1. Zander, G. et al., Travaux de restauration de monuments historiques en Iran, Reports and Memoirs, VI (ISMEO) (Rome: 1968)Google Scholar; Galdieri, E., Isfahan, Masgid-i Gum^ᶜa, Restorations, I/1 and I/2 (ISMEO) (Rome: 1972 and 1973).Google Scholar

2. The following editions of the works mentioned in this paragraph have been used:

Ḥamzah b. al-Ḥasan al-Iṣfahānī, Sinī Mulūk al-Ard wa'l-Anbiyā’ (Hamzae Ispahanensis, Annalium: Libri X), ed. Gottwaldt, I.M.E., vol. i (Leipzig: 1844).Google Scholar

Abū Nu^ᶜaym Aḥmad b. ^ᶜAbd Allāh al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb Dhikr Akhbār Iṣbahān (Geschichte Isbahans), ed. Dedering, S. (Leiden: 1931).Google Scholar All references are to vol. I.

Mufaḍḍal b. Sa^ᶜd b. al-Ḥusayn al-Māfarrūkhī, Maḥāsin Iṣfahān, Persian trans. Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Abī'l-Riẕā al-Ḥusaynī al-^ᶜAlavī, 729/1329, ed. ^ᶜAbbās Iqbāl (Tehran: 1328).

Ya^ᶜqūb b. ^ᶜAbd Allāh Yāqūt, Mu^ᶜjam al-Buldān, ed. Wustenfeld, F. (Leipzig: 1866-73).Google Scholar

Ḥamdallāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. Naṣr Mustawfī Qazvīnī, Nuzhat al-Qulūb (The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qulub composed by Hamd-Allāh Mustawfī of Qazwin in 740/1340, ed. Le Strange, G. (Leiden: 1915).Google Scholar

Chardin, J., Voyages du Chevalier Chardin en Perse, et autres lieux de l'Orient (Paris: ed. 1735, vol. IIGoogle Scholar; ed. Langlès, Paris: 1811, vols. VII-VIII).

Muḥammad Mahdī b. Muḥammad Riẕā al-Isfahānī, Niṣf-ī Jahān fī ta'rīf al-Iṣfahān, ed. Sutūdah, Minuchihr (Isfahan and Tehran: 1340/1962-63).Google Scholar

Anṣārī, Shaykh Ḥasan Jābirī, Ta'rīkh-i Iṣfahān va-Rayy (Tehran: 1321/1944).Google Scholar

Hunarfar, Luṭfallāh, Ganjinah-i Athar-i Tarikhi-yi Isfahan (Isfahan: 1344/1965-66).Google Scholar

3. Smith, M.B., “The Minārs of Iṣfahān,” Āthār-é Īrān, vol. I (1936), pp. 313–358Google Scholar; Siroux, M., “La Mosquée Sha'yā et l'ImamZadeh Ismael à Ispahan,” Mélanges Islamologiques, vol. I (1954), pp. 1–51.Google Scholar

4. Aḥmad b. Abī Ya^ᶜqūb al-Ya^ᶜqūbī, Les Pays, trans. G. Wiet (Cairo: 1937), p. 76; Abū'l-Qāsim ibn Ḥawqal al-Naṣībī, Ṣūrah al-Arḍ, ed. J.H. Kramers (Leiden; 1938), p. 309; Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Muqaddasī, Kitāb Aḥsan al-Taqāsīm fī Ma^ᶜrifah al-Aqālīm, ed. de Goeje, M.J. (Leiden: 1877), p. 389.Google Scholar

5. Pp. 312-13.

6. Abū Nu^ᶜaym, pp. 16-17.

7. P. 34.

8. Pp. 15-16. The founding of the city is also described by Māfarrūkhī, p. 16ff.

9. The term quhandiz is used by Ḥamzah (vol. I, p. 199). According to Bartol'd (Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, London, 1928, p. 118)Google Scholar this term generally refers to the inner walls of a fortified town.

10. Ḥamzah, vol. I, pp. 197ff; Māfarrūkhī, p. 15ff; Ibn Rustah (Sārūq) and Ibn al-Nadīm, cited by Hunarfar, pp. 20-21.

11. Ḥamzah, pp. 52-53; Māfarrūkhī, p. 16.

12. Pp. 15-16.

13. P. 43.

14. Abū Nu^ᶜaym, p. 16; Hunarfar, p. 18.

15. Siroux, Mélanges Islamologiques, op. cit., pp. 1-51.

16. Abū Nu^ᶜaym, p. 17: Bāṭirqān, Fursān, Yavān, Khurjān, Filfilān, Sunbulān, Farā'ān, Kamā'ān, Jūzdān, Lunbān, Ashkahān, Jurvā'ān, Khushīnān, Tarvaskān (or Barvaskān), and Fābijān.

17. Muqaddasī, p. 389; Qazvīnī, p. 48; Māfarrūkhī, p. 51, mentions a variant tradition naming Alā’ al-Dawlah as builder of the walls. The only reference to the building of the citadel is in Shaykh Ḥasan Jābirī, p. 18.

18. The twelve identified here consist of seven of the eight gates mentioned by Chardin (ed. 1735, vol. II, p. 5): Ḥasanabād, Jubārah, Karā'ān, Sayyid Ạhmadiyyān, Lunbān, Ṭuqchī and Dardasht. The eighth, Dawlat, was built in the Safavid period but replaced an older gate, the Gate of Death (vol II, p. 115). This was probably the Murdbāb, where Abū Nu^ᶜaym was buried in 1038 (Enc. Islam, 2nd ed., vol. I, p. 143). Chardin mentions another defunct gate, “Kathy,” near the new ^ᶜAbbās Gate, which latter he locates at the south end of Dardasht (vol. II, pp. 115). I have identified this as the old Kushk Gate. The matter is further complicated by the fact that Chardin mistakenly identifies a gate in this area as that of “Jubarah,” which is impossible, since Jubarah lies in the northeast quadrant of the city. He has probably confused it with the similar name “Gūlbarāh,” which was the northernmost district of the Kushk quarter. I have further posited a “Bidabad” Gate because a main route from the city to the muṣallā beyond Bīdābād cut through at this point. This route is mentioned in Māfarrūkhī, p. 75.

19. Māfarrūkhī (15,000 gām), p. 51; Qazvīnī (21,000 gām), p. 48; Chardin (20,000 paces), ed. 1735, vol. II, p. 3.

20. Chardin, ed. 1735, vol. II, pp. 50-51; Shaykh Ḥasan Jābirī, pp. 18, 97-98.

21. P. 16.

22. P. 50.

23. “The Traditional City of Herat, Afghanistan,” From Madina to Metropolis, ed. Brown, L.C. (Princeton: 1973). pp. 73–90.Google Scholar

24. Sefer-Nameh, Relation du Voyage de Nassiri Khosrau, ed. Schefer, C. (Paris: 1881), p. 92.Google Scholar

25. Ed. Langles, vol. VII, pp. 439-455, 477-481.

26. E. Galdieri, “Les Palais d'Ispahan” (position paper for Colloquium, January, 1974), p. 385.

27. P. 28.

28. In fig. 4 I have reconstructed the maydān according to Chardin's description. On the northwest it had a qayṣāriyyah, or bazaar portal. This side was abutted by two “radial” streets, today called Kūchah Jubārah and Kūchah Kamāl al-Dīn Isma^ᶜīl, leading to his tomb further north. One of these was probably the “Street of the Arabs,” mentioned in Chardin.

Further south along the maydān was the pavilion for the instruments, a naqārah-khānah. Chardin then comes to a minaret, the KhwājahĀ^ᶜlam, which is no longer extant. The map shows its location according to oral report. I have put in a small mosque associated with the minaret. Near the minaret was a very old palace with four corner towers. We should also bear in mind that this area near the Harūniyyah was the takhtgāh, which tends to confirm our speculation that a pre- Safavid palace lay here.

What conclusions can we draw? In the period immediately preceding Shāh ^ᶜAbbās’ transformation of the city it is clear what a maydān consisted of: it was an open space around which were grouped three elements: 1) those associated with the prince; 2) those associated with the commercial life of the city; and 3) the Jāmi^ᶜ, the spiritual center and the symbol of the urban community at large. This became essentially the composition of Shāh ^ᶜAbbās’ maydān as well. It was a coming together of political, economic, religious, and social institutions.

But what was the age of the pre-Safavid maydān? How far back does it go in the life of the Islamic city of Isfahan? Working backwards in archaeological fashion, let us consider the evidence for each period. For the fifteenth century to the mid-sixteenth, there is neither archaeological nor literary data on this maydān. The picture is brighter for the fourteenth century. On the archaeological side we can put the extensive repairs in the Jāmi^ᶜ, particularly the late fourteenth century entrance complex built toward the maydān, as well as the Khwājū Ā^ᶜlam minaret, which more than likely was attached to a small mosque.

The next piece of evidence comes from Mafarrūkhī and is fraught with problems. To begin with, I have had access only to the Persian translation written in the early fourteenth century, and not to the Arabic original of the eleventh century. I do not know therefore whether to relate the information to the earlier period or to the time of the translator. Immediately following the passage in question the translator does go on to deal with buildings of his own day.

After the text describes the walls and gates of the city, it mentions two government establishments: a Dār al-'Imārah (governor's residence) and a Majlis al-Vuzarā’ (the ministry). The complex contained extensive gardens and stables as well as several divān-khānahs or offices.

Immediately following the description of this lavish city-palace the author makes a cryptic remark. He says: “Every corner of its maydān is full of people.” Since this statement seems to begin a new paragraph, it is not clear whether “its” refers to the palace just described or to the city. If it refers to the city, then this could be a reference to the maydān of Chardin. But even so, we need not assume that the palace was associated with it or was anywhere near it. Such are the problems of this potentially important but very elusive passage.

The author then goes on to describe the thousands of palaces built for the viziers, each with its own iwans, stables, maydān and gardens. Here the term “maydān” clearly refers to large open spaces within private complexes.

What other evidence exists for a maydān of Seljuq origin? Tradition does attribute its foundation to the Seljuqs, but I have found no clear textual evidence for this, earlier than the nineteenth century.

On the archaeological side we do have quite a few Seljuq buildings constructed in the area presumed to be the Old Maydān: one could include additions and modifications to the Jāmi^ᶜ, particularly the north dome and portal; the Manārah ^ᶜAlī, standing to the south of the Old Maydān; and further east a Seljuq madrasah, probably that of Malikshāh, today the alleged tomb of Niẓām al-Mulk. Near the Jāmi^ᶜ in the Dardasht quarter Niẓām al-Mulk built his own madrasah, known only from texts, as is also the madrasah of Sulṭān Muḥammad, built in the Gulbārah quarter (south of the Old Maydān). One can therefore say that this central area of the city was a major focal point during the Seljuq period.

We may also infer from the existence of a Shāri^ᶜah Maydān, literally street of the maydān, in Seljuq times that an important maydān stood somewhere inside the city. This street lay near the south wall of the city and was the site of a Seljuq pavilion in the Bāgh-i Kārān. Perhaps it led north to the Old Maydān.

To complicated matters, however, let us recall that a maydān of some sort did exist near the Jāmi^ᶜ already in Buyid times. Abū Nu^ᶜaym of the early eleventh century in retelling the story of the Byzantine physician who settled in the village of Yavān identifies this site as being, in his own day, the Maydān-i Sulaymān. Elsewhere he states that a certain Muḥammad b. Sulaymān is the owner of this Maydān-i Sulaymān.

29. Zoroastrians living in the Sa^ᶜdatabad quarter were removed to make way for palaces under Shāh ^ᶜAbbās II (Chardin, ed. 1735, vol. II, p. 105). Sa^ᶜdatabad was on the south side of the river. Quite early on the great Muṣalla of Isfahan was built here. On the Dailamite remains see E. Galdieri, East and West (in press).

30. Ibn Ḥawqal, p. 310.

31. Mafarrūkhī, p. 29.

32. Mafarrūkhī, pp. 58-59.

33. Ed. 1735, vol. II, p. 81.

34. Hunarfar, p. 171 and p. 58.

35. P. 75.