[112] Bk. XVI. ch. i. 9.

[113] Bk. VI. ch. xxxi. Though I believe that the ruins on the east bank seen by Ross and the extensive ruin field on what is now the west bank of the Tigris must represent Opis, the locating of the city is complicated by the fact that Xenophon took four days to reach Opis from Sitace. Now if Sitace is anywhere near BaghdÂd it is strange that the Greeks should have marched four days and got no further than a town situated immediately to the north of the ’A?Êm. The Physcus, which Xenophon crossed by a bridge of boats before coming to Opis, may be the ’A?Êm, but some have supposed it to be the great ?Â?Ûl-NahrawÂn, a loop canal on the east bank of the Tigris. I do not know, however, that there is any record of a canal here before the Sassanian period (Le Strange: Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 57). Chesney tried to solve the difficulty of Xenophon’s march by placing Opis higher up the river at ?adsÎyeh, but that would leave the great ruin field lower down unidentified, and would, besides, leave too long a time for the march from Opis to the Great ZÂb, which occupied the Greeks eleven days. For the site of the Babylonian Opis, see King: Sumer and Akkad, p. 11.

[114] It is probably one of the districts which were ruined by the Mongol invasion.

[115] i.e. “raids and so forth”; the second word is merely a repetition of the first with the initial letter r changed to m. This convenient form is very common in Turkish.

[116] This ?ÂdisÎyah must not be confounded with the battlefield near ?irah where KhÂlid ibn u’l WalÎd overthrew the Sassanians.

[117] Sarre thinks it was empty, and holds that the town was never finished or inhabited. He would therefore place here ?Â?Ûl, the site first fixed upon for his capital by the Khalif Mu’ta?im when he left BaghdÂd. Finding SÂmarr to be better placed, he abandoned ?Â?Ûl before the work there was completed: Ya’?ÛbÎ, ed. de Goeje, p. 256. Sarre: Reise in Mesop. Zeitsch. der Gesell. fÛr Erdkunde zu Berlin, 1909, No. 7, p. 437. Schwartz, however, suggests that ?Â?Ûl may have lain to the north of SÂmarrÂ: Die AbbÂsiden-Residenz SÂmarrÂ, p. 5. Ross thought that ?ÂdisÎyah was Sassanian, but I am persuaded that he was in error. (A Journey from BaghdÂd to Opis, Journal of the Geog. Soc., Vol. XI. p. 127.) Jones gives a plan: Memoirs, p. 8.

[118] The MalwÎyeh can scarcely be any other than the minaret described by BalÂdhurÎ among Mutawakkil’s buildings: FutÛ? ul BuldÂn, p. 306, Cairo edition of 1901. The ruins of SÂmarr have not yet received the detailed study which they deserve, but Professor Sarre and Dr. Herzfeld are about to begin an exhaustive examination of the site. Sketch plans have been published by De BeyliÉ (Prome et Samarra), and at about the same time Herzfeld brought out a small monograph entitled SÂmarrÂ. I had this monograph with me, and finding the plans to be incorrect and the drawings inexact (for example, the ornament drawn in fig. 5 gives little idea of the original), I measured and photographed all the ruins over again. Meantime Viollet has published a short account of his journey in Mesopotamia, in which he has given plans of the ruins of SÂmarrÂ: Le Palais de Al Moutasim, etc., MÉmoires of the Acad. des Inscrip. et Belles-Lettres, Vol. XII. Part II. His attempt to reconstruct the ground plan of the palace of which the Beit el KhalÎfah forms part, is of great interest.

[119] Ed. de Goeje, p. 256.

[120] Lands of the Eastern Califate, p. 53. Am. Mar., Bk. XXV. ch. vi. 4.

[121] This is marked in Viollet’s plan.

[122] Herzfeld, SÂmarra, p. 61, places the old quarter of Karkh at ShnÂs and DÛr ’ArabÂy at EskÎ BaghdÂd. Karkh is the Charcha of Ammianus Marcellinus.

[123] Mutawakkil began a new canal from the Tigris to the NahrawÂn, the latter having silted up by the ninth century, but the labour of cutting through the hard conglomerate was found to be too great and the work was abandoned. I do not know whether the canal I crossed was of his making, but I fancy it was the NahrawÂn itself, perhaps cleared and deepened by him. Ross (op. cit., p. 129) speaks of bridge foundations formed of large “artificial stones” (concrete?) “joined together by iron clamps and melted lead.” I saw nothing but brick, but Ross’s bridge may well be, as he conjectured, earlier than the Mohammadan period, since it probably spanned the Sassanian canal. I thought the artificial mound to be pre-Mohammadan.

[124] There is some doubt about this inscription. Professor Sarre copied it without noticing the date, which was covered with whitewash; he gave it to Professor van Berchem, who decided that the shape of the letters pointed indubitably to the ninth century. Professor van Berchem’s authority in such matters is not to be questioned, but the date must be accounted for. Perhaps it was a later addition, put in when the shrine was repaired.

[125] A Residence in Koordistan, Vol. II. p. 147. The book was published in 1836.

[126] Kal’at Abu RayÂsh, which is marked in Kiepert’s map, has almost disappeared, the high ground on which it stands having fallen away and carried the walls and towers with it.

[127] KhÂn KhernÎna is not mentioned by Ibn Jubeir nor by Ibn Ba?Û?ah, who both travelled by this side of the Tigris from TekrÎt to MÔ?ul, the one at the end of the twelfth century, and the other in the middle of the fourteenth century.

[128] Not, I believe, by Layard, who was always careful to cover what he did not remove.

[129] Dr. Herzfeld has been so good as to send me the chapter of his forthcoming work (written in conjunction with Professor Sarre), in which he gives a further account of SÂmarrÂ. When it reached me my description of the ruins was already printed, and I can do no more than acknowledge, with gratitude, his kindness.

[130] Viollet puts them ten deep to the south, four deep to the north and five deep to east and west.

[131] In Man?Ûr’s mosque at BaghdÂd, the roof was borne by wooden columns. See Le Strange, BaghdÂd, p. 34.

[132] Lands of the Eastern Califate, p. 56.

[133] Its original name is doubtful. In the twelfth century it was called the Ma’shÛk, for Ibn Jubeir alludes to it under that name in the twelfth century, and so does Ibn Ba?Û?ah in the fourteenth century.

[134] Viollet has given a section of them, pl. xviii.

[135] Viollet’s plan, pl. xvii, is here more complete than mine.

[136] I give a plan of the three vaulted halls, but Viollet has made a sketch plan of the ground behind which furnishes indications of the whole scheme of the palace. The Beit el KhalÎfah is perhaps the DÂr el ’Ammeh, the first palace built by Mu’ta?im upon the site of the monastery: Herzfeld, SÂmarrÂ, p. 63.

[137] Ross distinguished in 1834 a substructure of “arches” (op. cit., p. 129) by which he must mean vaults like those at the ’Ashi?.

[138] An account of it, together with a sketch plan, was given by Ross, op. cit., p. 130.

[139] Viollet has given a plan of Abu DulÂf. Herzfeld did not publish it in his SÂmarrÂ, for he had not at that time visited it, but he has since published a plan: Zeitschr. fÜr Gesch. der Erdkunde zu Berlin, 1909, No. 7, pl. viii. My plan differs considerably from his, but only a re-examination of the mosque can prove which of us is right.

[140] This vestibule is present opposite the south gate of the SÂmarr mosque. Herzfeld has made an attempt to reconstruct the vestibule of Abu DulÂf. Viollet has given a bare indication of it, and this is all that exists. Viollet has also marked the line of an outer wall, which, as at SÂmarrÂ, enclosed the precincts of the mosque.

[141] Abu DulÂf was probably built by Mutawakkil when he erected a whole new quarter three farsakhs north of ShnÂs: Ya’?ÛbÎ, ed. de Goeje, p. 266.

[142] The spiral tower occurs also in Sassanian architecture, witness the Atesh Gah of Jur, Dieulafoy: L’Art ancien de la Perse, Vol. IV. p. 79.

[143] Thiersch has indicated the true relation of Ibn ?ÛlÛn’s minaret both to the zigurrat of Mesopotamia and to the pharos of Alexandria. His objections to Herzfeld’s theory that the Cairo minaret is purely Hellenistic in origin are conclusive. Thiersch: Pharos, p. 112.

[144] I believe it is generally admitted by the learned in these matters that Nestorius was not guilty of the heresies for which he was condemned in 431, at the second oecumenical council held at Ephesus. I remember to have heard a distinguished English Catholic, who was also an acute historian, express his definite opinion that Nestorius was in the right, for all his expulsion beyond the pale of western Christianity. An excellent account of the rise of the Eastern Churches is contained in Wigram’s recently published book, The Assyrian Church.

[145] I am relying upon local tradition, upon comparison with churches in the country districts, and upon the character of the ornament compared with Moslem ornament in MÔ?ul which can be dated with tolerable accuracy.

[146] The barn church is more fully defined in The Thousand and One Churches, published by Sir W. Ramsay and myself, p. 309.

[147] There is a description of MÂr TÛm in Rich: Residence in Koordistan, Vol. II. p. 118.

[148] All the doors in the atrium of MÂr TÛm look as if they had been patched together out of older materials, but I suspect that these materials came from the church itself and that the patching is due to repair.

[149] Badr ed DÎn LÛlÛ, 1233-1259, according to Lane Poole: Mohammadan Dynasties, p. 163; Ritter, following Desguignes, makes him regent from 1213-1222, and an independent sovereign from 1222-1259.

[150] Le Strange: Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 89.

[151] Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeere zum persischen Golf, Vol. II. p. 176, gives a short description of it.

[152] De BeyliÉ has given a good photograph of the general view: Prome et Samarra, p. 49.

[153] This decoration is curiously akin to some of the Buddhist GrÆco-Bactrian work.

[154] In the middle ages it was more numerous. Benjamin of Tudela found a colony of 7,000 Jews at MÔ?ul: Ritter, Vol. X. p. 254.

[155] An account of MÂr BehnÂm has been published by Pognon: Inscriptions de la MÉsopotamie, p. 132. He believes that the existing church is due to a reconstruction that took place in the twelfth century, but its original form seems to him to be the same as that of MÂr Gabriel of KartmÎn in the ?Ûr ’AbdÎn, a church which I should date not later than the sixth century. The history of MÂr BehnÂm would therefore offer an exact analogy to that of the churches of MÔ?ul, according to my theory; it is a mediÆval building following the lines of a very early structure. Pognon gives a good illustration of the altar niche in the tomb (Pl. VIII), which is dated the year of the Seleucid era corresponding to 1306 A.D. The superstructure he takes to have been a baptistery.

[156] They must be dated before 1550, according to Pognon’s reasoning. He speaks of them with great contempt, and they are not very remarkable works of art, though they seemed to me to be of considerable interest. The Moslems call the monastery Deir el Khi?r, Khi?r being the Mohammadan counterpart of St. George. The village close at hand is known as El Khi?r.

[157] The following notes on the decorations of the church are perhaps worth recording. S.W. door in porch: on lintel, a pair of birds on either side of a cross; over lintel, two snakes, tail to tail, with open jaws turned to what looks like a piled-up cup; in the corners, lions with tails ending in the head of a snake; band of entrelac and round it a band of Syriac inscriptions surrounding the door. N.W. door in porch: on lintel, an angel on either side of a cross; over lintel, small crosses with a boss between, two circles with a star in each; at either corner the figure of a saint; entrelac and inscriptions. Door from nave into apse; on lintel, a lion’s head forming a central boss, on either side St. George and the Dragon. Door into S.E. chapel: on lintel a cross; round door, small niches formed by an interlacing rope (cf. the sanctuary door of MÂr TÛm at MÔ?ul), the niches alternately filled with a saint and a decorated cross; above the door two of the niches are filled with representations of: (1) the baptism in Jordan; (2) the entry into Jerusalem, with an ass and palms in the background. The spandrils between the upper niches are filled in with dragons’ heads with open jaws.

[158] Pognon found inscriptions of the thirteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries at ?ara?Ôsh (op. cit., p. 129), but the inscriptions inside the churches have not, so far as I know, been recorded.

[159] The bishop had not perhaps retained a clear memory of his facts—if facts they can be called; but Rich seems to have found the history of MÂr Mattai and MÂr BehnÂm scarcely less involved than I did: Residence in Koordistan, Vol. II. p. 75. See, too, Pognon, op. cit., p. 132, note 1.

[160] I fancy that ’Abdullah’s explanation was not far from the truth. Layard, who is the best of all authorities on this country, makes the following remarks about the Shabbak: “Though strange and mysterious rites are as usual attributed to them” (i.e. as is usual with regard to a secret creed), “I suspect they are simply the descendants of Kurds who emigrated at some distant period from the Persian slopes of the mountains, and who still profess Sheeite doctrines. They may, however, be tainted with Ali-Illahism, which consists mainly in the belief that there have been successive incarnations of the Deity, the principal having been in the person of Ali, the celebrated son-in-law of the prophet Mohammad. The name usually given, Ali-Illahi, means ‘believers that Ali is God.’ Various abominable rites have been attributed to them, as to the Yezidis, Ansyris, and all sects whose doctrines are not known to the surrounding Mussulman and Christian population.” Nineveh and Babylon, p. 216.

[161] A full description of the reliefs is contained in Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, p. 207. Mr. King is so kind as to inform me that the smaller panels at BaviÂn were carved in the reign of Sennacherib, between the dates 689 B.C. and 681 B.C. The larger sculptures are to be assigned to Shalmaneser II (860-825 B.C.).

[162] It has been described and drawn by Layard: Nineveh and Babylon, p. 48.

[163] In the photograph ’AlÎ Beg is seated and the ?awwÂl stands to the right of him. The figure on the left is the Christian secretary, and the close-shaven man behind the beg is FattÛ?.

[164] Layard mentions that the oil for the lamps is provided out of the funds of the shrine: Nineveh and its Remains, Vol. I. p. 291.

[165] Layard pointed out the connection between the white bull offered annually to the YezÎdÎ solar saint and a similar sacrifice in the Assyrian ritual: Nineveh and its Remains, Vol. I. p. 290.

[166] This doctrine is, however, older than the SÛfÎs; it was held by the MandÆans and is a part of the Asiatic heritage of religious ideas out of which the YezÎdÎ creed has been formed. The transmigration of souls, another MandÆan tenet, is also professed by the YezÎdÎs.

[167] This, too, is an article of the MandÆan faith.

[168] The late Lord Percy, who visited Sheikh ’AdÎ in 1897, found nothing but the outer shell and the roof intact. It had been wrecked by a Turkish general who had made a resolute attempt to convert or exterminate (the two expressions are practically synonymous) the YezÎdÎs: Notes from a Diary, p. 184.

[169] Nineveh and Babylon, p. 83.

[170] Nineveh and its Remains, Vol. I. p. 280, and Nineveh and Babylon, p. 81.

[171] Residence in Koordistan, Vol. II. p. 91.

[172] Layard: Nineveh and its Remains, Vol. I. p. 230. See, too, Perrot and Chipiez: Histoire de l’Art, Vol. II. p. 642.

[173] Travels in the Track, p. 144.

[174] ZÂkhÔ must be the place known to the Arab geographers as ?asanÎyeh (I see that Hartmann comes to the same conclusion: BohtÂn, Mitt. der Vorderas. Gesell., 1896, II. p. 39), but their information is, as usual, exceedingly meagre and the castle is mentioned by none. Mu?addasÎ, in the tenth century, says that it is a day’s journey from Ma’lathÂy (Malthai) to ?asanÎyeh (ed. de Goeje, p. 149), and notes the bridge over the KhÂbÛr above the town (p. 139). YÂ?Ût, in the thirteenth century, observes that it is two days from MÔ?ul on the road to JezÎret ibn ’Umar. Ainsworth conjectures it to be the spot described by Xenophon as “a kind of palace with several villages round it,” which was reached by the Greeks in five days’ march from Mespila-Nineveh, but it must be admitted that Xenophon’s description is not exactly suited to ZÂkhÔ. Ritter thinks that a memory of the people called by Strabo Saccopodes may be retained in the name ZÂkhÔ (Vol. IX. p. 705). With regard to the name ?asanÎyeh it is perhaps preserved in ?asanah, a small village on the opposite side of the KhÂbÛr valley.

[175] Ainsworth thinks that it may mark the site of the village at which the Greeks camped on the second day from ZÂkhÔ: Travels in the Track, p. 146. Xenophon mentions neither the KhÂbÛr nor the ?eizil.

[176] Mr. King, who has visited JÛdÎ DÂgh, tells me that all the reliefs are of Sennacherib and were carved in the year 699 B.C.

[177] Ritter, Vol. XI. p. 154.

[178] So said Kas Mattai, but the Arab geographers would seem to place it to the south of JÛdÎ DÂgh, not to the north. For example, Mu?addasÎ says that ThamÂnÎn, the village of the eighty who were saved from the flood, stand on the river Ghazil (the ?eizil SÛ), a day’s march from ?asanÎyeh (ZÂkhÔ), ed. de Goeje, pp. 139 and 149. Sachau, however, speaks of BÊtmanÎn as being behind JÛdÎ DÂgh, i.e. he bears out my information: Reise, p. 376.

[179] It has been identified with the Bezabde of Ammianus Marcellinus, the Saphe of Ptolemy (ed. MÜller, p. 1005), and the Sapha of the Peutinger Tables. Ammianus Marcellinus is generally supposed to have confused Bezabde-JezÎreh with Phoenice-Finik, saying that the two names are applied to the same place. In his account of the capture of Bezabde by Sapor II, in A.D. 360, his description applies better to Finik than to JezÎreh (Bk. XX. ch. vii. 1. See, however, Hartmann: BohtÂn, Part II. p. 98). He relates further that Constantius attempted in vain to re-capture Bezabde (Bk. XX. ch. xi.), but in this passage he must mean JezÎreh. I can find little in the history of JezÎreh except the mention of sieges: by TÎmÛr for example (Ritter, Vol. IX. p. 709), and by the emirs of BohtÂn (Rich: op. cit., Vol. I. p. 106). When Moltke visited it in 1838 it was a heap of ruins (Briefe aus der Turkei, Berlin, 1893, p. 251), and it was not much more when I saw it.

[180] Sachau notices these reliefs. In his opinion the inscriptions are of no great age: Reise, p. 379.

[181] Ibn Ba?Û?ah, in the fourteenth century, mentions an old mosque in the market place, which is probably the same as the one I saw, though it has undergone many alterations and reparations since his day.

[182] Nineveh and Babylon, p. 55.

[183] The caves are carefully excavated and I should say that they are ancient. Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 54) speaks of them as tombs and some may have been intended as burial-places, but I do not doubt that many were from all time used by the living. The troglodyte habits of the dwellers in these mountains are still strongly marked. Above BÂ’adrÎ I saw an underground village; at ?i?n Keif, higher up the Tigris, the people live in rock-hewn chambers.

[184] Anabasis, Bk. IV. ch. i.

[185] Ammianus Marcellinus, when he speaks of Izala, evidently intends the name to cover the whole ?Ûr ’AbdÎn: Bk. XVIII. ch. vi. 11, and Bk. XIX. ch. ix. 4.

[186] The Jacobites and the Syrians (i.e. Jacobites who have submitted to Rome) have now ousted the Nestorians, who must have been the first to occupy the ?Ûr ’AbdÎn. When this change took place I do not know, but the Nestorians were in possession of the monastery of MÂr Augen as late as 1505: Pognon, op. cit., p. 109.

[187] Pognon’s account of the churches, and his publication of the inscriptions, is the best work on the subject (Inscriptions de la MÉsopotamie); Parry (Six Months in a Syrian Monastery) gives a short description of the churches and some sketch plans.

[188] Tigris ferry 9.25; Handak (Christian) 9.45; Thelailah (Moslem) 10.40; KÔdakh—marked in Kiepert—we saw at 12.15, a little to the south of our route.

[189] Our itinerary was as follows: 5.30 Azakh; 6.30 a ruined site (marked in Kiepert); 7.5 SalakÛn (Kiepert: Salekon Kharabe), a small Moslem village; 8 Middo (marked in Kiepert), a Christian village on the further side of a deep gorge (here we got into the oak woods); 9 Irmez, about a mile to the south of our road; 9.25 Arba’, a Christian village also about a mile south; 9.45-10.45 Deir MÂr Shim’Ûn, a ruined monastery; 11.30 Deir Bar Sauma, the first monastery of BÂ SebrÎna.

[190] Monasteria clericorum. See The Thousand and One Churches, p. 461.

[191] Pognon: op. cit., p. 108. The stela has not, as Pognon feared, been destroyed. The script is in an unknown alphabet, which Pognon believes to be the prototype of PehlevÎ. He gives excellent photographs of the two inscriptions; my photograph shows the relief on the third side. The fourth side is much weather-worn.

[192] I sent the photograph to Professor van Berchem. The inscription is merely a date: 630 (= A.D. 1232-3), or possibly 639.

[193] The name itself is unintelligible.

[194] The Buildings of Justinian (Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society), p. 51.

[195] I would suggest that ?al’at ej JedÎd may occupy the site of the Sisaurana of Procopius, which was destroyed by Belisarius. Sisaurana, however, lay three miles from Rhabdium, and even as the crow flies the distance between ?. ?Âtim ?Âi and ?. ej JedÎd must be greater. But the important position of ?. ej JedÎd on one of the few passes up from the plain suggests that the spot must have been fortified in ancient times. Sisaurana is no doubt the Sisara of Ammianus Marcellinus: see Ritter, Vol. XI. p. 150 and pp. 400-401.

[196] Though tradition links these foundations with Egypt, it is quite possible that they may have had a yet closer connection with Syria, where in the fourth century monasticism and the solitary life had already taken a strong hold. Duchesne: Histoire de l’Eglise, Vol. II. p. 516.

[197] Kiepert marks a “Gr. Coenobium von Izala,” which is, I imagine, intended for MÂr Augen, but its position relatively to ?. ej JedÎd and Useh Dereh, as marked in the map, cannot be correct. MÂr YuhannÂ, which lies to the east of MÂr Augen, approaches more nearly to Kiepert’s site. I have published a short account of these and other monasteries and churches of the ?Ûr ’AbdÎn in Amida (Strzygowski and Van Berchem).

[198] Kiepert places MÂr Melko too far from Useh Dereh. My itinerary was as follows: Useh Dereh to MÂr Melko, 1 hr.; MÂr Melko to Kharabah ’Aleh, 30 min.; Kharabah ’Aleh to Kernaz, 2 hrs. 15 min.; Kernaz to Deir el ’Amr, 1 hr. 15 min. All these places are marked in the map.

[199] Niebuhr heard that MÂr Melko was famed for the curing of epilepsy: Reisebericht, Vol. II. p. 388. Not having penetrated into the ?Ûr ’AbdÎn, he thought that the report that there were seventy monasteries in the hills must be an exaggeration, but I expect that it was not far from the truth.

[200] Deir ’Umar, 5.30; MezÎzakh, 8.15; MidyÂd, 9.15.

[201] I visited inside the town MÂr Shim’Ûn, which is in process of being rebuilt, and MÂr Barsauma, which has been completely rebuilt. Outside the town is the monastery of MÂr IbrahÎm and MÂr HÔbel. It has recently been repaired, but much of the masonry is ancient. The two churches, dedicated to the two patron saints, belong to the monastic type of MÂr Gabriel; the mouldings round the doors, and the cyma cornice are old. There is also a small chapel, dedicated to the Virgin; it is square in plan and covered by a dome on squinches, but it appeared to me to be of later date. I was shown in this monastery a very remarkable silken vestment. The ground is of green satin covered with a repeated pattern in gold, silver and coloured silks, representing a woman in a red robe seated in a howdah upon the back of a camel. A man naked to the waist is seated upon the ground with his head bowed upon his hands. A variety of animals and floral motives are scattered round the principal figures. The subject is no doubt taken from the story of Leila and MajnÛn. The date of this brocade is probably somewhere between 1560 and 1660. A fragment showing a like pattern is in the possession of Dr. Sarre. The monastery possesses besides a small bronze thurible, of which I succeeded in procuring a counterpart. A similar thurible exists in the British Museum (No. 540 in the catalogue of Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities); it is said to have come from MÂr Musa el Habashi, between Damascus and Palmyra. The Kaiser Friedrich Museum has obtained several in Cairo and Trebizond (Wulff: Altchristliche Bildwerke, Teil I, nos. 967-970). These are ascribed to the sixth and seventh centuries. Mr. Dalton, to whom I owe this information, gives me references to two others, one in the Bargello collection at Florence (No. 241 in the catalogue of the Carraud Collection, published in 1898) and one published in the Echos d’Orient, VII., 1904, p. 148.

[202] I have published photographs and plans of the Jacobite church of the Virgin and the Greek Orthodox church of MÂr Cosmo in Amida: Van Berchem and Strzygowski.

[203] The Yeni Kapu differs in plan from the other three. It has square bastions, whereas they are protected on either side by massive round towers. The round towers extend all along the northern parts of the wall; on the other sides the towers are rectangular.

[204] A sketch plan, made by De BeyliÉ, is published in Amida.

[205] His phrase “under the citadel but in the very heart of Amida” is difficult to understand. It does not seem to imply a spring outside the walls, yet there is no place “under the citadel” and within the walls.