RCHITECTURE

The Seleucid architecture of Iran encompasses the buildings constructed during the period of Greek power from 330 B.C. through the 2nd century B.C. The terminal date varies from region to region, since the Seleucid Greeks continually lost control of area to the Parthians invading from the northeast and to various local warlords. The scarcity of historical documents complicates the identification of structures erected under Greek rule, and archeological investigations have produced no Seleucid site comparable to Aï Khanum (see AÚy K¨a@nom) in Afghanistan or Failaka in the Persian Gulf. The situation is further confused by the fact that Greek masons and stonecutters were employed by the Achaemenids as early as the late 6th century B.C. It is entirely likely that elements of their influence persisted in later times. Thus mere classical appearance is not a reliable indication of Seleucid date.

The spectacular temple at Kanga@var exemplifies the problems of identifying Seleucid architecture. The large structure with its great Ionic columns set on a high stone platform has been equated with a Greek temple noted by Isidore of Charax (Parthian Stations 6; tr. W. H. Schoff, London, 1914, repr. Chicago, 1976) and mentioned in a royal Seleucid inscription dated 193 B.C. found at Neha@vand, some 50 km to the southeast of Kanga@var (E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, London, 1941, p. 281; L. Robert, “Inscriptions se‚leucides de Phrygie et d'Iran,” Hellenica 7, 1949, pp. 5-29 and pls. I-IV; “Addenda au tome VII,” Hellenica 8, 1950, pp. 73-75 and pl. XXIII). Recent excavations, however, support Sasanian rather than Seleucid dating (T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “An Archaeological Survey of the Kangavar Valley,” Proceedings of the III Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, Tehran, 1974, Tehran, 1976, p. 27; S. Kambakhsh-Fard, “Kangavar,” Iran 11 , 1973, pp. 196-97; and V. Lukonin, “Khram Anakhit v Kangavar,” VDI, 1977, no. 2, pp. 106-11; M. Azarnoush, “Excavations at Kangavar,” AMI 14, 1981, pp. 69ff.; for a different opinion see K. Schippmann, Grundzüge der parthischen Geschichte, Darmstadt, 1980, p. 100).

A better indication of Greek architecture may be the presence of fired clay roofing tiles. These tiles are not characteristic of Iranian architectural practice in any period and thus may serve as clear indication of a strong Greek presence. Such tiles, known from Qal¿a-ye Zoháa@k in Azerbaijan and from the great city of Susa in K¨u@zesta@n, show that gable-roofed structures in the Greek style existed in Iran (Kleiss, op. cit., p. 182; and A. Labrousse and R. Boucharlat, “La fouille du Palais du Chaour aà Suse en 1970 et 1971,” CDAFI 2, 1972, pp. 89-99). Furthermore, the ridge tiles from Susa are ornamented with palmettes, another Greek characteristic. The type of buildings constructed in the Seleucid period at Susa is unknown, though a temple of Herakles and a theater have been placed in the section known as the Ville des Artisans by Roman Ghirshman (“Un basrelief parthe de la Collection Foroughi,” Artibus Asiae 37, 1975, p.23).

The architecture of Fa@rs (classical Persis) shows little Greek influence, in contrast to western Iran, perhaps because of the brevity of the Seleucid period, which evidently ended in that region with the death of Seleukos I in 280 B.C. Parts of the burned ruins of Persepolis, particularly Palace H, were repaired and occupied for some time in the 3rd century B.C. The elaborate columns remained as testaments to the past, models for the future, and sources of readily available building materials (A. Tilia, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites in Fars, Rome, 1972, pp. 315-16). During the same century a moderate-sized building, usually considered a temple, was reshaped below the Persepolis terraces somewhat to the northwest. Construction methods paralleled those of the buildings on the terraces where the doorways and window frames were stone, while the walls were mud brick. Column bases from the terrace were used within the structure, and additional bases of a simpler design were also produced. (For illustrations see R. Ghirshman, Persian Art, New York, 1962, p. 26, fig. 34; for a more detailed consideration see E. Schmidt, Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs and Inscriptions, Chicago, 1953; and Herzfeld, op. cit., p. 275 and pls. LXXXV and LXXXVI). No trace of distinctly Greek building techniques have appeared so far. Thus the architecture of Fa@rs in the 3rd century B.C. may better be called post-Achaemenid rather than Seleucid.

To define Parthian architecture is not synonymous with describing the architecture of the Parthians. Firstly, some sites traditionally labeled as Parthian lie outside of an Iran expanded beyond its modern borders. But while other disciplines must also recognize the difference between Iran and non-Iran, there are so few examples of architectural monuments from the plateau of Iran either known or documented in detail that it seems impossible to use the Iranian homeland of the Parthians as the basis for the definition of Parthian architecture. Secondly, the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids maintained its capital at Ctesiphon in Mesopotamia, but during the latter half of the era there were large sections of the plateau area which claimed independence: “Indo-Parthian” kings struck coins in S^sta@n as did other kings in the provinces of Persia and in Elymais, and the south and east of the Caspian, Hyrcania established a degree of autonomy by the middle of the first century A.D. Much closer to the capital, at the head of the Persian Gulf, the kings of Characene maintained their independence (albeit with interruption) for several centuries. Yet it is precisely when Arsacid political authority was being rigorously challenged by other groups that recognizable traits were beginning to appear in Middle Eastern architecture as a whole and which owe their origins to “indigenous” forces. Given the multiplicity of the ethnic and linguistic make-up of the area, these developments can be seen as expressions that were concurrent with the existence of many political groups. They occurred during the Parthian period, but they are not to be thought of as exclusively the property of the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids.

The dynastic art of the Arsacids, if such an entity could be conceived, should be sought in no more than central Mesopotamia and the Zagros mountains. Common usage, however, requires that one think of Parthian architecture as involving everything between Hatra in Iraq and Taxila in Pakistan, between Nisa (q.v.) in the Soviet Union and Da@ra@bgerd in southern Iran. In the northeast, the precise boundary between Parthian and Kushan kingdoms is a difficult problem to define. Certain sites, however, such as Khalchayan (K¨al±aya@n) and Koi-Krylan-Kala in Uzbekistan and Surkh Kotal in Afghanistan, have to be considered under Parthian architecture if that term is to be adequately defined. Geographical limits, then, are not the way to define Parthia. Rather, one should acknowledge that over a wide territory there was a recognizable development of architectural style and form, the evolution of which was not completed when the Parthian period came to an end. And while the source of these fundamental changes may not necessarily have come from Iranian-speaking architects, it was essentially an “Iranian” revolution in the arts. For the evolution continued under the Sasanians, and from there the architectural ideas were transferred as producing some of the more readily identifiable characteristics of the architecture of Iran under Islam.

The single trait most characteristic of this “Iranian” architecture is the use of an ayva@n (q.v.) as a rectangular, vaulted hall with one end open where it faces a courtyard, for which diverse sources have been proposed ranging from a tent or reed house to the Mycenean megaron or the Hellenistic exedra. Iranologists, however, stress the theoretical nomadic origins of the Parthians as the reason for the adoption of this distinctive architectural feature, and the Iranian origin of the term. The most important fact in the debate is that at Seleucia-on-Tigris in the late first century A.D. it can be demonstrated that house plans changed from having a hall with a pair of columns set in the opening on the side of the court (distyle in antis) to that of a barrel-vaulted ayva@n as the building's most important roofed structure, indicating the practical application of a previously well-known constructional technique—the barrel vault of brick—to a portion of the building where Greek style was no longer an important aspect. Barrel vaults of brick had been built as much as a millennium and a half earlier (at Susa, for example), but it was the application of the vaulted ayva@n to the main units of a building in the late Parthian period which gave Iranian architecture such a regal reception hall through emphasis on the height of the room and the longitudinal axis. The ground-plan change was negligible, but the visual aspect as vaults replaced columns and beams was revolutionary.

Other details of Parthian architecture, especially unorthodox techniques, underline the formative nature of the art. Bricks stacked on edge in groups, alternating with others in horizontal lays, were quite common in the mud-brick architecture of the Ur III period in Mesopotamia (3rd millennium B.C.). The Parthian version of this technique, used occasionally for walls and columns, employed baked brick with each course built alternating between vertical and horizontal lays, ignoring the bonding properties of flat brick where the joints are laid overlapping both lengthwise and laterally through the wall. Similarly, to build strong wall foundations, deep trenches for wall footings were dug and elaborate systems of platforming were constructed, to support structures above; yet these platforms appear in a variety of forms, suggesting that there was no architectural standard that builders followed. Often, at mound sites with an upper layer of Parthian or late Iron Age date it is only remnants of these platforms which survive, resulting in confusion for the archeologist should the matrix of walls and fill be confused with occupational remains. In some cases where massive platforms have been called for, the execution of the project has defeated the purpose behind the plan. This is especially true where a platform has been designed to project out from an existing elevation, forming an extended terrace. There is a danger here that the sheer weight of the added mass is so heavy that it is torn away from the core to which it is supposed to be anchored. To use brick sizes as a way of dating archeological remains of the Parthian period is unwise: there are generalities one can observe, even local characteristics that repeat themselves, but such dimensions can not be used outside of the area to date other ruins because the concept of standards does not apply.

In this light one can also best evaluate Parthian architectural decoration. Wall surface decoration includes a wide range of geometrical, stylized vegetal and figural ornament executed in plaster both molded and carved. Sites in Iraq (such as Ashur/AÚÞu@r, Seleucia-on-Tigris and Warka), in western Iran (Qal÷eh-i Yazdigird/Qal¿a-ye Yazdegerd), and in S^sta@n (Kuh-i Khwaja/Ku@h-e K¨úa@èa) all show a tendency on the part of architects to divide up wall surfaces into flat panels and bands of repeat designs, suggestive of textile ornament. These once vividly-colored wall-hangings include motifs taken from the repertoire of western artists, yet the art is not western. Liberties are taken with designs which ignore their original properties, and, through the geometrizing of natural forms, Parthian art anticipates Islamic art by several centuries.

Bibliography : W. Andrae, Hatra nach Aufnahmen von Mitgliedern der Assur-Expedition der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, WVDOG 9 and 21, Leipzig, 1908-12. Idem, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Warka (Uruk), Berlin, 1935. Idem and H. Lenzen, Die Partherstadt Assur, WVDOG 57, Leipzig, 1933. M. Bussagli, “Parthian Art,” Encyclopaedia of World Art XI, cols. 105-17. M. R. A. Colledge, Parthian Art, London, 1977, pp. 21-79. V. E. Crawford, “Nippur the Holy City,” Archaeology 12, 1959, pp. 74-83. N.C. Debevoise, “The Origins of Decorative Stucco.” AJA 45, 1941, pp. 45-61. M. Dieulafoy, L'art antique de la Perse V: Monuments parthes et sassanides, Paris, 1889. C. S. Fisher, “The Mycenaean Palace at Nippur,” AJA 8, 1904, pp. 401-32. R. Ghirshman, Iran: Parthian and Sassanian Period, London, 1962. Idem, Terrasses sacre‚es de Bard-eà Ne‚chandehet Masjid-i Solaiman, MDAFI 45, 1976. B. Goldman, “The Allover Pattern in Mesopotamian Stuccowork,” Berytus 10, 1952-53, pp. 13-20. G. Gullini, Architettura iranica dagli Achemenidi ai Sasanidi, Torino, 1964. U. W. Hallier, “Neh—eine parthische Stadt in Ostpersien,” AMI, N.F. 7, 1974, pp. 173-90. E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, London and New York, 1941, pp. 276ff. C. Hopkins, ed., Topography and Architecture of Seleucia on the Tigris, Ann Arbor, 1972. E. J. Keall, “Some Thoughts on the Early Eyvan,” in D. K. Kouymjian, ed., Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History. Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, Beirut, 1974, pp. 123-30. Idem, M. A. Leveque, and N. Willson, “Qal¿eh-i Yazdigird: Its Architectural Decorations,” Iran 18, 1980, pp. 1-41. M. Y. Kiani, Parthian Sites in Hyrcania, AMI Ergänzungsband 10, Berlin, 1982. H. J. Lenzen, “Architektur der Partherzeit in Mesopotamia und ihre Brückenstellung zwischen der Architektur des Westens und des Ostens,” in E. Boehringer, ed., Festschrift für Carl Weickert, Berlin, 1955, pp. 121-36. W. K. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana, London, 1857. N. F. Manasseh, “Architectural Features of Block B,” Second Preliminary Report upon the Excavations at Tel Umar, Iraq, director L. Waterman, Ann Arbor, 1933. J. Marshall, Taxila, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1951. G. A. Pugachenkova, Rekonstruktsiya --> "[Author:AVP] kvadratnogo zala" parfyanskogo ansamblya Staro¥ Nisy. Trudy Yuzhno-Turkmensko¥ arkheologichesko¥ kompleksno¥ ekspeditsii II, Ashkhabad, 1951. O. Reuther, “Parthian Architecture. A: History,” Survey of Persian Art I, 1938, pp. 411-44. D. Schlumberger, “Parthian Art,” Camb. Hist. Iran III/3, 1983, pp. 1027-54. L. Trümpelmann, “The Parthian Buildings at Assur,” Summer 35, 1979, pp. 287-93. T. N. Zadneprovskaya, “Bibliographie de travaux sovie‚tiques sur les parthes,” Studia Iranica 4/2, 1972, pp. 243-60.

1. Building materials. Sasanian architecture is characterized by the widespread use of mortar masonry and the associated vaulting techniques. Although mud brick had been developed long before, and mortar constructions were known in Parthian times, both became preeminent in the high-standard architecture of the Sasanians. Mud brick remained a most important building material (e.g. Da@mg@a@n, Istakhr/Esátáakòr, H®a@è^a@ba@d, K^Þ, Ctesiphon, Kuh-i Khwaja/Ku@h-e K¨úa@èa), and only its impermanence shifts our attention to the better preserved stone and brick ruins of Sasanian architecture. Among these, rubble stone masonry with gypsum mortar is predominant. Brickwork was frequently used for vaults and domes, although there are a number of buildings made entirely of brick (e.g. Dastegerd, Ayva@n-e Karkòa, Ctesiphon, Takòt-e Solayma@n). Dressed ashlar appears sporadically, mainly in the early (e.g. B^Þa@pu@r, F^ru@za@ba@d, Nu@ra@ba@d, Pa@yku@l^) and late (e.g. T®a@q-e Gerra, Darband, Takòt-e Solayma@n, Kanga@var) phases of the empire, and seems to be due to western influence (H. Wulff, Traditional Crafts of Persia, Cambridge, Mass., 1966, p. 102).

2. Construction and structural types. (a) Vaulted constructions. Sasanian vaulting techniques depend largely on the special qualities of gypsum mortar, which allows vaulting without centering because of its short setting time. Barrel vaults with “pitched courses,” the most frequent system, owe their elliptical shape and their significant step out above the impost to this technical procedure, which requires only a back wall or a narrow strip of centering for the first courses, with the following ones successively glued in front (K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture 1/2, Oxford, 1969, p. 544; O. Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” in Survey of Persian Art I, p. 498). Notwithstanding its practical advantages, vaulting without centering prevented the development of geometrically advanced constructions. Semicircular barrel vaults appear only when built on centering as a voussoir arch with “lying courses.” The cross vault, resulting from the intersection of two barrel vaults at right angles, was not developed. There are no examples of pointed arches built by formal intention, although they occur as a result of building practice in lesser monuments (e.g. Qasár-e ˆ^r^n) (G. L. Bell, Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir, London, 1914, p. 51). The standard unit of the rectangular barrel-vaulted room was frequently enlarged by vaulted bays. Adjoining semidomes occur rarely (e.g. K^Þ, Bozpar, Nega@r, Sarvesta@n), although in vernacular architecture the use of the squinch vault, probably an ancient technique and one widely regarded as the origin of the Iranian dome, results in a hybridization of semidome or dome and cloister vault (A. Godard, “Voûtes iraniennes,” Athar-e‚ Iran 4, 1949, p. 221). With the barrel-vaulted ayva@n, a rectangular room with the front side open, the visible shape of the vault became the dominant feature of the facade. Already present in Parthian time, the ayva@n became the most conspicuous element of Sasanian and later Iranian architecture.

(b) Domed constructions. The propagation of the dome on squinches above a square hall may be regarded as the most significant Sasanian contribution to Middle-Eastern architecture. This most uncomplicated and solid of all constructive systems already appears fully developed in the buildings of ArdaÞ^r I in F^ru@za@ba@d (Plate V). Its tectonic disposition remained basically unchanged throughout the Sasanian period and had a decisive impact on Islamic architecture; its empirical form clearly distinguished Eastern dome construction from the abstract geometrical concept of Western domes with pendentives (J. Rosinthal, Pendentifs, trompes et stalactites dans l'architecture orientale, Paris, 1928, p. 43). The variety of squinch forms demonstrates an increasing effort to find satisfying forms for what was originally a purely constructive element. In its early stage (e.g. F^ru@za@ba@d) the cupola proper does not yet have a perfectly circular base, but rises on a fairly well rounded octagon. Later examples (e.g. Qasár-e ˆ^r^n) draw nearer to geometric perfection, which is finally achieved in Islamic architecture.

(d) Constructive and decorative details. Clay remained the chief coating material for flat and vaulted roofs as well as for floors which were frequently covered with gypsum plaster, stone, or in rare cases, with Roman influenced mosaics (e.g. B^Þa@pu@r, Ctesiphon). Plaster of Paris, frequently painted (B^Þa@pu@r, Ayva@n-e Karkòa, K^Þ), was widely used for building facings and for the dominant mode of architectural ornamentation, the stucco relief (Ùa@l T®arkòa@n, Da@mg@a@n, H®a@è^a@ba@d, K^Þ, Ctesiphon) (D. Thompson, Stucco from Chal Tarkhan, London, 1976; J. Kröger, Sasanidischer Stuckdekor, Mainz, 1982; M. Azarnoush, “Excavations at Hâjîâbâd, 1977,” Iranica Antiqua 18, 1983, pp. 159ff.). The traditional stepped revetment remained a favorite decorative element, normally with four rectangular stages, which were already becoming dovetail-like at the late Sasanian T®a@q-e Gerra.

3. Functional types of buildings. (a) Religious architecture. Frequent reference to sacred fires in Pahlavi texts indicate the important role that sanctuaries of the Zoroastrian state religion played in Sasanian architecture, but their architectural type remains disputed (F. Oehlmann “Persische Tempel,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1921, pp. 273ff.; U. Monneret de Villard, “The Fire Temples,” Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 4, 1936, pp. 175ff.; K. Schippmann, Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer, Berlin, 1971; M. Boyce, “On the Zoroastrian Temple Cult of Fire,” JAOS 95, 1975, pp. 454ff.; Y. Yamamoto, “The Zoroastrian Temple Cult of Fire in Archaeology and Literature,” Orient 15, 1979, pp. 19ff.; 17, 1981, pp. 67ff.). The prevailing theory suggests that the main sanctuary structures were a freestanding ±aha@r-táa@q, under which the sacred fire, shining through the four lateral arches, was exposed to worshipers during the religious services, and a small a@teÞga@h some distance away, where the fire was kept at other times (A. Godard, “Les monuments du feu,” Atha@r-e‚ Iran 3, 1938, pp. 7ff.; K. Erdmann, Das iranische Feuerheiligtum, Leipzig, 1941, pp. 46ff.). Apart from religious prescriptions that raise doubts about this kind of cult practice (Dârâb Hormazyâr's Rivâyat, ed. M. R. Unvala, I, Bombay, 1906, pp. 60, 65ff.), archeological field work suggests another type of sanctuary: a closed chamber, where the fire was permanently maintained and served by priests, with adjoining ambulatories or rooms for worship (E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, London, 1941, pp. 301ff.; E. Keall, “Archaeology and the Fire Temple,” in C. J. Adams, Iranian Civilization and Culture, Montreal, 1972, pp. 15ff.; D. Huff, “Das Imamzadeh Sayyid Husain und E. Herzfelds Theorie über den sasanidischen Feuertempel,” Stud. Ir. 11, 1982, pp. 197ff.). If the suggested identification of the Takòt-e NeÞ^n in F^ru@za@ba@d with a fire temple of ArdaÞ^r I proves right, the early type was a square, domed room with four interior bays and with ayva@ns or rooms added to the four facades (Huff in Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1972, pp. 517ff.). A unique, semi-subterranean structure at B^Þa@pu@r, convincingly attributed to ˆa@pu@r I, is believed to be an ambulatory type fire temple because of its corridors; these surround a courtyard-like square of uncertain roofing, apparently associated with Ana@hita@, as it was connected with an underground water canal (Ghirshman, RAA 12, 1938, p. 14; see, for a different interpretation, R. N. Frye, “The So-called Fire Temple of Bishapur,” in The Memorial Volume of the VIth Internalional Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Oxford, Septemher 11-16th, 1972, Tehran, 1976, p.93). The Sasanian phase of the mud brick structure at Ku@h-e K¨úa@èa, identified as a fire temple by an altar in its principal building, had a square, domed sanctuary surrounded by corridors and halls, with a vast complex of subsidiary rooms and ayva@ns around a central court (Herzfeld, op. cit., pp. 291ff.; G. Gullini, Architettura iranica, Torino, 1964, pp. 87ff.). A similar layout was found at Takòt-e Solayma@n, tentatively dated to the 6th century, which has been identified, on the basis of historical tradition and the excavation of clay bullae bearing priests' names and titles, as the shrine of AÚdur GuÞnasp (Figure 11), one of the three most important AÚdur Wahra@ms (see AÚtaÞ; the others, AÚdur Farnba© and AÚdur Burze@nmihr, have not yet been precisely localized. A second shrine excavated here, beside a dome-ambulatory temple, revealed an altar socle in a small sanctuary, preceded by two successive pillar halls rather than ambulatories (H. H. Von der Osten and R. Naumann, Takht-i Suleiman, Berlin, 1961; R. Nauman, “Takht-i Suleiman,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1975, pp. 109ff.; idem, Die Ruinen von Tacht-e Suleiman und Zendan-e Suleiman, Berlin, 1977, pp. 57ff.; D. Huff, “Takht-i Suleiman,” AMI 10, 1977, pp. 211ff.). The Ùaha@r Qa@pu@ at Qasár-e ˆ^r^n, attributed to K¨osrow II, seems to have been another dome-ambulatory type temple within a large architectural compound (Bell, op. cit., pp. 51ff.; Reuther, op. cit., pp. 552ff.; differently J. Schmidt, “Qasár-i ˆirin,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 9, 1978, pp. 39ff.).

A great number of ±aha@r-táa@q ruins, surveyed all over Iran and most frequent in Fa@rs and Kerma@n, are regarded as fire temples. Nearly all of them were closed to the outside by blocking walls in their bays or the surrounding vaulted corridors (L. Vanden Berghe, “Re‚centes de‚couvertes de monuments sassanides dans le Fars,” Iranica Antiqua 1, 1961, pp. 163ff.; idem, “Nouvelle de‚couverte de monuments du feu d'e‚poque sassanide,” ibid., 5, 1965, pp. 128ff.; idem, “Les Chahar Taqs du Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan,” ibid., 12, 1977, pp. 175ff.). See further D. Huff, “Sasanian Ùahar Taqs in Fars,” in Proceedings of the IIIrd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, Tehran, 1975, pp. 243ff.). The two types are represented by the excavated examples at Tu@rang Tepe identified as a sanctuary by an altar socle, and at Qal¿a-ye Yazdegerd, respectively (J. Deshayes, “Un temple du feu d'e‚poque islamique aà Tureng Te‚pe‚,” in Le feu dans le Proche-Orient antique, Leiden, 1973, pp. 31ff.; E. Keall, “Qal'eh-i Yazdigird, an Overview of the Monumental Architecture,” Iran 20, 1982, pp. 51ff.). Several open air altars including those at NaqÞ-e Rostam and Tang-e Karam most likely served for some Zoroastrian religious practice (A. Stein, “An Archaeological Tour in the Ancient Persis,” Iraq 3, 1936, pp. 175ff.; K. Erdmann, “Die Altäre von Naqsh-i Rustam,” MDOG 81, 1949, pp. 6ff.; D. Stronach, “The Kuh-i Shahrak Fire Altar,” JNES 25, 1966, pp. 217ff.). Christian churches discovered at H®^ra, Ctesiphon, and Rahal^ya have long prayer halls, mostly with two rows of pillars and tripartite choirs (Reuther, Die Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Ktesiphon-Expedition, Berlin, 1930, pp. 11ff.; D. Talbot Rice, “The Oxford Excavations at Hira, 1931,” Antiquity 6, 1932, pp. 276ff.; B. Finster and J. Schmidt, “Sasanidische and frühislamische Ruinen im Iraq,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 8, 1976, pp. 27, 40ff.).

(b) Palaces. Although palaces provide the best known examples of Sasanian architecture, the number of well defined monuments is smaller than generally assumed. They are characterized by a regular layout along an axis of symmetry and an obligatory ayva@n. The two palaces of ArdaÞir I at F^ru@za@ba@d, Qal¿a-ye Dokòtar (Figure 12) and AÚteÞkada, both have as public reception areas a deep ayva@n with lateral rooms, followed by a central dome and domed or barrel-vaulted subsidiary halls. A courtyard with ayva@ns and large, uniform halls behind or in front of the reception area is generally regarded as the royal living quarters, although it gives the impression of belonging to the official area. Therefore the private lodgings may be assumed in small rooms on the upper floor that are otherwise unexplained (D. Huff, “Qal¿a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad,” AMI, N.F. 4, 1971, pp. 127ff.; idem, “Ausgrabungen auf Qal¿a-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad, 1976,” AMI 11, 1978, pp. 117ff.).

There are few palaces remaining from the middle Sasanian period, during which the characteristic combination of ayva@n and domed hall seems to have been abandoned. At the T®a@q-e Kesra@, now generally attributed to K¨osrow I (Reuther, op. cit., pp. 15ff.; O. Kurz, “The Date of the Taq-i Kisra,” JRAS, 1941, pp. 37ff.; differently Herzfeld, “Damascus: Studies in Architecture II,” Ars Islamica 10, 1943, pp. 59ff.), and at the probably contemporary ayva@n building at Takòt-e Solayma@n (Nauman, Die Ruinen von Tacht-e Suleiman, pp. 44), the ayva@n appears to be the only dominating element. The inadequately documented ¿Ema@rat-e K¨osrow in Qasár-e ˆ^r^n and the nearby ruin of HawÞ Ku@r^, both attributed to the time of K¨osrow II, also seem to lack a dome behind the ayva@n, where a transverse structure of uncertain elevation and a square courtyard were located instead (J. de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse IV, Paris, 1896, pp. 341ff.; Bell, op. cit., pp. 44ff.; Reuther in Survey of Persian Art I, pp. 533ff.). Regular house-like units added to the rear seem to have been living areas. Both palaces stand on artificial terraces with double ramps like the ruin at Kanga@var, now thought to be a late Sasanian palace (V. Lukonin, “The Temple of Anahita in Kangavar” [in Russian], VDI 2/140, 1977, pp. 105ff., cf. G. Herrmann, The Iranian Revival, Oxford, 1977, p. 107; M. Azarnoush, “Excavations at Kangavar,” AMI 14, 1981, pp. 69ff.). Other terraces such as Tall D¨ahab and H®aram-e Kesra@ at Ctesiphon (Reuther, Ktesiphon-Expedition, pp. 23ff.; E. Kühnel et al., Die Ausgrabungen der zweiten Ktesiphon-Expedition, Berlin, 1933, pp. 1ff.) or Sarmaè (L. Trümpelmann, “Die Terrasse des H¨osrow,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1968, pp. 11ff.) may have carried palace-like super structures as well.

The residential function of a number of monuments generally regarded as palaces has been questioned. The ground plan of the well-preserved building of Sarvesta@n suggests other than palatial use. Its dating in the mid-Sasanian period has also come into question because of its highly developed vaulting system, closely paralleled by early Islamic constructions such as Qasár al-K¨ara@na in Jordan (O. Grabar, “Sarvistan. A Note on Sassanian Palaces,” in Forschungen zur Kunst Asiens. Festschrift K. Erdmann, Istanbul, 1968, pp. 1ff.; M. Siroux, “Le palais de Sarvistan et ses voûtes,” Stud. Ir. 2, 1973, pp. 49ff.; L. Bier, The --> "[Author:AVP] Sasanian" Palace near Sarvistan, New York, 1979). The highly complex layout of the so-called palace of ˆa@pu@r I in B^Þa@pu@r raises similar questions of function (Ghirshman, “Les fouilles de Châpour (Iran),” RAA 12, 1938, pp. 15ff.; idem, Bîchâpour II, Paris, 1956, pp. 11ff.; Huff, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1972, pp. 517ff.). The three-naved buildings of Da@mg@a@n (F. Kimball, apud E. F. Schmidt, Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Philadelphia, 1937, pp. 327ff.), Ùa@l T®arkòa@n (Thompson, op. cit., pp. 3ff.), Tepe M^l (Kröger, op. cit., pp. 202ff.), and K^Þ (P. R. S. Moorey, Kish Excavations 1923-33, Oxford, 1978, pp. 134ff.) can be reasonably regarded as forerunners of similar, early Islamic palaces such as Ku@fa and Tall al-Okòayder but are formally connected with the second fire temple at Takòt-e Solayma@n and other cult buildings as well. There is little decisive evidence for the purpose of the hall on the city wall of Ayva@n-e Karkòa (M. Dieulafoy, L'art antique de la Perse V, 1889, pp. 79ff.; Ghirshman, MDAFI, Paris, 1952, pp. 10ff.) or the buildings at Bozpar (L. Vanden Berghe, “Le tombeau ache‚me‚nide de Buzpar,” in Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Festschrift A. Moortgat, Berlin, 1964, pp. 243ff.), BeheÞto Dozakò (L. Vanden Berghe, “Les ruines de Bihisht-u Duzakh aà Sultanabad,” Iranica Antiqua 8, 1968, pp. 94ff.), and elsewhere. (c) Cities and houses. The political importance of city foundations in Sasanian Iran is indicated by the almost obligatory component of the sponsor-king's name in the name of the city. Although many attributions may concern some kind of re-founding or shifting of existing places, a number of original foundations are known, the standard pattern of which is a rectangular system of streets. The exceptional concentric and radiating plan of the circular city of ArdaÞ^r-kòorra may reflect an individual decision by ArdaÞ^r I, demonstrating the cosmological and sociopolitical ideas of his emerging empire (D. Huff, “Zur Rekonstruktion des Turmes von Firuzabad,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20, 1969/70, pp. 319ff.; idem, “Der Takht-i Nishin in Firuzabad,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1972, pp. 517ff.; idem, AMI 11, 1978, pp. 117ff.). Archeological evidence for other circular geometric city plans is scanty, although they appear at different periods in the ancient Orient and with different stages of refinement. The round layout of Hatra, the best known Parthian example, lacks a genuine geometrical concept. It is unlikely that the round perimeter of Da@ra@bgerd is a prototype for ArdaÞ^r-kòorra, as it probably dates from the 8th century (Creswell, Early Islamic Architecture I/2, 1969, p. 21). The circular plan of Ctesiphon and the general topography of the site of al-Mada@÷en are still under discussion (Reuther, in Survey of Persian Art I, pp. 2ff.; J. M. Fiey, “Topography of al-Mada@÷ in,” Sumer 23, 1967, pp. 3ff.), and the reportedly round city of Sasanian Isfahan is not yet uncovered. ArdaÞ^r-kòorra may have influenced the layout of later circular cities such as al-Mansáu@r's Baghdad and its successors.

Few details are known about the architectural and sociological structure of orthogonal cities such as Ôond^Þa@pu@r (R. McC. Adams and D. Hansen, “Archaeological Reconnaissance and Soundings in Jundi Shapur,” Ars Orientalis 7, 1968, pp. 53ff.), Ayva@n-e Karkòa, and B^Þa@pu@r, the last featuring a commemorative monument at the intersection of its two orthogonal main axes (Ghirshman, Bîchâpour I, pp. 21ff.; II, plan I). The majority of cities certainly continued older settlements with regular or organically grown patterns, as at Esátáakòr (D. Whitcomb, “The City of Istakhr and the Marvdasht Plain,” In Akten des VII. internationalen Kongresses für iranische Kunst and Archäologie, München, 7.-10. September 1976, Berlin, 1979, pp. 363ff.). Some residential areas have been surveyed or excavated in K^Þ (S. Langdon, “Excavations at Kish and Barghutiat 1933,” Iraq 1, 1934, p. 113), Ctesiphon (Kühnel, 2. Ktesiphon-Expedition, pp. 1ff.; R. Venco Ricciardi, “The Excavations at Choche,” Mesopotamia 3-4, 1968/69, p.57; idem, “Trial Trench at Tell Baruda,” Mesopotamia 12, 1977, pp. 11ff.), Loresta@n (Morgan, op. cit., pp. 361ff.), Roqbat al-Mada@÷en (Finster-Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 151ff.) and Qasár-e Abu@ Nasár (W. Hauser and J. M. Upton, “The Persian Expedition 1933-34,” Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Art 29, December 1934/II, pp. 3ff.), but the daily life of the middle and lower classes remains incompletely known.

Few city ramparts have survived later changes. ArdaÞ^r-kòorra clearly had an earth wall with bastions, a ditch, and a small fore-wall. The ramparts of B^Þa@pu@r were originally lined with semicircular bastions about 40 cm apart (¿A. A. Sarfara@z, “B^Þa@pu@r, the Great City of the Sasanians” [in Persian], Bastan Chenassi va Honar-e Iran 2, 1969, pp. 27ff.). The presumed palace section of the ramparts of Ayva@n-e Karkòa shows an elaborate arrangement of brick constructions (Ghirshman, MDAFI, 1952, pp. 10ff.). The brick wall of Dastegerd, an unusual 16.6 m thick, harbored narrow corridors with radiating arrow slots and connecting semicircular tower chambers (F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet II, Berlin, 1920, pp. 76; IV, pl. 127). The exceptional cut stone facing of the wall at Takòt-e Solayma@n (Osten-Naumann, op. cit., p. 39) seems to be identical with that of the Darband walls (S. Khan-Magomedov, Derbent, Moscow, 1979). The standard Sasanian fortification type is represented by the mud brick ramparts of Ctesiphon and Esátáakòr (M. M. Negroponzi and M. C. Cavallero, “The Excavations at Choche,” Mesopotamia 2, 1967, pp. 41ff.; Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, pp. 276ff.) and by the rubble stone walls of Qal¿a-ye Dokòtar at F^ru@za@ba@d (Huff, AMI 11, 1976, pp. 138ff.).

Most surviving fortresses served as isolated strongholds or protection for cities; this abundant but scarcely explored military architecture gives some insight into the Sasanian social hierarchy. Examples of the regular, generally square, Roman-type fort with rounded bastions are found in Harsin, Qasár-e ˆ^r^n (Morgan, op. cit., pp. 354ff.), S^ra@f (D. Whitehouse, “Excavations at Siraf,” Iran 10, 1972, pp. 63ff.), and at several Mesopotamian sites (Finster-Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 49ff.). More frequent are irregular fortresses on strategically important heights; these usually have straight curtains between rounded bastions, as at F^ru@za@ba@d, B^Þa@pu@r, Tu@rang Tepe (R. Boucharlat, “La forteresse sassanide de Tureng-Tepe,” in Colloques internationaux du C. N. R. S., No. 567: Le plateau iranien et l'Asie Centrale des origines aà la conquête islamique, Paris, 1977, pp. 329ff.), and the “AÚtaÞga@h” at Isfahan (M. Siroux, “ --> "[Author:AVP] Atesh-gâh" preàs d' Ispahân,” Iranica Antiqua 5, 1965, pp. 39ff.). Territorial defense lines are known from literary tradition and archeological evidence (R. N. Frye, “The Sasanian System of Walls for Defense,” in M. Rosen-Ayalon, ed., Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet, Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 7ff.), such as the ditch of ˆa@pu@r II west of the Euphrates, the limes of S^sta@n (A. Stein Innermost Asia II, Oxford, 1928, pp. 972ff.), the walls of Darband from the Caspian into the Caucasus (A. A. Kudryavtsev, “O datirovke pervykh sasanidskikh ukrepleni¥ v Derbente,” Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3, 1978, pp. 243ff.), the wall of Tammisha (Tam^Þa) from the bay of Gorga@n/Astara@ba@d to the Elburz (A.D. H. Bivar and G. Fehe‚rva‚ri, “The Walls of Temisha,” Iran 4, 1966, pp. 35ff.), and the wall of Alexander north of the Gorga@n river, although the last may date back to Parthian times (D. Huff, “Zur Datierung des Alexanderwalls,” Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 125ff.; M. Y. Kiani, Parthian Sites in Hyrkania, AMI, Ergänzungsband 9, Berlin, 1982, pp. 11ff.).

(e) Funerary, commemorative, and rock architecture. The remarkable lack of monumental funeral architecture may be explained by Zoroastrian religious prescriptions (Vd. 6.44ff.) restricting burial rites to exposure of the dead and a possible but not necessary preservation of the bones in bone receptacles, or asto@da@ns (q.v.). Rock-cut exposure platforms and small cavities for preserving the bones are known mainly from southern Iran, notably around Esátáakòr and B^Þa@pu@r, where the huge grotto with the statue of ˆa@pu@r I is interpreted as his tomb (Vanden Berghe, Arche‚ologie de l'Iran ancien, p. 45; A. Stein, Old Routes of Western Iran, London, 1940, pp. 311ff.; Ghirshman, Bîchâpour I, pp. 180ff.). Ritual texts describe asto@da@ns as freestanding buildings, a type possibly represented by a bone burial in a fortification tower in ˆahr-e Qu@mes (J. Hansman and D. Stronach, “A Sasanian Repository at Shahr-i Qu@mis,” JRAS, 1970, pp. 142ff.) and by the tower of Nu@ra@ba@d (D. Huff, “Nurabad, Dum-i Mill,” AMI, N.F. 8, 1975, pp. 167ff.). Rock-cut tombs on the island of K¨a@rg seem to belong at least partly to non-Zoroastrian communities (E. Haerinck, “Quelques monuments fune‚raires de 1'île de Kharg dans le Golfe Persique,” Iranica Antiqua 11, 1975, pp. 134ff.).

Some commemorative or triumphal monuments are identified by inscriptions. The Syro-Roman-influenced twin-column monument in B^Þa@pu@r was dedicated to ˆa@pu@r I (G. Salles and R. Ghirshman, “Châpour,” RAA 10, 1936, pp. 117ff.). The tower-like monument of Pa@yku@l^ celebrates the victory of Narseh over his rivals (E. Herzfeld, Paikuli. Monument and Inscriptions of the Early History of the Sasanian Empire I-II, Berlin, 1924). There is as yet no definitive explanation for the late Sasanian T®a@q-e Gerra, a small ayva@n building with a Syro-Roman archivolt (H. V. Gall and W. Kleiss, “Entwicklung und Gestalt des Thrones im vorislamischen Iran,” AMI, N.F. 4, 1971, pp. 2ff.; S. Kambakhsh Fard, “L'arc de Guirra, monument en pierre,” Traditions architecturales en Iran 4, 1976, pp. 2ff.), or for a freestanding gateway building outside the wall of B^Þa@pu@r (Sarfara@z, op. cit., pp. 27, 73). The tower in the center of ArdaÞ^r-kòorra, which possibly carried a hall with the king's seat or his fire, may symbolize God-given royalty (Huff, Istanbuler Mitteilungen l9-20, 1969/70, pp. 319ff.). The late Sasanian T®a@q-e Bosta@n, an ayva@n-like artificial grotto, is linked by its monumentality with official Sasanian architecture, and by its decoration with the tradition of Sasanian rock reliefs (E. Herzfeld, Am Tor von Asien, Berlin, 1920, pp. 57ff.; M. C. Mackintosh, “Taq-i Bustan and Byzantine Art,” Iranica Antiqua 13, 1978, pp. 149ff.; S. Fukai et al., Taq-i Bustan I-IV, Tokyo, 1968-84). It may be related to other, partly unfinished rock monuments, such as those at B^sotu@n (H. Luschey, “Bisotun, Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1974, pp. 114ff.; W. Salzmann, “Die Felsbearbeitung und Terrasse des Farhad in Bisotun,” ibid., 1976, pp. 110ff.) and Harsin (Godard, Athar-e‚ Iran 3, 1938, pp. 67ff.).

(f) Civil engineering architecture. The centralized Sasanian government enabled the realization of large-scale community projects such as road communications, bridges, irrigation, and drainage systems, most of which utilized the technical skill and manpower of Roman prisoners of war. Many bridges (e.g. K¨u@zesta@n and Loresta@n, F^ru@za@ba@d, B^Þa@pu@r, and B^sotu@n) show Roman-style dressed masonry with iron clamps at their preserved piers, which are generally rectangular with a triangular prism upstream; the arched superstructures are mostly destroyed (Stein, op. cit., pp. 15, 48, 71). Bridges were frequently constructed as weirs for irrigation and constituted the starting point of far-reaching canal systems, as at ˆu@Þtar and Dezfu@l (Dieulafoy, V, pp. 105ff.; G. Van Roggen, “Notices sur les anciens travaux hydrauliques en Susiane,” MDAFI 7, 1905, pp. 167ff.; R. J. Wenke, “Imperial Investments and Agricultural Developments in Parthian and Sasanian Khuzistan: 150 B.C. to A.D. 640,” Mesopotamia 10/11, 1975/76, pp. 31ff.). Aqueducts were carried on walls or bridges, and the use of syphon tunnels seems to have been known (Adams-Hansen, op. cit., pp. 59ff.).

Architecture in Central Asia dates back to the late Neolithic period (6th-5th millennia B.C.). In such settlements of Turkmenistan as Pessenè^k Tepe and Ôeytu@n, the typical buildings are one-family houses with a hearth and a special place for worship. The walls were made of lumps of raw clay and roofed with beams. Walls and floors were often painted. Fragments of pictorial wall painting have been discovered in Pessenè^k Tepe. The settlements of Anaw I, Qara Tepe, and Geoksür attest that multi-family houses with many rooms were built during the Neolithic period (4th-3rd millennia B.C.); some rooms were decorated with wall paintings. Protourban complexes came into existence during the Bronze Age (3rd-2nd millennia B.C.), with dwelling houses, temples and blocks of workshops surrounded by a wall with a fortified gate (Altin Tepe, Nama@zga@h). Dating from the end of the 2nd millennium B.C. are large square strongholds compactly built up inside (Sappalï Tepe in Bactria), sometimes flanked by semicircular towers (Gonur Tepe and Kelleli in Margiana); by the 1st millennium B.C. there were towns encircled by moats and powerful walls (Elken Tepe in Apavarktikena, Gaur Qal¿a in Margiana, Afra@s^a@b/Samarkand in Sogdiana), sometimes with semicircular towers and numerous loop-holes (Qïzïl Tepe in Bactria, Kalalï Gir and Küzeli Gir in K¨úa@razm). Dwellings typically have a square plan with a small inner court surrounded by chambers (Qïzïl±a estate in Bactria). The palace in Kalalï Gir (5th-4th cent. B.C.) is characterized by regular planning: a vast courtyard, rectangular chambers, halls with wooden pillars on stone bases. This palace and the stone capital from Sultan Uizdag in the shape of two male heads with ram's horns indicate a link between K¨úa@razm and the Achaemenid kingdom. Throughout the entire ancient period building material consisted of large rectangular, unbaked clay bricks, adobe, and wood for roofing; simple vaulting was introduced at that time.

Central Asia in the 4th cent. B.C. to 4th cent. A.D. is distinguished by the flourishing of building in towns, owing to the general development of the urban economy, commerce, handicrafts, and cultural life. Defense requirements stimulated fortifications; the ancient cities and strongholds of Parthyene (Nisa, q.v.), Margiana (Marv, Durnalï, Ùelborè), K¨úa@razm (Ôanbas Qal¿a, Angka Qal¿a, Hazarasp), Bactria (Old Termedò, Zartepa, Dalverz^n Tepe, Qay-Qoba@d-Þa@h), Sogdiana (Samarkand, Yer Kurgan, Kurga@n Tepe, Umaramin Tepe) were surrounded by moats and powerful walls with fortified gates and rectangular towers. Often there were numerous casemates in the walls, chambers for bowmen in the towers, and barbicans with emplacements for ballistas. Such fortifications gave the ancient cities a grimly imposing aspect. The earlier building materials continued to be used, but construction showed notable progress with the introduction of wide-spanning beams for roofing pillars (wooden, often on stone bases, but sometimes entirely of stone) and raw clay brick vaulting. Architectural structures based on local building traditions nonetheless showed great originality. Elements of Hellenic architecture—Corinthian and Ionic capitals, Attic bases, antefixes, profiled cornices—appeared in modified form in Parthian and Bactrian buildings.

Characteristic of the monumental architecture of eastern Parthia are vast halls surrounded by corridors, rectangular interiors with rows of columns disposed lengthwise in the center, small inner courts with columned ayva@ns (the palace-temple complex of Nisa, the temples of Mansur Tepe). Decorations include features of the Greek orders, occasional monumental sculpture, and wall painting. The architecture of Bactria and Sogdiana developed a standard layout for wealthy residences and palaces, including a vestibule, central hall, encircling passage, and group of subsidiary and living rooms, with a special prayer chamber (houses on Dalverz^n Tepe, palaces of K¨al±aya@n, Yer Kurgan). Topraq Qal¿a, the huge palace of the shahs of ancient K¨úa@razm (2nd-3rd cent.), included a system of communication, columned halls, passages, and chambers decorated with clay sculpture and painting.

Early medieval architecture in Central Asia bears the signs of a new creative trend. Building techniques underwent some alterations: besides the roofing of beams (beams and frieze boards are often ornamented with carving), raw brick vaulting was widely used and led to new architectural constructions. One of the main structures of this monumental architecture is the keÞk: a massive two-story building with a steep plinth, over which rise blank walls crowned with a crenellated cornice, which may be smooth (in Sogdiana, ˆa@Þ, and UstruÞana) or decorated with closely set, rounded pilasters (in Marv and K¨úa@razm). The towns, surrounded by fortified walls, had separate citadels. The space within the walls was densely filled with dwellings, shops, palaces, public buildings, and temples. The dwellings were two-storied and set close together to form large blocks. In Panèikent the houses contained living quarters and a four-columned guest room (mehma@nkòa@na) often decorated with wall painting. The palaces of Sogdiana and UstruÞana (Samarkand, Panèikent, VarakòÞa, Qal¿a-ye Qahqaha), with many chambers and state halls, were richly decorated with frescos, carved stucco (gan±), and carved wood. The diversity of religious cults led to temples for different creeds, most of them generously decorated with sculpture, painting, and carving. Two edifices in Panèikent, both with a columned portico facing a courtyard and a four-columned hall at the back, were probably connected with a local variety of Zoroastrianism. The Buddhist monasteries of Ajina Tepe and Qal¿a-ye Kafirnigan in southern Tajikistan and the Buddhist temples in AÚq BeÞim (Kirghizia) and in Kuva (Uzbekistan) present variations of courtyard planning with an extensive use of vaulted roofing in their numerous apartments; the four-ayva@n composition of two courts in Ajina Tepe is noteworthy. K¨aroba KoÞuk in Marv province is a Christian church on a rectangular plan with a transept on the east side.

After almost a century of cultural stagnation following the Arab conquest of Central Asia, the architecture of the 3rd-6th/9th-12th centuries vigorously revived. Under the Samanids, Ghaznavids, Qarakhanids, and K¨úa@razmÞa@hs feudal towns grew steadily. Political instability encouraged the building of strong fortifications around the towns, including walls with semicircular towers (borè) and moats. The development of the merchant and artisan classes, as well as the problems of intensive building brought about the formation of building-trade corporations to organize the creators and transmitters of professional practices. During that period important regional schools of architecture developed in Transoxiana, K¨úa@razm, Khorasan, and northern Turkestan. Building techniques made steady progress; the perfecting and economy of raw brick and adobe (pakòsa) constructions, extensive use of baked brick with gan±kòa mortar, and the development of the vault and dome technique determined to a great extent the solution of architectural problems of form. Domes and high vaulted portals played an important role in monumental buildings by defining their external contours; the domes also established the spatial arrangement of the interior. Techniques of architectural decoration, in addition to the traditional carving of stucco and wood, include ornamental brickwork with baked, sometimes figured bricks, and from the 6th/12th century, the use of intricately carved terra-cotta, glazed bricks, and tiles. Central Asian architectural decoration presents features common to other countries of the Islamic world including geometrical, stylized plant, and epigraphic motifs. In the 5th-6th/11th-12th centuries the geometrical gereh (knot) design was dominant; the infinite combinations of the intricate designs of the gereh were based on the multi-axial partitioning of the architectural field and on systems of star-shaped and other polygonal figures. From the 4th/10th century, architectural epigraphy in the geometric kufic script was used extensively, along with the supple naskò in the 5th-6th/11th-12th centuries.

By this time there was a typology for civic and religious buildings. The town dwellings of wealthy citizens were compact; reception rooms were often decorated with carved stucco (Marv, Samarkand). The palaces of rulers (in Samarkand, Termedò, Khulbuq, Marv) contained many chambers and interior four-ayva@n courts; the reception hall and state apartments were decorated with carved stucco, carved wood, and ornamental painting. In the countryside estates were enclosed by a high wall, with an inner court and peripheral subsidiary buildings. In the villages the feudal lord's keÞk was transformed into a comfortable two-story house with a central mehma@nkòa@na and living quarters (still preserved in Marv province, in K¨úa@razm). The growth of home and international trade led to the construction of large caravansaries along the trade routes, especially in the 5th-6th/11th-12th centuries (Ak±a Qal¿a, Daya@ K¨a@tu@n, in the sands of the Qara Qom, Raba@t-e Malek in the province of Bukhara, others in Dahesta@n). These have one or two courtyards, usually with vaulted ayva@ns on the axes, a central, domed mehma@nkòa@na, and watchtowers at the corners; galleries around the courtyard once housed beasts of burden, living quarters, and store rooms. There were also caravansaries in K¨úa@razm (ˆah-Sáenem); built mainly of unbaked brick and adobe they used baked brick as well (Daya@ K¨a@tu@n). The blank walls of the caravansaries are smooth or patterned with blind arches, close-set semicircular pilasters, and sometimes figured brick facing. Engineering constructions included bridges, open water reservoirs (háawzμ), and covered sarda@ba cisterns.

Pride of place among Muslim buildings belonged to mosques, especially the èom¿a (Friday) mosques that served as the principal social and ideological centers in towns and villages. Ùa@r-Sotu@n in Termedò and D^garro@n in Bukhara (both 5th/11th cent.) represent somewhat different examples of round-pillared, five- to nine-domed mosques of simple and powerful architectural design. The mosques of Khorasan and Dahesta@n (in BaÞan), Dandanakan, MaÞhad-e MeÞr^a@n) consist of courts with encircling galleries and a central building on the axis in the form of a vaulted ayva@n or domed pavilion. Suburban mosques, nama@zga@h or ¿^dga@h, destined for the celebration of Qorba@n and Bayra@m, consisted of a wall oriented toward Mecca with a mehára@b (Nama@zga@h of Bukhara, 6th/12th cent.) in front of which an arched domed gallery was sometimes erected (Talkòatan Ba@ba@ ca. 489/ 1096, in Marv province). The mosques were usually richly decorated with glazed tiles, carved stucco, and carved wood. In Central Asia the minaret, a compulsory element attached to the mosque, took the form of a tapering, round tower, sometimes on a polygonal base, crowned by a multi-arched lantern. Its shaft was often divided into many bands filled in with patterned brick inlays (Burana in Kirghizia, Kalian in Bukhara, minarets in Babkent, MaÞhad-e Mesár^a@n, and Uzgend). The Ôar Korga@n minaret (architect ¿Al^ b. Moháammad al-Sarakòs^) is decorated with vertical rounded pilasters.