks for the external part (about 1.5 m thick at the height of the rock crest), which are the remains of the Iron Age and 38×38×10/12 cm mud bricks for the rest (about 4.5 cm thick at the height of the rock crest). This type of construction can also be identified at the Bactria (Balḫ) site, specifically Bactres IA (Le Berre and Schlumberger, Figs. 12, 15). As indicated in Chapter 5, between the round tower (Tower 3) and the following tower to the west (Tower 4), where the rock crest is practically at the same height as the plain, a portal about 6 m wide at the base has been identified. The grey Parthian ceramic types found in this architectonical context would testify to the Parthian construction of this monumental doorway. At that period the access to the city was thus from the south, through a strong fortified part. This entrance also gave access to a part of the šahrestān which was very close to the second strong fortified defence, that of the citadel (see below), firstly delimiting a small well-defended zone. This defensive schema probably was repeated later, when in fact the gate was displaced to the eastern wall of the šahrestān (see Rante 2007). It is likely that the citadel also represents an important Parthian occupation. The recent excavations at its western part revealed its rampart, which is constructed with mud bricks and covered by the small stone fortress at the western part of the citadel hill, dating to the Islamic era. Afround uncovered some parts of this important rampart, showing that the citadel was also defended by a strong wall, probably constructed during the

Urban Development

121

Figure 98 Rayy, archaeological area, Parthian occupation © R. Rante 2011

Parthian period (2006). A small Parthian bronze coin was also found on the mud brick stairway leading from the small fortress to the top of the hill. Other zones saw Parthian occupation. The most important one is situated on Bībī Zubayda, to the

west of Češmeh ʿAlī. This site is also characterised by a geographical relief from which the Parthians benefited. Today no data provides information on the presence of defensive walls or architectural structures datable to this period, above all due to the modern urbanisation of the western area. The

© R. Rante 2011

Figure 99 Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Parthian occupation

122 chapter 7

Urban Development

only indications derive from the analysis of the ceramics coming from the excavations and, according to Coste’s plan, allow us to suggest an expansion of the Parthian city from the fortified city nucleus towards the west (Fig. 100). This suggestion is linked above all to the finds of the Parthian objects only within this perimeter and not outside. Further proofs are necessary to confirm or nullify this hypothesis, but the terms of a future debate could be already settled: could it be possible that the first nucleus (citadel and šahrestān) belongs to the Iron Age? Is it probable that these were the first settlements of the Median tribes, and that the Parthians reused it and expanded the city towards the west? In terms of pure urban form, it could be noted that the quadrangular schema of the city was not modified.

Urban Development during the Sasanian Period

The urban development of the fortified city of Rayy remains poorly known in the Sasanian period (Fig. 101). The rare sources that mention the town in this pre-Islamic period are only some later Arab sources; at least we know that Rayy had been one of the great religious centres of the Sasanian Empire.1 The paucity of information is not limited to the Sasanian period, but is also the case for the beginning of Islam. As noted in Chapter 2, the only information which we possess is provided by al-Ṭabarī (2655; Rex Smith 1994, 25; see also Chapter 2). According to a few observations made on the citadel during recent years we can ascertain that, despite its much damaged state, it was probably not completely destroyed during the conquest. The vestiges apparent today on the surface 1 The town of Rayy is mentioned on several seals from the Sasanian period: on a driyōšān jādaggōv ud dādvar (religious charge), on a nēvbār (charge of a civil servant of the administration), and on at least ten maguh (religious charges). See also Gignoux 1978.

123 show several levels built with different materials. The building that appears in the western corner of the mound of the citadel presents a succession of levels of construction. The highest part shows a building in stone and mortar, covered by a rather thick layer of plaster on the exterior of the walls. The lower level is built in baked bricks of 23×23 ×5 cm (see Chapter 5). This type of construction carried out in stone and mortar with a covering layer of plaster and with the utilisation of baked bricks is also found in the fire temple of Tepe Mil. This monument belongs to the last Sasanian epoch and must be understood as a main part of the archaeological area of Rayy (see Thompson 1976). After the excavations carried out by Afround in the interior of the building on the citadel, a damaged portion of floor in mud brick appeared in one of the rooms to the south. It seems to be in phase with the wall in stone and mortar belonging to Phase 2, or, most probably, they were both reused during the stone structures. The citadel had probably been destroyed, most likely towards the end of the Sasanian period. The excavation in the šahrestān has provided a useful succession of layers with some samples of Sasanian sherds. The layers above the first occupation phases of the šahrestān, and the layers just below the first Islamic occupation, where the first opaque white sherds were recognized, present a ceramic type with a fabric changing from the previous period. The excavation of the rampart showed that the external façade of the wall was restored during this period. A coin datable to the end of the 5th century (Pēroz or Kawād I?) has been found at the base of a restored part of the rampart. The excavation at the internal façade (Rante 2008, fig.  7) brought to light a large number of jars with oblique line-printed decoration on the body. The same type of decoration, with the same yellow-buff and yellow-greenish fabric, has also been found in Merv and dated to the early and middle Sasanian period (Puschnigg 2006, plates  9, 14). The juglet shape from Merv (MGK5; Puschnigg 2006, plate 11,

124

Figure 100

chapter 7

Rayy, plan of the Parthian occupation © R. Rante 2011

Figure 101

© R. Rante 2011

Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Parthian occupation

Urban Development

125

126 fig. 6.12, fig. A3.15) was also frequent at Rayy and datable to the early and middle Sasanian period. Although Schmidt unequivocally affirms that no Sasanian occupation is identifiable in Češmeh ʿAlī, our survey can suggest an occupation of Češmeh ʿAlī, albeit a short one. Bībī Zubayda does not seem to present any trace of occupation in this period. Ḥussaynābād on the other hand, presents some traces which go back to the Sasanian epoch, although the presence of ceramics datable to that period is low and is difficult to be well identified. Sector rth (also called the gardens of ʿAbū Fath Zadeh in Schmidt’s notes), which is found in the eastern and south-eastern part of the town said to be Salğūq, shows a strong Sasanian occupation. Apparently this site was occupied ex novo by the Sasanians, given the absence of ceramics of the Parthian typology. This site was also analysed from the point of view of transitional ceramics, and finally the type of ceramics for which a pre-Islamic provenance is known but which also endures to the beginning of the Islamic period. Among the zones occupied in this period, Qalʿat Gabr can also be mentioned. The toponymy of this site, ‘Gabr’, seems to be revealing. The presence of architectural elements from the Sasanian period facilitated its recognition. This site stands further to the south than the first occupations, which could suggest a development towards the south of the city (Fig. 102). The confirmation of this assertion comes from Tepe Mil, the site of the great fire temple (Naumann 1964, abb. 1; Choksy 2007, fig. 12). The site not only comprises the temple but also two palaces, identified with certainty as Sasanian. The two palaces were next reoccupied by the Arabs, and then definitively abandoned. The site is marked by an occupation can be rather well secured in comparison to the others. As was often the case, the Arab conquerors reoccupied the areas destined for princely life, but adopted a certain religious tolerance as they left the temple intact. The site of Tepe Mil is found 8 km to the south-west of the fortified town of Rayy. This attests to a significant enlargement of the settlemment under the Sasanians, which must have taken

chapter 7

place around the 5th to 6th centuries according to the study and dating of the stuccoes of the temple (Thompson 1976). According to the analysis of the ceramics found on this site, a continuous occupation may be ascertained until the 9th–10th centuries, and perhaps even a continuation of the Zoroastrian rituals in the temple. The study of the pottery from Tepe Mil in the archaeological stores of the site notes the presence of opaque white and splashed sgraffiato types as well as slip-painted ones. Other sites on the Rayy plain, such as Niẓāmābād ʿEšqābād and Čāl Ṭarḫān, confirm a development towards the south-west in this period, according to the Franco-Iranian recent excavations and surveys as well as Thompson’s research.

Urban Development in the Islamic Period

After the destructions of the city, part of which was caused by Nuʿaym b. Muqarrin on the citadel according to historical sources, no major modification seems to have taken place during the long period of subjugation which lasted from the conquest by ʿUrwa until the mid-8th century. During this period Rayy was above all the seat of rebel populations and religious sects (ʿAlids), who destabilised Umayyad control in the region and did not favour economic growth. Moreover, the frequent changes of governor prevented the city from benefiting from a period of ease and affluence that would have allowed a planned urban development. This nevertheless did not prevent an enlargement of the city outside its ancient nucleus. According to Schmidt’s archives, several coins from the Umayyad period were found in the lower levels and brought to light below the mosque of al-Mahdī. The structures present in these levels of the Umayyad era are in mud brick; they belong to an era preceding that of the Umayyads. As far as the social changes and the ethnic mix in the city is concerned, which influenced urban changes, the presence of the Ṯāqif and Bağīla Arab tribes in 77 H/696-7 ce and the presence of the

Urban Development

Figure 102

127

Rayy, archaeological area, Sasanian occupation © R. Rante 2011

people of Azd, who created the district of Azdān (Schwarz 1969, 751, n. 7; Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamaḏānī 305; Massé 1973, 361), testify to the dynamic development of the city and the extension of the urban space. It is therefore easily possible that Rayy already began its urban extension in the period of ʿAbd al-Malik (end of the 7th century). The district

of Azd, according to the plan of Kerīmān (1345, Fig. 4),2 which shows the town and its districts in the Salğūq era, must be situated in the desert plain at approximately 8 km to the south-east of the 2 Kerīmān’s plan is a considerable work that still remains difficult to read.

128

Figure 103

chapter 7

Rayy, Islamic occupation of the city at the end of 8th–9th centuries © R. Rante 2007

citadel. It can therefore be supposed that ‘the plain of Azd’ mentioned by al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī refers to the whole desert plain which began at the foot of Kuh-e Sorsore and Bibi Šahrbānū and extended towards the south. Figure 103 shows the hypothetical extension of the population at this time, even though most probably no ramparts were built until the arrival of al-Mahdī. During the surveys carried out at Qalʿat Gabr several ceramic

fragments of slip-painted and opaque white types have been observed, thus recording the colonisation of this area already at that early Islamic period. Unfortunately nothing remains today of the big rampart enclosing this site, which later switched into southern gate. To complete the urban framework, it is necessary to mention the occupations at the Sasanian southern sites, such as Čāl Ṭarḫān, ʿEšqābād (ʿIšqābād) and Niẓāmābād

Urban Development

(Fig.  104), although it seems that their occupation  lasted only through the first centuries of the Islam. Ibn Hawqal (371; Wiet 1964, 363) asserts that the buildings of Rayy are constructed of raw earth and sometimes in plaster and stone. The author, who described the town in the 10th century, also asserts

Figure 104

Rayy, archaeological area, Islamic occupation © R. Rante 2011

129 that the ‘fortified city’ (talking about the šahrestān) is almost in ruins. It is evident that the šahrestān in this period must not yet have benefited from repairs. On the other hand, the suburbs had become the social centre of the town, a confirmation of an enlargement of the town outside the ancient surrounds of the walls. Therefore, in this

130 period Rayy already experienced an urban expansion beyond the surrounds of the šahrestān. True urban renewal and expansion came from the second half of the 8th century, under the governorship of al-Mahdī (Figs.  103, 105). As stated in chapter 3, Schwarz (1969, 752, according to al-Ḥamawī) notes the expansion of the town towards the mountains, to the east, at the beginning of the ʿAbbāsid period. Kerīmān (1354 H, fig. 4) also situates the new urban area in the eastern part of the old town. Finally, Adle’s excavations (1990, 301) date the rampart located more to the west, and thus closer to the fortified town, to the end of the 8th–9th centuries; the second from the 10th century and also later. This should confirm the existence of the district called Naṣrābād, constructed under the government of Naṣr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and the construction of the first rampart enclosing this district already in the time of al-Mahdī. Al-Balāḏurī (319; Hitti 1969, 6) relates that after the definitive conquest of Rayy, the governor lived in the ‘Zanbadi Castle’, beside which there was a mosque. Yet, this interpretation could refer to the mosque constructed under the ʿAbbāsids. Moreover, he mentions the reconstruction of Rayy in a general fashion under the government of the son of al-Manṣūr, the very same al-Mahdī. The latter, according to the source, also provided the town with a moat and a mosque. Al-Dimašqī (184, 9 ff.) clarifies that al-Mahdī was already party (to endorse his new position as caliph) to the completion of the mosque. Ibn al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī (Schwarz 1969, 752, n. 8) asserts that the mosque was finished in 158 H and al-Ḥamawī moreover asserts that in 158 H al-Mahdī had completed all the constructions of the town. As far as the citation of al-Balāḏurī (319; Hitti 1969, 6) is concerned, Schwarz (1969, 753) clarifies that the town was provided with a surrounding wall of bricks, after the digging of the moat, as also mentioned by al-Ḥamawī (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 277).3 It was called Muḥammadiyya. He also mentions that ʿAmmār b. Abī al-Ḫaṭīb (the architect) inscribed his name on the wall. Moreover, he 3 He also mentioned the construction of a mosque.

chapter 7

says that al-Mahdī had another surrounding wall constructed around the town, which he calls Muḥammadiyya. To complete the framework of the works carried out by al-Mahdī, Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 277) also reports that the latter, during his stay in the town, had the citadel reconstructed, where he then stayed. The citadel was subsequently transformed into a prison and reconstructed in 278 H/891 ce (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 277). The reconstruction of the town by al-Mahdī was effectively its enlargement, that is to say an enlargement which also comprises a defensive surrounding wall, that excavated by Adle (1990). At the same time, there would have been a careful reconstruction of the ‘inner town’. As far as the new name given to the town by the future caliph is concerned, Muqaddasī (386; Schwarz 1969, 753–54) asserts to never have heard the name Muḥammadiyya used, but only that of Rayy. Al-Ḥamawī, likewise, affirms that he did not remember the name of Muḥammadiyya, and that it was only after having heard of the reconstruction of the town carried out by al-Mahdī that he viewed the two events in relation to one another. Yet the hundreds of coins found on the site which bear the inscription of Muḥammadiyya with the different names of the governors, until the Būyid period, demonstrates the existence of the ‘new town’ as a politico-territorial reality, and this despite the fact that some still bear the mention of ‘Rayy’. That the designation of ‘Rayy’ was still used, maybe only orally, does not however argue against an enlargement of the town. Al-Mahdī carried out urban changes in the town, which must correspond to its enlargement and a reconstruction of the old districts. A final indication is supplied to us by the accounts surrounding the construction of the mosque of al-Mahdī. Al-Ḥamawī (Schwarz 1969, 754–55) relates that at the time of the construction of the mosque, during preparatory excavations, more ancient structures were discovered.4 4 This account also testifies that the mosque of al-Mahdī was not constructed on another mosque, as is often the case.

Figure 105

© R. Rante 2011

Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Islamic occupation, 8th–9th centuries

Urban Development

131

132 Al-Mahdī then asked to whom these structures belonged, so that he could pay an indemnity, as specified by Islamic law. Al-Ḥamawī then explains that al-Mahdī moved all those who would have been expropriated to allow the construction of the mosque in a new district called Mahdiyābād. No source provides information on the location of this district. Kerīmān (1354 H, fig.  4) locates this district to the south of Bībī Šahrbānū, in the lower town (Rey-e Zirin), slightly further to the south of the mountain Naqqāreh Ḫāneh. According to Coste’s plan (fig. 12), the only one that provides more precise information on the medieval development of Rayy, the district of Mahdiyābād must have been situated outside the medieval walls. If one gives credit to the location given by Kerīmān, the district would thus have formed part of the large suburb that surrounded the old town of Rayy. This part of the suburbs, apparently, would never have been surrounded by walls.5 As far as the citadel is concerned, also called the Zaynabi Citadel, Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamaḏānī (269; Massé 1973, 323) asserts that it was restored by al-Mahdī. This dominates the mosque and the emir’s palace. It can be supposed that these last two buildings are found in the šahrestān. The source then mentions the fortress of al-Farruḫān found in al-Surr. According to what we have already seen, the fortress of al-Farruḫān was located on the Zaynabi Citadel, and therefore in the district of al-Surr. As previously mentioned (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 277), the citadel was converted into a prison and then reconstructed by Rāfiʿ b. Harṯama in 278 H/891 ce. Miles (1938,132), in also citing al-Ḥamawī, asserts to the contrary of all that has been related until present that it was the mosque that was converted into a prison, then reconstructed and once again destroyed by the people. 5 Kerīmān includes this district within surrounding walls which we do not take into consideration, given that he bases his plan on that of Ker Porter who, in our opinion, presents territorial inaccuracies.

chapter 7

In the framework of the urbanisation of the town, the question of the destiny of the mosque is an important one. In fact, the town would have undergone a substantial change in its urban organisation. If one follows the interpretation of Barbier de Meynard, the town would have been provided with another stronghold, and thus would have shifted the nucleus of its system of defence. If, on the contrary, one follows the interpretation of Miles, the Mosque of al-Mahdī would in this period already have lost its importance as a principal meeting place that would have had to be relocated elsewhere. This change would doubtless have been caused by the growth of the Muslim population, which the old mosque could no longer contain. Such a chain of events seems close to those which Iṣfahān experienced. In fact, the first mosque in Iṣfahān goes back to the period of al-Manṣūr; it was actually constructed in 155 H/772 ce. The historical sources and archaeological excavations have shown that this mosque was then enlarged and reoriented in 225–226 H/840–841 ce. Nevertheless, in Iṣfahān the mosque was not relocated, but was rather demolished and reconstructed in the same place. In Rayy, on the other hand, the forces of urbanisation precipitated a change in location. The šahrestān had lost its importance as the governmental centre and the mosque, although very big for the period, had become too small for the population, or the šahrestān itself had become a site too inaccessible for the whole of the population. The mention of the transformation of the mosque into a prison however remains doubtful. However, as Gaube notes (2008, 173), ‘prisons, as rule, were not erected at random but were generally located where the ruler and its soldiers resided’. In considering the size of the area of Rayy, one notes moreover that, according to al-Balāḏurī (319; Hitti 1969, 6), before the arrival of al-Mahdī prayers were held in a place of worship in the outer town, a location later included in the town proper. Apparently this place of worship would have been found outside the old town. Schwarz (1969, 755) asserts that in 614 ce, before the arrival of the

133

Urban Development

Arabs, the place of worship (Zoroastrian) was in the outer town.6 The excavations of Tepe Mil and of the buildings around it, even if not all of them, have not shown traces of Islamic worship. During this time, Tepe Mil was still used by the Zoroastrians. It is thus probable that this early Islamic worship was very close and around the fortified city, as in other cities like Nīšābūr (Rante and Collinet 2013), although the modern urbanisation has erased all possibilities of further archaeological research on this matter. Al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī also mentions a road called Sāsān, a place that ‘encloses the sons of notoriously lost women and cuckolds!’ (273; Massé 1973, 327). This road, according to Kerīmān’s plan (1354 H, fig.  4), would have been found to the north-west of the citadel, precisely on the site today occupied by the cement factory. Obviously, all research in this area is also unavailable today. During the last years of his reign the son of al-Mahdī, Hārūn al-Rašīd, stayed twice in Rayy, the town in which he was born, in 189 H/804–5 ce and in 192 H/808 ce. According to al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī (274; Massé 1973, 327–28), Hārūn al-Rašīd mentioned Rayy among the four stations (of the Silk Road) in the world; Damascus, Raqqa, Rayy and Samarqand.7 He also added that Rayy had the most beautiful avenue, that of Sarbān, where a watercourse ran bordered with trees without interruption, and where the town’s markets were held. Kerīmān’s plan shows this district to the east of the citadel in the zone between Bībī Šahrbānū and the šahrestān. Le Strange (1930, 215) asserts that the markets (bazaars) were situated at the town gates and outside them. Among these markets are mentioned those of Sarbānān and Rūḏa. The former (Sarbān or Sarbānān), as explained in Chapter 4, could effectively correspond to the eastern part of the šahrestān.

6 Very probably it refers to that of Tepe Mil. 7 Under the caliphate of Hārūn al-Rašīd, the town apparently did not benefit from great urban developments. The caliph mostly stayed between Baġdād and Raqqa.

Between 251 H/865 ce and 253 H/867 ce, Ibn Karbuya (al-faqīh al-Hamaḏānī 271–273; Massé 1973, 325–327), the companion of al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad al-ʿAlawī, who lived at Rayy, wrote some verses leaving a meticulous description of the town in this period, also mentioning the names of the districts. The author first mentions the great avenue which led towards the plain of Azdān from the place of prayer (the Mosque of al-Mahdī). He then describes the district of Sarbān as a ‘stay’, or ‘settlement’ (murtabaʿan) situated between Harb8 and the squares of ʿAffān.9 He then mentions the avenue of al-Surr, that which was bordered with canals and woods, to the right and left of the Isḥāq Castle, from which one descended in the twists and turns of Fūlāḏ towards the al-Falisān road. The avenue of al-Surr could correspond to a road that was a link with the citadel. Isḥāq Castle is attributed by Schwarz (1969, 759, n. 3) to Isḥāq b. Yaḥyā b. Muʿād, who had the command of Rayy and also possessed a residence, whose location is unknown.10 From this castle one arrives at the al-Falisān road, which is located by Kerīmān, in his plan, in the westernmost part of the old town. To complete the reconstruction of the urban framework, it is useful to refer to Coste’s plan. In the northernmost part two roads descend towards the south, and while one of them turns slightly towards the east, the other leads to the west. Frequently, the great avenues in the towns leave an enduring mark. One can thus think that the road which goes around the citadel (to the right in this plan) is the trace of the great avenue which passed the šahrestān, and that which leads towards the south-west (to the left of the plan) is the souvenir of the road which led to al-Falisān (if one draws a parallel with Kerīmān’s plan).11 8 9 10 11

Schwartz completes the name as Harb-Tore, the gate of Ḥarb (1969, 758). Schwartz calls this district the ‘free space’ or ‘open area’ (1969, 758–59). It cannot be ruled out that this residence was the fortress of the citadel. Also see Le Strange 1930, 214.

134

chapter 7

Schwarz moreover mentions ‘the beautiful viewpoints’ which could be appreciated in Rūḏa from the Bātān gate. This latter, according to Kerīmān’s plan, would have been located at least 2 km to the south-west of the šahrestān. Schwarz (1969, 763) adds that this gate opened towards the Ğibāl. Ibn Hawqal also mentions, among the town’s markets, that of Bāb al-Ğibāl. The district of Nāhik possessed houses that seemed very expensive to Ibn Hawqal.12 Al-Ḥamawī (Le Strange 1930, 215) mentions the Musā River (Nahr Mūsā), which flows from the mountains of Ğilān. Le Strange asserts that this is the same river as that mentioned by al-Ğilānī (see previously). Schwarz (1969, 760) asserts that this name arises from a confusion with the Nahr ʿIsā mentioned by Sherishi. Ibn Rusta (186; Wiet 1955, 194–195), who was writing between 290 H/903 and 300 H/913 ce, mentions a river called ‘Rūḏa, where there are no bridges’. Schwarz (1969, 762, n. 8) clarifies that this is in fact the river ‘Surakani’ (Surini) which crosses the district of Rūḏa. Ibn Rusta is not the only one to attribute this name ‘Rūḏa’ to something other than a district of Rayy. In fact, Ibn al-Ḫurdādbīh (22; 1939, 17) as well as al-Balāḏurī (320; Hitti 1969, 8) mentions Rūḏa as being more a village than a district of the town. Al-Iṣṭaḫrī (207; Schwarz 1969, 763), who very probably wrote his work during the first half of the 10th century, describes the houses of the town which were made of bricks, unfired and fired, and of plaster. He then mentions the numerous gateways, among which are Bāb Bātān (towards the Ğibāl), Bān Balisān (towards Qazwin), Bāb Kuhekin (towards Ṭabaristān), Bāb Hišām (or Bāb Ḫurāsān) and Bāb Sin (towards Qum). Ibn Hawqal, who frequently referred to his master al-Iṣṭaḫrī, also mentions five gates. Moreover, he says that one could see the famous gates from the citadel.

The question that arises is whether these gates were those of the citadel or whether it was the elevated place from which one could see all the gates of the town. Obviously in the latter case the gates, which could have been ‘moved’ from the citadel, would have retained their names. Moreover, this does not prevent the later addition of new gates, as Kerīmān’s plan proposes. Bāb Kuhekin13 is noted in Kerīmān’s plan just beside the citadel and the Sāsān road (to the north), also called Bāb Dulāb. In any case, Kerīmān sees the two names as two different places and situates Bāb Kuhekin right in the east of the plan, almost behind Bībī Šahrbānū. Schwarz (1969, 763, n. 16) is precise in the citation of al-Iṣṭaḫrī. He in fact mentions this gate as the ‘gate of the small mountain’, probably referring to Kuh-e Sorsore in comparison to Bībī Šahrbānū. This gate was apparently important as it probably gave access to the great avenue of as-Surr (see Coste’s plan). Bāb Hišām can be noted in the eastern part of Kerīmān’s plan of the town, just below what is considered to be the situation of Bāb Kuhekin. This gate would have given access to the ‘plain of Azdān’.14 Finally Bāb Sin is to be found in the southernmost part of Kerīmān’s plan. It was in fact the gate that opened in the direction of Qum, and more generally of the Ğibāl (Schwarz 1969, 764). Schwarz (1969, 763) asserts that in the time of al-Iṣṭaḫrī the town of Rayy would have covered a surface of around 1.5 square parsangs but that the town had undergone a slight reduction in its size (1969, 767). He estimates the surface covered by the town in this period at 5/4 square parsangs, which is to say around 6.875 km2. The measurements provided by al-Iṣṭaḫrī on the surface of Rayy more or less correspond to the plan of the town surrounded by its walls as drawn by Coste. It may thus be suggested that Coste sketched the layout

12 The author seems to remember certain buildings which he probably frequented during his youth. Schwarz clarifies that these were houses for young girls, ‘houses of pleasure’. We do not have more information on this district.

13 14

Ibn Hawqal calls this gate Bāb Kuhek (269; Wiet 1973, 378). Without taking into consideration the boundaries of Kerīmān’s plan, these apparently do not correspond to reality.

135

Urban Development

of the town corresponding to the period of al-Iṣṭaḫrī in the 10th century. This would confirm the results of Adle’s excavations (1990), which date the outermost rampart between the 9th and 10th centuries, probably under the Būyids. The town certainly continued to develop in the Salğūq period, during which Rayy, as the capital of the sultanate, would have experienced extensive growth, but the perimeter of the ramparts apparently remained the same with the exception of small repairs or slight extensions. Such as scenario is probable seeing as this great Turkic dynasty rapidly transferred its capital to Iṣfahān.15 As far as the bazaars are concerned, Ibn Hawqal (379; Wiet 1964, 368) provides the complete list, taken up again by Schwarz (1969, 764), of those which he had been able to note during his visit to the town. The author mentions those of Rūḏa, Balisān, Dihek Nau, Naṣrābād, Sarbānān, Bāb al-Ğabal (al-Ğibāl), Bāb Hišām and Bāb Sin. As has already been noted, the bazaars were situated at the gates of the town and outside them. Among the names of the above-mentioned bazaars, a few of the names of the gates can be recognised. Moreover, the bazaar of Rūḏa, which has been discussed previously, was situated just at the gates of the šahrestān itself, given that the author described this part of the town as a ruined area at the time. The market of Balisān, which has also been seen previously, must have been situated – according to Kerīmān’s plan – right to the west of the medieval town. In fact, one again notes that Kerīmān takes Ker Porter’s plan as his planimetric base (Fig. 11). Kerīmān therefore situates this market beside the gate which Ker Porter draws right at the west of his plan. The market of ‘Dihek Nau’, literally ‘new towns’ or perhaps also ‘new districts’, is for the moment difficult to locate. Kerīmān cites it among the districts, but it remains impossible to find on his plan. All the other markets mentioned correspond to the gates of the town.

15

Concerning urbanism and the Salğūq way of life, see Durand-Guedy 2010.

Muqaddasi mentions the existence of new buildings, which apparently would have been found around the 10th century (391; Schwarz 1969, 767). This author in fact mentions a library and ‘the House of the Melon’ (dār al-baṭṭīḫ) (Schwarz 1969, 767), probably indicating the princely house. Schwarz affirms that the library must have been found in the lowest part of Rūḏa, in a lodging house.16 The second building apparently would have been found near the principal mosque. As has been pointed out previously, Rūḏa was dependent on the šahrestān, which was in ruins. The library would have been situated outside the ancient surrounds of the šahrestān and thus in the district which sheltered the bazaar of Rūḏa. The ‘House of the Melon’ must have been found near the principal mosque which, if one refers to that constructed by al-Mahdī, was situated in the šahrestān. Le Strange (1930, 215–16), asserts that Faḫr ad-Dawla detested the citadel and had a superb building constructed in the middle of gardens in the district which was known as Faḫrābād from then on. Kerīmān situates this district just below the šahrestān. The city thus developed all around the most ancient part: the citadel and the šahrestān. This remained a constant if one admits a few exceptions, as for example the Azdān district, which was apparently situated in the desert plain to the south of Rayy. One of the first districts, that of Naṣrābād, was situated just to the east of the šahrestān, nearly on the eastern slope of the Kuh-e Sorsore. Rūḏa and Sārabānān developed, the first to the south of the šahrestān and the second to its east. According to Coste’s plan the town would have experienced an expansion first towards the west and then towards the south. This expansion towards the west is marked by surrounding walls which take up that of the šahrestān and take an east–west direction. In this case, this type of development could designate the district of Balisān (Felisān) among the most ancient districts (if one gives credit to Kerīmān’s location), pre-existing 16

Schwarz (1969, 767) speaks of ‘Heberghause’.

136

chapter 7

the most significant extension of the defensive walls towards the south. If this enlargement towards the east is confirmed, it can be supposed that this took place before the 9th–10th centuries (Adle 1990, 301). Another possible theory would be that the construction of this wall, which extends the town towards the east, would have taken place after the great enlargement. This wall could have been built to define the boundary of a private space or of gardens or the great residence of Faḫr ad-Dawla (10th century). In the current state of urban analysis we retain the first hypothesis as being more reliable, this also in view of the fact that the walls of Češmeh ʿAlī, which form part of the surrounding walls, must have belonged to a period preceding the arrival of the Būyids.17 To finish this analysis of the evolution of Rayy since the last part of the Sasanian period (for which we do not possess any information concerning urban development) until the Salğūq period, part of Schwarz’s work (1969, 776–778) will be examined, which briefly highlights the districts of the town recognized by the author himself, according to the sources previously analysed, and a few other more recent sources. Evidently we will not repeat the previously mentioned data concerning the urban evolution of the town; responses will be sought to the uncertainties and ambiguities. The previously carried out study had not allowed the location of the ʿAffān district, also called by Schwarz ‘freie Flächen’. The latter situates this district beside Sarbānān. Yet the Ḥarb Gate must also have been found beside Sarbānān, although this name was not apparently used after the 9th century. This gate was then called Bāb Hišām, which gave access to the road for Ḫurāsān, as previously mentioned. During the Būyid domination of Rayy (Fig. 106), as has been observed through the excavation in 17

This consideration comes from a survey carried out in 2006 by myself on the wall of Češmeh ʿAlī, which takes into account the size of the bricks of the wall and the type of construction.

the šahrestān, the rampart was restored and several internal buttresses raised to further defend this part of the city. This element corroborates the hypothesis as the šahrestān still was active in the 10th century, at least as the fortified nucleus of the henceforth larger city. A fortress called Ṭabarak by the sources was erected. The location of this fortress still remains uncertain today. The most plausible hypothesis would make Ṭabarak correspond to the fortress of the citadel (Barbier de Meynard 1861, 277, n. 1). Al-Ḥamawī in fact locates this fortress ‘on the summit of a small mountain near the old town of Rayy’ (Schwarz 1969, 778). Le Strange (1930, 216–217) provides some further details: citing Mustawfi, he clarifies that the castle of Ṭabarak is found to the north of the new town of Warāmīn. According to the chronicle of Ṭāhir al-Dīn, the castle had been founded by Manuchehr the Ziyārid at the beginning of the 11th century. Al-Ḥamawī, moreover, asserts that the fortress was destroyed by Ṭuġril ii during the siege that he inflicted on the town. He also adds that Ṭabarak was situated to the left of the road and to the right of the hill of Rayy (citadel). If one takes Coste’s plan into consideration, and also that of Ker Porter, one could attempt to locate this small relief, which is found to the south-east of the citadel, on the southern slope of Bībī Šahrbānū. This part of the Rayy area has today disappeared. The Salğūq period seems to be divided in two parts. During the first one, Rayy attained the apex of its political status due to Ṭuġril Bek’s headquarters. The second part witnesses the political decline of the city, which, however, seems to not correspond to the economical one. The archaeological discoveries do not change what was understood previously concerning the urban arrangements and the material culture. The šahrestān gradually lost its politico-administrative importance. Neither structural and architectural changes, nor restoration of previous structures have been observed in this period (Fig.  107). As noted in chapter 2, the decline of the pottery frequency probably indicates a depopulation of the city, and the process of Rayy losing its political role

Figure 106

© R. Rante 2011

Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Islamic occupation, 10th-1st half of the 11th centuries

Urban Development

137

Figure 107

© R. Rante 2011

Rayy, cross-section of the fortified city, Islamic occupation, 2nd half of the 11th-1221

138 chapter 7

139

Urban Development

in the Iranian Ğibāl to the advantage of Iṣfahān and later the Ḫurāsān.

A Glimpse of the Urban Development of Some Major Iranian Cities 18

It is difficult to provide adequate comparative elements between the Iron Age foundation of Rayy and other settlements of the same period because of the paucity of our data. Yet, with the foundation of a fortified nucleus at Rayy having been attested to in the Iron Age (at least in the excavated parts), it is frustrating not to deal with an example in depth. In the Zagros mountain range the site of Baba Jan excavated in 1966–1969 presents two linked parts, called ‘east mound’ and ‘central mound’ (Goff 1969, Fig.  1). These two parts are occupied together, and thus linked, during the 9th–8th centuries bce (Baba Jan iii). Without starting an extensive discussion, it can be noted that at that period the site was fortified, at least on the ‘east mound’, and some excavated rich habitats in the ‘central mound’. Since the discoveries in the latter, it could be suggested that it was also fortified, thus reaching the original urban constitution of Rayy. The pottery found in Rayy in this period is nevertheless different from that found in Baba Jan iii, showing different cultural traditions. Probably the better examples come to us from the north-east, the Ğurğān plain and Dahistān. Even if of larger size, Madau Tepe or ʿIzzat Kuli Tangsikyldzha among others are constituted of a fortified citadel, testifying to a political centre accompanied by a further tepe, also fortified, where there were established ‘manors’ of considerable size (Lecomte 1999, 140). Though of a later period (end of the 4th century ce), Nīšābūr presents a better known and thus suitable example to compare with Rayy (Rante 18

For a deeper study of urban topography in the early Islamic period, see the article published in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Archaeology, Rante 2015, forthcoming.

and Collinet 2013). Both medium size cities present a fortified nucleus consisting of a citadel and a šahrestān (see also Rante 2013, forthcoming). Later, they developed suburbs around the fortified nucleus, which in Nīšābūr is situated on the eastern edge and in Rayy on the north-eastern one. Nevertheless, while strong ramparts protected Rayy during its demographical and urban expansion at least from the second half of the 8th century and within the eastern zone, Nīšābūr extended its surface settlement without any defensive protection after the establishment of a Tahirid protected military quarter to the west in the 9th century. Moreover, while the citadel of Rayy kept the same royal and defensive functions, that of Nīšābūr was largely occupied by ʿulamāʾ,19 inevitably changing the urban organisation. Its defensive function seems to continue: the Franco-Iranian excavations brought to light the abandonment of the original rampart of the Qohandez and the construction of a second rampart at the beginning of Period IIIa (Rante and Collinet 2013, Fig. 12). It seems, therefore, that the citadel of Nīšābūr slightly modified its type of occupation, or at least its political centre. The following centuries show the definite abandonment of the citadel of Nīšābūr as a defensive, political and administrative place, showing even more habitat areas situated above the previous defensive areas. The šahrestān seems then to have been occupied by industrial-crafts areas (see Collinet 2013, forthcoming). In the same period Rayy, to the contrary, not only retained its political centre at the ancient location but also kept its original ramparts, as Phase 4 showed, and surrounded the ancient nucleus with additional strong ramparts, certainly testifying to the major defence requirements of the city. This is also a demonstration of the different political situation in these two regions: the Iranian Ğibāl – closer and more exposed to the Caliphate politics – and Ḫurāsān, a semiautonomous emirate demonstrating its economical independence and political stability. 19

Concerning this theme, see Bulliet 1972.

140

chapter 7

Although Merv’s foundation and history are more ancient than those of Nīšābūr (Hermann, Masson and Kurbansakhatov 1993), during the Islamic periods it presents a closer urban evolution to it than to Rayy. Because of political but also geomorphological reasons (Wordsworth 2013, forthcoming), in the 8th century its urban agglomeration extended towards the west.20 The new urban foundation, Marv al-Šāhiğān (today Sultan Kala), was enclosed with a rampart during the 11th century, and another city centre developed consisting of a central part, which later was surrounded by a very large zone of suburbs, rabad (Williams 2007, 42–62). Merv thus represents the better known example in Ḫurāsān of a relatively rapid depopulation of the ancient nucleus in favour of a new political and economic urban centre. Here also, as in Nīšābūr and in contrast with Rayy, the ancient political nucleus gradually fell into disuse while the very large lower city (Gyaur Kala) was occupied by various inhabitants or used for industrial purposes. Herāt dates back to ancient times, and thanks to the recent German-Afghan excavations (Franke 2013) its foundation is to be located in the first part of the 1st millennium bce. The date of its square city plan is still unknown, although some hypotheses would propose a Sasanian foundation (Grenet 1996, 379–381). Nevertheless it is undeniable, as shown by Franke (2013), that the city developed during the early Islamic period, keeping the ancient location but also expanding its limits outside it. During the Islamic periods the city continued the development of the ancient town, and also of the suburbs that extended mostly towards the north, with gardens, canals and pastures, and rapidly assumed the aspect of an inhabited suburb, not enclosed by a rampart. Comparisons with Rayy are, as previously stressed, hard to carry out. The dynamic of urban development in Rayy also began from an ancient nucleus, but because it was 20

One is reminded here that the historical sources noted Abū Muslim’s choice to locate a ‘dār al-Islam’ outside the old city (Erk Kala and Guyar Kala).

much smaller than that of Herāt, other areas had to be colonised towards south and west. Since the recent archaeological excavations directed by Roland Besenval under the aegis of dafa, Balḫ (Bactra) has been dated to the Achaemenid period (Besenval and Marquis 2007, 980). The most recent archaeological traces, before the modern and contemporary epoch, are Tīmūrid. The more ancient part of Balḫ is considered to be Bala Hīssār, a large tepe of circular form towards the north, on which the Ark is localised south/south-east. Probably at the same time (or perhaps slightly later during the Hellenistic period) the lower town developed (Le Berre and Schlumberger 1964, 88, fig.  10/IA). From the 2nd century bce, with the incursion of northern populations, the city seems to expand towards the east, as was shown by the excavation in Tepe Zargaran, which was however already occupied from the Hellenistic period (Gardin 1957, 93–94; Le Berre and Schlumberger 1964, Fig.  10/II; Besenval and Marquis 2007, 978–980). The city plan datable at this period and slightly later as shown by Le Berre and Schlumberger (1964, Fig.  10/II) seems to be inhabited until the 12th century (Gardin 1957, 94–97).21 During the Tīmūrid period and after, according to the archaeological data, the occupation has relocated inside the Bala Hīssār and the city expanded towards the west. Also in this example, which seems to be very close to Herāt, the original urban space considerably exceeds that of Rayy, thereby reducing any possible comparisons on urban order. Moreover, the occupation sequence of the more ancient part of Bactra has been not detailed, thus rendering any further evaluations moot. On the Central Plateau, Hamaḏān was the capital of the Median Empire (7th–6th centuries bce).22 Though still poorly known, it has been shown that the major topographical features of 21 Could we imagine that the important orientation changes of the city are linked to the hydrological situation? (See Fouache et al. 2012). Cfr. also Leriche 1986. 22 See Dandamayev and Medvedskaya 2006.

141

Urban Development

the city are the three hills: Tell Hagmatana, the Median citadel also reoccupied by the Parthians and the Sasanians; Mosallā, on which stone and brick vestiges of a rectangular citadel have been discovered and dated to the Parthian period; and Sang-e Shīr. Herodotus (i, 98) described the ‘royal complex’ (most probably corresponding to the citadel) built on a hill and encircled by seven rings of ramparts.23 In the Parthian period the city seems to have been located on the Mosallā hill. It would have consisted of a rectangular urban entity, probably with a citadel (or maybe the citadel remained that of Tell Hagmatana) and would not have been considered as a citadel itself. Tell Hagmatana was still inhabited at that period. The next centuries have been much less studied, and the urban aspects have been rarely identified. Only Arabic sources gave some descriptions of the city. Ibn Hawqal (Le Strange 1930, 194) described Hamaḏān as ‘a large fine city, over a league square’, most probably referring to the Parthian city plan developed under the Islamic power over the Mosallā hill. It had four gates and extensive suburbs, probably towards the west. According to its modern contemporary urban features, the city seems to have been expanded towards the west in a circular urban plan. Iṣfahān was mentioned during the Sasanian period under the name Aspahān (Marquart 1901, 27–30). Two major urban centres have been mentioned: Ğayy and Yahūdiyya (Golombek 1974; see also Gaube 2008, 163–165). No archaeological traces are today known of these ancient urban occupations, except the unpublished structures found during the excavations in the Friday Mosque of Iṣfahān (Galdieri 1972; Scerrato 2001). However, it is with the Islamic epoch that the city assumed a unique and homogenous urban structure. For the first years after the Arab conquest, until the second half of the 8th century, the two urban centres seem to have been still separated. By the end of the 8th century, corresponding to the construction of

the Friday Mosque in Yahūdiyya, the several villages between the former centre and Ğayy were incorporated into a unique urban agglomeration, Iṣfahān. From its foundation, the city remained without a rampart for several years. It seems to have been around the 10th century (but probably even earlier) that the city was enclosed by a strong rampart (Golombek 1974). Could these different urbanisation dynamics dating from the beginning of the Islamic epoch could be considered as arbitrary choices? Could these different developments be identified as autochthonous? In all these examples the dynamic of the urban expansion emerges out of differing impulses, be they political, strategic or religious, and without forgetting the demographic increase, which has been one of the major agents. This last process can be linked to several factors: the increase of the Arab communities; the abandonment of the rural spaces for religious reasons (Bulliet 1994, 67–70); and probably also improved agricultural techniques (Watson 1983, 132–136). These all would correspond to a period which would begin from the end of the 7th century, and not to the 9th century as previously assumed (Bulliet 1994, 77), and which would reach its zenith during the following two centuries. From its origins Rayy was provided with an urban structure which remained intact until the Islamic period: a citadel on the north-eastern edge and a quadrangular šahrestān expanding towards the west. If the Parthian urban development could be confirmed,24 it should prove to be the first urban modification of the ancient nucleus towards the west, thus constituting a similar ‘re-foundation’ of the city, which could have been called at that time Arsakia. Apart from some structural-defensive restorations observed in the šahrestān rampart, it is key to stress that during the Sasanian period at least a part of the aristocracy and the religious classes lived outside the ancient nucleus, some 8 km

23

24

See the Neo-Assyrian representation of a Median city, Gunter (1982, 103–112, pls. II–IVa).

Unfortunately, the whole area corresponding to this western expansion has been totally urbanised.

142

chapter 7

towards the south-west. From the end of the Sasanian period, but especially from the early Islamic one, we see a gradual migration from these southern rural areas to the urban centres.25 This urban demographic increase by the end of the 7th century was amplified by the integration of Arab communities, and probably dictated at the end of the 8th century the construction of the large congregational mosque inside the šahrestān.26 From the 9th century the most important Iranian cities developed in different and varied ways. A group of these developed a new and separate fortified nucleus, as in the case of Merv, and the others grew from their ancient urban fabric, as in the case of Rayy, but also Herāt. Until now, especially because of the absence of sufficient archaeological data, the relationships between the urban order of Rayy and Central 25

26

Kennedy (2008, 107–108) suggests a common migration dynamic from the rural lands to the urban ones between the Sasanian and Islamic periods. The same dynamics concerning Ḫurāsān have been treated by Daniel (1979).

Plateau cities or eastern Iranian ones cannot be well studied. It is, however, undeniable that Rayy kept its original urban layout and function for a long time, as demonstrated by the vestiges of the Iron Age rampart, in contrast to some other cities like Nīšābūr or Merv. It would seem that Rayy, like Hamaḏān, developed from this ancient medium-size nucleus (comparable in size with Merv, Bactra and Herāt), thus increasing the temptation to group the western and northern Iranian cities into an urban common category. It is absolutely impossible to confirm it now, and other analyses and further excavations are necessary to complete this incomplete picture. It could be observed nevertheless that the ‘imperial foundations’, as Grenet (1996, 383) rightly calls Herāt and Bactra but also Merv, are characterised by an urban development emerging from the ancient nucleus, like Herāt and Bactra. The morphology of the territory probably helped this easy extension of the cities. That would have been impossible for example at Rayy. It is clear that the two Iranian regions, western and eastern, characterised by different geographical conditions, would have could created differing urban concepts.

Conclusion This study has provided new information concerning Rayy’s history through the analyses of its urban layout and its material culture. The newly acquired and analysed archaeological data, therefore, have brought to light precise cultural elements, previously unknown, of the different occupations of the city. From these, future researches are suitable around the Rayy area to better understand the regional cultural panorama. The detailed historical account is the result of the synthesis of all data acquired for this study. Archaeological and historical data have been combined with archival materials to fill the numerous lacunae concerning the historical sequence, therefore providing an integral account of Rayy. This book proposes a historical update of the preIslamic and Islamic periods, beginning from the foundation of the fortified city (today called Dej-e Raškān) until the Mongol invasion. The first Western accounts of Rayy were produced by British travellers such as Sir James Morier (231, 403) and Sir William Ouseley (174–199), who visited Rayy between the 1810s and 1830s. These descriptions of the city were not informed by an archaeological approach, but rather bore a nostalgic accent, recalling its glorious past. It was only in the first half of the 19th century that Rayy became the object of a more comprehensive study. Robert Ker Porter (1777–1842) drew the first plan of old Rayy, which although inaccurate has been the only plan used in all other publications until the present day. As mentioned, its orientation is incorrect and the major water source, that of Češmeh ʿAlī, is misidentified. Some years later, in 1840, the French architect Pascal Coste drew a more precise plan of the old city. In addition, he drew some views of the site from the Bībī Šarbānū Mountain, a few metres to the south-east. All the water sources are noted, and the orientation respects the actual placement of the city; he identified the different parts of the city and showed the three different ramparts relating to the different periods of the city.

Over a period of several years in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the site was excavated unscientifically by explorers, antiquarians and local dealers, above all to search for precious objects; a large proportion of the finds made their way to the antiquities market. At present, several museums conserve some specimens from Rayy belonging to this antiquarian surge.1 George Nathaniel Curzon, after his journey into Persia (published in 1892) at the end of the 19th century, wrote: ‘I am not aware that any scientific or systematic excavation has ever taken place in the mounds of Rhey, and it is one of the tasks which I should consequently recommend to the labours of archaeologists’ (Curzon, ii, 1892, 350). Curzon was in Rayy in the last decade of the 19th century (Sept. 1889–Jan. 1890), and his uncertainty about scientific excavation at Rayy probably suggests that previously there had not been any archaeological excavations in the city. Some years later, A.V.W. Jackson (1862–1937), one of the first to comment on the precarious state of the site at that time, wrote that ‘treasure-hunters dig for coins and pottery amid its desert tumuli, and brick-hunters demolish its walls for building-materials to be used in Tehran’ (Jackson 1906, 428). Unfortunately this atrocious looting has never ceased, even to this day. One of the first to mention the ‘methodical excavation’ at Rayy was the erudite antiquarian Charles Vignier (1914, 212). Nonetheless, his excavation was also aimed at finding objects to send to the European market. While we do not precisely know Vignier’s excavation sites, we do know that he concentrated his research not only on the city of Rayy but also over a larger area including the mountains towards the north. At that time, the 1 In the Louvre Museum there is a group of pottery coming from Rayy, some of which belonged to the Charles Kiefer collection and a dish belonging to the Vignier excavation at Rayy in 1921 (oa 7474).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.����/�������������_���

144 small town of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm (Šāhr-e Rayy) was not densely inhabited, and the metropolis of Tehran was still a small city at the foot of the Elborz Mountains. The first serious archaeological research at Rayy was undertaken by Erich F. Schmidt (1897–1964), who directed the excavation under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the Philadelaphia Museum of Art and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts between 1934 and 1936. One of Schmidt’s main goals was to study the cultural cross-section of the ancient periods on the Iranian plateau. Rayy was chosen because of its ‘key geographical position at the crossing of ancient routes from north to south and east to west, and its importance from Median times to the final destruction by Tamerlane’ (Treptow 2007, 14, from the Schmidt archives kept at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago). Although Schmidt was less interested in the later periods, such as the Islamic era, he did dedicate some time to investigating them. A part of the fortified city and Češmeh ʿAlī present clear late-Neolithic occupations (6th–5th centuries bce). This first occupation was followed by that dated to the Iron Age i and ii, with some indices of Iron Age iii. In the 1930s, Schmidt also recognised some Iron Age sherds at the bottom of the test-pit on the southern terrace of the citadel. The sherds’ description related by Schmidt seems to correspond to that of the most recent excavation. It is therefore irrefutable that at the beginning of Iron Age (1400 ca.), at least the area in which today the fortified city rises, Rayy was occupied. This earliest settlement lies directly on virgin soil. Future archaeological researches on the site should be focused on a clearer and better identification of this period of foundation. Today it is possible to say that, at the present state of research, the grey and grey-black burnished ware of Rayy would be earlier than that of Tureng Tepe, which according to Deshayes (1976, 170) should appear at the late Iron Age ii–iii. Tentatively, my hypothesis would be that the fortified city of Rayy, constituted of a citadel and a šahrestān, was born during the

conclusion

early Iron Age, acquiring later authority especially thanks to its geographical position during the Median epoch. After a lesser known Achaemenid period, if indeed it can be located there, it is still difficult to identify the state of the city at the arrival of the Parthians. The current fortified city corresponds to the city in the Parthian period, probably already in the era of Mithradates i (171–138 bce), as is indicated by the coins discovered by the American mission in the 1930s. In this period the Parthian occupation extended over the fortified city, Češmeh ʿAlī and the tepe further to the west, Ḥussaynābād and Bībī Zubayda. The rampart of Rayy sketched by Pascal Coste in 1840–41 defines the whole layout to the west in a very homogenous manner. It seems almost to separate itself from the rest of the rampart, which later in the medieval period developed towards the south. Today it is impossible to conduct research in this part of the site as the modern town of Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm prevents it. Through the study of the Parthian pottery provenances, it is nevertheless possible to suggest that in that period the city extended to the west, occupying an area of about 102 hectares, and was surrounded by strong ramparts, thus conclusively establishing the importance of the city at that time. In the Sasanian period few structural interventions have been identified within the fortified city. Apart from the repairs on the šahrestān rampart and its towers, and on the citadel, the major activities and sites for this period have been found at about 8 km to the south/south-west of the fortified city, at Tepe Mil, Čāl Ṭarḫān, ʿEšqābād (ʿIšqābād) and Niẓāmābād. The Islamic periods at Rayy represent the most significant and extensive occupation on the site. It is only in this period that the complete plan of the city can be reconstituted. At Češmeh ʿAlī, before hitting upon the Parthian and late-Neolithic layers, Schmidt excavated a deep (2 metres) Islamic level. In an article published in 1936 he wrote, ‘At Češmeh ʿAlī we became impatient of the deposits of the Islamic Era which only disturbed and retarded the excavation’ (1936, 135). The ‘very few

Conclusion

objects’ found in these Islamic layers were great numbers of burials, small mausoleums, a few graves (containing badly preserved skeletons) and a tombstone in alabaster with Kufic religious inscriptions. The Islamic layers corresponded to ‘Middle Islamic’ (Būyid/Selğūq) and also to ‘Early Islamic’ (Umayyad/ʿAbbāsid) occupations (Keall 1979, 541). Furthermore, 107 dinar coins (dated 509–556 H/1116–61 ce), part of the very exhaustive numismatic study of Miles (1938), and numerous ‘grenades’ (sphero-conical vessels)2 were found at this site. Excavations in the fortified city indicate an occupation during the early Islamic era, utilizing the previous structures. During the first years of Muslim rule, Rayy was a main military outpost for the conquest and the control of the eastern provinces of the Islamic empire. Accordingly, this major politico-military site was occupied by a governor and his army contingent. It was during the following years (8th–9th centuries ce, Phase 4) that Rayy was partially reconstructed. Accordingly, at the end of the 7th century, different Arab communities were transferred to Rayy as well as to other important Iranian cities, as for example Hamaḏān (Frey 1986, 105). During the following decades Rayy expanded. The reconstruction of the citadel was carried out with stones and mortar, and not with mud brick as had been the case previously; some vestiges are still visible today. This construction method corresponds to the foundations of the probable mosque found in the šahrestān. Could this change of construction materials confirm a change of (building) culture connected with the arrival of new communities in the city and therefore with different expertise? According to the historical and archaeological elements, from the end of the 7th century and above all during the 8th century, Rayy was one of the most important city in the Iranian world, and therefore one of the urban centres which attracted different sorts of population. This demographic 2 Concerning this kind of vessels and in particularly that found in Rayy, see the article of Ettinghausen 1965.

145 increase caused the occupation of other rural areas around the urban nucleus, and therefore the construction of ramparts to protect them. In this socio-urban dynamic, all people were called on to contribute with their own cultural expertise, giving a heterogeneous aspect testifying to the multi-cultural aspect of the city. The šahrestān, or ‘government quarter’, was excavated for the first time by Schmidt in 1934. He concentrated on two mounds (Keall 1979, fig.  3 A/B), covering architectural structures, situated between the southern foot of the citadel and the southern rampart of the šahrestān. The excavation of the eastern mound brought to light a series of square stone pier foundations, whose orientation towards Mecca suggested that they were the foundation for a mosque, although Schmidt did not discover a miḥrāb in this building. Keall states that, as in Sirāf, it could also have been a ‘warehouse’ (Keall 1979, 541), and the complex was never completely unearthed to establish its plan. Today, the site where the possible mihrāb could have been located is covered by a glycerine factory. The qibla orientation of the remaining elements of the building, however, and its location within the šahrestān, strongly suggest an important function. This building, possibly a mosque, has been dated to the early ʿAbbāsid period, according some early ʿAbbāsid coins found on the floor of the building, some dating to 158  H/775 ce. Below the floor, Schmidt discovered some Umayyad coins. The western mound in the šahrestān, north of the glycerine factory, was identified as a madrasa (traditional school) because of the discovery of eywan opening off from a central court and small chambers flanking them. This madrasa was dated to the Salğūq period. Another madrasa, also dated to the Salğūq period, was later found by the Archaeological Services of Iran (Godard 1951, figs. 3, 6–7). The most recent excavation in the šahrestān has provided additional information on the Islamic occupation. At about 1.5 m from the surface, two stone pier foundations were discovered, excavated from the probable Sasanian and Umayyad layers. These were oriented, as in Schmidt’s excavation,

146 towards north-east/south-west. It is probable that the type of opaque white glazed ceramic found at the base of the western pier was produced at Rayy and belongs to the early ʿAbbāsid period, and that the two newly exposed piers were part of this building. Supporting this early ʿAbbāsid dating of the building are the the coins found inside, as well the references in historical sources that describe the construction by al-Mahdī, the son of caliph al-Manṣūr, of a mosque in the šahrestān (completed in 158/775) at the foot of the citadel hill. During this early ʿAbbāsid period, Rayy underwent considerable restoration and expansion resulting in the creation of a new town called Muḥammadiyya. Belonging to this epoch is one of the multiple restorations of the šahrestān rampart and the construction of a new line of mud brick ramparts. All these can be taken as signs of the urban expansion. The previous periods had seen the expansion of the city over an area consisting of the old fortified city of Rayy (the citadel and šahrestān) and the sites of Bībī Zubayda, Ḥussaynābād Češmeh ʿAlī, Čāl Ṭarḫān, Tepe Mil, ʿEšqābād, Niẓāmābād and later Warāmīn. In later Islamic periods, the urban character becomes visible through the raising of the mud brick rampart that enclosed the entire settlement of the Islamic medieval city (Rante 2007, fig. 7). The old fortified city was thus incorporated, along with Bībī Zubayda, Ḥussaynābād and Češmeh ʿAlī, as a district of the larger city settlement of Muḥammadiyya. Earlier settlements of the Islamic periods are known from historical sources, but have not been identified archeologically. At about the end of the 7th century, the historical sources already report the settlement of Arab groups (from the Ṯāqif and Bağīla tribes), constituting a new district to the south of the fortified city. The new district was called Azdān, whose name according to Schwarz comes from ‘the people of Azd’ (Schwarz 1969, 751, n. 7). Two new quarters were successively constructed: Naṣrābād, named after the governor Naṣr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Mahdiyābād, which according to Ḥamawī was the district constructed for the people of the šahrestān, expropriated to permit

conclusion

the construction of the mosque (Schwarz 1969, 754–755). There are, instead, some archaeological traces testifying to this expansion of the city towards the east, at a site that can be identified as the Naṣrābād district. It is probable that the first of the two last ramparts belongs to the al-Mahdī expansion of the city (second half of the 8th century), if one takes into account investigations of the šahrestān rampart and its comparison to the medieval ramparts (see Adle 1979, 1999, for investigations during the 1970s). In fact, the construction technique and the type of mud brick (33 × 33 × 8 cm and 27 × 27 × 7/8 cm) used are identical in both sites. The pottery can be dated to the end of the 8th and 9th centuries. A clear increase in ceramics brought to light in the recent excavation in the šahrestān shows social modifications in the occupation type. As has been previously discussed, the typology reflects a change from a standard production to a richer production, which may signify social change. Thanks to the construction of the probable mosque, this part of the city seems henceforth to have been opened to a large part of the population and no longer reserved to an administrative role. Phases 5 and 6 do not show real changes in the social condition in this part of the city, even if it is undeniable that at that epoch Rayy was the political and economic centre of the Iranian world. These periods are characterized by continuity in the ceramic production, with the introduction of some luxury ceramic types, such as lustreware as well as the minai. This phenomenon and the urban dynamics previously mentioned in this specific part of the city give the impression that the šahrestān and the citadel, even if still the political centre of the city, slowly lost their urban importance and therefore the richest part of the population. The ceramics brought to light in these layers show a continuity of fabrics and functions, but lessen in quantity, probably announcing a gradual abandonment of the šahrestān and the citadel. On the contrary, around the central nucleus of the city in the suburban zones, Schmidt found a much more significant quantity of ceramics.

147

Conclusion

The numismatic study of Miles supports this social-economical datum: ‘Unfortunately, as the Empire began to decline, the art and quality of the coinage declined with it, and in the later Salğūq days there is almost nothing on which to base the numismatic history of the city’ (Miles 1938, 196). The recent studies and archaeological discoveries, above all in Nīšābūr (Rante and Collinet 2013), show that the Salğūq state did not decline in a homogeneous way on all regions and cities, or even within any one urban agglomeration. Rayy lost its political role in the Iranian Ğibāl after Ṭuġril Bek (379–455 H/990-1063 ce), to the advantage of Iṣfahān and later Ḫurāsān, but still seems to have held economic sway. The geopolitical location of Rayy ensured its revival after the Mongol destruction. Life returned to the smaller centre to the south called Veramin, and by the end of the fourteenth century to Rayy itself. In his 400 sq. m. test trench on the eastern part of the southern terrace on the hill, Schmidt found some Tīmūrid materials in layers datable to 1432–33 by a coin of Šāhruḫ. Even if with difficulty due to the proximity of the surface, some 15th century ceramic fragments were also uncovered during the recent excavation in the šahrestān, confirming this late occupation over the entire fortified city. In its urban development, Rayy shows a continuity of demography increase and therefore a surface expansion from the Parthian epoch until its gradual depopulation after the Mongol invasion. The original fortified urban nucleus, namely the citadel and the šahrestān, was occupied or refounded contemporaneously as two urban unities.3 Both were enclosed with a thick mud brick rampart of the same type and with the same mud

brick modules. The following centuries show the expansion of the urban agglomeration mostly to the south and the east at first, and then to the west and south-west, occupying all the area called Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm today. The urban evolution of Rayy, especially during the better known the Islamic periods, seems to be linked to the regional traditions. The comparisons between Rayy’s urban development and that of the other main Iranian cities show that at the origins of the settlements there was an autochthonous dynamic of urban development.4 These would depend on the individual geographical and historical situation, and in any case the archaeological elements are still inadequate to go any further. It has been observed that during the Parthian period, or maybe even earlier, and for at least a limited group of cities, we witness a sort of ‘regulation’ of the urban space, constituting fortified cities of small to medium size with a citadel of different forms, and a lower town almost always of quadrangular form. The following epochs and dynasties maintained this earlier layout, and developed it through several features dictated by local exigencies. It is during the Islamic periods that important urban changes came about, ruled by the demographic increase and by social changes. At this time further comparison would be hazardous because of the paucity of archaeological data. Gaube’s analysis of Iranian cities (2008, 174) proposing a differentiation between the IranoIraqi cities and the eastern ones, such as Herāt or Buḫārā, through the morphology of their plans, appears an attractive pursuit. Yet, where only a few data can be shown concerning their inner urban organisation, it remains largely hypothetical.

3 It is impossible at present to establish the relative chronology between the original Parthian nucleus and the further extension.

4 See also Masson 1952.

Appendix

The Governors of Rayy

Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

Numismatics (date and/or type)

Parthian era: Mithridates i; Mithridates ii; Orodes i; Phraates ii; Vorones i; Pacorus ii Bistām Anonymous Salāma b. ʿAmr b. Ḍirār al-Ḍabbī Ḫatīr b. Šihāb Ābān Ǧāḏawayh Qarazah b. Kaʿb al-Anṣārī (?) Anonymous

171 bc–105 bc

123–88 bc; 57–37 bc; 37–2 bc; 8–12 bc; 78–105 ad

Schmidt Archives, Chaumont 1973

592–596 bc 21 21

592–596 bc 21H Yazdaǧird

Al-Ṭabarī 2634 Al-Balāḏurī 317–318

Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Hitti 1994

Al-Balāḏurī 318 Al-Ṭabarī 2681 Al-Balāḏurī 319

Hitti 1994 Rex Smith 1994 Hitti 1994

26

26H Ḫosrow ii

Rex Smith 1994, Miles 1938

Anonymous

29

29H Ḫosrow ii

Al-Ṭabarī 2647, 2650–2657, 2681–2682 Al-Ṭabarī 2828

Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān Saʿīd b. Qays Anonymous Anonymous Yazīd b. Hağaba Anonymous Anonymous (Yazīd b. Qays al-Hamaḏānī?) ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād

30 31–33(?) 32 35 36–37(?) 37 37

30H Ḫosrow ii

37H Ḫosrow ii 37H Ḫosrow ii

Al-Ṭabarī 3352

60

60H Ḫosrow ii

Al-Ṭabarī 281

61–63 67

61H Ḫosrow ii 67H Ḫosrow ii

68 71

68H Ḫosrow ii

ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād Azlam b. Sufah (Aslam b. Zurʿah al-Kilābī?) ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād Yazīd b. al-Hāriṯ b. Ruwaym Bišr b. Marwān

21 22 23

32H Ḫosrow ii 35H Ḫosrow ii

74

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/�������������_���

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Al-Ṭabarī 2805

Al-Balāḏurī 319

Al-Ṭabarī 65, 81, 168, 172, 179–180, 189, 390–391 Al-Ṭabarī 817, al-Balāḏurī, V, p. 354 Al-Ṭabarī 862, Yaʿqūbī ii, 307, 324

Modern source

Rex Smith 1994, Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Rex Smith 1994 Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Hitti 1994 Miles 1938 Hawting 1994, Miles 1938 Fishbein 1990, Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Miles 1938 Fishbein 1990 Rowson 1989

150

appendix

(cont.) Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

ʿAdī b. Wattād al-ʿIyāḍī 

Numismatics (date and/or type)

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Modern source

75

Al-Ṭabarī 980

Rowson 1989

Al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ

80

Miles 1938

Al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ Quṭayba b. Muslim Waqīʿ b. Ḥassān b. Abī Sūd al-Tamīmī al-Ġudānī Maḫlad b. Yazīd b. al-Muhallab ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Nuʿaym Muslim b. Saʿīd b. Aslam b. Zurʿah b. ʿAmr b. Ḫuwaylid al-Ṣā’iq al-Kilābī Ḫālid b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Qaṣrī Ziyād b. ʿUbayd Allāh

81 83 96

81H al-Rayy

Al-Ṭabarī 1047, 1063

98

98H al-Rayy

Al-Ṭabarī 1118 Al-Ṭabarī 1282, 1305; Yaʿqūbī, iii, 41 Al-Ṭabarī 1318

101

101H al-Rayy

Al-Ṭabarī 1394

Powers 1989

104

104H al-Rayy

Al-Ṭabarī 1453, 1457

Powers 1989

Blankinship 1989

Yūsuf b. ʿUmar

120

120H al-Rayy

Al-Ṭabarī 1468–9, 1470–71 Al-Ṭabarī 1468–9, 1470–71 Al-Ṭabarī 1664

Yūsuf b. ʿUmar Yūsuf b. ʿUmar ʿAbd Allāh b. Muʿāwiya

121 124 127

Yazīd b. ʿUmar b. Hubayrah Ḥabīb b. Budayl

130

Al-Ṭabarī 2000, 2016, 2017

Williams 1985, Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Qaḥtabah b. Šabīb al-Ṭā’ī Ǧawhar b. al-Marrār ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Ǧaʿfar b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī (prefect) Al-Mahdī

131

121H al-Rayy 124H al-Rayy 127H al-Rayy (ʿAbd Allāh b. Muʿāwiya) 130H al-Rayy (Yazīd b. ʿUmar) 130H al-Rayy (Ḥabīb b. Budayl) 131H al-Rayy

Al-Ṭabarī 3

Williams 1985, Miles 1938 McAuliffe 1995 Miles 1938

96H al-Rayy

105–117(?) 105–117(?)

130

137 139–141

141–148

139H al-Rayy (ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b.) 141H al-Rayy (Amīr Muḥammad)

Al-Ṭabarī 119

Al-Ṭabarī 141, 142

Miles 1938 Hinds 1990 Powers 1989

Powers 1989

Blankinship 1989 Blankinship 1989, Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938

McAuliffe 1995

151

Appendix

Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

Numismatics (date and/or type)

Al-Mahdī

148–158

Miles 1938

Al-Mahdī

149–158

Ḥamza b. Mālik

160

Al-Ṭāhir b. Ṭalḥa

162

Kulṯūm b. Ḥafṣ (prefect) ʿĪsā

163–164

Saʿd

166–167

148H al-Rayy (al-Mahdī Muḥammad b. Amīr Muḥammad) 149H al-Muḥammadiyya (al-Mahdī Muḥammad b. Amīr Muḥammad) 160H al-Muḥammadiyya 162H al-Muḥammadiyya 163–164H al-Muḥammadiyya 165H Al-Ṭabarī 505 al-Muḥammadiyya 166–167H Al-Ṭabarī 518 al-Muḥammadiyya 168H Khosraw ii (“crescat majestas!”) 175H Al-Ṭabarī 470 al-Muḥammadiyya 176H Al-Ṭabarī 612 al-Muḥammadiyya 177H al-Muḥammadiyya

178H al-Muḥammadiyya 179H al-Rayy 181–182H al-Muḥammadiyya 184, 187–190, 195H al-Muḥammadiyya 184H al-Muḥammadiyya 185H al-Muḥammadiyya 187H al-Muḥammadiyya

Miles 1938

165

168 Yazīd b. Mazīd

175

Faḍl b. Yaḥyā

176

Al-Amīr al-ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad (ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad b. al-Musāyyab?) ʿUṯmān b. Ẓufar (=Ẓufar b. ʿĀṣim al-Hilālī) Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā Asad (=Asad b. Yazīd b. Mazīd?) ʿUbayd Allāh (=ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā?) Yaḥyā b. Sa‘īd al-Ḥarašī

177

Ḥārib (=Ḥāriṯ?)

185

Ǧaʿfar the Barmakid

187

178 179 181–182 184, 187–190, 195 184

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Al-Ṭabarī 645

Modern source

Miles 1938

Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Kennedy 1990 Kennedy 1990 Miles 1938 Kennedy 1990 Bosworth 1989, Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Bosworth 1989 Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Al-Ṭabarī 649, Ibn al-Aṯīr vi, 113, I. 18

Bosworth 1989

Al-Ṭabarī 685

Bosworth 1989

Miles 1938

152

appendix

(cont.) Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

Numismatics (date and/or type)

Al-Amīr al-Maʾmūn

189

ʿAbd Allāh b. Mālik

189

Al-ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Mālik Al-Faḍl (?)

194

Al-Maʾmūn

196

Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd

206

ʿAlī b. Hišām

210–218

Bābak al-Ḫurramī Al-Afšīn Ḫaydar b. Kāwūs ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṭāhir Al-Muʿtazz Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ṭāhir b. ʿAbd Allāh Al-Salāni (or Salābi) Dulaf b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Abī Dulaf Mūsā b. Buġā al-Kabīr Yaʿqūb b. al-Layṯ Kaiġaliġ (?)

?–220 220

189H al-Muḥammadiyya (Al-Amīr al-Maʾmūn, ʿAbd Allāh b. Amīr al-Muʾminīn, Walī of Walī ʿAhd of Muslims) 189H Al-Ṭabarī 705 al-Muḥammadiyya 194H al-Muḥammadiyya 195H al-Muḥammadiyya 196H al-Muḥammadiyya 206H al-Muḥammadiyya 210–218H Al-Ṭabarī, 1093 al-Muḥammadiyya Al-Ṭabarī, 1170 220H Al-Ṭabarī, 1170 al-Muḥammadiyya Al-Ṭabarī, 1338–1339 Al-Ṭabarī, 1395–1396 Al-Ṭabarī, 1531

Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī b. al-Mu‘taḍid Ismāʿīl the Sāmānid Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Ṣaʿlūk ʿAlī […]

281

195

230 235 250

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Modern source

Miles 1938

Bosworth 1989, Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Miles 1938 Bosworth 1987 Bosworth 1991 Bosworth 1991 Kraemer 1989 Kraemer 1989 Saliba 1985

251 252

Al-Ṭabarī, 1880 Al-Ṭabarī, 1685

Miles 1938 Saliba 1985

259–262 262 263–264(?)

Al-Ṭabarī, 1880, 1907 Al-Ṭabarī, 1892 Al-Ṭabarī, 1907, Ibn al-Aṯīr vii, 211, ii.18–19 Al-Ṭabarī, 2140

Miles 1938 Waines 1992 Miles 1938

290–292 298

Al-Ṭabarī, 2221

Rosenthal 1985 Miles 1938

301

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 57, ii. 7–8

Rosenthal 1985

153

Appendix

Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

Waṣīf al-Baktimurī

304 (?)

ʿAlī b. Wahsuḏān

307

Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ṣaʿlūk

308

Yusūf b. Abī al-Sāǧ

310

Yusūf b. Abī al-Sāǧ Sīmǧūr al-Dawātī

313 314

Ḥasan al-Dāʿī

316

Asfār

316

Mardāviǧ b. Ziyār

316

Naṣr b. Aḥmad

317

Ḥusayn b. al-Qāsim

319–320

Mardāwiǧ b. Ziyār

321–322(?)

Wašmgīr

323

Wašmgīr

326–330

Nūḥ b. Naṣr

331

Rukn al-Dawla

331

Rukn al-Dawla

332

Numismatics (date and/or type)

220H al-Muḥammadiyya

314H al-Muḥammadiyya (Naṣr b. Aḥmad) 317H al-Muḥammadiyya (Naṣr b. Aḥmad) 317H al-Muḥammadiyya (Naṣr b. Aḥmad) 317H al-Muḥammadiyya (Naṣr b. Aḥmad) 317H al-Muḥammadiyya (Naṣr b. Aḥmad) 319–320H al-Muḥammadiyya (ʿAmīd al-Dawla)

326–330H al-Muḥammadiyya (Naṣr b. Aḥmad) 331H al-Muḥammadiyya (Nūḥ b. Naṣr) 331H al-Muḥammadiyya 332H al-Muḥammadiyya

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 75, ii. 9–11 Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 76, ii. 6–8

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 100, I. 7 Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 121, ii. 10–20

Modern source

Miles 1938

Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 121, I. 20–122, I. 2 Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 139, ii. 14–16 Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 142, i. 11–144, i. 20 Miles 1938

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 169, Miles 1938 ii. 15 ff.; 176, ii. 3–13 Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 195, i. 21; 196, i. 12 Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 227, ii. 18 ff.

Miles 1938

Miles 1938

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 293, ii. 1–11

Schmidt Archives (Museum of Pennsylvania)

154

appendix

(cont.) Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

Numismatics (date and/or type)

Nūḥ b. Naṣr

339

Rukn al-Dawla

340

Rukn al-Dawla

341–366

Muʾayyid al-Dawla

366–373

Faḫr al-Dawla

369

339H al-Muḥammadiyya (Nūḥ b. Naṣr) 340H al-Muḥammadiyya 341–366H al-Muḥammadiyya (Amīr al-Umarāʾ) 366–373H al-Muḥammadiyya (ʿAdud al-Dawla wa Muʾayyid al-Dawla)

Faḫr al-Dawla

373–387

Badr b. Ḥasanwayh (?)

393

Šams al-Dawla

397

Maǧd al-Dawla

398–407

ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla

418

Masʿūd of Ġazna

420–422

Tāš-Farāš

422

Abū Sahl al-Ḥamdūnī 424 ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla (Kākwayhid) 429

Abū Kālīǧār

432

373H al-Muḥammadiyya (Šāhanšāh)

373H al-Muḥammadiyya (Šams al-Dawla) 373H al-Muḥammadiyya (Šāhanšāh)

420-422H al-Muḥammadiyya (Masʿūd) 420–421H al-Muḥammadiyya (Masʿūd) 429H al-Muḥammadiyya (Masʿūd)

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Modern source

Miles 1938

Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Miles 1938

Ibn al-Aṯīr, viii, 519, I.14–521, I.3 Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 18, ii. 17 ff.; 19, ii. 5–6 Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 126, ii. 18–20

Miles 1938

Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Miles 1938

Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 252, ii. 3–24

Ibn al-Aṯīr, ix, 287, ii. 10–13

Miles 1938

Miles 1938

Miles 1938 Miles 1938

Miles 1938

155

Appendix

Governor

Year (hegira for the Islamic era)

Numismatics (date and/or type)

Historical text (historiangeographer)

Modern source

Ṭuġril Bek

434–455

434H–435H, 437H–440H, 444H–445H, 447H, 450H (Rayy ?), 452H–453H, 455H al-Rayy (Ṭuġril Bek)

Ibn al-Aṯīr, IX–X

Miles 1938

Alp Arslān

455–465

457H, 461H (Rayy ?) al-Rayy Alp Arslān

Ibn al-Aṯīr, IX–X

Miles 1938

Malik Šāh

465–485

472H ( ?), 473H ( ?), 475H ( ?), 477H, 480H–481H, 484H, 485H (Rayy ?) al-RayyMalik Šāh

Barkiyāruq

485–498

487H–488H, 490H, 494H (Rayy or Lār ?), 498H

Muḥammad

497

Ibn al-Aṯīr, X, 260, i. 18–261, i. 10

Miles 1938

Ġiyāṯ al-Dīn (Muḥammad) 498

499H (Rayy ?) Ġiyāṯ al-Dīn Abū Šuǧāʿ

Sanǧar

511–549

525H, 529H al-Rayy Sanǧar

Atābek Inānč (or Inānaǧ)

548–554

549H, 551H al-Rayy Atābek Inānč

Miles 1938

Miles 1938

Bibliography Historical Sources Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb Ḏikr aḫbār Iṣbahān, S. Dedering (ed.) as Geschichte Isbahāns, Leiden 1931. Ibn al-Aṯīr, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, al-Kāmil fī l-Tārīḫ, I–XI, Cairo 1303 (1886). Ibn al-Aṯīr, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al Kāmil filTarikh, part 1, translated and annotated by D.S. Richards, Aldershot 2006. al-Balāḏurī, Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. M.J. de Goeje, Brill 1866. English translation The Origins of the Islamic State, Hitti Philipp K., New York 1969. Ibn Durayd, Kitāb al-Ištikāk, Egypt 1958. al-Hamaḏānī Ibn al-Faqīh, Kitāb al-Buldān, transl. H. Massé, 1973. Abrégé du livre des pays, Institut Français, Damascus 1973. al-Hamaḏāni, Badīʿ az-Zaman, Maqāmāt, French transl. by Blachère R. and Masnou P., Paris 1957. Ibn Ḥawqal, Abū al-Qasīm, Ṣūrat al-Arḍ, in J.H. Kramers and G. Wiet (ed.), Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum (3rd ed.), 2, Leiden, E.J. Brill 1967. Herodotus. Historiae vol. I (I–IV vols.), transl. and notes Luigi Annibaletto, Le storie de Erodoto Milano 2000. Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam, (Anonymous) The Regions of the World, a Persian Geography 372 ah–982 ad (Islamic Geography series, 101), transl. and expl. by V. Minorsky with Preface by V.V. Barthold, University Press, Oxford 1937. Ibn Isfandiyār, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, An Abridged Translation of the History of Tabaristān, English transl. by Browne E.G., Leyden-London 1905. al-Iṣṭaḫrī, Abū Isḥāq al-Fārisī, al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, in J.H. Kramers (ed.), Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 1, Leiden, E.J. Brill 1967. Ǧuwaynī, ʿAtā Malik b. Muḥammad, Tārīḫ-i Ǧahān Gušā, Qazvīnī Mirza Muhammad (ed.), Leyden, E.J. Brill, 1912. Ibn Ḫallikān, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad, Wafayāt al-Aʿyān, Cairo 1894.

Ibn Ḫurdāḫbīh, Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, in J.H. Kramers (ed.), Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 6, Leiden, E.J. Brill 1939. Isidor de Charax, Mansiones Parthicae, transl. by W.H. Schoff, Philadelphia 1914. al-Miskawayh, Kitāb taǧārib al-ummam [al-qism al-aẖīr], The Eclipse of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate, trans. Margoliouth H.M., ed. Amedroz H.F., Oxford 1921. al-Muqaddasī, Šams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Abī Bakr, Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm, transl. B. Collins, The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the RegionsReading 2001. Polybius, Historiae, French transl. by Pédech P., Paris 1977. Ibn Rusta. Al-Aʿlāq al-nafīsa, transl. G. Wiet, Ibn Rosteh, Les atours précieux, ifao, Cairo 1955. al-Rūḏrāwarī, Abū Šuğāʿ Ẓahīr al-Dīn. 1921. Ḏayl kitāb taǧārib al-umam, H.F. Amedroz ed., Oxford. Strabo, Géographie, vol. VIII, book XI, French transl. by Lasserre F., Paris 1975. al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad b. Ǧarīr b. Yazīd, Chronique, transl. into French from the Persian version of Abū ʿAlī Mohammed Bel’amī by M.H. Zotenberg, 1–4, Besson et Chantemerie, Paris 1958. al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad b. Ǧarīr b. Yazīd, Tārīḫ al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. M.J. de Goeje, Leiden 1879– 1901, English transl. of the whole collection (I–XL). State University of New York Press, New York 1987. Ibn Ṭāwūs, Al Malāḥim wa’l-fitan fī ẕuhūr al-ġā’ib al-muntaẓar, Qumm 1398/1989. Theophanes Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, English transl. by Mango C. and Scott R., Oxford 1997. al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb, Kitāb al-buldān, M.J. de Goeje (ed.), French transl. by Wiet G. 1937, Les pays, Institut Français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo 1937. Yāqūt b. ʿAbd Allah al-Ḥamawī, Muʿğam al-buldān, French transl. by Barbier de Meynard C. 1861, Dictionnaire géographique, historique et littéraire de la Perse et des contrées adjacentes (extracts of Muʿğam al-buldān completed with the help of Arabic and Persian documents), Paris 1861.

Bibliography

Modern Studies Adachi, T. 2005. ‘Considering the regional differences in the Parthian fine pottery’, in al-Rafidan, Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 26, pp. 25–36. Adams, R. McC. 1970. ‘Tell Abū Sarīfa. A SassanianIslamic Ceramic Sequence from South Central Iraq’, in Ars Orientalis 8, pp. 87–119. Adle, C. 1979. ‘Constructions funéraires à Rey circa Xe– XIIe siècles’, in Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie München, 7–10. September 1976 (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 6), Berlin, pp. 511–515. Adle, C. 1990. ‘Notes sur les première et seconde campagnes archéologiques à Rey, Automne-hiver 1354– 1355/1976–77’, in Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran, Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, F. Vallat (ed.), Paris, pp. 295–307. Adle, C. 2004. ‘The Bam Citadel (Arg-e Bam) and Its Related Sites/Bam and Its Cultural Landscape’, in unesco World Heritage Convention/ncc/unesco/ ichtto, Bam 2004: fig. 12. For an archaeological view see also Adle, C. 2006. ‘Qanats of Bam: an archaeological perspective’, in Qanats of Bam publ. unesco, Tehran 2006, pp. 33–85, fig. 16. Ambraseys, N.N. and Melville, P.C. 1982. A History of Persian Earthquakes, London. Azarnoush, M. 1983. ‘Excavation at Hajiabad, 1977: First Preliminary Report’, in Iranica Antiqua XVIII, pp. 159–176. Bader V. Gaibov, Gubaev A., Košelenko G.A., Lapšin A., and Novikov S. 2002. ‘Ricerche nel complesso del Tempio Rotondo a Nisa Vecchia’, in Parthica 4, pp. 9–45. Bausani, A. 1991. ‘Gabr’, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, vol. II, 4nd ed., pp. 970–971. Besenval, R. 1987, ‘Quelques caractéristiques techniques de la céramique d’époque parthe à Tureng Tepe (Iran)’, in Mesopotamia 22, pp. 403–408. Besenval, R. and Marquis, Ph., 2007. ‘Les travaux de la délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (dafa): résultats des campagnes de l’automne 2007-printemps 2008 en Bactriane et à Kaboul’, in Comptes rendus e l’Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres, pp. 973–995.

157 Boucharlat R. 1985. ‘Suse, marché agricole ou relais du grand commerce. Suse et la Susiane à l’époque des grands empires’, in Paléorient 11/2, pp. 71–81. Boucharlat R. 1987. ‘La période VII A/B’, in Fouilles de Tureng Tepe, 1. Les périodes sassanides et islamiques (under the direction of Jean Deshayes), Recherches sur les Civilisations, pp. 51–75. Boucharlat R. 1985. ‘Les périodes VII C, VIII et IX’, in Fouilles de Tureng Tepe, 1. Les périodes sassanides et islamiques (under the direction of Jean Deshayes), Recherches sur les Civilisations, pp. 77–91. Boucharlat, R. and Haerinck, E. 1996. ‘Ceramics’, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. V, pp. 304–307. Bosworth, C.E. 1987. The History of al-Ṭabarī. Vol. XXXII. The reunification of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate. The caliphate of al-Maʾmūn a.d. 812–833/a.h. 198–213, translated and annotated by C.E. Bosworth. New York. Bosworth, C.E. 2002. ‘Varāmīn’, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. XI, 4nd ed., pp. 143–144. Bulliet, R. 1972. The Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History, Cambridge, MA. Bulliet, R. 1994. Islam: The View from the Edge, New York. Busse, H. 1975. ‘Iran under the Buyids’, in Cambridge. History of Iran, IV, pp. 250–304. Caetani, L. 1912. Chronographia islamica, Paris. Chaumont, M.L. 1973. ‘Capitales et résidences des premiers arsacides (IIIe–Ier s.A.V.J.C.)’, in Syria L, pp. 197–222. Choksy, J.K. 2007. ‘Reassessing the material contexts of ritual fires in Ancient Iran’, in Iranica Antiqua XLII, pp. 229–269. Christensen, A. 1936. L’Iran sous les sassanides, Copenhagen. Coste, P. 1840–41. Voyage en Perse, Paris. Collinet, A. (forthcoming). ‘Nouvelles recherches sur la céramique de Nishapur: la prospection du shahrestan’, in Actes of the Round Table, ‘The Greater Khorasan’, R. Rante ed., Berlin. Curzon, G.N. 1892. Persia and the Persian Question, London-New York. Dandamayev, M. and Medvedskaya, I. 2006. ‘Media’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica online. Daniel, E. 1979. The Political and Social History of Khurasan under the Abbasid Rule, 747–820, Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis & Chicago.

158 Debevoise, N.C. 1934. Parthian pottery from Seleucia on the Tigris, Ann Arbor. Deshayes, J. 1976. ‘Tureng Tepe’, in Iran 14, pp. 169–171. Djamali, M., Akhani, H., Khoshravesh, R., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Ponel, P., and Brewer, S. 2011. ‘Application of the Global Bioclimatic Classification to Iran: Implications for Under­ standing the Modern Vegetation and Biogeography’, in Ecologia Mediterranea 37 (1), pp. 91–114. Durand-Guédy, D. 2010. Iranian Elites and Turkish Rulers: A History of Iṣfahān in the Saljūq Period, Abingdon & New York. Ettinghausen, R. 1938. ‘Parthian and Sassanian pottery’, in A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present, ed. A.U. Pope, vol. I, pp. 646–680. Ettinghausen, R. 1965. ‘The Uses of Sphero-conical Vessels in the Muslim East’, in Journal of Eastern Studies 24 (3), pp. 218–229. Ettinghausen, R. and Grabar, O. 1987. The Art and Architecture of Islam, 650–1250, Harmondsworth 1987. Fazeli, H., Coningham, R.A.E., and Pollard, A.M. 2001. ‘Chemical Characterisation of Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery from the Tehran Plain’, in Iran XXXIX, pp. 55–71. Felix, W. 1995. ‘Deylamites’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica 7, pp. 342–343. Fouache, E., Cosandey, Cl., Wormser, P., Kervran, M., and Labbaf Khaniki, R.A. 2011. ‘The River of Nishapur’, in Studia Iranica 40 (1), pp. 99–119. Fouache, E., Besenval, R., Cosandey, C., Coussot, C., Ghilardi, M., Huot, S., and Lamothe, M. 2012. ‘Paleochannels of the Balkh River (Northern Afghanistan) and Human Occupation since the Bronze Age Period’, in Journal of Archaeological Science 39, pp. 3415–3427. Franke, U. (forthcoming). ‘Ancient Herat Revisited. New Data from Recent Archaeological Fieldwork’, in Actes of the Round Table, ‘The Greater Khorasan’, R. Rante ed., Berlin. Frye, R. 1975. ‘The Pursuit of Yazdgard’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, IV, Cambridge. Frye, R. 1986. ‘Hamadhan’, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, 2nd ed., pp. 105–106. Galdieri, E. 1972. Isfahān: Masǧid-i Ǧumʾa, documentazione fotografica e rapporto preliminare, 1, IsMEO, Rome.

bibliography Gardin, J.-C. 1957. Céramiques de Bactres, Paris. Gardin, J.-C. 1987. ‘La céramique islamique’, in Fouilles de Tureng Tepe, 1. Les périodes sassanides et islamiques (under the direction of Jean Deshayes), Recherches sur les Civilisations, pp. 121–170. Gaube, H. 2008. ‘Iranian Cities’, in The City in the Islamic World, 1, Salma K. Jayyusi, R. Holod, A. Petruccioli and A. Raymond eds., Leiden-Boston 2008, pp. 159–180. Gignoux, P. 1978. Catalogue des sceaux, camées et bulles sasanides de la Bibliothèque nationale et du musée du Louvre, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Gnoli, G. 1989. ‘Avestan Geography’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica 3, pp. 44–47. Godard, A. 1951. ‘L’origine de la madrasa, de la mosquée et du caravansérail à quatre ivans’, in Ars Islamica 15–16, pp. 1–9. Goff, C. 1969. ‘Excavations at Bābā Jān, 1967: Second Preliminary Report’, in Iran 7, pp. 141–156. Goff, C. 1970. ‘Excavations at Bābā Jān, 1968: Third Preliminary Report’, in Iran VIII, pp. 115–130. Golombek, L. 1974. ‘Urban Patterns in Pre-Safavid Isfahan: Part I, Studies on Isfahan’, in Iranian Studies 7, pp. 18–44. Grenet, F. 1996. ‘Crise et sortie de crise en BactrianeSogdiane aux IVe–Ve s. de n. è.: de l’héritage antique à l’adoption de modèles sassanides’, in La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, pp. 367–390. Gunter, A. 1982. ‘Representations of Urartian and Western Iranian Fortress Architecture in the Assyrian Reliefs’, in Iran XX, 1982, pp. 103–112. Haerinck, E. 1983. ‘La céramique en Iran pendant la période parthe (ca. 250 av.J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.)’, in Iranica Antiqua (supplement 2), Ghent. Hall, A.R. 1935. ‘The Persian Expedition, 1934’, in Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 33, pp. 55–59. Hansman, J. 1968. ‘The problem of Qumis’, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 111–139. Hansman, J. and Stronach, D. 1970. ‘Excavations at Shahr-i Qumis, 1967’, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 102, pp. 29–62. Hansman, J. and Stronach, D. 1974. ‘Excavations at Shahr-i Qumis, 1971’, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 106, pp. 8–22.

Bibliography Henrickson, R.C. 1991. ‘Ceramics, x: The Iron Age’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica online. Hermann, G., Masson, V.M., and Kurbansakhatov, K. 1993. ‘The International Merv Project, Preliminary Report on the First Season (1992)’, in Iran XXXI, pp. 39–62. Hiebert, Fredrik T., 2003. A Central Asian Village at the Dawn of Civilisation: Excavations at Anau, Turkmenistan, University Museum Monograph, Philadelphia. Holod, R. 1974. Isfahān Studies, Chestnut Hill, ma. Jackson, A.V.W. 1906. Persia Past and Present, London. Jenny, J.G. 1977. Géologie et stratigraphy de l’Elbourz orientale entre Aliābād et Shahrud, Geneva. Kār-nāmag ī Ardašīr, transl. by T. Nöldeke as ‘Geschichte des Artachšīr i Pāpakān’, in Bezzenbergers Beiträge 4, 1878, pp. 22ff. Keall, E.J. 1979. ‘The Topography and Architecture of Medieval Rayy’, in Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie München, 7–10 September 1976 (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 6), Berlin, pp. 537–543. Keall, E.J. and Keall, M.J. 1980. ‘The Qal’eh-i Yazdigird pottery: A statistical approach’, in Iran XIX, pp. 33–80. Kennedy, H. 2008. ‘Inherited Cities’, in The City in the Islamic World, 1, Salma K. Jayyusi, R. Holod, A. Petruccioli and A. Raymond eds., Leiden-Boston, pp. 93–113. Karīmān, H. 1345 ah. Rayy-i Bāstān, 1–2, Tehran 1345. Ker Porter, R. 1821–1822. Travels in Persia, Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, London. Kervran, M. 1977. ‘Les niveaux islamiques du secteur oriental du Tépé de l’Apadana, II: le matériel céramique’, in Cahiers de la dafi 7, pp. 73–165. King, A.D. 1999. World Maps for Finding the Direction and Distance to Mecca, Leiden. Kleiss, W. 1976. ‘Urartu, ein wiederentdeckter Rivale Assyriens’, in Ausstellungskataloge der Prähis­ torischen Staatssammlung München 2, H.J. Kellner ed., Munich, pp. 45–52. Kleiss, W. 2008. ‘Urartu’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica online. Kroll,St.1976.‘UrartäischeKeramik’,inAusstellungskataloge der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung München 2, H.J. Kellner ed., Munich, pp. 62–63.

159 Kühnel, E. 1933. Die Ausgrabungen der zweiten Ktesiphon-Expedition (Winter 1931/2), Berlin. Le Berre, M. and Schlumberger, D. 1964. ‘Observations sur les remparts de Bactres’, extract from Monuments Préislamiques d’Afghanistan (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan, XIX), pp. 65–103. Lecomte, O. 1987. ‘La céramique sassanide’, in Fouilles de Tureng Tepe, 1. Les périodes sassanides et islamiques (under the direction of Jean Deshayes), Recherches sur les Civilisations, pp. 94–119. Lecomte, O. 1999. “Verkhānā and Dehistan: late farming communities of south-west Turkmenistan from the Iron Age to the Islamic period,” in Parthica 1, pp. 135–170. Leriche, P. 1986. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, V. Les remparts et les monuments associés (Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan, XXIX), Paris. Le Strange, G. 1930. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, University Press, Cambridge. Madelung, W. 1995. ‘Deylamites’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica 7, pp. 343–347. Maricq, A. 1965. ‘Res gestae divi Saporis’, in Classica et orientalia, Paris, pp. 37–101. Marquart, J. 1901. Eranshahr, nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac’i, Berlin. Mason, R.B. 1996. ‘The Response I: Petrography and Provenance of Timurid Ceramics’, in Tamerlane’s Tableware, Mazda Publishers in Association with Royal Ontario Museum. Mason, R.B. 2004. Shine Like the Sun. Lustre-Painted and Associated Pottery from the Medieval Middle East, in Bibliotheca Iranica/Islamic Art and Architecture Series, 12. Costa Mesa/Toronto. Masson, M.E. 1952. ‘Novye archeologičeskie dannye k izučeniju istorii Parfii’, in Izvestija Akademii Nauk Turkmenskoj ssr V, pp. 14–25. Matney, T. 1995. ‘Re-excavating Cheshmeh Ali’, Expedition 37 (2), pp. 26–38. Matney, T., Fazeli, H.N., and Pittman, H. (forthcoming). The Schmidt Expedition to Cheshmeh Ali, Iran, 1934–1936. Miles, G. 1938. The Numismatic History of Rayy, New York. Minorsky, V. 1932. La domination des Dailamites, Paris.

160 Minorsky, V. 1994. ‘Rayy’, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed. 8, , Leiden pp. 487–89. Minovi, M. 1937. ‘Note on Māfarrūkhī’s The beauties of Isfahan’, in Bulletin of the American Institute for Iranian Art and Archaeology, 5, pp. 27–28. Monneret de Villard, U. 1966. Introduzione allo studio dell’archeologia islamica, Rome. Morier, J.J. 1818. A Second Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor to Constantinople between the Years 1810 and 1816, London. Mottahedeh, R. 2001. Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society, London-New York. Naumann, R. 1964. ‘Tepe Mīl, Ein Sasanidischer Palast’, in Baghdader Mitteilungen 3, pp. 75–77. Northedge, A. 1997a. ‘Friedrich Sarre’s Die Keramik von Samarra in Perspective’, in Continuity and Change in Northern Mesopotamia from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, 17) (K. Bartl and S.R. Hauser eds.), Berlin, pp. 229–258. Northedge, A. 1997b. ‘Les origines de la céramique à glaçure polychrome dans le monde islamique’, in La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, actes du VI° congrès de l’AIECM2, Aix en Provence 13–18 novembre 1995, Aix en Provence, pp. 213–223. Novacek, K. 2009. ‘Moulded Pottery from Istakhr’, in My Things Changed Things, Vlckova, P.M., Mynarova, J., and Tomashek M. (eds.), Prague, pp. 118–126. Ouseley, W. 1919–1923. Travels in Various Countries of the East: More Particularly Persia, London. Porter, Y. 2005. ‘Potters, Painters and Patrons: Documentary Inscriptions and Iconography in PreMongol Iranian Ceramics’, in Transaction of the Oriental Ceramic Society 69, pp. 25–35. Pourshariati, P. 2008. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran. London and New York. Pourshariati, P. 2010. ‘The Khabar al- Tiwal of Abū Hanifa Dinawari: A Shuʾubi Treatise on Late Antique Iran’, in Sources for the History of Sasanian and PostSasanian Iran (Res Orientales, XIX), ed. R. Gyselen, Bures-sur-Yvette, pp. 201–290. Puschnigg, G. 2006. Ceramics of the Merv Oasis: Recycling the City, Walnut Creek. Rante, R. 2007. ‘The topography of Rayy pertaining to the early Islamic period’, in Iran XLV, pp. 161–180.

bibliography Rante, R. 2008. ‘The Iranian city of Rayy: urban model and military architecture’, in Iran XLVI, pp. 189–211. Rante, R. and Collinet, A. 2013. Nishapur Revisited. Stratigraphy and Ceramics of the Qohandez, Oxford. Rante, R. (forthcoming). ‘“Khorasan Proper” and “Greater Khorasan”, a Politico-cultural Problem’, in ‘The Greater Khorasan’, Actes of the Round Table, R. Rante ed., De Gruyter, Berlin. Reitlinger, G. 1938. ‘The Interim Period in Persian Pottery’, in Ars Islamica 5, pp. 155–178. Rosen-Ayalon, M. 1972. ‘Niveaux islamiques de la ‘ville royale”, in Mémoires de la délégation archéologique française en Iran, pp. 169–202. Rosen-Ayalon, M. 1974. La poterie islamique, ville royale de Suse (IV), Mémoires de la délégation archéologique française en Iran, 50, Paris. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1988, ‘Was There Ever a Median Empire?’, in Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory, A. Kuhrt and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg eds., Leiden, pp. 197–212. Sarre, F. 1901. Denkmäler persischer Baukunst. Berlin. Sarre, F. 1925. Die Keramik von Samarra. Berlin. Scerrato, U. 1977a. ‘Summary reports of Archaeological Researches in Masjid-i Jumʾa of Isfahan, 1972–1978’, in East and West 27, pp. 451–455. Scerrato, U. 1977b. ‘Nota su un nuovo tipo di tegole architettoniche dall’Iran centrale’, in A. Bausani, G. Scarcia (eds.), Studi Iranici, 17 saggi di iranisti italiani, Rome, Centro Culturale Italo-Iraniano, pp. 77–84. Scerrato, U. 2001. ‘Ricerche archeologiche nella Moschea del Venerdi di Isfahan della Missione archeologica italiana in Iran dell’IsMEO (1972–1978)’, Antica Persia, I Tesori del Museo Nazionale di Tehran e la ricerca italiana in Iran, Catalogo e Esposizione, Museo di Arte Orientale di Roma, 29 Maggio–22 Luglio 2001, pp. XXXVII–XLIII. Schmidt, E.F. 1934. ‘The Persian Expedition’, in University Museum Bulletin, vol. 5, n. 2, p. 40. Schmidt, E.F. 1935. ‘Excavation at Rayy’, in Ars Islamica II, part. I, pp. 139–141. Schmidt, E.F. 1936. ‘The Excavation on the Citadel Hill’, in University Museum Bulletin 1–2, pp. 79–87, 133–135. Schmidt, E.F. 1937. Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, Philadelphia.

Bibliography Schmidt, E.F. 1939. The Treasury of Persepolis and Other Discoveries in the Homeland of the Achaemenians, “Istakhr”, Chicago-Illinois, pp. 105–136. Schmidt, E.F. 1940. Flights over Ancient Cities of Iran, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Schmitt, R. 1991. The Bisitun inscriptions of Darius the Great (old persian text), in Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part 1, Volume 1, London (s.o.a.s.). Schwarz, P. 1969. Iran im Mittelalter nach den Arabischen Geographen, reprint Georg Olms Verlag, HildesheimNew York. Semenov, G.L. 1989. « Sogdijskij gorod v rannem srednevekov’e: formirovanie plana » [Les villes de Sogdiane au Moyen-âge ancien : évolutions des plans], in G.I. Smirnova (ed.) Itogi rabot arheologičeskih èkspedicij Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, Leningrad, pp. 128–140. Semenov, G.L. 2002. Sogdijskaâ fortifikatsiâ V–VIII vekov [Les fortifications de Sogdiane aux V–VIII siècles], Saint Petersburg. Shishkina, G.V. 1986. ‘Les remparts de Samarcande a l’époque hellénistique’, in P. Leriche, H. Treziny, eds., La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec, Paris, pp. 71–78, figs. 287–302. Skjærvø, P.O. 1995. ‘The Avesta as source for the early history of the Iranians’, in The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, edited by G. Erdosy, 155–176, Berlin. Sourdel, D. 1997. ‘Khalīfa’, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 3rd ed., pp. 937–947. Steve, M.-J., Vallat, F. and Gasche, H. 2002–2003. s.v. ‘Suse’, in Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. 73–74, Paris, pp. 359–651. Strenziok, G. 1986. ‘Azd’, Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., pp. 811–813. Stronach, D. 1968. Tepe Nush-i Jan:A Mound in Media, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Stronach, D. 1978. ‘Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jān’, in Iran XVI, pp. 1–28. Thompson, D. 1976. Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqabad near Rayy, Warminster. Treptow, T. 2007. The Medieval Persian City of Rayy, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Valles, V., Gholami, M., Lambert, R. 1990. ‘Chimie des eaux et alimentation du bassin versant du Djajerud (Iran)’, in Hydrologie Continentale 5, n. 1, pp. 61–69.

161 Vanden Berghe, L. 1966. Archéologie de l’Irān ancien, Leiden. Venco Ricciardi, R. 1967. ‘Pottery from Choche’, in Mesopotamia II, pp. 93–104. Venco Ricciardi, R. 1970. ‘Excavations at Choche’, in Mesopotamia V, pp. 41–48. Venco Ricciardi, R. 1977. ‘Trial Trench at Tell Baruda, Choche (1975)’, in Mesopotamia XII, pp. 11–14. Vignier, C. and Fry, R. 1914. ‘The New Excavation at Raghes’, in Burlington Magazine 25, pp. 211–218. Vogelsang, W. 1985. ‘Parthian-Period Pottery from Iran’, in Archaologische Mitteilung aus Iran 18, pp. 157–172. Voigt, Mary M. and DysonRobert H. Jr. 1992. ‘The Chronology of Iran, ca. 8000–2000 bc’, in Robert W. Ehrich, ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 2 vols., Chicago. Watson, M. 1983. Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World, Cambridge. Watson, O. 1985. Persian Lustre Ware, London. Watson, O. 2004. Ceramics from Islamic Lands, London. Weissbach, F.H. 1895. ‘Arsakia’, in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Stuttgart vol. 1, p. 1270. Whitcomb, D. 1985. Before the Roses and the Nightingales: Excavation at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, Old Shiraz, New York. Whitehouse, D. 1968. ‘Excavations at Siraf, Interim Report’, in Iran VI, pp. 1–22. Whitehouse, D. 1969. ‘Excavations at Siraf, Interim Report’, in Iran VII, pp. 39–62. Whitehouse, D. 1970. ‘Excavations at Siraf, Interim Report’, in Iran VIII, pp. 1–18. Whitehouse, D. 1971. ‘Excavations at Siraf, Interim Report’, in Iran IX, pp. 1–17. Whitehouse, D. 1972. ‘Excavations at Siraf, Interim Report’, in Iran X, pp. 63–87. Whitehouse, D. 1974. ‘Excavations at Siraf, Interim Report’, in Iran XII, pp. 1–30. Wilkinson, C.K. 1973. Nishapur: Pottery of the Early Islamic Period, New York. Williams, T. 2007. ‘The City of Sultan Kala, Merv, Turkmenistan. Communities, Neighbourhoods and Urban Planning from the Eight to the Thirteenth Century’, in Cities in the Pre-modern Islamic World. The Urban Impact of Religion, State and Society,

162 soas-Routledge Studies on the Middle East, London and New York, pp. 42–62. Williamson, A. 1987. ‘Regional Distribution of Medieval Persian Pottery in the Light of Recent Investigations’, in Syria and Iran, Three Studies in Medieval Ceramics, J. Allan and C. Roberts (eds.) (Oxford Studies in Islamic Art, 4) Oxford, pp. 11–22.

bibliography Wolski, J. 1959. L’état parthe des Arsacides, Osaka. Wordsworth, P. 2013. ‘Merv on Khorasanian trade routes from the 10th–13th centuries, in Actes of the Round Table, ‘The Greater Khorasan’, R. Rante ed., Berlin. Young, T.C. 1965. ‘A Comparative Ceramic Chronology for Western Iran, 1500–500 b.c.’, in Iran III, pp. 53–85.

Index Ābān Ğāḏawayh  14, 149 Abaršahr  17 ʿAbbāsid  13, 15–17, 19, 20, 22, 40, 44, 48, 71, 130, 145, 146, 156, 157 ʿAbd al-Malik b. Yazīd  18 Abhar  20, 21, 23 Abū ʿAlī b. al-Muhāğ  22 Abū al-Qāsim Ğaʿfar b. al-Nāṣir  20 Abū Dāwūd Ḫālid Ibrāhīm  17 Abū Muslim  17, 140 Abū Ṭālib Rustam  23 Achaemenid  12, 23, 73, 140, 144, 160 Āḏarbāyğān  13, 20 Aḏutekīn  20 ʿAffān  14, 133, 136 Agathias  21 Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Māridānī  20 Ahūrā-Mazdā  12 ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla  23, 154 ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad  25 Alexander the Great  12 ʿAlī  1 ʿAlī al-Riḍā  2 ʿAlī b. Būya  7 ʿAlī b. Kāma  22 Alids  19, 20, 126 Alp Arslān  24, 155 ʿAmīd al-Dawla  21, 153 al-Amīn  19 Amol  115 Anūširwān b. Minušihr b. Qābūs  23 Arsacids  12 Arsakia  12, 141, 161 Artaban v  21 Asātekīn  20 Asfār b. Šīrūya  21 ʿAsud al-Dawla  22 al-ʿAtīqa  14 Azd  48, 127, 128, 133–135, 146, 161 Azdān  48, 127, 133–135, 146 Bāb al-Balisān  134, 135 Bāb al-Ğibāl  134 Bāb Dulāb  134 Bāb Hišām  134–136 Bāb Kuhekin  134 Bāb Sin  134, 135 Bābā Jān  139, 158 Bactres  61, 120, 158, 159 Bactria  120

Badr b. Ḥasanwayh  23, 154 Baġdād  18, 20, 24, 133 Bağīla  16, 126, 146 Bahrām Čūbīn  12, 14 al-Balāḏurī  14, 16, 18, 130, 132, 134, 149, 156 Balḫ  17, 120, 140 Barkiyāruq  24, 25, 155 Baṣra  13, 15–18, 48, 111 Bībī Šahrbānū  4, 19, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 48, 61, 128, 132–134, 136 Bībī Zubayda  121, 126, 144, 146 Bilād al-Ğibāl  24 Bisitun  12, 161 Bišr b. Marwān  16, 149 Bistām  12, 149 Buḫārā  21, 147 Būyid  3, 19–24, 48, 77, 130, 135, 136, 145, 157 Čāl Ṭarḫān  104, 126, 128, 144, 146 Central Asia  6, 53, 57, 159 Češmeh ʿAlī  2, 4, 5, 11, 26, 28, 31, 32, 41, 72, 119–121, 126, 136, 143, 144, 146 China  1 citadel  36, 79, 87, 132, 157, 160 clinky-ware  101, 102, 104 Dāmġān  82, 87 Dašt Kawīr  4 Daylam  21 Daylamite  21, 22 Dehistan  102, 159 Delymaioi  21 Elborz  1, 4–6, 37, 72, 144 Erk Kala  140 ʿEšqābād  104, 126, 128, 144, 146 Europos  12, 120 al-Falisān  133 al-Farruḫān  14, 132 Fārs  20, 25 Fortress  90, 98, 158 Gabr  28, 31, 49, 126, 128, 157 Ğalāl al-Dawla  24 Ğalāl al-Dīn  25 Ğawhar b. al-Marrār  17, 150 Ġazan Ḫān  25

Ġaznawid  23 Ğibāl  1, 6, 13–18, 20–24, 134, 135, 139, 147 Ġiyāṯ al-Dīn Masʿūd  25 Ğurğān  13, 20–22, 120, 139 Ğuwaynī  25, 156 Guyar Kala  140 Ḥabīb b. Budayl  17, 150 al-Hağğāğ  16 Hamaḏān  13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 140–142, 145 al-Hamaḏāni  15, 18, 36, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 149, 156 al-Ḥamawī  16, 18, 20, 36, 48, 130, 132, 156 Harb  133, 136 Hārūn al-Rašīd  19, 133 Ḫāriğī  15–17 Ḫāriğītes  15, 16 al-Ḥasan b. Qaḥtaba  17 Ḫawārizm  17 Herāt  17, 140, 142, 147, 158 Ḫurāsān  6, 12, 16–20, 22–24, 48, 134, 136, 139, 140, 142, 147 al-Ḫurdādbīh  19, 134 Ibn al-Aṯīr  16, 21–25, 151–156 Ibn Durayd  16, 156 Ibn Ḥumayd  13 Ibn Isḥāq  13 ʿImād al-Dawla  21, 22 iqtāʿ  23 Iranian Plateau  4 Irāq  16, 17, 21, 25, 110, 157 Iron Age  2, 11, 12, 36, 53, 57, 67, 72, 73, 102, 119, 120, 123, 139, 142, 144, 159 ʿĪsā b. Mūsā  18 Iṣfahān  12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 39, 40, 82, 85, 87, 88, 132, 135, 139, 141, 147, 158–160 Ismāʿīl b. Nūḥ al-Muntaṣir  22 Ismāʿīl the Sāmānīd  20, 152 Iṣṭaḫrī  36, 134, 135, 156 Jaba  25 Jājerud  5 Jayy  16 Kākwayhid  23, 154 Karağ  21

164 Kawād  123 Khosrow  12, 14, 16, 18, 149 Kirmān  24 Kūfa  13, 15, 16, 18, 82, 87 Kuh-e Sorsore  5, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35, 52, 87, 128, 134, 135 Kūmis  13 Kutluġ Inanğ b. Pahlawān  25 Mağd al-Dawla  23, 154 Māhayn  13 al-Mahdī  17–20, 44, 48, 71, 74, 76, 79, 87, 110, 126, 128, 130, 132–135, 146, 151 Maḥmūd of Ġazna  23 Makrān  24 al-Malik al-Raḥīm  24 Malik Šāh  24, 155 al-Maʾmūn  19, 152, 157 al-Manṣūr  17, 18, 130, 132, 146 Manṣūr b. Qarātekīn  22 Mardāvich  21 Marw al-Rūḏ  17 Masğid al-Ğumʿa  39 Mashhad  2 Masʿūd  23, 25, 154 Media  1, 12, 21 Mihrān  14 Miskawayh  22, 23, 156 Mithradates i  120, 144 Mithradates ii  120 Mongol  1–3, 11, 25, 115, 143, 147, 160 Muʿāwiya  15, 18, 150 Muʾayyid al-Dawla  22, 23, 154 Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Ṣaʿlūk  20 Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd  19, 152 Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā  18, 151 Muḥammadiyya  18, 19, 36, 87, 130, 146, 151–154 Muʿizz al-Dawla  22 al-Muktafī  20 Muqaddasi  18, 22, 130, 135, 156 al-Muqtadir  21 Mutarrif b. Muġīra  16 al-Muʿtaṣim  19 Naṣr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz  19, 48, 130, 146 Naṣr b. Aḥmad  20, 21, 153 Naṣr b. Sayyār  17 Naṣrābād  19, 48, 130, 135, 146 Neolithic  1, 2, 4, 11, 72, 119, 120, 144, 158 Nihawānd  13, 14 Nīšābūr  19, 24, 106, 111, 115, 133, 139, 140, 142, 147

index Niẓāmābād  104, 126, 128, 144, 146 Nuʿaym b. Muqarrin  13, 14, 126 Orodes i  120, 149 Pacorus i  120, 149 Parthian  2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 15, 21, 67, 68, 73, 74, 98, 102, 104, 120–126, 141, 144, 147, 149, 157, 158, 160, 161 Pēroz  123 Phraates ii  120, 149 al-Qādir  23 al-Qāʾim  24 Qanats  157 Qazwīn  20, 23, 134 Qohandez  139, 160 Qum  12, 21, 134 Qutayba b. Muslim  16, 17, 150 Rabad  140 Rāfiʿ b. Ḥarṯama  20, 132 Raġā  2, 12, 13, 26 Raghae  12, 26 Rampart  51 Rey-ye Barin  35 Rey-ye Zirin  35 Rūḏa  36, 133–135 Ruḏrāwarī  23, 156 Rukn al-Dawla  21, 22, 153, 154 Saʿd  18, 25, 151 Saʿd b. Zanğī  25 Saffārid  20 Sāğid  20 Šāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm  1, 2, 4, 26, 28, 31, 50, 79, 144, 147 Šāhr-e Rayy  1, 4, 144 šahrestān  1–3, 5, 11, 12, 15–18, 22–26, 28, 31, 32, 34–36, 41, 43, 44, 46–51, 53–65, 67–73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 87, 98, 102, 103, 105–110, 112–117, 119, 120, 123, 129, 130, 132–136, 139, 141, 142, 144–147 Salāma  13, 149 Salğūq  3, 11, 24, 25, 48, 126, 127, 135, 136, 145, 147 Salīm b. Qutayba b. Muslim al-Bāhilī  17 Sāmānīd  20–22, 152 Samarqand  19, 61, 133 Sāmarrāʾ  111, 115, 160 Šams al-Dawla  23, 154 Sanjar  25, 155 Sarbān  36, 133

Sarbānān  36, 133, 135, 136 al-Sarī  13 Sasanian  3, 12–16, 18, 48, 68, 69, 71, 74, 84, 104, 110, 123, 126–128, 136, 140–142, 144, 145, 160 Sayf b. ʿUmar  13 Sayyida  23 Seleucid  120 Seleucos Nicator  12 Seljuk see Salğūq Shiism  20 Siffin  15 Siğistān  24 Silk Road  1, 6, 19, 72, 133 Simjur al-Dawāti  21 Sinbāḏ  17 Sind  24 Sīraf  87, 145, 161 Šīrāz  24 al-Sirrī b. ʿAbd Allāh  18 Šuʿayb  13 Subādāy  25 Sufyān b. al-Abrad  16 Sufyān b. Muʿāwiya  18 Suġd  17 Sulaymān b. ʿAlī  17 Sulaymān Šāh  25 Surqāna  36 Surr  132–134 Sūsa  76, 104, 111 Tabarek  24 al-Ṭabarī  13–20, 22, 123, 156, 157 Ṭabaristān  13, 18–22, 134, 156 Ṭāhir b. al-Ḥusayn  19 Ṭāhirid  19, 139 Ṭahrān  1, 3–5, 24–26, 28, 38, 48, 101, 104, 113, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 157–160 Ṯaqif  16, 126, 146 Tehran, see Ṭahrān Tepe Ġabristān  72 Tepe Hīssār  72, 102, 119, 160 Tepe Mil  49, 68, 104, 123, 126, 133, 144, 146, 160 Tepe Siyalk  72 Theophanes Confessor  19, 156 Transoxiana  19 Ṭuġril Bek  24, 28, 31, 147, 155 Tureng Tepe  102, 104, 106, 110, 111, 115, 144, 157–159 Turkish  20, 22, 158 ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād  16, 149 Ugurtmish  20

165

Index ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb  13–15 Umayyad  15–17, 48, 126, 145 ʿUrwa b. al-Zayd  14 ʿUṯmān b. ʿAffān  14 Vorones i  149 al-Wāqidī  13 Warāmīn  5, 25, 79, 101, 136, 146 Washmgīr  21, 22

Yaʿqūb b. al-Layṯ  20, 152 al-Yaʿqūbī  14, 156 Yazd  39 Yazdağird  13, 14, 18, 149 Yazīd b. al-Ḥāriṯ b. Ruwaym  16 Yazīd b. Qays al-Hamaḏāni  15 Yūsuf b. Abī al-Sāğ  20, 153 Yūsuf b. ʿUmar  17, 150 Zāġah  72

Zagros  6, 139 Zanğān  20, 21, 23 al-Zīnabī b. Qulā  14 Ziyād b. al-Nadr  15 Ziyārid  21, 136