Early Islamic Kufa in Context

Annali, Sezione orientale 78 (2018) 69–103
brill.com/aioo
Early Islamic Kūfa in Context: A Chronological

Reinterpretation of the Palace, with a Note on
the Development of the Monumental Language
of the Early Muslim Élite
Aila Santi
PhD student, Sapienza Università di Roma
aila.santi@uniroma1.it
Abstract
The origin of the congregational mosque-dār al-imāra combination—despite wide

acknowledgement of its symbolic importance and spread in early Islamic urbanism—
has until now been considered the mere result of a measure to protect public treasure
implemented in Kūfa at a very early date (638) as a consequence of a burglary. A criti-
cal analysis of literary sources, combined with a systematic review of the available ar-
chaeological evidence, has made it possible to confute this traditional view in favour of
a new dating for the emergence of the first Kūfan dār al-imāra and its architectural de-
velopment, suggesting interesting insights pertaining to the monumental propaganda
promoted by the ruling élite in the Umayyad era.
Keywords
Kūfa – dār al-imāra – mosque – Umayyads
Introduction and State of the Art
The architectural combination of the Friday mosque and the dār al-imāra, due
to its implicit semiotic potential and recurrence, represents one of the most
significant elements of early Islamic monumental rhetoric. Although schol-
ars dealing with the Muslim city (Sauvaget 1947: 122–57; Monneret de Villard
1968: 107; Creswell 1979; AlSayyad 1991; Bacharach 1991; Johns 1999; Flood 2001)
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/24685631-12340045

70 Santi
have inevitably recognized its prominence, there is still no detailed disserta-

tion focusing on the actual means and context of its initial appearance and
development.1 This article is a first attempt to outline the crux of the matter by
addressing the case of a site that was, more than any other, considered proto-
typical due to the very first occurrence of the ensemble: the Iraqi miṣr of Kūfa.
The famous garrison town was in fact identified by Creswell (1979: I.1, 26) as
the place of origin of the congregational mosque—dār al-imāra combination.
According to Creswell it was there that, very early on and immediately after the
conquest (ca. 630–640), caliph ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb ordered Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ,
founder and governor of the miṣr, to join the two buildings after a robbery
in the bayt al-māl. The sound basis for Creswell’s argument was provided by
the account of the Kūfan historian Sayf b. ʿUmar (d. 796),2 the most detailed
of the known accounts of the very early history of the city. In relegating its
emergence to the effects of that set of haphazard incidents3 which, in his view,
would have shaped the material vocabulary of ‘Primitive Islām’,4 Creswell re-
jected any sort of programmatic will underlying the advent and spread of this
peculiar ensemble. In fact, since all issues concerning the date of appearance,
purpose and function of the congregational mosque—dār al-imāra combina-
tion could be thoroughly explained by the episode of the burglary in Kūfa, it
could be implicitly deduced that its canonization and widespread dissemina-
tion should be interpreted as anything but the derivative reiteration of a triv-
ial architectural custom. This was probably the determining factor as to why
subsequent literature paid little attention to the topic,5 although the results of
1 The author is currently carrying out a PhD research project on the relationship between the
mosque and the dār al-imāra in the early Islamic period.
2 Entirely reported in Ṭabarī (1836–1901: V, 2482–89). For an exhaustive analysis of the source,
see below.
3 “It is interesting to observe that already at this early date (17 H) we have a group—a square
mosque, with a Governor’s residence built against its qibla side—which we shall see persist-
ing for more than two centuries, although derived in its ultimate analysis from two trivial
facts, viz.: the marking out of the mosque by arrow-casts, and a burglary” (Creswell 1979: I.1,
26; cf. Creswell, Allan 1989: 8).
4 Creswell’s vision of “Primitive Islām” as an “architectural vacuum” (Creswell 1979: I.1, 10˗11)
has been caustically criticized by Jeremy Johns, who defined it as a “crude caricature” (Johns
1999: 86). Nevertheless, although a contemporary reading of Creswell’s work may make it
appear naïve and out-dated in some respects, its outstanding value as the first exhaustive
and systematic attempt to create a corpus devoted to the Islamic architecture should not be
overlooked.
5 Only two extensive discussions on the matter are attested so far in literature: the chapter
on the mosque and the palace in Sauvaget’s work on the mosque of Madīna (Sauvaget 1947:
Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Early Islamic Kūfa in Context 71
the archaeological research carried out in Kūfa, widely discussed by Creswell

himself (1979: I.1, 26–27, 46–64) a few pages after the assumption they clearly
contradict, revealed a stratified reality that calls for a re-examination of the
whole matter.
The area adjoining the qibla side of the Great Mosque of Kūfa was in fact
excavated by the Directorate of Antiquities in Iraq during a series of intermit-
tent archaeological campaigns (1938–56) which unearthed three superim-
posed building layers corresponding to three different architectural phases of
the qaṣr, dated by Muḥammad ʿAlī Muṣṭafā to the pre/proto-Islamic, Umayyad
and Abbasid periods respectively (Muṣṭafā 1963: 63–65). Although, regrettably,
the scientific value of the material published about the excavations (Muṣṭafā
1954; 1956; 1963) is significantly depreciated due to the almost complete lack
of proper archaeological documentation,6 the chronological attributions pro-
posed have never been subjected to a critical re-examination, receiving, on
the contrary, the more or less manifest support of the Academia and being
endorsed in broad terms by Creswell himself.7 What is more striking, at first
glance, is the evident incompatibility of what the scholar stated with regard
to the emergence of the mosque—dār al-imāra group during the caliphate of
ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb and his subsequent discussion of the archaeological evi-
dence, for he seems to identify the first layer of the dār al-imāra with that of
Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ,8 although the physical connection with the mosque—ac-
cording to Sayf b. ʿUmar the raison d’être for the rebuilding of the qaṣr after the
burglary—is archeologically attested only in the second phase (Muṣṭafā 1963),
which Creswell confidently attributes to the governorate of Ziyād b. Abīhi, i.e.
to the early Umayyad era (Creswell 1979: I.1, 48; Creswell, Allan 1989: 14–15).
This flaw detected in the process of interpreting the Kūfan ensemble consti-
tutes the starting point of our inquiry: the following paragraphs represent an
attempt to provide an alternative reconstruction of the material history of the
area and, in light of this, to reconsider some issues relating to the architectural
development of the early Islamic civilization.
122–57; English version in Bloom 2002: 109–47) and the accurate, although synthetic, over-
view by Bacharach of the administrative complexes in Medieval Islām (Bacharach 1991).
6 Elements that could provide an absolute dating occurred in the third layer (Abbasid period)
only: two copper coins in the name of the Abbasid caliph ʿAbdallāh al-Saffāh (750–754) mint-
ed in Kūfa in 136 H, a series of coins dating from the caliphate of al-Mahdī (775–785) to that
of Harūn al-Rašīd (786–809), and a series of Ilḫānid coins in the debris of the upper layers
(Muṣṭafā 1963: 63–64).
7 Leaving aside a brief and self-contained display of skepticism which, nevertheless, lacks a
proper pars costruens and has not been taken up further (Creswell 1979: I.1, 57–58; see below).
8 Founder and first governor of Kūfa during ʿUmar’s caliphate (638–641 ca.).

72 Santi
On the Unreliability of the Account of Sayf b. ʿUmar
Sayf b. ʿUmar’s account, preserved in its entirety in the chapter of Ṭabarī’s

monumental historiography concerning the events of the year 17 H (Ṭabarī
1836–1901: V, 2481–96) is the most detailed and longest narrative on the foun-
dation and early development of Kūfa. Although the tendentious nature of
this source has already been pointed out by many scholars (Madelung 1997:
374–75; Wellhausen 1899: 120–25, 133–35), it played a crucial and authoritative
role in the interpretation of the material history of the mosque—dār al-imāra
combination in Kūfa. Nevertheless, a critical reading of the text has allowed
us to detect a set of anachronisms and incongruities that call into question its
reliability. The events Sayf recounted can be summarized in three main steps:
1.
Immediately after an archer had marked out the congregational area
(saḥn) by shooting arrows, Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ built a roof structure for
the mosque measuring 200 cubits in width with a ceiling resembling that
of a Byzantine church supported by marble columns.9
Saʿd’s dār, which included the treasure chamber, built by a Persian ar-
chitect called Rūzbih b. Buzurǧumihr with baked bricks taken from ru-
ined buildings previously belonging to Persian kings in al-Ḥīra, was
separated from the mosque by a narrow alley.10
9 It is unclear whether it was the ceiling itself or the columns that were taken from an un-
specified castle belonging to Persian kings. In his translation, Juynboll appended a note
in which he argues, using a comparison with an equivalent passage in Ibn al-Aṯīr (1978: II,
412), that the expression refers to the columns and that they belonged to a building in al-
Ḥīra, the same one from which the bricks to construct the dār were taken (Juynboll 1989:
69, n. 246).
10 “They left a square for the mosque that the people could enter from all sides. Over its
front part, a roof structure was built, that had no (walls at) either side, nor at the front
or back. […] The roof structure of al-Kūfah’s mosque measured two hundred cubits in
width supported by columns of marble. Its ceiling, resembling the ceilings in Byzantine
churches, was (taken from a palace formerly belonging) to the Persian kings. They marked
(the outer perimeter of) the congregation area by means of a ditch, lest anyone should
inadvertently and boldly embark on building inside that perimeter for his own. They built
a house for Saʿd, separated from the mosque by a narrow alley of two hundred cubits (in
length). The treasure chambers were incorporated in this house. It is the present-day cita-
del of al-Kūfah. Rūzbih (b. Buzurgumihr) built it for Saʿd out of baked bricks previously
used in buildings of the Persian kings in al-Ḥīrah” (Juynboll 1989: 69–70).

2. After a robbery in the bayt al-māl, ʿUmar ordered the mosque to be moved
and placed in front of the building housing the treasure. At this point,
there is an identical repeat of the account: Saʿd commissioned the Persian
Rūzbih to rebuild the qaṣr with the baked bricks taken from a Persian
ruined castle near al-Ḥīra, the only difference being that now the qaṣr
and the mosque formed “one and the same building”. Even in this phase
the mosque had no walls, but its ẓulla had marble pillars taken from
Christian churches.11
3. Ziyād b. Abīhi reconstructed the mosque employing several architects
‘born in the Ǧāhiliyyah’. The pilasters of the mosque of Ziyād were blocks
of stone quarried at al-Ahwāz and held together by iron bars.12
The most striking feature of the account is the repetitive nature of the events
recounted: attention is drawn in particular to phases 1 and 2 of building the
complex (in the first stage the mosque and the dār stood separately, and in
11 “Then, (robbers) dug a tunnel to the treasure chamber and stole from its contents. Saʿd
notified ʿUmar of this by letter […]. ʿUmar replied: ‘Move the spot where you actually
perform the prayer ritual to a place as close as possible to the building housing the trea-
sure chambers; in so doing, you make it the direction for prayer. For in the mosque there
are always people present, day and night, they will act as guards of what is also their
treasure.’ Thus the place where the prayer ritual was performed was brought closer and
then Saʿd set about building it. A dihqan from the people of Hamaḏan, called Rūzbih b.
Buzurgumihr, said to him: ‘I shall build it for you, and I shall also build a citadel for you; I
shall make some sort of connection between the one and the other so that they constitute
one and the same building.’ Thus he planned the citadel of al-Kūfah […] and commenced
building it from baked bricks taken from the ruin of a citadel the Persian kings used to
have in the neighborhood of al-Ḥīrah […]” (Juynboll 1989: 71–72).
12 “[This roof structure] had no walls, a situation that lasted until the building (complete
with walls), as it is today, was constructed in the time of Muʿāwiyah b. Abī Sufyān at the
hands of Ziyād (his adopted brother and governor of Iraq). When Ziyād set out to con-
struct it, he invited several architects who were born in the Jāhiliyyah to come to him.
He described to them the location of the mosque, its size and how high he wanted it to
reach up into the air, saying, ‘I want something higher than anything I have ever heard
described.’ Then a certain architect, who had previously been in the service of the king,
said to him, ‘This can only be done when supported by pillars made from blocks of stone
quarried at Ahwāz; these blocks have to be pierced and hollowed out, then filled with
lead and (held together by) iron bars, so as to enable you to raise the pillars made of these
blocks thirty cubits into the air. Then you build a roof over them and, to grant (the whole
structure) extra solidity, you build walls on all sides (i.e., supporting the edges of that roof
structure).’ Ziyād answered, ‘This is a description of a structure about which I used to have
inward discussions that I have never been able to settle.’” (Juynboll 1989: 73).

74 Santi
the second the two buildings were joined together) which are identically de-
scribed and involve the Persian architect Rūzbih and the use of recovered ma-
terials from al-Ḥīra. The manifest patchworked nature of the account, in which
the reiterated episode is contextualized as two different moments, makes it
impossible to discern a coherent and chronologically reasonable sequence of
events.13 The figure of Rūzbih then arouses some suspicions of unreliability:
he is in fact the only architect mentioned by name in the face of complete si-
lence in the sources about the technical directors of the building works during
the Umayyad period (Monneret de Villard 1968: 306). Moreover, his conceited
self-candidacy for the accomplishment of the building venture suspiciously
recalls the initiative of the anonymous architect later reported to have been
employed by Ziyād for his own project (above: note 12): a stereotypical motif
which indeed perfectly fits with the literary topoi on the construction of ex-
traordinary buildings spread throughout Middle Eastern folk-culture.14
Returning to the reading of the account, we find a meticulous—and equally
murky—description of the arrangement of the mosque and the qaṣr resulting
from the fulfillment of Rūzbih’s ambitious program:
ّ ‫ث‬
‫� الا �موا ل �م ن��ه ا لى �م��ن ت��هى ا �ل��ق��صر ي��م ن��ة �ع� ن� ا �ل��ق�� ب��ل��ة �م�م��م�د ب��ه‬ ‫ح��ا ل �� ت‬
‫و‬ ‫ي‬‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ �‫وو ض�� ا �ل��م��س�� ج��د ب‬
�
ّ ‫ث‬ ‫ع‬
�‫ح ب��ة �ق ب��لت��ه �م�م�د ب��ه ف� ك‬
�‫��ا ن� ت‬ �‫ح ب��ة ع��ل � نب� ا ب�ى ط�ا �ل� ب� �ع��م وا �لر‬ �‫�ع� ن� ي��مي�� ن� ذ� �ل�ك ا لى �م ن��ق��ط ر‬
‫ة ع ة قى‬
‫ن‬ �‫�ق ب��ل��ة ا �ل��م��س�� ج��د ا لى ا �لر‬
‫ح ب�� و�م��ي��م�� ا �ل�� ر‬
‫ص‬�
Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2492
He [Rūzbih] built the mosque facing the treasure chambers,15 with the
entire length of the citadel (qaṣr) being situated to the right of that
side of the mosque facing south.16 Then he extended it to the right, up to
the far end of the square (raḥba) of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib with this square as the
prayer direction. Then he extended it yet some more so that the prayer
direction of the mosque encompassed the whole square as well as the
right side of the citadel.17
13 In this regard, it should be noted, moreover, that the part referring to Ziyād b. Abīhi is
seamlessly inserted within the narrative concerning Saʿd’s wilāya.
14 See for instance the Sasanian traditions relating to the semi-legendary castle of al-
Ḫawarnaq, supposedly in the neighbourhoods of al-Kūfa (Würsch 2013: 143–45); or in
general Thompson (1955, V: 497).
15 Plural in the text (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2492, l.2).
16 I.e. the qiblī wall.
17 The passage reported in the text is a translation of the excerpt by Juynboll (1989: 72).

It should be noted that the very vague topographical indications seem at first
glance to contradict each other, making it impossible to sketch out a rational
plan of the ensemble. Nevertheless, it seems possible to make sense of the de-
scription by interpreting the orientation as in turn pertaining to the mosque
and the qaṣr, taking as a reference the plan of the complex as it appeared in the
late Umayyad period (Figs. 1 and 2):
– In the first sentence, the topographical indication “to the right” should be
interpreted by looking at the complex with north pointing upwards, i.e.
from the point of view of the qaṣr. This would indeed place the qaṣr to the
right of the qibla wall of the mosque, i.e. towards the east.
– In the second sentence, the pronoun “it” should be read as related to the
mosque,18 then the point of view has to be reversed. We should now imagine
the complex with south (the qibla) pointing upwards. This would mean that
“right” should be interpreted as west, a reading that makes sense consider-
ing the current placement of the raḥba (square) ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, placed to
the south of the western part of the qibla wall of the mosque.
– In the third sentence, the original text appears slightly different from
Juynbool’s translation, betraying the scholar’s difficulty in comprehending
its actual meaning. If we consider a literary translation,19 maintaining south
pointing upwards, even the sense of the last sentence becomes clear, mean-
ing that the qibla wall was erected southwards, i.e. towards the raḥba ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib, and to the west of the qaṣr, as it indeed appears to be in the cur-
rent arrangement of the complex.
With this reading, the retrospective character of this excerpt appears quite
clear: it is important to stress the fact that, archaeologically speaking, adjacent
structures are attested in fact exclusively in the second layer, and exactly as Sayf
b. ʿUmar described them in his account, with the qaṣr and the mosque consti-
tuting “one and the same building” (above: note 11) and “with the entire length
of the citadel situated to the right of the south-facing side of the mosque”.
Without referring to the Umayyad arrangement of the complex, this peculiar
18 The original text uses the masculine suffix pronoun ‫�ه‬. Note that in Arabic both the
ّ ‫ث‬
�‫��ا ن� ت� ق� ب��ل��ة ا �ل��م��س�� ج��د ا لى ا �لر‬
.‫ح ب��ة و�م��ي��م ن��ة ا �ل��ق��صر‬ �‫�م�م�د ب��ه ف� ك‬
mosque and the qaṣr are masculine nouns.
19
“Then he extended it (i.e. the mosque), and the qibla of the mosque was towards the
raḥba and to the right of the qaṣr” (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2492, ll. 4–5). I am very grateful to
Prof. Hugh Kennedy for his substantial help in the critical reading of the original texts of
the sources quoted in this article.

76 Santi
Figure 1 Satellite view of the mosque—dār al-imāra complex in Kūfa as it appears today.
© Google Earth 2017.

Figure 2 Kūfa, rendering of the mosque—dār al-imāra complex during the Umayyad period,
reworking after Creswell 1979: I.1 (A. Santi, G. Labisi).

78 Santi
description remains quite unintelligible, not to mention the architectural non-

sense of a mosque without walls,20 but whose south side was structurally con-
nected to a second building.
It must be noted, moreover, that one of the topographical entities employed
in the description is the square (raḥba) of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. We are know that
the last of the rāšidūn caliphs resided in Kūfa—where he shifted the capital
from Madīna—between 657 and 661, thus almost 20 years after the alleged
rebuilding by Saʿd, a fact that in itself is enough to disprove the existence of
the mentioned square during Saʿd’s wilāya, providing additional probative evi-
dence of the untrustworthiness of Sayf’s account.21 In this regard it is worth
paying attention, looking again at the area as it appears today, to the group
that the raḥba ʿAlī forms with the so-called bayt al-imām ʿAlī on the western
side of the dār al-imāra. Although this modest building, traditionally recog-
nized as the dwelling place of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib during his Kūfan stay, has never
been scientifically investigated—perhaps because it is still today a venerated
place of pilgrimage for Shiite devotees—evidence subsists which allows us to
consider it, or its placement at least, as original. We have already seen how the
square (raḥba) situated between the house and the mosque already existed
and was referred to as raḥba ʿAlī at least since the time of Sayf b. ʿUmar (d. 796),
proving that its close association with the first imām cannot be considered a
subsequent attribution of late šīʿī devotion. The position of the square lends it
practical significance when considered in sole connection with the house, to
which it constituted a leading—perhaps “ceremonial”?—pathway serving the
caliph during his daily visit to the congregational building. Moreover, if we con-
sider the particular placement of the qaṣr al-imāra, decentralized eastwards
with respect to the mosque, the pre-existence of the house and the square of
20 “[This roof structure] had no walls” (Juynboll 1989: 73).

21 Retrospective attitudes, interpolations and narrative stereotypes that appear misplaced
within a coherent narrative, but that could be explained by paying attention to the isnād
appended by Ṭabarī to the whole account (al-Sarī, Šuʿayr, Sayf, Muḥammad, Talhah, al-
Muhllab, ʿAmr, Saʿid). Note that, although Sayf b. ʿUmar is repeatedly indicated as the
only authority, he actually appears to be the third one in the order of transmission, the
complete account proving to be a collection of different traditions ascribed to al-Sarī b.
Yaḥyā al-Ḥanẓalī, a transmitter who lived two generations after Sayf himself. The fact that
the account has passed through at least three different generations of historians from Sayf
to Ṭabarī partially explains the scarce coherence and reliability of the events recounted,
representing the definitive probative evidence of its lack of trustworthiness.

ʿAlī could be said to represent the only plausible explanation of the unusual
layout of the complex, which constitutes an unicum in Islamic urbanism.22
The fact that the bayt ʿAlī existed prior to the qaṣr, together with the proven
unreliability of Sayf’s account, the only one attesting the existence of a monu-
mental dār al-imāra at the time of Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ, would seem to sug-
gest that an official and monumental qaṣr al-imāra did not exist in Kūfa at
least until the first Umayyad era. This assumption is enforced by a set of data
inferable from a further examination of the sources. If we continue to read
Sayf’s account, after the digression dealing with Ziyād b. Abīhi (above: notes
12–13), we find in fact that the narrative returns once more to the time of Saʿd
and relates that, once the qaṣr was complete, the wālī decided to fit it with a
door in order to screen himself from the deafening noise of the sūq (Ṭabarī
1836–1901: V, 2493). We are then informed that this act brought on the wrath
of the caliph, who accused Saʿd of “insanity” (Juynboll 1989: 74, n. 270) and
immediately sent Muḥammad b. Maslama al-Anṣāri to burn down the gate. A
curious aspect of this narrative is not much the “puritan” behavior of ʿUmar—
who is in fact traditionally described as the soberest and most fervent observer
of the sunna precepts among the rāšidūn—but rather the fact that he consid-
ered the destruction of the door to be a measure sufficient to definitely suppress
the hubris of his governor, leaving the qaṣr standing undisturbed in all its im-
moral grandeur. Although, at first glance, the episode may seem to be another
interpolated topos, we can consider it rather trustworthy due to its occurrence,
with a different and shorter isnād,23 in Balāḏurī (1866: 278). Here we find a con-
siderably abridged version of the story,24 which nevertheless adds the informa-
tion that, together with the door, Saʿd also erected a fence of reeds to surround
his house, which was also destroyed by Maslama after the order of ʿUmar: an
apparently futile detail that actually confers reliability to the whole episode. If
we imagine that the dār Saʿd was a modest edifice, and not the grandiose castle
Sayf reported it to have been, and we attempt to re-contextualize the erecting
of the fence and the setting of the door in a much more unpretentious kind of
architectural situation, the unacceptable arrogance of the governor’s action
22 Where the palace, which normally doubles the perimeter of the mosque, is usually placed
in axis with the mosque on its qibla side (cf. Wāsiṭ [Safar 1945; Creswell 1979: I.1, 132–38]
and Baġdād [Lassner 1970; Creswell 1979: II, 1–38]).
23 al-ʿAbbās b. Hišām al-Kalbi—Muḥammad b. Isḥāq.
24 “Saʿd ibn-abi-Waḳḳāṣ made a wooden door for his mansion which he surrounded with a
fence of reeds. ʿUmar ibn-al-Ḫaṭṭāb sent Muḥammad ibn-Maslamah-l-Anṣāri who set fire
to the door and fence” (Hitti 1916: 438).

80 Santi
becomes apparent. Consequently, the measure taken by the caliph appears to

be proportionate to the act of hubris it was intended to punish.
In conclusion, we have to assume that the first dār al-imāra in Kūfa was a
building as primitive as the coeval buildings dotted throughout the nascent
dār al-Islām.25 Such an assumption becomes more realistic if we take into
account Yāqūt’s version (1906: 297) of the urban development of the miṣr:26 the
geographer in fact reports a very long period of proto-architectural gestation in
which the houses were not properly constructed, the main building material
employed being reeds (qaṣab).27 This situation lasted until the wilāya of al-
Muġīra b. Šuʿba,28 who utilized labin (mud bricks) for the first time in the con-
struction of houses and the marking out of streets. Remarkably, Yāqūt states
that the use of baked bricks was unattested in the city until the governorate of
Ziyād b. Abīhi, i.e. until the advent of Umayyad authority.
The arguments listed above would provide sufficient basis to reject Sayf’s
version, allowing us, by contrast, to reimagine the preliminary stages of the
complex in Kūfa as characterized by the use of much more ephemeral build-
ing materials considering the monumental pretentions Sayf attributes to it as
a retrospective transposition of events that occurred much later on, and more
25 For a discussion of the state of the architecture in the very first Islamic period, see
Creswell (1979: I.1, 1–64).
26 Yāqūt’s account of the first urban development of Kūfa is drawn directly from Ibn Abbās,
one of the most authoritative sources in early Islamic historiography. The lack of inter-
mediate authorities consistently reduces the risk of interpolation and makes the account
more trustworthy. The situation outlined by Yāqūt is more plausible than that reported by
Sayf (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2488), who condenses the stages of the urban development of
the miṣr from tents to proper houses of baked bricks in just one year.
27 It should be stressed here that the use of reeds for the first constructions on this spot is
more credible than the use of tents claimed by Ṭabarī. The construction of houses with
reeds is in fact a typical South-Arabian building custom which can easily be observed
nowadays in the coastal regions of the Arabian Peninsula and in the territories bordering
the Persian Gulf. The information is more reliable in this regard if we bear in mind that
the Kūfan population was mostly made up of Yamanites at this early stage (cf. Hitti 1916:
435–36). The predominance of the Kalbid tribal element, as we will see, continued to be
crucial in the subsequent development of the city, both politically and architecturally. For
the use of reeds for the construction, see also the account of the founding of al-Baṣra in
Balāḏurī (Murgotten 1924: 60).
28 al-Muġīra twice took charge of Kūfa, firstly during the caliphate of ʿUmar (641–643 ca.)
and secondly during that of Muʿāwiya (661–670). There are no elements indicating to
which of the mandates the source refers, but if we consider that the second lasted for
almost 9 years it seems likely that the urban change occurred during this time.

besides. Both the architectural remains and the sources provide evidence
which allows us to pursue this investigation.
We have already mentioned the building traditionally referred to as the
house of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib located at the end of the homonymous square situ-
ated to the south of the mosque. The presence of this building, together with
the inexplicable fact that ʿAlī is never mentioned as having been involved in
the history of the dār al-imāra of Kūfa, despite having been the first caliph to
have resided there once he shifted the capital from Madīna, constitute two
important facts that call for an explanation. In light of the foregoing, they may
represent a preliminary indication denying the presence of a dār al-imāra
intended as an official seat of government in Kūfa during the Rāšidūn era.
Proceeding with the analysis of the written sources and of the architectural
situation of the coeval sites, we come upon a set of elements that could en-
dorse this hypothesis:
– Continuing his historical account, Ṭabarī reports the deposition of Saʿd b.

Abī Waqqāṣ ordered in 646 by the caliph ʿUṯmān, who replaced him with
al-Walīd b. ʿUqba. This is followed by the important remark that, having ar-
rived in Kūfa, the new governor “did not mount a door on his residence”
(Humphreys 1990: 17). This fact, reiterated several times (ibid.: 45), not only
proves the reliability of the episode of the door of Saʿd, but seems to suggest
that the new wālī resided in a new house of his own, discrediting the exis-
tence of an institutional dār al-imāra in that epoch. This is confirmed short-
ly after by Ṭabarī himself (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: VI, 3215–36) who, in relating the
Battle of the Camel, affirms that the Dār al-Walīd still existed in the centre
of Kūfa at the time of ʿAlī, as also indicated by Yaʿqūbī and Ibn Ḫallikān (cf.
Caetani 1972: 147, n. 1).
– Yaʿqūbī in his Kitāb al-Buldān provides the following description of the cen-
tre of Kūfa during the same period:
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd;29 Ṭalḥa ibn ʿUbaid-Allāh,30 ʿAmr ibn Ḥuraith31
établirent leurs demeures autour de la mosquée. ʿUmar donna une con-
cession à Djubair ibn Muṭʿim32 sur le terrain concédé, celui-ci fit bâtir
une maison qu’il vendit à Mūsā ibn Ṭalḥa. Saʿd ibn Kais reçut une conces-
sion près de la maison de Salmān ibn Rabīʿa: entre le deux passait une
29 Took part in the Hijra, d. 32 H (Caetani 1914: 558).

30 Ṣāḥib, d. 36 H (Caetani 1912: 405).
31 Ziyād’s lieutenant in Kūfa in ca. 64 H, d. 85 H (Caetani 1912: 566, 860, 1028).
32 Companion of the Prophet, d. 50 H (Caetani 1912: 553).

82 Santi
rue. Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ demanda comme concession pour lui-même
la maison connue sous le nom de maison de ʿUmar ibn Saʿd. D’autres
concessions furent accordées à Ḫālid ibn ʿUrfuṭa, à Ḫabbāb ibn Aratt, à
ʿAmribn Ḥāriṯ ibn Abī Ḍirār.33 ʿUmar concéda à Usāma ibn Zayd34 une
maison située entre la mosquée et la demeure de ʿAmr ibn Ḥāriṯ ibn Abī
Ḍirār. Abū Mūsā Ašʿari35 reçut la moitié d’Ārī, terrain vague proche de la
mosquée; l’autre moitié, sur laquelle étaient cantonnés les chevaux des
troupes mussulmanes,36 fut concédé à Ḥuḏaifa ibn Yamān et à des mem-
bres de la tribu de ʿAbs. ʿAmr ibn Maimūn Awdī37 reçut comme conces-
sion la place connue sous le nom de ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
Wiet 1937: 141–45
This meticulous description provides a very different picture of the core of

the miṣr during its first decades of life: rather than a deserted clearing in
which the Great Mosque and the monumental dār al-imāra rose in isola-
tion, it was a crowded set of ‘aristocratic’ dwellings, including those of the
various governors,38 bundled right next to the mosque and the sūq.39
– Ibn al-Faqīh’s account informs us that an analogue situation existed in
Baṣra—the ‘twin’ miṣr of Kūfa—in the same period (Massé 1973: 231). It is
interesting in this regard to note that the ‘aristocratic’ district of Ahl al-ʿĀliya,
accommodating people from the capital Madīna, including many members
of the Qurayš, was located between the mirbad—a parking place for cam-
els—and the Great Mosque, showing how the surrounding area should have
been considered particularly valuable and prestigious, attracting notables
to reside alongside the political-religious centre of the city (Massignon 1963:
69; AlSayyad 1991: 49).
33 Companion of the Prophet, brother of Ǧuwayriya, Prophet’s wife, d. 60–70 H (Caetani
1912: 829).
34 Companion of the Prophet, d. 54 H (Caetani 1912: 604).
35 Governor of Baṣra and Kūfa during ʿAlī’s caliphate. Representative of ʿAlī at Aḏruḥ in 650
(Hitti 1970: 181).
36 SW of the qaṣr (cf. Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2505).
37 Faqīh and muḫaḍram traditionist, d. 75–77 H ca.
38 Abū Miḫnaf’s account in Ṭabarī (Hawting 1989: 214 [630]) informs us that the house of
Abū Mūsā, governor of Kūfa from 36 to 37 H, stood in the vicinity of the Ziyād qaṣr and of
the mosque, proving that each governor owned and resided in his own private residence
at least until he was in government.
39 In the narration of the revolt of al-Muḫtar, Ṭabarī states furthermore that the house of
ʿAmr b. Ḥurayṯ, traditioner and companion of the Prophet, stood “toward the side of the
dār al-Imāra in the middle of the market” (Hawting 1989: 199 [615]).

– In the coeval miṣr of Fusṭāṭ, founded by ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀs right after the Muslim
conquest of Egypt, a special residence for the seat of the government is not
attested until later times in view of the presence of many distinctive dūr
erected each time by the various wālī appointed to govern the city. This re-
sulted in the development of an aristocratic quarter around the mosque
of ʿAmr from a very early date (Kubiak 1987: 95–96), where “each governor
resided in his private house” (ibid.: 129), a phenomenon which appears en-
tirely similar to that supposed here for Kūfa. The case of Fusṭāṭ, considered
by Kubiak to be an inexplicable anomaly,40 could thus have represented the
norm in the early urban history of Islām.
– The most remarkable and conclusive evidence emerges from a comparison
with the situation of Madīna, the capital of the caliphate until 657. Through
an overview of the sources, it appears quite clear that the caliphs (following
in the footsteps of the Prophet)41 inhabited distinct and private houses ar-
ranged all around the mosque of Muḥammad.42 Abū Bakr, for instance, after
being appointed head of the umma, shifted his residence from the district of
al-Sunḥ (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: III, 1263; Ibn Saʿd 1957–60: II, 265, 269; III, 174–75)
to a location closer to the congregational building,43 ʿUmar’s home stood
by the qibla side of the mosque (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2557, 2608; al-Saleh
1961: 80), and, remarkably, ʿUṯmān’s residence, known as dār al-Zawrā44 and
became notorious as the place of his murder, was built close to the eastern
entrance of the mosque. The lack of a unique and official dār al-Ḫilāfa in
Madīna, the first capital of the caliphate, does not appear so astonishing if
we bear in mind that at this time the elected building for the fulfilment of all
public and governmental duties was the Great Mosque (Pedersen 1991), “the
forum of primitive Islām” (Wellhausen 1902: 6, 81), and it makes the absence
of a corresponding official building in the provinces seem more likely.
40 Whereas, as is usually maintained, “the first act upon the founding of an Arab town was
to build the dār al-imāra and al-djamiʿ” (Kubiak 1987: 129).
41 For a broad discussion of the problem concerning the House of the Prophet/Mosque of
the Prophet, see Johns 1999; Ayyad 2013; Santi 2017.
42 “It seems that the Mosque was bounded by the houses of the companions” (Bisheh
1979: 140).
43 According to Samhūdī, the later house of Rayṭa b. Abdul ʿAbbās, placed in front of the bāb
al-Nisā, encompassed part of the house of Abu Bakr (Akkouch 1940: 394, n. 2).
44 “The leaning” (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: V, 2827; Caetani 1914: 232). Samhūdī states that he actu-
ally owned two houses connected to each other by a courtyard: the Dār al-Kubrā and the
Dār al-Ṣuġrā (al-Samhūdī 1908: 528).

84 Santi
According to the foregoing, there is therefore sufficient basis to argue that the
pre-Umayyad Kūfa would have also been populated by many dūr al-umarā
(governors’ dwellings) exclusively meant for private and residential use,
whereas the emergence of the concept of a dār al-imāra officially intended as a
venue for the accomplishment of representative and administrative purposes
and the seat of the caliphal authority constitutes a subsequent phenomenon.45
The process of the political and official development of the concept of dār
al-imāra, which gradually deprived the mosque of its rightful governmental
character and ended up fully embracing its civilian purpose, went hand in
hand with the growth of its monumental character, both trends that can be
connected to the emergence of Umayyad authority.46 Although, in fact, there
are elements proving that during the caliphate of Muʿāwiya the dār al-imāra
was still in part conceived as the private propriety of its patron,47 its growing
importance as a place to demonstrate caliphal authority to a strictly selected
audience48 is attested in the same epoch. The most remarkable evidence in this
respect comes from Masʿūdī (Grabar 1955: 26–27) who, in reporting the details
of a typical day in Muʿāwiya’s life, attests the introduction of the new custom of
holding official audiences, given by the caliph to a restricted group of courtiers
in a room in the palace specifically devoted to this purpose and accompanied
by strict court etiquette.49 Notably, as admirably demonstrated by Oleg Grabar,
45 To use the words of Lammens: “Comme signification politique, la mosquée éclipsait to-
talement la préfecture ‘dār al-imāra’, en réalité demeure privée du gouverneur et de sa
famille” (Lammens 1911: 30).
46 “Avec l’évolution de la religion islamique, la mosquée finira par devenir un édifice cultuel.
Au temps de Ziād, cette évolution avait seulement commencée” (Lammens 1911: 31).
47 Note, for instance, that according to Balāḏurī (1866: II, 276), when Ziyād was absent from
Baṣra he left ʿAmr ibn-Ḥuraiṯ al-Maḫzūmi, who owned a building in Kūfa in which he
resided, to rule in his place. More remarkably, we are aware that the Damascene palace of
al-Ḫaḍrāʾ was also considered a private property of Muʿāwiya, since some sources claim
that it was purchased by ʿAbd al Malik from Muʿāwiya’s son when he acceded to the ca-
liphate (Flood 2001: 147).
48 The exclusivity of attending a private reception with the caliph or governors is reflected
in Muʿāwiya’s reign by the emergence of the figure of the ḥāǧib, a sort of chamberlain
in charge of regulating access to the palace (Latz 1958; Sellheim, Sourdel 1978; Morony
1984: 79).
49 “Muʿāwiya’s custom was to give audience five times a day. […] He would go back to the
audience—hall, where he gave audience to his closest. […] Next he returned to his palace
and, sitting on the throne, he let people in according to their rank, but forbade anyone to
prevent him from answering salutations. The visitor would say: How is the Commander of
the Faithful? May God give him long life. And Muʿāwiya answered: With the grace of God.
Once they were seated he would say: O ye who are called nobles because, to the exclusion

the shaping of a court ceremonial at that time should not be undervalued as it

expresses the contemporary emergence of a royal consciousness at the level of
governmental theory.50 The “monarchization” of the caliphal office is ultimate-
ly reflected by the monumentalization of the dār al-imāra: a powerful semiotic
means of expressing the ruler’s increasing inaccessibility, which marked a de-
finitive break with the ‘tribal’ equality and informality of the political customs
in force until the end of the Rāšidūn era.51 The fact that the various official resi-
dences began to acquire a certain architectural importance all over the Muslim
empire in Muʿāwiya’s reign cannot be regarded as fortuitous: in Fusṭāṭ, the first
striking building was erected by the governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz in 686–687 to the
west of the mosque of ʿAmr (Kubiak 1987: 128); in Madīna, Marwān b. al-Ḥakim
built such a magnificent palace (Samhūdī 1908: 361, 506, 508–9)52 for himself
near the mosque of the Prophet that it was mentioned in contemporary poetry
(Bisheh 1979: 95; al-Iṣfahānī 1957: I, 39–40, 55); in Baṣra, Ziyād b. Abīhi is report-
ed to have built the first dār al-imāra with baked bricks on the qibla side of the
mosque (Balāḏurī 1866: 347); and, finally, in Damascus, Muʿāwiya’s residence,
al-Ḫaḍrāʾ, became a real archetypal image of caliphal authority for centuries to
come (Bloom 1993; Flood 2001: 151).
To conclude it seems plausible to argue that a similar process of monu-
mentalization may have occurred at the same time in Kūfa where, moreover,
the same Ziyād b. Abīhi—Muʿāwiya, ‘viceroy’ of Iraq since 670—is explicitly
referred to by many sources53 as the one who conducted the first real effort
monumental (Djaït 1986: 211) in the city by introducing ex novo the use of āǧurr
of others, you are honoured with sitting in this audience—hall, tell us the needs of those
who have no access to us. […] Then food was brought in; Muʿāwiya’s secretary was present
and standing by his side” (Grabar 1955: 26–27).
50 “Muʿāwiya can be truly considered as the one man who gave the new empire its shape”
especially in terms of defining the secular and properly royal aspects of caliphal authority
(Grabar 1955: 25; Robinson 2011: 208–11). Mu‘āwiya’s reign also saw the development of the
šurṭa (police, security forces) into established institutions. The šurṭa also played a cer-
emonial role as the governor’s escort and Ziyād established the protocol that the leader of
the šurṭa would carry a ceremonial spear, the harba, before him (Kennedy 2001: 1).
51 See for instance the public and free tribal council held by Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ in Kūfa in 654
(Ṭabarī: V, 2908). Note in this regard that Ziyād b. Abīhi appears to be the first Muslim
governor to have been served by a ḥāğib (doorkeeper or chamberlain, Morony 1984: 81).
52 It is noteworthy that the dār Marwān was used by caliphs as an official residence when
they came to Madīna even during the caliphate of Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik (Ibn al-
Naǧǧār 1956: 373; al-Ḥarbī 1960: 368; Bisheh 1979: 212, 331, n. 188).
53 Excluding the account of Sayf b. ʿUmar, whose retrospective character has been widely
demonstrated.

86 Santi
(baked bricks; Yāqūt 1906: VII, 295) and strongly rebuilding54 the mosque and
the dār al-imāra.
In this regard, in the final analysis it is important to mention the excellent
reasoning Creswell developed at the end of the chapter on Kūfa’s dār al-imāra
in his Early Muslim Architecture (Creswell 1979: I.1, 57–58). The scholar admi-
rably provides a succinct but striking overview of the state of architecture in
the first decades after the hiǧra in the dār al-Islām, demonstrating the “incred-
ibility” (ibid.: 57) of believing that “Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ can have had an elabo-
rate palace […] built for him at Kūfa in the first years after the conquest” (ibid.).
Nevertheless, we should note that his efforts to confute the dating of the second
layer of the dār al-imāra to the period of Saʿd (i.e. when the complex reached
its definitive shape with the double enclosure, since he calls for a comparison
with the plan of Uḫaiḍir), apparently ignore the fact that the attribution of the
first layer to the same early period appears to be equally refutable on the basis
of his arguments.55 What he points out through the comparison with Madīna,56
Baṣra,57 Jerusalem,58 Fusṭāṭ59 and Kūfa itself60 is indeed the unreliability of
using durable materials and the consequent ability to produce a monumental
building at such an early date, an assumption which provides indirect evidence
to reject a Saʿd patronage for the first layer of the dār al-imāra as well, calling,
together with the rest of the arguments discussed so far, for a chronological
re-interpretation of the archaeological evidence uncovered by the excavations.
54 “Ziyad rebuilt it [the mosque] strongly and rebuilt the governor’s residence” (Hitti 1916:
435).
55 In Creswell & Allan’s (1989: 14–15) abridged version of Creswell’s monumental work, we
find a propensity to accept the patronage of Saʿd for the first layer of the qaṣr.
56 That the house of the Prophet was built with mud brick and palm trunks (ibid.).
57 Where “the first mosque according to Balāḏurī (1866: 346, 350) was simply marked out
(iḫtaṭṭa) and the people prayed there without any building. According to another version,
it was merely surrounded by a fence of reeds” (Creswell 1979: I.1, 57).
58 Where “the first mosque, seen and described by Arculf, around AD 670, was ‘a rectangular
building, which they have built crudely by setting planks and great beams on some re-
mains of ruins’” (ibid.).
59 Where “the first Mosque of ʿAmr was equally primitive. It measured just 50 × 30 cubits and
had a very low roof, probably consisting of palm trunks resting on palm-trunk columns, as
in Muḥammad’s house at Madīna” (ibid.).
60 Whose first mosque “was equally primitive” (ibid.).

The First layer of Kūfa’s dār al-imāra
The so-called “first layer” corresponds to a massive square building (113.95

× 113.86 m per side [Muṣṭafā 1963: 60]) constructed with baked bricks, with
abutting square buttresses, coinciding with a large individual residential unit
(Fig. 3). Its foundations reach a depth of 90 cm on virgin soil, thus making it
the first construction raised on that spot (ibid.: 37).
The above-demonstrated need to associate the first mis en dur of Kūfa’s dār
al-imāra with Ziyād’s wilāya leans towards an identification of this layer with
Ziyād’s dār. Although, unfortunately, there are not enough elements available
to confirm this dating archaeologically, it is significant to note how the chro-
nologies proposed by Muṣṭafā are entirely lacking proper argumentation. At
the end of the report, the Iraqi scholar states that the first layer can be dated
back: a) to the Islamic conquest of Iraq (perhaps it was the Dār constructed by
Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ) or b) to a time preceding the futuḥ (ibid.: 63). He does not
provide any objective facts to support this statement except for a stratigraphic
detail, namely that the first layer corresponds to the first building raised in
the area. The only remark occurs one page later and deals with the “peculiar
rectangular shape” of the tower bases of the first layer, “which confirm that
they were bases of prismatic towers of oblong section”, a feature that “is not
found in the ancient and later Islamic buildings at all, whereas round towers
belong to the characteristics of Islamic architecture” (ibid.: 64). It is important
in this regard to bear in mind that, if the dating of the first qaṣr to the time
of Ziyād b. Abīhi is correct, and if we are thus dealing here with one of the
earlier surviving examples of an Umayyad dār al-imāra, the occurrence of the
square buttresses could be due to the early and still experimental stage we are
dealing with, in which the whole set of features regarded as “characteristic” of
Umayyad palatine architecture, indeed belonging for the most part to build-
ings erected during the late Marwānid period,61 had not yet been established
or canonized. Remarkable and probative evidence in this regard is offered by
61 It is archeologically attested that round buttresses started to become a standard feature
of Umayyad quṣūr from the reign of al-Walīd I onward [see qaṣr al-Minya (al-Walīd I, 705–
715); qaṣr Ḫarāna (al-Walīd I, 705–715); dār al-imāra in ʿAnǧar (ca. 714–715); qaṣr al-Ḥayr
al-Ġarbī (727–728); dār al-imāra in Rusāfa–Sergiopolis (Hišām, 724–744); qaṣr al-Ḥayr
al-Šarqī (Hišām, 728–729); palatial complex in ʿAmmān (Hišām, 730–740); qaṣr al-Qastal
(Hišām, 724–744); Ḫirbat al-Mafǧar (Hišām, 724–744); Mšattā (al-Walīd II, 744); qaṣr al-
Tūba (al-Walīd II, 744)]. Square buttresses, in contrast, are typical of Roman-Byzantine
castra (Hillenbrand 1994: 567) which, it has been widely demonstrated, are the direct fore-
runners of Umayyad extra-urban residences (Genequand 2006). The process is well syn-
thetized by qaṣr al-Hallābāt, a Roman military castle characterized by four square angular

88 Santi
Figure 3 Kūfa, plan of the first layer of the dār al-imāra, reworking after Muṣṭafā 1963
(G. Labisi).
a comparison with the quṣūr of Ḫirbat al-Karak, located on the shore of Lake
Galilee and recently identified by Donald Whitcomb with al-Ṣinnabra, the
wintering site of Muʿāwiya in the ǧund of al-Urdunn (Whitcomb 2002), and
Bālis, sited in the countryside of the previous Byzantine city of Barbalissos on
towers, which underwent massive repair and was reoccupied between the 7th and 8th
centuries (Creswell, Allan 1989: 164–65).

the Euphrates and dated to the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.62 The two
buildings—and in particular the first one, due to its dating to the caliphate of
Muʿāwiya—represent two of the earlier known examples of high-status pri-
vate residences of Umayyad patronage. What is striking in our case is the fact
that they both feature a square enclosure with projecting square buttresses,
providing definitive evidence to denounce the weakness of Muṣṭafā’s claims,
and representing an important precedent to claim an early Umayyad dating
for the first layer of the Kūfan qaṣr. The presence of square buttresses in quṣūr
dated to the early Umayyad period is indeed not only plausible but even pre-
dictable if we consider that the formation of the early-Islamic palatine archi-
tecture was strongly influenced in this initial period by the Roman-Byzantine
military and civilian architectural milieu (Genequand 2006). In this respect it is
important to focus on the fact that the cultural and political substrate of Kūfa
was essentially Persian or at least Persian-influenced:63 in the case of a pre-
existing monument—or of an early-Islamic building, planned and built by the
Persians, as in the case of what is presumed to be Saʿd’s dār—we should thus
expect to find typical Sasanian rounded-towers, as attested in the nearby pre-
Islamic fortress of Qaṣr Banī Muqātil (Finster, Schmidt 2005), close to Karbalā’,
and in the even nearer al-Ḥīra (Rice 1934). On the contrary, the presence of
a typical late Roman-Byzantine feature in such an Oriental context can per-
haps be explained through the influence of the early Umayyad élite’s Western-
oriented taste.
Along with the ‘form’, the hypothesis of the re-use of Ḥīrite bricks put
forward—on the basis of Sayf’s account in Ṭabarī64—seems to be discount-
ed due to two factors: first, according to what is archeologically known of
the former Laḫmid capital, the kind of building material employed there in
pre-Islamic masonries—consisting of red kiln bricks, each 26 × 26 × 4 cm
(Rice 1934: 52)—significantly differs from that making up the massive walls
of the outer enclosure of the first qaṣr in Kūfa, according to Muṣṭafā, “bricks
of large uniform size, measuring 36 × 36 × 9 cm” with a light-yellow core and
62 It is specifically attributed to Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik or to his brother Saʿid (Leisten
2006).
63 “Just before the rise of Islam the Laḫmid territory was converted into a province of the
Persian Empire, but from the outset the civilization of Ḥīra must have been modelled on
that of Ctesiphon, Persian influence must have been predominant in its arts and archi-
tecture, and Laḫmid palaces must have reflected those of the Sasanian” (Creswell 1979: I.1,
24, n. 7).
64 “Layer I on the site seems to correspond to Saʿd’s first strong building, built by Rūzbih
using pre-Islamic bricks and form” (in Creswell, Allan 1989: 15; cf. above: notes 10–11).

90 Santi
greenish sides (Muṣṭafā 1963: 61). Secondly, the fact that, according to the re-
port, the bricks of the first layer were uniform in size and that “attention was
paid to the smoothing of their outer faces and to the setting in a well-arranged
order” (ibid.) would suggest that the material was fabricated ad hoc for this
construction and put in place by highly-specialized manufacturers, a kind of
effort that, although it fits well with the climate of the Muʿāwiya caliphate, ap-
pears to be quite implausible if contextualized in that of ʿUmar.
The attribution to Saʿd thus seems to have been proposed exclusively on the
back of Sayf b. ʿUmar’s account, as confirmed by Creswell and Allan’s (1989: 15)
attempt to uphold the reliability of the source65 by suggesting that perhaps the
mosque in this period was further south, or that there are remains of earlier
walls under the layer 2 outer walls yet to be discovered. This possibility—as
if the previous arguments revealing the retrospective nature of the account
were not enough—is negated by the archaeology, since the presence of the
buttress in the north-west corner of the first layer—where, according to Sayf,
the mosque should have been laid—is sufficient evidence to refute any sort of
architectural contact between the qaṣr and a second building in this period.
A final piece of evidence, which seems to confirm the identification of the
first layer of the dār al-imāra with the construction of Ziyād b. Abīhi, is the
presence on its north side of a rectangular platform (maṣṭaba) 10.90 m long
and 1.15 m wide, in contact with the outer face between the two central towers
of the north side, identified by Muṣṭafā as the foundation of the projecting part
of the main entrance of this layer (Muṣṭafā 1963: 61, fig. 4). The presence of this
element, which is not attested in the public entrance of the second layer,66 is
mentioned in a passage in Abū Miḫnaf’s account, in which the author states
that, after he had given the oath of allegiance to al-Muḫhtar, al-Munḏir b.
Ḥassān b. Ḍirar67 “came out of the qaṣr and drew near to Saʿid b. Munqiḏ al-
Thawri in a group of the Shiʿah waiting by the maṣṭaba” (Hawting 1989: 217).
Since the account refers to the events that occurred in Kūfa in 685, i.e. ten
years after the death of Ziyād b. Abīhi, we are thereby assured that the qaṣr
Abū Miḫnaf refers to, namely the one placed under siege and later occupied by
al-Muḫtar, should be identified with the first layer.
65 Especially as regards joining up with the mosque after the robbery (above: note 11).
66 Two maṣtaba are attested in the second layer just inside the entrance of the inner enclo-
sure (Creswell 1979: I.1, 49).
67 One of the leaders of the Banū Ḍabba who had taken part in the conquest of Iraq (Donner
1981: index).

On the Demolition of the qaṣr of Ziyād
Attempting to shift the dating of the first layer of the qaṣr from Saʿd b. Abī
Waqqāṣ to Ziyād b. Abīhi raises a new set of questions, firstly concerning the
historical framework, and the reason for ordering of its demolition. If we at-
tempt to contextualize the archaeological evidence by reviewing the histori-
cal events that occurred straight after the end of Ziyād’s wilāya, we learn that
Kūfa, due to its defined Alid substrate, was the site of a considerable number
of uprisings against Umayyad authority,68 for which it earned the reputation
of being a turbulent and seditious city par excellence. During several of these
rebellions, the qaṣr was the backdrop to a series of sieges69 which in turn saw
all the forces making up the intricate political panorama of the time as the be-
siegers and the besieged.70 The best documented and massive of these sieges
was the one suffered in 687 by al-Muḫtar who in turn, just a short while before,
had conquered the qaṣr in which ʿAbd Allāh b. Muṭīʿ had barricaded himself,
taking control of Kūfa (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: VIII, 614–32). Thanks to the detailed
report by Abū Miḫnaf quoted in Ṭabarī, we are informed that al-Muḫtar, with
6000 of his companions, fortified himself and his allies in the citadel resisting
the attack conducted by Muṣʿab b. al Zubayr (ibid.: 729–40, 749–50) for four
68 The first occurred in 680, when al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī sent his cousin Muslim b. ʿAqīl to Kūfa to
carry out a reconnaissance in order to organize a rebellion against ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād.
Hunted down by the governor’s police, Muslim was forced to bring the uprising forward,
but he was immediately defeated and executed (cf. Lo Jacono 2003: 98; Ṭabarī 1836–1901:
VII, 227, 520). The unsuccessful revolt of the “Penitents” followed in 685, led by the com-
panion Sulaymān b. Ṣurad to avenge the death of al-Ḥusayn at Karbala; it was readily sup-
pressed by the massacre by the troops of ʿUbayd Allāh at ʿAyn al-Warda (Ṭabarī 1836–1901:
VII, 544 ff.). Shortly thereafter Kūfa fell under Zubayrid’s control for a while, until the Alid
rebel al-Muḫtār succeeded in conquering it. A short time later, he succumbed to the pres-
sure of Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr, finally defeated by ʿAbd al-Malik in 691 when Kūfa ultimately
returned to Umayyad control.
69 In this case we should suppose that the external fortified appearance had a proper
military function, in contrast with the examples of quṣūr in the pacified area of Bilād
al-Šām where, as demonstrated by Genequand, the martial aspect simply fulfilled the de-
sire to reflect the power or high status of the owner, and therefore of the Umayyad clan
(Genequand 2006: 25).
70 In turn, ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād was forced to leave the city by ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr in
684–685; ʿAbd Allāh b. Muṭīʿ, Zubarid wālī of Kūfa, was besieged in the qaṣr for three
days during the uprising of al-Muḫtar in 685 (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: VIII, 614–32); ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿĀmir al-Ḥaḍramī was left in charge in Kūfa in 701–702 by al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ b. Yūsuf, who fortified
himself in the citadel and then left it under the control of Maṭar b. Nāǧiyah (ibid.: VIII,
1069–70).

92 Santi
months (ibid.: 749). We have reason to believe that the structure would have
been seriously affected by such a prolonged and forceful siege, as suggested
by the fact that ʿAbd al-Malik, when he gloriously entered Kūfa after defeating
Muṣʿab at Dayr al-Ǧāṯalīq (691; Kennedy 2004: 98), is reported to have cho-
sen the castle of al-Ḫawarnaq71 instead of the dār al-imāra as the venue for a
sumptuous celebrative banquet (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: VIII, 820). It is significant, in
this regard, that a series of sources (al-Maqdisī [Huart 1919: 25–26]; Diyarbakrī
[1884: II, 309]; Masʿūdī [Barbier de Meynard 1869: 252–53]; see also al-Buraqī
1960: 93–95 quoting Sibṭ b. al-Ǧawzī [148]; Ibn Haǧar al-Haytamī [118]) report
that ʿAbd al-Malik himself was responsible for the destruction of the qaṣr al-
imāra after a subject had observed the misfortune of those who had previously
held power there.72 This fact gains credibility if we compare it with the fate
of Ziyād’s dār al-imāra in Baṣra, Kūfa’s twin miṣr and eternal rival. According
to Balāḏurī, one of al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ b. Yūsuf’s first acts after being appointed ruler
over Iraq was to pull down the Baṣran dār al-imāra, leaving the city without
an official residence for many years, until Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik ordered
its restoration (Murgotten 1924: 64). It is worth noting that the new qaṣr was
reconstructed “upon the same foundations” as Ziyād’s, a fact that is strikingly
analogous to that archaeologically attested in Kūfa.73
Historically speaking, the destruction of the governor residences in Kūfa
and Baṣra during ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphate is not surprising if we consider
that the Realpolitik of al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ in Iraq in this period was principally focused
on annihilating the pride of the turbulent local élite (Kennedy 2004: 101–3).
Instead, it appears to be a predictable, meaningful gesture which perfectly fits
the plan—culminating in the foundation of Wāsiṭ, the permanent seat of the
new ruling class made up of al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ’s Syrian troops—to completely take
over the governmental role of Baṣra and Kūfa, finally leaving the latter, “which
71 A palace located a few miles south of Kūfa, which according to tradition had been built by
al-Nuʿman, Laḫmid prince of al-Ḥīra, for the Sasanian king Bahrām Gūr (Le Strange 1905:
75–76; Massignon 1978: 1133; Fishbein 1990: 129, n. 466).
72 “J’ai vu dans cette même salle ʿObeīdallah ben Ziyād ayant devant lui la tête d’el-Ḥoseīn,
fils d’ʿAlī; puis el-Moḫtar, ayant devant lui la tête d’Obeidallaḥ ben Ziyād; puis Moçʿab ben
ex-Zobeīr, ayant devant lui la tête d’el-Moḫtār; enfin jet e vois, ayant devant toi la tête de
Moçʿab” (Huart 1919: 25–26).
73 “The foundations of the enclosure wall of the first layer go together with the course of
the sides of the enclosure wall in the second layer, since we found that the north side
of the first layer runs parallel to the north side of the third layer. […] We found also that
all the side towers which are extracted from the second layer lie on the remains of bases
of towers from the first layer” (Muṣṭafā 1963: 60).

in the time of ʿUmar had been the greatest Muslim city of all, leaderless and
cowed” (ibid.: 103).
The Second Layer of Kūfa’s dār al-imāra
A further reason to post-date the attribution of the building of the first layer
to Ziyād b. Abīhī rather than Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ is the late-Marwānid resem-
blance of the plan of the building identified by Muṣṭafā as the second period
of occupation of the site.
The second layer of Kūfa’s dār al-imāra consists of an imposing palace
built with baked bricks and gypsum mortar, surrounded by an inner (110.24 ×
110.36 m [Muṣṭafā 1963: 38]) and outer (169.68 × 168.20 m [ibid.]) enclosure.74
The interior of the inner enclosure is divided into three parts running north-
south and dominated by a great central court75 with an īwān preceded by a
triple-arched portico on round piers in the centre of each side. The one on the
South side—likely featuring a pīštāq76—forms the façade of a large basilical
hall divided into three aisles by two rows of three columns and culminating in
a square room77 with recesses on each side,78 probably domed. The rest of the
plan is arranged into groups of rooms constituting Persian79 and Syrian80 bayt
(Creswell 1979: I.2, 515–16; Creswell, Allan 1989: 145–46), and a large dwelling
unit of the dār type (Fig. 4).
74 The closest example of the presence of a double enclosure is in the palace of Uḫaiḍir (Bell
1914).
75 “Exactly as at ʿAnjar and Mšatta” (Creswell, Allan 1989: 11). A similar trisection can also be
found in the palace of Hišām in al-Ruṣāfa (ibid.: 146–49).
76 “As in the façade of the basilical hall at Mšattā, p. 206, and later on at Uḫaiḍir” (ibid.: 11).
77 As in Qaṣr al-Hayr al Ġarbī (dated 727–728) and Mšattā (ca. 744).
78 Exactly as in ʿAmmān, in the complex dated to the time of the caliph Hišām.
79 Attested in Firūzābād (dated 224–239/40; Huff 1972); and in the Abbasid palaces of
Sarvistān (Reuther 1938–39; for the Abbasid dating of the palace, see: Bier 1986, 2002;
Callieri 2014: 61), Qaṣr-i Šīrīn (traditionally attributed to Ḫusraw II Parvēz, 590–628
[Schippmann 1971: 282; Reuther 1938–39: 552], but recently postdated to the Abbasid pe-
riod [Anisi 2008: 68, n. 3; Moradi 2012: 333–32 [in Persian]; cf. also Callieri 2014: 60–61])
and Uḫaiḍir (Bell 1914; Creswell 1979: II, 50–100).
80 This type was attested for the first time in Islam in al-Walīd’s palace in al-Minya (709–
715), followed by Ǧabal Says (709–715); ʿAnǧar (714–715); Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Ġarbī (727–728),
Ḫirbat al-Mafǧar (before 743), Mšattā (ca. 744); Qaṣr al-Tūba (ca. 744, Creswell 1979: I.2,
515–16). Note that the presence of the Syrian bayt in al-Kūfa is an unicum in the eastern
territories of the caliphate.

94 Santi
Figure 4 Kūfa, plan of the second layer of the dār al-imāra, reworking after Muṣṭafā
1963 (G. Labisi).
The extremely elaborate layout of this plan constitutes an unprecedented

synthesis of architectural types drawn indiscriminately from the Eastern and
Western monumental milieu, proving that we are faced with an outstanding
product of that typically imperial system—which Herzfeld (1912: 97) called
“liturgy”—through which materials, workers, craftsmen and architects from
every part of the empire were recruited and coordinated by an all-embracing
(Ibn Ḫaldūn 1958: I, 356) strongly centralized power (Finster 2003: 207) for the

accomplishment of magnificent building projects.81 A building like that of the

first layer is unlikely to have been built in the decade after the conquest, but it
is even more unimaginable that this kind of effort would have occurred dur-
ing the caliphate of Muʿāwiya, when the establishment of the royal conscious-
ness of the caliphate and the process of centralization in the administration of
the newborn Umayyad state were only at the very beginning (Robinson 2011:
208–11).
Looking for comparisons (notes 74–81 and 82–86), it is striking to note that
most features of the plan do not find parallels in buildings dated before the
caliphate of al-Walīd I, and that most resemblances are to complexes dated
after the caliphate of Hišām. Furthermore, combinations of plans drawn from
the Parthic and Sasanian architectural traditions,82 as well as from Roman and
Byzantine ones,83 were found for the very first time in this palace, and their
presence makes the Kūfan dār al-imāra an outstanding architectural unicum,
betraying a degree of mastery in planning and techniques only imaginable at
an advanced stage of the experimentation process that led to the formation of
the Islamic monumental language throughout the Umayyad era.
In particular, the combination of the Sasanian reception apparatus fea-
turing the court-īwān-domed hall sequence84 with the peculiar ‘cruciform’85
81 A process that would reach the apses in al-Manṣūr’s Baġdād (Yaʿqūbī 1861: 238; Monneret
de Villard 1968: 304–5; Creswell 1979: II, 229; Finster 2003: 206–7).
82 I.e. the Parthic ceremonial system of a square courtyard with four īwān per side combined
with the typical Sasanian plan featuring one large īwān right on axis with the entrance fol-
lowed by a domed room. This particular hybrid scheme is attested again much later on in
complexes such as the palace at Ġaznī—traditionally dated to the epoch of Masʿūd III but
which Roberta Giunta (in a lecture entitled “Le palais ghaznévide de Ghazni fouillé par la
Mission Archéologique Italienne. Essai de reconstitution de ses phases de construction”
held at the Conference The Architecture of the Iranian World 1000–1250, University of Saint
Andrews, 21–24 April 2016) recently suggested should be backdated to at least the reign
of Ibrahīm, 1059–1099, and the Southern Palace in Laškarī Bāzār (ca. 1036; Ettinghausen,
Grabar, Jenkins 2001: 153).
83 Such as the so-called Syrian bayt, deemed by Creswell to have originated in the palace of
the Roman governor in Bosrā (Creswell, Allan 1989: 144–45). They are never attested in the
oriental territories of the caliphate except for Kūfa.
84 As attested in Ardašīr I’s palace in Fīrūzābād (Callieri 2014: 48–50) and the building in
Dāmġān (Kimball 1938–39: fig. 166) commonly considered as a palace and dated to the
second half of the 6th century but for which “a religious function has been suggested”
(Fontana 2015: 215–16, n. 2). For a discussion of this issue see Callieri 2014: passim.
85 “They acquire a ‘cruciform’ shape due to four axial recesses obtained from the thickness
of the walls” (Fontana 2015: 216). For a detailed, although brief, discussion of the shifting
of the čahār ṭāq from religious to secular architecture see Fontana 2015.

96 Santi
domed room created by recesses traceable to the planimetric principle of the

Sasanian čahār ṭāq employed in the pre-Islamic era, exclusively in religious
architecture,86 seems to be attested in Kūfa for the first time. To find another
Umayyad example of the same device we have to look to the northern com-
plex of the citadel in ʿAmmān, dated by Alastair Northedge to the caliphate
of Hišām (ca. 735 [Northedge 1992: 156]). Is it important in this regard to note
that what we are witnessing is evidence of a conscious act of appropriation of
a peculiar pre-Islamic element borrowed from a religious milieu and translated
into a secular one, whose complexity and importance must not be underesti-
mated. As well expressed by Maria Vittoria Fontana (2015: 219), such a complex
phenomenon could only be explained as a response to the “political need to
satisfy all their koinè and send clear messages to their non-Muslim interlocu-
tors” (ibid.) felt by Umayyad rulers “following in the steps of the caliph ʿAbd
al-Malik” (ibid.).
The post-dating of the first and second layers of the qaṣr seems ultimately
to be supported by a fundamental numismatic evidence, totally omitted in
the English summary report on the researches in the dār al-imāra (Muṣṭafā
1963), but which Muṣṭafā cites in the Arabic account on the first season of ex-
cavations (1954: 20; Antun 2016: 15–20). It is a gold dīnār struck in the name of
Heraclius (610–641, see Antun 2016: 154, fig. 33), found above the pavement of
the first layer and below that of the second one. Since, as observed by Antun
(ibid.: 18, 20), Byzantine gold coins ceased to circulate soon after the coinage
reform promoted by ʿAbd al-Malik in 695, the finding is crucial to fix this year
both as the terminus ante quem for the construction of the first layer and as the
terminus post quem for that of the second one, thus confirming a Marwānid
dating for the latter (ibid.: 20).87
86 Attested in Taḫt-i Nišīn in Fīrūzābād (dated 224–239/40 [Huff 1972]); Taḫt-i Sulaymān
(dated 531–579 [Naumann 1977; Ghanimati 2013: 898]); in the palace of Tapa Hissar, inter-
preted as a fire temple dedicated to Anāhitā and dated to the reign of Šāpūr I (Ghirshman
1938: 14); in Building B at Bīšāpūr for which “the most recent researches, since the study
by Azarnoush, learn towards a religious function for the building” (Fontana 2015: 216, n. 3);
at Turang Tapa (dated to the late Sasanian-early Islamic period [Boucharlat 1987: pl. 29])
and in the chahār qāpu at Qaṣr-i Šīrīn for which, nevertheless, “the recent Abbasid dating
of the near Emarat-e Xosrow suggests great caution in proposing Sasanian attribution”
(Anisi 2008: 68, n. 3; Callieri 2014: 200, n. 425).
87 The arguments so far provided for the post-dating of the second layer of the qaṣr to the late
Marwānid period are ultimately endorsed by the structural contiguity of the latter with
the qiblī wall of the congregational mosque. Evidence subsists in the sources that allows
to consider this mosque as a genuine product of the Marwānid religious architecture. The

Some Final Chronological Considerations
The series of arguments provided thus far constitute, in my opinion, a suffi-

cient basis to post-date the arrangement reached by the Kūfan complex in the
second phase of the qaṣr to the middle-late Marwānid era. Unfortunately, due
to our current archaeological knowledge and the lack of information in the
written sources, we are not able to indicate a precise date for this construction,
nor propose a specific patronage for its realization. Nevertheless, some consid-
erations on the political situation of the miṣr during the Marwānid era could
help to provide some interesting leads in this regard.
We have seen how the importance of Kūfa was totally overshadowed by
the new-founded Wāsiṭ during the Iraqi mandate of al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ b. Yūsuf. As
a result of al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ’s politics, Syrian troops became the new ruling élite in
Iraq—where an uninterrupted series of foreign governors came and went—
and “whether ašrāf or qurrāʾ or mawālī, they were reduced to subject status”
(Kennedy 2004: 102). From that time on and in the decades to come, Kūfa
ceased to be seat of government and its name almost totally disappeared from
historical accounts, also due to its strong Yemenī substrate, penalized by the
prevalently Qaysī orientation of most Marwānid caliphs and governors.88 In
this regard, it is important to note that the only important public works we
know of undertaken in the old Irāqī amṣār after the second fitna occurred in
Baṣra under the patronage of Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik,89 whose Yamamī fac-
tionalism and rivalry against al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ is common knowledge (Kennedy 2004:
104–5). As for Kūfa, in the face of almost total silence in the sources in the pre-
vious years, we are informed that under the caliphate of Ḥišām major initia-
tives of gubernatorial patronage were commissioned by Ḫālid b. ʿAbd al-Qasrī,
a Yamanī sympathizer who later claimed be a Yamanī himself (Hawting 1978:
925–27; Kennedy 2004: 111). He is reported to have undertaken huge works for
the agricultural development of Iraq (Kennedy 2004: 111) and, more specifical-
ly, in Kūfa to have embarked on the reconstruction of the sūq (Wiet 1937: 145),
issue, sustantial in order to complete the debate the Kūfan complex, is widely discussed
by the author in a furthcoming paper.
88 al-Ḥaǧǧāǧ b. Yūsuf is one of the most famous Qaysī tribal leaders (Marsham 2009: 121); the
caliph al-Walīd I “himself had a Qaysī mother, Wallāda, and seems to have allowed the
Qaysīs certain privileges” (Kennedy 2004: 104).
Tribal factionalism and inter-Umayyad conflict led to the third fitna, the preamble to
the collapse of Umayyad power (Marsham 2009: 121).
89 We are informed by Balāḏurī (Murgotten 1924: 62–65) that he ordered Ṣāliḥ b. ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān—appointed over the ḫarāǧ of Iraq—to reconstruct both the mosque and the
dār al-imāra in Baṣra (above: n. 91).

98 Santi
some important works in the Great Mosque (Hitti 1916: 445), the digging of the
canal al-Ǧāmiʿ (ibid.), and, in particular, the building of a great palace known
as qaṣr Ḫālid (ibid.). Although, due to the current state of research, there is not
enough evidence to propose a precise attribution, both the political-economic
context of the time and the resemblance of the plan of the second layer with
other buildings dated to the reign of Hišām90 could be an interesting starting
point to suggest a dating for the reconstruction of the qaṣr al-imāra in Kūfa91
to this period, which could thus be intended as a gesture linked in part to the
centuries-old tribal factionalism between Qays and Yemen that de facto influ-
enced a great deal of Umayyad politics (Marsham 2009: 121–22).
References
Akkouch, Mahmoud (1940) Contribution à une étude des origines de l’architecture

musulmane, La Grande Mosquée de Médine (al-Ḥaram al-Madanī), in Mélanges
Maspero III, 377–410. Le Caire.
al-ʿAlī, Ṣ. (1961) Studies in the Topography of Madīna. Islamic Culture 35, 65–92.
AlSayyad, Nezar (1991) Cities and Caliphs: on the Genesis of Arab Muslim Urbanism. New
York.
Anisi, Alireza (2008) Early Islamic Architecture in Iran (637–1059) (PhD Diss., University
of Edinburgh). Edinburgh.
Antun, Thallein (2016) The Architectural Form of the Mosque in the Central Arab Lands,
from the Hijra to the End of the Umayyad Period, 1/622–133/750. Oxford.
Ayyad, Essam S. (2013) The ‘House of the Prophet’ or ‘the mosque of the Prophet’?
Journal of Islamic Studies 24/3, 274–334.
90 ʿAmmān palatial complex, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Ġarbī, Rusāfa, Qaṣr al-Hayr al-Šarqī, Qastal,
Ḫirbat al-Mafǧar (Creswell, Allan 1989: 135–79).
91 It is important in this regard to point out that, in the account of the foundation of
Baġdād, Ṭabarī reports that the door used by al-Manṣūr in the so-called “Kūfa gate” was
brought from Kūfa having been made by Ḫālid b. ʿAbd al-Qasrī (Ṭabarī 1836–1901: VII, 321).
Although we are not explicitly told that the door belonged to Ḫālid’s palace, it is the most
plausible explanation, since nothing is known about the presence of city walls or city
gates in Kūfa before the Abbasid time (Mustawfī reports that the walls of Kūfa, measur-
ing 18,000 paces in a circle, were built by the same caliph al-Manṣūr; see Le Strange 1905:
75). The presence of Ḫālid’s door in Baġdād—undoubtedly the most symbolic of all the
Islamic cities, in which most of the architectural elements employed are drawn from the
late Umayyad royal tradition with a precise figurative intent—should not be undervalued
in this latter analysis.

Bacharach, Jere L. (1991) Administrative Complexes, Palaces, and Citadels: Changes in

the Loci of Medieval Muslim Rule, in D. Preziosi (ed.), The Ottoman City and Its
Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order, 105–22. New Rochelle.
Balāḏurī, ʾAḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā (1866) Kitāb futūḥ al-buldān (ed. M.J. de Goeje). Leiden.
Barbier de Meynard, C. (1869) Maçoudi. Les Prairies d’Or (Masʿūdī, Muruj al-ḏahab),
vol. V. Paris.
Bell, Gertrude (1914) Palace and Mosque at Ukhaiḍir, a Study in Early Muhammadan
Architecture. Oxford.
Bier, Lionel (1986) Sarvistan. A Study in Early Islamic Architecture. Pennsylvania
University Park–London.
Bier, Lionel (2002) Sarvistan Reconsidered, in Erica Ehrenberg (ed.), Leaving No Stones
Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen,
43–51. Winona Lake, Indiana.
Bisheh, Ghazi Izzeddin (1979) The Mosque of the Prophet at Madīnah throughout
the First Century A.H. with Special Emphasis on the Umayyad Mosque (PhD Diss.,
University of Michigan). Ann Arbor.
Bloom, Jonathan M. (1993) The “Qubbat al-Khaḍrā” and the Iconography of Height in
Early Islamic Architecture. Ars Orientalis 23, 135–41.
Bloom, Jonathan M. ed. (2002) Early Islamic Art and Architecture. Ashgate.
Boucharlat, Rémy (1987) Chapitre 3. La période VIIA/B, in R. Bucharlat, Olivier
Lecomte, 1. Les périodes sassanides et islamiques (Jean Deshayes ed., Fouilles de
Tureng Tepe ), 51–75. Paris.
al-Buraqī, Huṣayn ibn Ahmad Ḥassūn (1960) Tāriḫ al-Kūfa. Naǧaf.
Caetani, Leone (1912) Chronographia islamica. Paris.
Caetani, Leone (1914) Annali dell’Islām, 7. Milano.
Caetani, Leone (1972) Annali dell’Islām, 9. Milano.
Callieri, Pierfrancesco (2014) Architecture et représentations dans l’Iran sassanide
(Conférences d’Etudes Iraniennes Ehsan et Latifeh Yarshater 7—Studia Iranica,
Cahier 50). Paris.
Creswell, K.A.C. (19792, I/1) Early Muslim Architecture. I/1–2. Umayyads A.D. 622–750;
II. Early ʿAbbāssids, Umayyads of Cordoba, Aghlabids, Ṭūlūnids and Samānids, A.D.
751–905. New York. [Repr. of Oxford 1969 edn.].
Creswell, K.A.C., James W. Allan (1989) A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture,
Revised and Supplemented by James W. Allan. Aldershot.
Diyārbakrī, Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥasan (1884) Tārīḫ al-Ḫamīs fī aḥwāl anfas
nafīs. al-Miṣr.
Djaït, Hichem (1986) Al-Kūfa, naissance de la ville islamique. Paris.
Donner, Fred McGrew (1981) The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton, New Jersey.
Ettinghausen, Richard, Oleg Grabar, Marilyn Jenkins (2001) Islamic Art and Architecture
650–1250. New Haven.

100 Santi
Finster, Barbara (2003) Craftsmen in the First Century of Islam, in M.G. Morony (ed.),
Manufacturing and Labour, 199–210. Ashgate.
Finster, Barbara, J. Schmidt (2005) The Origin of ‘Desert Castles’: Qasr Bani Muqatil,
near Karbala, Iraq. Antiquity, 79 (issue 304), 339–49.
Fishbein, Michael (1990) The History of al-Ṭabarī, XXI. The Victory of the Marwānids.
Albany.
Flood, Finbarr Barry (2001) The Great Mosque of Damascus, Studies on the Makings of
an Umayyad Visual Culture. Leiden–Boston–Köln.
Fontana, Maria Vittoria (2015) The Umayyad ‘Cruciform’ Domed Halls at Kūfa and
ʿAmmān Compared with the Plans of the Sasanian Fire Temples (čahār ṭāqs). Annali
dell’Università di Napoli “L’Orientale” 75, 215–22.
Genequand, Denis (2006) Umayyad Castles: The Shift from Late Antique Military
Architecture to Early Islamic Palatial Building. History of Warfare Series, 35/2, 3–25.
Ghanimati, Soroor (2013) Kuh-e Khwaja and the Religious Architecture of Sasanian
Iran, in Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 878–908. New
York.
Ghirshman, R. (1938) Les fouilles de Châpour (Iran) : deuxième campagne 1936/37.
Revue des arts asiatiques 12/1, 12–19.
Grabar, Oleg (1955) Ceremonial and Art at the Umayyad Court (PhD Diss., Princeton
University). Princeton.
al-Ḥarbī, Abū Isḥāq (1960) Kitāb al-Manāsik wa-Amākin Ṭuruq al-Ḥaǧǧ wa-Maʿālim al-
Ǧazīrah (ed. Ḥ. al-Ǧāsir). al-Riyāḍ.
Hawting, G.R. (19782) K̲ h̲ālid b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḳasrī. Encyclopaedia of Islam 4, 925–27.
Hawting, G.R. (1989) The History of al-Tabarī: An annotated translation, 20. The Collapse
of the Sufyānid Authority and the Coming of the Marwānids: The caliphates of
Muʿāwiyah II and Marwān I and the beginning of the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik, AD
683–685/AH 64–66. Albany.
Herzfeld, Ernst (1912) Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Samarra,
vol. I. Reimer.
Hillenbrand, Robert (1994) Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning. New
York.
Hitti, P.K. (1916) The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic
Accompanied with Annotations Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitāb Futūh al-
Buldān of al-Imām abu-l ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn-Jābir al-Balādhurī, vol. I. New York.
Hitti, P.K. (1970) History of the Arabs. New York.
Huart, M.C. (1919) Le livre de la création et de l’histoire de Moṭahhar Ben Ṭāhir El-Maqdisī
traduit par M. Cl. Huart. Paris.
Huff, Dietrich (1972) Der Takht-i Nishin in Firuzabad. Mass-Systeme Sasanidischer
Bauwerke, I. Archäologischer Anzeiger 87/3, 517–40.

Humphreys, R.S. (1990) The History of al-Ṭabarī: The Crisis of the Early Caliphate, XV.
Albany.
Ibn al-Athīr (1978) al-Kāmil fī’l Ta‌ʾrīḫ, 2 vols. Bayrūt.
Ibn Ḫaldūn (1958) Muqaddima (The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History.
Translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal), vol. I. Princeton.
Ibn al-Naǧǧār (1956) al-Durrah al-Tamīnah fī Aḫbār al-Madīna. Supp. to al Fāsī’s Šifāʾ
al-Ġarām. al-Qāhirah–Makkah.
Ibn Saʿd (1957–60) al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, vols. I–III. Bayrūt.
al-Iṣfahanī, Abū al-Faraj (1957) Kitāb al-Aġānī. Bayrūt.
Johns, Jeremy (1999) The ‘House of the Prophet’ and the Concept of the Mosque.
Oxford Studies in Islamic Art 9/2, 59–112.
Juynboll, G.H.A. (1989) The History of Al-Ṭabarī: The Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern
Persia, and Egypt The Middle Years of Umar’s Caliphate A.D. 636–642 / A.H. 15–21,
vol. XIII. Albany.
Kennedy, Hugh (2001) The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic
State. London.
Kennedy, Hugh (20042) The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. London. [1st edn.
1986].
Kimball, Fiske (1938–39) Sāsānian Architecture, B. The Sāsānian Building at Dāmghān
(Tepe Ḥiṣar), in Pope, Ackerman (1938–39): 579–83.
Kubiak, Wladyslaw B. (1987) Al-Fustat, its Foundation & Early Urban Development.
Cairo.
Lammens, Henri (1911) Ziād ibn Abīhi vice-roi de l’Iraq, lieutenant de Moʿāwia I. Rivista
degli studi orientali 4/1, 1–45.
Lane, E.W. (1968) An Arabic-English Lexicon: in Eight Parts. Beirut.
Lassner, Jacob (1970) The Topography of Baghdad in the Early Middle Ages. Detroit.
Latz, J. (1958) Das Buch der Wezire und Staatssekretäre von Ibn ʿAbdūs al-Ǧahšiyārī:
Anfänge und Umaiyadenzeit (Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der
Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms-
Universität zu Bonn). Bonn.
Le Strange, Guy (1905) The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Mesopotamia, Persia, and
Central Asia, Form the Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur. Cambridge.
Leisten, Thomas (2006) For Prince and Country (side)—the Marwanid Mansion
at Balis on the Euphrates, in Karin Bartl, Abd al-Razzaq Moaz (eds.), Residences,
Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in
Bilad al-Sham. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Damascus, 5–9
November 2006, 377–94. Rahden.
Lo Jacono, Claudio (2003) Storia del mondo islamico (VII–XVI secolo), I. Il Vicino
Oriente. Torino.

102 Santi
Madelung, W. (1997) The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Caliphate. Cambridge.

Marsham, Andrew (2009) Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the
First Muslim Empire: Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire. Edinburgh.
Massé, Henri (1973) Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamaḏānī, Abrégé du Livre des pays; trad. de l’arabe
par Henri Massé. Damas.
Massignon, Louis (1963) Explication du plan de Baṣra, in L. Massignon, Opera Minora,
textes recueillis, classés et présentés avec une bibliographie par Y. Moubarac, 61–87.
Beirut.
Massignon, Louis (19782) al-K̲ h̲awarnaḳ. Encyclopaedia of Islam 4, 1133.
Monneret de Villard, Ugo (1968) Introduzione allo studio dell’archeologia islamica: le
origini e il periodo omayyade. Firenze.
Moradi, Yusef (2012) Imarat-e Khosrow in View of the First Season of the Archaeological
Excavations, in Hamid Fatimi, Karim Alizadeh (eds.), Nāmvarnāmeh. Papers in
Honour of Massoud Azarnoush, 350–29 [in Persian]. Tehran.
Morony, M.G. (1984) Iraq after the Muslim Conquest. Princeton.
Murgotten, F.C. (1924). The Origins of the Islamic State, being a translation from the
Arabic accompanied with annotations geographic and historic notes of the Kitāb
Futūh al-Buldān of al-Imām abu-l ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn-Jābir al-Balādhurī, vol. II. New
York.
Muṣṭafa, Muḥammad ʿAlī (1954) Excavation at Kūfa. Sumer 10/1, 73–85.
Muṣṭafa, Muḥammad ʿAlī (1956) Excavation at Kūfa. Sumer 12/3, 32.
Muṣṭafa, Muḥammad ʿAlī (1963) Preliminary Report on the Excavation in Kūfa during
the Third Season. Sumer 19, 36–65.
Naumann, Rudolf (1977) Die Ruinen von Tacht-e Suleiman und Zendan-e Suleiman und
Umgebung. Berlin.
Northedge, Alastair (1992) Studies on Roman and Islamic ʿAmmān, 1. History, Site and
Architecture. Oxford.
Pedersen, J. (19912) Masd̲ ji̲ d. Encyclopaedia of Islam 6, 644–77.
Pope, Arthur Upham, Phyllis Ackerman eds. (1938–39) A Survey of Persian Art from
Prehistoric Times to the Present. London–New York.
Reuther, Oscar (1938–39) Sasanian Architecture: History, in Pope, Ackerman (1938–39),
493–578.
Rice, D.T. (1934) The Oxford Excavations at Ḥīra. Ars Islamica 1/1, 51–73.
Robinson, C.F. ed. (2011) The New Cambridge History of Islam, 1. The Formation of the
Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries. Cambridge.
Rosenthal, Franz (1958) Ibn Khaldūn, The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History.
Translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, vol. I. Princeton.
Safar, Fuad (1945) Wāsiṭ, the Sixth Season’s Excavations. Le Caire.

Saleh, Ahmed al-ʿAli (1961) Studies in the Topography of Medina. Islamic Culture 35/2,
65–92.
al-Samhūdī, ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad (1908) Wafāʾ al-wafāʾ bi-aḫbār dār al-muṣṭafā. al-Miṣr.
Santi, Aila (2017) The Role of Madīna in the Emergence of the Mosque-Dār al-Imāra
Combination: A Preliminary Note. Vicino Oriente 21, 211–23.
Sauvaget, Jean (1947) La mosquée omeyyade de Médine: étude sur les origines architec-
turales de la mosquée et de la basilique. Paris.
Schippmann, Klaus (1971) Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer (Religionsgeschichtliche
Versuche und Vorarbeiten 31). Berlin–New York.
Sellheim, R., D. Sourdel (19782) Kātib I. In the Caliphate. Encyclopaedia of Islam 4,
754–57.
Ṭabarī, Abū Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Ǧarīr (1836–1901) Ta‌ʾrīḫ al-rusul wa al-mulūk (ed.
M.J. De Goeje), 15 vols. Leiden.
Thompson, S. (1955) Motif-index of Folk-literature: A Classification of Narrative elements
in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-
books and Local Legends, vol. V. Bloomington–Indianapolis.
Wellhausen, Julius (1899) Muhammads Gemeindeordnung von Medina. Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten 4, 65–83.
Wellhausen, Julius (1902) Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz. Berlin.
Whitcomb, Donald (2002) Khirbet al-Karak identified with Sinnabra. Al-‘Usur Al-
Wusta, The Bulletin of Middle East Mediavelists 14, 1–6.
Wiet, Gaston (1937) Yaʿḳūbī, Les Pays. Le Caire.
Würsch, Renate (2013) K̲ awarnak, in Encyclopaedia Iranica XVI/2, 143–45.
Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad ibn Abī (1861) Kitābo’l-Boldān (Kitāb al-Buldān) (ed. T.G.J. Juynboll).
Leiden.
Yāqūt ibn ʿAbd Allāh, al-Ḥamawī (1906) Muʿǧam al-buldān (ed. Muḥammad Amīn al-
Khānajī), vol. VII. Miṣr.

Early Islamic Kufa in Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Islamic Kufa in Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annali, Sezione orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Early Islamic Kūfa in Context: A Chronological

The origin of the congregational mosque-dār al-imāra combination—despite wide

Kūfa – dār al-imāra – mosque – Umayyads

Introduction and State of the Art

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/24685631-12340045

have inevitably recognized its prominence, there is still no detailed disserta-

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

the archaeological research carried out in Kūfa, widely discussed by Creswell

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

On the Unreliability of the Account of Sayf b. ʿUmar

Sayf b. ʿUmar’s account, preserved in its entirety in the chapter of Ṭabarī’s

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

description remains quite unintelligible, not to mention the architectural non-

20 “[This roof structure] had no walls” (Juynboll 1989: 73).

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

becomes apparent. Consequently, the measure taken by the caliph appears to

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

– Continuing his historical account, Ṭabarī reports the deposition of Saʿd b.

29 Took part in the Hijra, d. 32 H (Caetani 1914: 558).

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

This meticulous description provides a very different picture of the core of

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

the shaping of a court ceremonial at that time should not be undervalued as it

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

The First layer of Kūfa’s dār al-imāra

The so-called “first layer” corresponds to a massive square building (113.95

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

On the Demolition of the qaṣr of Ziyād

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

The Second Layer of Kūfa’s dār al-imāra

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

The extremely elaborate layout of this plan constitutes an unprecedented

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

accomplishment of magnificent building projects.81 A building like that of the

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

domed room created by recesses traceable to the planimetric principle of the

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Some Final Chronological Considerations

The series of arguments provided thus far constitute, in my opinion, a suffi-

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Akkouch, Mahmoud (1940) Contribution à une étude des origines de l’architecture

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Bacharach, Jere L. (1991) Administrative Complexes, Palaces, and Citadels: Changes in

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Madelung, W. (1997) The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Caliphate. Cambridge.

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

Annali, Sezione Orientale 78 (2018) 69–103

You might also like

20 “[This roof structure] had no walls” (Juynboll 1989: 73).

29 Took part in the Hijra, d. 32 H (Caetani 1914: 558).