Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

From Parthian to Islamic Nisa

Abstract: Research carried out in the last centuries in the district of Nisa, the first
Arsacid capital located in nowadays Turkmenistan, revealed traces of occupa-
tion dated to the Islamic period that have been only previously published.
These are particularly evident at New Nisa, the city settled up to the 17th century
AD, but have been also recognized at Old Nisa, the Arsacid dynastic centre aban-
doned during the 2nd century AD. This paper focuses on the findings dating back
to the Islamic period made by the JuTAKE Expedition in the 1940s and by the
Joint Turkmen-Italian Expedition in recent years, with the purpose of pointing
out how some of the building solutions and planning displayed in Parthian
Nisa might be considered as forerunners for the later Islamic architectural tradi-
tion of Central Asia.

Keywords: Parthian, Nisa, Islamic, architecture, Arsacid.

Archaeological surveys carried out by the JuTAKE Expedition in the district of

Nisa (nowadays Turkmenistan, province of Ahal including New Nisa and Old
Nisa) revealed very few evidences of the Sasanian period in the area: this
seems to indicate that a long period of abandon occurs before the Islamic con-
quest.¹
Between the 9th and 15th centuries AD the plain at the foot of the Kopet Dagh
mountain range seems to revive and many fortified villages are founded in con-
nection with cultivated lands. The Soviet archaeologists² recognised at least two
types of fortified settlements: mountainous strongholds and fortresses built on
the plain. According to the results of the JuTAKE surveys two major centres
emerged in the area: New Nisa, to the West, and Anau, to the East, while
other monuments and less important centres could have been destroyed by
the Mongol invasion.
On the contrary, New Nisa might have had a Sasanian occupation from the
5 century AD afterwards: Arab and Persian sources³ seem to confirm its impor-
th

tance, reporting that the site was identified with a Persian name: Shakh-i Firuz.
In AD 651 the district of Nisa was conquered by the Arabs, becoming part of
the Islamic Caliphate. Between the 8th and 9th centuries AD new massive defen-

 For the history of the Nisa’s district in Islamic period see Masson 1949, pp. 16 – 115.
 Masson 1955, pp. 88 – 96.
 Istakhri, 273; Ibn Hawkal, 324; Mukaddasi, 320; Yakut, IV, 776; Kazvini, II, 311.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
40 Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

sive walls were erected in New Nisa (fig. 1); for this period the JuTAKE recognized
remains of houses built against the walls of the citadel, partially reusing ancient
Arsacid fortifications. With the 9th century AD a period of renaissance begins:
Arab sources report indeed that the city was ‘healthy and beauty’, with gardens,
streets and watercourses. Later on, in the 12th century AD, a hammam decorated
with frescoes was built in the southern part of the citadel.⁴
Different dynasties – in particular the Ghaznavids and the Seljuks – alternat-
ed in the control of the area until the Mongol invasion of AD 1220. The district of
Nisa revived in the 14th-15th centuries AD under the Timurids, who took control
over the whole area in AD 1381: New Nisa appears as a major craft centre
until the 17th century AD, with residential buildings decorated with glazed bricks
and several residences in the surrounding cultivated lands, which have not been
yet investigated.
The area between the two citadels was progressively settled from the 11th cen-
tury AD, as revealed by the remains of several workshops, gardens and also by
funerary monuments and religious buildings, such as the s.c. Namaz,⁵ a famous
mosque recorded in contemporary sources that has not been yet located on the
ground.
However, from the archaeological point of view, New Nisa remains largely
unknown for the Parthian, Sasanian and Islamic periods. Excavations there last-
ed only for two seasons and soon the work of the JuTAKE moved in the nearby
Old Nisa. Since then, New Nisa remained untouched and only recently small
deep soundings have been opened by V.N. Pilipko, who was looking for Parthian
layers and structures inside the city.

In Old Nisa there are no significant remains of the Sasanian period, the citadel
being occasionally frequented by squatters. The site is not recorded in the sour-
ces but, of course, must have been involved in the same historical events of the
district: excavations within the citadel, here carried out extensively, revealed in-
teresting structures of the Islamic period.⁶ Unfortunately, no systematic studies
of the relevant Islamic materials were carried out so far. During the Soviet exca-
vations of the JuTAKE, in the first half of the 20th century, Islamic buildings were
unearthed in different parts of the citadel in a very bad state of preservation
(fig. 2). As a consequence, the Islamic layout of Old Nisa still remains widely un-

 See Bjaz’mjaina 1949 and 1953; Pugačenkova 1949, pp. 230 – 259. For a general overview of the
Nisa’s district in ancient and Islamic times see Gundogdyev, Muradov 2000.
 Pugačenkova 1948, pp. 247– 251,
 Pilipko 2001, pp. 354– 369; Invernizzi, Lippolis 2008, pp. 151– 166.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
 From Parthian to Islamic Nisa 41

known, even if it is clear that the site never reached the importance of New Nisa,
which was the city proper with its Shahristan and Ark.

At the very beginning of the Islamic period traces of precarious structures, built
as shelters against the ruined Parthian buildings of Old Nisa (fig. 3), attest that
squatters occasionally settled in the citadel: the relevant materials, glazed and
red or black-slip pottery, confirm this trend for sherds were mainly found close
to fireplaces.
Traces of structures dated to the 11th-12th centuries AD were found in the
northern sector of the citadel: these were articulated in rows of rooms built in
mud bricks and pakhsa (or pisè) and can be considered as the largest Islamic
building known so far in Old Nisa, extending for more than 100 m east-west
wards. Its complete layout is unknown, but it can be probably interpreted as a
complex built for different functions, because different kinds of furniture,
such as clay benches, fireplaces and drains, were found inside the rooms.
Large structures were also built, at least since the Seljuk period, above the so-
called ‘Square Hall’ and ‘Palace’, even if their layout is only partially known.
The northern area of the citadel was used as cemetery, where both simple
and mud brick burials were found. As a rule, the bodies were laid on their
right side and sometime on their back (supine), but their head was always ori-
ented to the north-west.
In the central sector, remains of rooms and corridors of the 13th-14th centuries
AD were found above the Parthian ‘Square Hall’: these can be confidently dated
to this period by the so-called ‘white and blue’ pottery, which imitated the con-
temporary Chinese production.
This part of the citadel was excavated by A.A. Maruščenko, who discovered
two rectangular structures of mud bricks and pakhsa, partially built against the
Arsacid ruined walls and smaller than those discovered in the northern sector.
Other masonries in pakhsa or in bricks (usually measuring 28 – 30 cm) emerged
to the north, in the area of the so-called ‘Palace’, and to the east on the limits of
the central depression usually interpreted as a basin. Unfortunately, only few
mentions of these structures are made in preliminary reports.
The diagnostic pottery types from the Islamic levels of Old Nisa seem to span
from the 12th to 16th centuries AD and their diffusion in the central sector of the
citadel seems to indicate that particularly this area was settled at that time, even
if potsherds of the 10th-11th centuries AD were found in different points of the ex-
cavated areas.

Additional information is now provided by the Italian excavations, which have

been carried out in the south-western part of the monumental complex and in

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
42 Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

the southern area of the citadel. However the interpretation of the Islamic occu-
pation remains difficult for there are many blanks in the reconstruction of the
buildings’ layout, in their chronology and function.
New excavations, still ongoing, in the south-western corner of the citadel are
uncovering a large Parthian complex with storerooms and functional devices.
Remains of Islamic walls in pakhsa have been documented in the northern
part of this building together with pottery that spreads form the 10th to the 14th
century AD.⁷
In the south-eastern part of the citadel, trenches and soundings revealed
only few traces of masonries and, for the most, simple burials along the fortifi-
cation walls.

In the area located about 100 m south-east of the Parthian so-called ‘Tower
Building’ a new sector, named ‘Sector F’, has been investigated in close proxim-
ity to an older JuTAKE trial trench, opened in 1966 by N.I. Krašeninnikova.⁸ The
Italian excavation exposed an area of about 550 m2, revealing the presence of
two buildings, conventionally named ‘Building A’ and ‘Building B’, separated
by an open area and only covered by a superficial layer of sediment. Both build-
ings develop north-southward, being slightly turned to the northeast.
Building B, which is at the southern excavation limit, displays a simple lay-
out, consisting of one rectangular room of 8.5x6 m (Room 1), built in pakhsa.
What remains of the low walls delimiting its inner space appears directly laid
on the soil, without any kind of foundation works.
Building A (fig. 4), located to the north of Building B, revealed a more com-
plex layout: it consists of at least 11 rooms and extends north-eastward for more
than 280 m2. The exposed rooms are rectangles of about 2.5x4.5 m, with the ex-
ception of Room 3, having a roughly squared plan of 2.5x3 m, and Rooms 10 and
14, much more wider and measuring 4x6 m (Room 10) and 2x6 m (Room 14).
Walls were preserved at their foundations and, even if no floor has been recov-
ered, doorways have been found that must have given access from the outside
into Room 3, and from Room 5 to Room 6. Because of their position, projecting
on an open area, Rooms 2 and 3 could have been the entrance-suite of the entire
building.

 A 13th-14th century AD (date proposed by prof. Terkesh Khodzhanyazov) silver coin was discov-
ered in this context.
 In this trench at least six levels have been recognised, with a wall of two rows of squared
bricks, later replaced by other structures and storage jars inserted into the ground (Pilipko
2001, p. 93, figs. 70 – 71).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
 From Parthian to Islamic Nisa 43

While the perimeter’s walls are made in pakhsa, the inner walls are made
with a particular mixture of loose earth, potsherds, rubble and fragments of
mud or baked bricks, which appears to have been quite unstable for no binder
have been recovered. Being less wide and long than the perimeter’s walls,
inner walls appear to have hardly supported a roof. Some walls of Rooms 5
and 6 have been founded or partially founded above the remaining walls of
an earlier building, built with the same technique and following the same orien-
tation.
In the area separating Building A and B at least 8 storage jars, usually called
khums, have been found still inserted into the ground. Potsherds belonging to
one-handled jars or to big common ware storage jars have been scantly recovered
in both buildings. These can be generally dated for the most to the Islamic peri-
od, even if at least one jar found at the foundations of Building A finds compar-
ison with 9th-12th centuries AD examples from Merv.⁹
The function of these buildings is still unclear, but the building technique of
Building A seems to support the hypothesis that these structures have not been
made for a lasting use. This seems also confirmed by the fact that the remains of
these structures appear to have not been exposed for a long time after their
abandonment, as if they were intentionally razed to their foundations after
their use.

Despite the chronological gap between the Arsacid and the Islamic buildings at
Old Nisa, the latter seem to follow the same orientation of the former, for they
overlap and sometime lay against the ruins of the Parthian buildings, rising
on them like on platforms. During excavation, Islamic finds have been discov-
ered immediately above the Parthian walls and on ancient rooms’ floors or de-
vices that were probably re-used. Indeed, the ancient buildings of the ceremonial
complex at Nisa, although ruined, should have been still visible or partially
emerging from the ground.¹⁰
In the central part of the site, the Italian excavation unearthed the remains of
a large Islamic building, directly superimposed on the Arsacid complex called
‘Red Building’ (figs. 1, 5, 6).¹¹ Its layout, with a large rectangular courtyard (meas-
uring 13x10 m approximately) and three iwans open on it, recalls some residen-

 See, for example, Herrmann et al. 1997, p. 29, fig. 15.

 Nowadays, even after several earthquakes and centuries, the buildings of the monumental
central complex in Old Nisa are preserved to a considerable height, with walls standing up to
4– 5 meters. We can imagine how in Islamic times these ruined structures appeared, surely
even more monumental than today.
 Invernizzi, Lippolis 2008, pp. 151– 166.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
44 Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

ces of the late Seljuk period in the region.¹² The ancient structures were partly re-
used as foundation or base for the walls of the Islamic complex (fig. 7); in other
cases, an artificial levelling of the area was carried out. With obvious differences
and taking into consideration that we know only a part of it, the Islamic building
layout follows that of the ancient Red Building, testifying the fact that the Arsa-
cid structures, though collapsed, were still clearly visible: a rational planning,
which clearly considered the pre-existing structures, was here undertaken.
Nevertheless, some particular building solutions must be considered, when
attempting to define even a general link between Parthian Nisa and Islamic ar-
chitecture:¹³ first of all, the case of the Round Hall. Its layout and building tech-
nique are indeed unusual: the hall is a circular large inner space with a diameter
of 17 m, included in a square perimeter. Two distinct structures are here dis-
played: the inner circular ring of mud-bricks and the external rectilinear wall
tangential to the former. The two wall-sections have been built independently;
however, from a structural point of view – once built up -, the external masonry
reinforced and enclosed the central rings of bricks.
On the ancient floor of the inner circular hall laid a thick layer of debris into
which Parthian and Islamic materials were mixed: a further element that shows
how in Islamic period the Arsacid buildings were still not completely covered or
hidden by debris. Some glazed fragments, discovered above the old (Parthian)
floor of the room and belonging to the architectural decoration of an entrance
(probably a door lintel: fig. 8), are particularly interesting, for they find punctual
comparison with the decoration of the main entrance of the mausoleum of Abu
Said Abul-Khair at Mekhne,¹⁴ 300 km East of Nisa. We cannot discern where
these decorations were originally displayed at Old Nisa, as far no relevant Islam-
ic masonries have been recognized inside or above the Round Hall. In any case,
the glazed decoration of Nisa and the one of Mekhne have been likely produced
in the same centre. What is interesting, however, is that the distribution of Islam-
ic finds¹⁵ just above the original ancient floor suggests that part of the Parthian

 See, for example, the Seljuk Shahryar Ark’s palace at Merv in Herrmann 1999, pp. 66 – 67,
fig. 72.
 Some of these suggestions have been, recently, already proposed by A. Invernizzi (Invernizzi
forthcoming).
 The town of Mekhne was an important center of northern Khorasan in the Middle Ages,
nowadays in the district of Kahkha (300 km East of Nisa). The architectural decoration of
Mekhne also reminds on some glazed bricks from a 13th century residence of New Nisa; we
may assume for both these decorations an origin from a workshop of southern Turkmenistan
(Mamedov 2006).
 See for example also the case of a fragment of a terracotta mold (bowl) with kufic inscription
(Cellerino 2008, pp. 285 – 286).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
 From Parthian to Islamic Nisa 45

buildings of the main complex at Nisa were still used or intentionally re-used,
even after so many centuries.
Another link between the Round Hall and the Islamic architecture seems to
emerge from its layout and external look. As well known, the Russian archaeol-
ogists proposed a model of the hall conceived as a cylindrical drum covered by a
wooden roof, following the classical model of the Arsinoeion at Samothrace.¹⁶ In
fact, this type of covering is alien to the building models generally attested in the
region. It is also deprived of any direct relationship with the Iranian architecture,
especially with the Achaemenid tradition. A different reconstruction for the hall
– that is the presence of a mud-brick dome above the inner circular space – had
been proposed by Besenval since the 1980s.¹⁷
From a strictly archaeological point of view, the excavation revealed that the
total volume of the filling levels of the debris inside the circular room is more
consistent with the presence of a mud-brick dome. Moreover, the punctual anal-
yses carried out by the Italian team proved that the hypothesis of a mud-brick
dome covering the Round Hall is quite possible from the structural point of
view and also according to the building technique of the Parthian architects.¹⁸
As a consequence, the hypothesis of an ellipsoidal dome resting directly on
the floor and with its top emerging from the outer square block has been pro-
posed for the covering of the hall (figs. 9, 10).
From the technical point of view, a millenary tradition links the dome-roof
covering type of the Round Hall to the brick domes of the Islamic ‘ice-houses’
of Margiana; moreover, from the aesthetical point of view, we might consider
the shape of the Round Hall as a forerunner of some typical Islamic buildings
of Central Asia: such is the case of the mausolea of Ismail the Samanid in Bu-
khara or Sultan Sanjar at Merv, just to quote two examples. Quite the same
shape (a squared perimeter with a dome roofing) is widespread in the area till
the 19th century, as attested by the domestic architecture of southern Turkmeni-
stan.
In a recent study,¹⁹ N.S. Baimatova puts in evidence how the ancient Central
Asian architects were familiar with the dome-roof covering type,²⁰ even if the

 Krašeninnikova, Pugačenkova 1964.

 Besenval 1986, pp. 130 – 131.
 Masturzo 2008, Blasi et al. 2008.
 Baimatova 2008.
 In Central Asia, the occurrence of circular rooms included in square layouts emerged in Iron
Age Chorasmian graves at Tagišken (it must be kept in mind the symbolic value of these patterns
in nomads/Scythian cosmology, where the circle represents the sky (the eternity) and the square
represents the Earth – the four corners of the World). The earliest of them date to the 9th-8th cen-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
46 Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

domes we deal with, especially for ancient times, covered rooms of much lesser
size than the case of Nisa.
The Round Hall in Nisa seems to antedate by far other Iranian examples: the
Sasanian grandiose domes or vaults are different for the building material and
technique, even if we could count them in the same architectural tradition.²¹
These monumental examples might be considered as the product of a varied
and long-lasting tradition in which the Round Hall of Nisa stands out as a fore-
runner or an intermediate step.
Moreover, we should note that the ceremonial character of the Round Hall²²
perfectly fits with the occurrence of two mixed layouts (square and circle), ac-
cording to a long-lasting Oriental tradition.²³
What we would point out is that a significant number of pre-Islamic build-
ings may belong to an architectural scheme, mainly adopted in ceremonial/fu-
nerary context, which continued in the Islamic architecture of Central Asia. De-
spite their formal, technical and functional differences, all these buildings may

tury BC: in spite of their formal, technical and functional differences, their symbolic design with
a circular room inscribed in a square reminds that of some buildings at Nisa (Košelenko 1977, p.
63). Always in Chorasmia, in the 4th century BC, the Balandy 2 (funerary?) building includes a
dome, while vaults are restored for other complexes (mainly funerary) at Koj-Krulgan kala, El-
kharas and Babish Mulla. Later on, after the case of Nisa, a dome-type covering is mentioned
for the squared cistern/tank near to the ‘big house’ (raskop V) at Dilberjin (Baimatova 2008,
p. 221, so-called ‘Balkhi’ dome).
 Always in the (late) Sasanian period the ‘fire-temple’ recently discovered at Bandiyan (about
80 km far from Nisa, in northern Khorasan) includes a small circular room inscribed in a square
perimeter and a nearby tetrastyle hall: the coexistence of both circular and square layouts re-
minds the centric schemes of the central ensemble at Nisa. A similar solution is also known
for the citadel of Kafyr-kala in south Tadjikistan, dated to the 4th-7th centuries AD (Litvinsky, So-
lovjev 1985).
 Recently, Invernizzi stated that the use of the term heroon for the Round Hall of Nisa is im-
precise, rather suggesting a comparison – both in terms of planning and function – with build-
ings (tholoi) such as the Philippeion at Olympia (Invernizzi, forthcoming).
 Apart from the above-mentioned Tagišken necropolis and the Round Hall itself, a funerary
building (interpreted as a mausoleum by Košelenko) was built at Merv in the 1st-2nd century AD,
with an elliptical (?) dome on a squared block. The archaeological documentation from the Merv
necropolis and other sites also include terracotta ossuaries of the 5th-6th centuries: they repro-
duce obviously real buildings that belong to the same architectural tradition, a dome-shaped
covering inside a quadrangular or truncated-cone perimeter (Košelenko 1977, pp. 74– 76,
figs. 28 – 29; Filanovich 1991, p. 211). Later on, this same type of building recurs in a well-
known painting from Penjikent, depicting a funerary ceremony (always in Penjikent, funerary
buildings or mausoleums with a square layout covered by a ‘carinated’ vault or dome are attest-
ed, even if the reconstruction of their covering remains problematic). The list here provided is
incomplete and would need of a more detailed discussion.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
 From Parthian to Islamic Nisa 47

be part of a millenary tradition that from the Tagišken necropolis come out again
in Nisa – with elements taken from the Macedonian funerary or ceremonial mod-
els – and continued, renewed, into the Sasanian and Islamic periods.²⁴ More
than in the architectural tradition of the fire-temples or of the Mediterranean
late antique martyria, as some scholars had suggested,²⁵ the typology of the Cen-
tral Asian Islamic mausoleum (the so-called sagany) may be related to the above
mentioned forerunners: in this respect, Old Nisa holds a meaningful rank posi-
tion in the history of Central Asian architecture.
With its monumentality and antiquity, and despite the fact that a perfect
aesthetical or tectonic harmony was not totally achieved in the building, the
Round Hall may represents a decisive intermediate step in the transmission of
a layout that has been elaborated and diversified in the subsequent centuries.²⁶

What is prevailing in the buildings of Nisa is the sense of the frontality, mainly
displayed in the façades usually articulated in porticoes between projecting fore-
parts or rooms (Red Building, Tower Temple) and enriched by the use of colour.
As far as we know the iwan, the most characteristic pattern of (western) Parthian
architecture, is here curiously missing.²⁷
A totally new formal solution, in respect of the other buildings of the mon-
umental complex at Old Nisa, was adopted for the exterior of the Square Hall.²⁸
In this building, showing a typical Iranian layout with its central tetrastyle room,
projections or massive pillars – triangular in section – were added, to a certain

 However, the case of the Round Hall in Old Nisa, with its elliptical high dome resting directly
on the floor, remains at the moment unique: more evidently than in the other cases, the building
of Nisa foresees an additive building technique and planning where the masonry of the two
parts (circle and square) are put in place independently.
 Ettinghausen and Grabar 1987, p. 218.
 This is not the place for such a kind of problematic discussion and we are aware of the for-
mal, technical and functional differences that occurred, but one may wonder if this ancient ar-
chitectural tradition of Central Asia could have, in some way, influenced the architectural layout
of some Buddhist monuments, especially keeping in mind solutions as those adopted at Merv
and Dilberjin where circular rooms are inscribed in quadrangular perimeters (Baimatova
2008, p. 97).
 This absence is even more surprising if we consider that at Mansur depe, only about 3 kms to
the north of Nisa, excavations uncovered a Parthian complex with a huge rectangular courtyard
enceinted by a wall and with two iwans opened on it. Was this absence, in a highly representa-
tive site such Old Nisa, a deliberated ideological choice? Or, maybe, the introduction of the iwan
in this region has to be considered as originated from the Western regions of the Empire in a
later Parthian period, subsequent to the Arsacid buildings at Nisa? At the moment, we are
not able to answer properly to this question.
 Invernizzi, forthcoming.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
48 Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

extent, to the main façade (fig. 11). These elements have mainly a structural func-
tion, but also give to the façade rhythm and vertical dynamism in a new fashion,
unknown in other buildings at Nisa. The façade reconstruction of the Square Hall
proposed in the 1990 s remains hypothetical since only the lower part of the
walls was preserved.²⁹ In any case, apart from the conjectural presence of arches
on the top, this reconstruction (fig. 12) gives an idea of the new decorative pat-
tern. In Central Asia a decoration with buttresses or pillars, mostly rounded, is
attested – from the 6th to the 11th centuries – in the oases of Choresmia, in Sogdi-
ana (Varaksha) and in Margiana,³⁰ where several so-called ‘corrugated buildings’
have been recorded on the route between Merv and Amul. Corrugated decora-
tions appear, for instance, in the keshks (caravanserai) and in some fortified res-
idences at Merv; it also occasionally occurs in tomb-towers and minarets.³¹ Its
origin is still not clear: Pugačenkova’s suggestion³² that the inspiration could
come from the engaged columns on the walls of the fortress of Chilburj (that
she dated to the Parthian period) is no longer acceptable, if we agree with the
new dating, which places the rebuilt and repair of the fortifications in late peri-
ods.³³ Also the restoration proposed by the Russian archaeologist remains highly
conjectural, especially for the squinches in the upper part of the walls.
Buttresses or pillars are well attested in the fortification of the Parthian pe-
riod in Central Asia, but they are usually flat and squared, rather dissimilar in
shape from the Islamic rounded or polygonal ‘corrugations’ above mentioned:
the general pattern of these squared buttresses is well illustrated, for example,
on the steatite vessel from Nisa itself, reproducing a stronghold.³⁴
Nevertheless, the case of the triangular projections added to the façade of
the Square Hall is different and more similar to the Islamic ‘corrugations’. Al-
though the façade of the Square Hall remains, so far, without parallels, it may
be considered as a sort of prototype, as the earliest example of a new pattern
of a decorative system that was systematically applied on the building-facades
of later periods.

 This was probably on the line of a Greek appearance, but is also influenced by Islamic ar-
chitectural types. See in particular the hypothetical reconstruction of M. Mamedov in Pilipko
2001, fig. 140. This pattern could have been suggested to the author of the drawing by the façade
of the Rabat-i Malik caravanserai in the Zerafshan valley or of the kepter khana in Sharyar Ark at
Merv: see Hermann 1999, pp. 70, 73.
 Besenval 1984, p. 167, pl. 222.
 As testified in the Greater Kyz Kala, this decoration occurs since the 8th-9th centuries (Herr-
mann 1999, p. 86). Pillars and corrugations are also attested in some residences of Sultan-kala.
 Pugačenkova 1958, p. 54.
 Gaibov, Košelenko, Novikov 1990; Herrmann 1999, p. 72.
 Košelenko 1977, p. 42, fig. 14.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
 From Parthian to Islamic Nisa 49

The official architecture of Old Nisa is a deliberate and complex synthesis of dif-
ferent traditions, purposing to glorify the Arsacid dynasty: it consciously blends
an Iranian/Achaemenid layout, a local building technique, and polychrome fa-
çade decorations together with architectural elements of a more western taste
(see the Corinthian capitals, ‘metopae’, palmettes), although never totally
Greek and always reinterpreted.
These building solutions and planning are not only meaningful in respect of
the Parthian architecture, for they might be considered as forerunners or inter-
mediate steps in the millenary architectural tradition of Central Asia.

Bibliography
Baimatova, N. S. 2008. 5000 Jahre Architektur in Mittelasien, Archäologie in Iran und Turan
7, Mainz.
Besenval, R. 1984. Technologie de la voute dans l’Orient Ancien, voll. 1 – 2, Paris.
Bjaz’mitina, M. I. 1949. ‘Arheologičeskoe izučenie gorodišča Novaja Nisa v. 1946 gody’, in
Trudy JuTAKE, I, Ašhabad, pp. 147 – 169.
Bjaz’mitina, M. I. 1953. ‘Arheologičeskie raboty na gorodišče Novaja Nisa v. 1947 gody’, in
Trudy JuTAKE, II, Ašhabad, pp. 147 – 168.
Ettinghausen, R., Grabar, O. 1987. The Art and Architecture of Islam, 650 – 1250, New
Haven-London.
Gaibov, V., Košelenko, G., Novikov, S. 1990. ‘Chilburdj’, in Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4,
pp. 21 – 40.
Gundogdyev, O., Muradov, R. 2000. ‘Istoriko-kul’turnoe naslednie Turkmenistana’, in
Historical and Cultural Heritage of Turkmenistan, Istanbul, pp. 236 – 240.
Herrmann, G., Kennedy H. N. 1999. Monuments of Merv, London.
Herrmann, G., Kurbansakhatov, K., Simpson, St. J. 2007. ‘The International Merv Project.
Preliminary Report on the Fifth Season (1996)’, in Iran 35, pp. 1 – 33.
Invernizzi, A. (forthcoming). ‘Architectural Traditions in Arsacid Parthia’, Parthische Kunst –
Kunst im Partherreich, Jacobs B. (ed.) (Internationales Kolloquium, Universität Basel,
9. Oktober 2010, Düsseldorf.
Invernizzi, A., Lippolis, C. 2008. Nisa Partica. Ricerche nel complesso monumentale arsacide
1990 – 2006, Monografie di Mesopotamia IX, Firenze.
Košelenko, A. G. 1977. Rodina Parfian, Moskva.
Krašeninnikova N. I., Pugačenkova, G. A. 1964. ‘Kruglyj hram parfjanskj Nisy’, in Sovetskaja
Arheologija 4, pp. 119 – 135.
Lippolis, C. and Messina, V. 2008. ‘Preliminary report on the 2007 Italian excavations in
Parthian Nisa’, in Parthica 10, pp. 53 – 61.
Lippolis, C. 2005. ‘Nisa’ (islamica), in Enciclopedia Archeologica Treccani – Asia, Roma,
pp. 988 – 989.
Litvinskij B. A., Solovjev V. S. 1985. Kafyrkala. Frühmittelalterlichr Stadt in Vachš-Tal,
SüdTadžikistan, Materialen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 28,
München.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM
50 Carlo Lippolis and Vito Messina

Mamedov, M. 2006. ‘Richesse des panneaux céramiques du mausolée d’Abou Saïd’, in

Dossiers d’archeologie 317 (octobre), Dijon.
Masson, M. E. 1949. ‘Gorodišča Nisy v selenii Bagir i ih izučenie’, in Trudy JuTAKE I, Ašhabad,
pp. 16 – 115.
Masson, M. E. 1955. ‘Narody i oblasti južnoj časti Turkmenistana v sostave Parfjanskogo
gosudarstva, in Trudy JuTAKE V, Ašhabad, pp. 7 – 103.
Pilipko, V. N. 1996. Staraja Nisa. Zdanie s kvadratnym zalom, Moskva.
Pilipko, V. N. 2001. Osnovye itogi arheologičeskogo izučenija v sovetskij period, Moskva.
Pugačenkova, G. A. 1949. ‘Arhitekturnye pamiatniki Nisy’, in Trudy JuTAKE I, Ašhabad,
pp. 201 – 259.
Pugačenkova, G. A. 1958. Puti razvitija arhitektury južnogo Turkmenistana pory rabovladenija
i feodalizma, Ašhabad.
Pugačenkova, G. A. 1991. ‘Les fondements préislamiques de l’architecture de Mavarannahr’,
in Histoire et cultes de l’Asie Centrale préislamique, P. Bernard, F. Grenet (eds.), Paris,
pp. 213 – 222.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 8:58 PM