Amadiya/Amedi Citadel

Alternative Names

Amedy; Amadia; Amadiyah; Amadiyyah

MMM Documentation Dates
Fall 2013; Spring 2018; Fall 2019
Site Type
Citadels and Cities
Duhok Governorate

    General Views of the Citadel

    Pathway to the Citadel (Stone Staircase)

    General Views of the Citadel


    Surrounding Landscape (General)

    Citadel Exterior and Surrounding Landscape Viewed from the Vicinity of the Mosul Gate

    Sulav Area

    Historical Photographs

    Supplementary Images

    Amadiya/Amedi is located in the Duhok Governorate of Iraqi Kudistan, about 25 km south of the Turkish border. It is situated within the basin of the Sapna River (a tributary to the Great Zab), in a hilly valley surrounded by two parallel ranges of the Zagros Mountains to the north and south. An ideal citadel, the city of was built upon a precipitous rock outcrop soaring 1985 m above sea level and visible in the landscape from a great distance. The earliest surviving writings on the town focus on its refoundation during the period of the Zengid Dynasty in the 11th–12th centuries AD, though it is clear that occupation stretches back far before this, even into antiquity. This is evinced most conspicuously by an ancient staircase and three reliefs dating to the Parthian era along the approach to the citadel’s western gate. A number of further monuments found within and around the citadel attest to the city’s rich and varied history.

    The mesa-like outcrop on which the Amadiya/Amedi citadel was built is roughly elliptical, with the occupied area measuring little more than 1 km at its greatest extent (north-south); its elevation is uneven, with areas of the east side up to 40 m higher than the west side. Traditionally, the city was only accessible by two monumental entranceways through the medieval circuit walls: one to the east and one to the west. The latter stands near the citadel’s southwestern end. Known as the Mosul Gate (or Bahdinan Gate), it is dated by an inscription in its outer frame to the reign of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, 1233–1259 AD (see the entry on this monument). This entrance remains accessible only by foot or pack animal, by way of an ancient staircase that passes three Parthian-era reliefs carved into the citadel’s cliff walls. 

    The Eastern Gate, also known as the Zibari Gate, once gave access to the high northeastern end of the citadel plateau and was closely connected to the palace (see below). After a modern road was built up to the east side of the citadel in the 1930s, it fell out of use and was subsequently destroyed. However, the gate—and a portion of its associated footpath—was photographed in the late 19th century, providing an impression of its appearance at this time (see the historical photograph). The bulk of the structure was built of roughly hewn stone, with an arched portal of cut ashlars apparently without relief decoration. The window on the wooden second story is similar in type to those of the palace, which was just beyond the wall; this may mean that the gate was built at the same time, probably in the early 1700s.1 However, it is possible that it was preceded by an earlier structure. The stone staircase involves similar construction methods to that on the opposite side of the citadel and is likely ancient as well. Its remnants can still be found in the area’s upper slope, along with a few of the gate’s foundation blocks.

    Although much of the historical architecture was lost during various military conflicts in the 19th and 20th centuries, a number of important monuments are preserved. A selection of these have been documented by the MMM team during its several stays in Amadiya/Amedi. In terms of antiquities, there has been very little systematic archaeological activity conducted within the citadel. However, one ancient structure is found in the southwestern area of the city, within the grounds of an Islamic cemetery.2 Rectangular in form, it measures 17 x 29 m, with its long axis oriented northwest-southeast; its walls are carved into the bedrock up to 3 m deep (see the ground plan and section). Three roughly parallel rows of pillar bases, also carved from living rock, are arrayed inside. Given the remnants of water channels along the perimeter, it likely functioned as a cistern—at least for a time—but certain features point to additional uses. A large niche dug into the southeast wall has led to the suggestion that the building was converted into a Christian church (though depending on the date, other interpretations are possible).3 Smaller niches in the northeast and southwest walls were probably added as arcosolia graves in the 5th–6th centuries AD.4 

    The city’s main mosque stands toward the north of the city. This is probably to be associated with the historical Great Mosque, dating originally to the Zengid period (mid-12th–early 13th century) but with phases of reconstruction. Its longitudinal prayer hall—in a ruined state by the 19th century—was rebuilt in the 20th century, though a historical minaret likely dating to 16th century survives (see the full entry on the mosque and minaret). Near the Great Mosque is a ruined structure called the Tomb of Hazana, dedicated to a Jewish holy man of antiquity. It has also been associated with the prophet Ezekiel, who was the patron of the now-destroyed synagogue once attached to the tomb, dating to the early Bahdinan period (13th century).5 The tomb was also sacred to the city’s Muslim and Christian residents (and remains so to this day). 17th-century visitors report that Amadiya/Amedi had a large Christian church, though this seems to have been lost by the mid-19th century.6 A modern church, serving the city’s small remaining Christian community, lies along the western edge of the citadel.

    Amadiya/Amedi’s palace, the seat of power of the city’s successive rulers, was situated on the high ground of the citadel’s northeast, very close to the Zibari Gate. The building, which grew progressively ruined from the late 19th century, was finally built over by a school in the later decades of the 20th century. One feature that has survived, though partially reconstructed, is known as the “Snake Gate” or “Dragon Gate”. It now appears as if it were a freestanding monument, but Henry Binder’s 19th-century photograph indicates that it was once integral to the facade of the palace.7 The gate, 3.5–4 m wide, consists of two large blocks held together by a keystone, forming an arch. The spandrel blocks are carved with antithetical dragons with long, twining bodies. On the keystone, the talons of a bird of prey grasp the dragons by the nose. The block above it, originating from another monument and placed here in the reconstruction, shows the upper body of another raptor. The archway lacks an inscription that would allow for a precise dating. Based on the style of the relief sculpture, the gate has been dated to the 13th century or later; thus, it may have made reference to the comparable image on the earlier Mosul Gate.8 Notably, the imagery and style are related to Seljuk reliefs in Anatolia.9  

    Binder’s photograph of the palace’s facade is also the only known visual documentation of the larger building. This edifice, as it appears here, can perhaps be dated to the 18th century, though the incorporation of the Dragon Gate suggests that it was rebuilt over an earlier structure.10 19th-century travelers provide some information on the layout of the palace beyond its facade. Henry James Ross, who visited shortly after the city’s annexation by the Ottomans, describes it thus: “The place as usual was built in a hollow quadrangle cut up by a wall passing through the centre into two courtyards, the outer being the Divan Khanah, or public apartments, the inner the hareem for the women. The ground floor was mostly occupied by roomy stables and lodgings for servants; above, the accommodation was I thought rather scanty; however, the apartment I was ushered into was large, and had been a fair specimen of Eastern internal decoration, but it was greatly dilapidated.”11 It is clear from Ross’s and other descriptions that the innermost rooms of the palace were aligned with the citadel walls, overlooking the northern valley toward Mt. Matin.

    A royal cemetery was situated in the vicinity of the palace. Two mausolea constructed of limestone blocks survive on its grounds. The earlier of the two was built for the emir Hussein Wali (r. 1534–1573). Hexagonal in plan, it features elegant calligraphy over its segmental-arched entrance. The second was built for a family member of the emir Ishmail (r. 1768–1798); it is also hexagonal and is domed above. In addition, several gravestones of other members of the ruling family are preserved here.

    Travelers visiting Amadiya/Amedi during the 17th–mid-19th centuries report of a busy bazaar and a hammam, as well as a caravanserai on the western edge of town. Much of this urban fabric was ruined during the Bahdinan-Ottoman military conflict of the mid-19th century. However, photographs from the late 19th and early 20th centuries provide images of the city’s traditional houses at this time (see Henry Binder's photograph; see Mark Sykes's photograph). These one-story habitations were built of roughly hewn stone with flat roofs of wood and thatch. Due to subsequent destruction in the later 20th century, relatively few such traditional habitations are now to be found, but some survive, for example in the vicinity of the mosque. 

    A number of traditional homes remain along the citadel walls to the north, taking advantage of the views over the northern valley (as did the palace). A building that is possibly to be identified as a residence, once two stories high and now partially collapsed, is associated locally with the Kittani family. However, the building’s original function and construction date are not known, and the house appears to have repurposed much earlier structures into its fabric. The first story is faced with fine ashlar masonry; the blocks vary in size and are set in irregular courses, creating a complex interlocking surface. The arched entrance is framed by a shallow, pointed vault, with a window above. The stonework is articulated with elegant carvings: detailed colonettes and a band of interlace along the vault’s piers, and delicate flowers in each block of the inner arch. This basic type of portal design has a long history in eastern Anatolian/northern Mesopotamian architecture, with parallels ranging from the Seljuk era to the 19th century.12  

    Most of the city fabric that is visible today was built up in the latter half of the twentieth century, though its layout follows earlier patterns. For instance, the marketplace—covered in its central stretch—cuts diagonally through the center of the city, running between the Mosul and Zibari Gates. More broadly, the neighborhoods are divided into several districts (mahalle), including Servepki to the north, Meydan in the center, and the Christian Quarter along the citadel’s western limit. In recent decades, multiple settlement clusters have also sprung up below the slopes of the acropolis.

    Although not on the citadel proper, several nearby places of historical interest should be noted here. Perhaps most remarkable is the Qubahan Medrese. During the Bahdinan Emirate, this was one of Kurdistan’s leading universities, attracting students from around the Muslim world. The nearby town of Sulav, about 1 km northwest of Amadiya/Amedi on the slopes of Mt. Matin, has seen increasing touristic development. A high waterfall, noted by travelers already in the 19th century, serves as the community’s iconic landmark; the site also offers impressive views of the citadel (see the panorama).

    • 1. Warkworth (1898, 183) confirms that the upper story was composed of woodwork. On the date, see Ammann 2004/2005, n. 196.
    • 2. See Bachmann 1913, 2–3.
    • 3. William Ainsworth, who first made note of the structure in 1840, considered it to be a Persian fire temple (Ainsworth 1842 (2), 200); Layard (1849 (1), 161) interpreted it as a church, while Badger (1852 (1), 204) identified it as a cistern. Bachmann (1913, 3) combined the latter two interpretations, and this has been followed by many scholars discussing the structure. The idea that it functioned as a fire temple during the Sasanian period has also remained in consideration (Marf Zamua 2008, 117).
    • 4. See Boehmer 1976 (including a plan of one grave, fig. 7).
    • 5. See the historical photograph in Brauer 1993. Another synagogue, dedicated to Ezra and also no longer extant, was located further south.
    • 6. Domenico Lanza, visiting in the 1600s, notes a great church (see the quotation in Galletti 2001, 116–117); Badger (1852 (1), 200) claims that there were no formal churches were in existence at the time of his visit and that private houses were used for worship.
    • 7. Further documentation from the early 1970s shows the gate standing, attached to the ruins of the proximal walls of the palace; it was moved by the 1990s (see the photographs in Gierlichs 1998).
    • 8. For a discussion of the date and an interpretation of the imagery, see Gierlichs 1998.
    • 9. For Seljuk comparanda, see Katharina Otto-Dorn, “Figural Stone Reliefs on Seljuk Sacred Architecture in Anatolia,” Kunst des Orients 12, H 1/2 (1978–1979), 103–149. See also the sources in al-Janabi 1982, n. 411.
    • 10. Local oral tradition holds that there was an inscription on the palace attributing it to the Bahdinan emir Osman (r. 1700–1702); see Ammann 2004/2005, n. 196.
    • 11. Ross 1902, 107–109. Layard (1848 (1), 156) also provides a brief description.
    • 12. For parallels, see, e.g., the portal of the madrassa of Taskinpasa, 14th century; the madrassa of Mustafapaşa, 19th century.

    Given Amadiya/Amedi’s strategic and naturally fortified position commanding the surrounding valleys, it seems likely that it was occupied from a very early time, a fact that is mentioned by Yaqut al-Rumi al-Hamawi. However, no area in the citadel has been systematically excavated, and there are no known textual sources that provide information on the site in antiquity. We are left with only hints around its earliest history. An early medieval name for the citadel, Āshib, is related to the root for the Akkadian term for “dwelling” or “settlement,” which may suggest an occupation phase predating the Parthian-era rock reliefs and staircase.1 These reliefs—the citadel’s most readily datable archaeological features—can be assigned to the 1st century BC–2nd century AD on the basis of style. At this time, the area of what is now northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey was divided amongst several semi-independent kingdoms. The general area of Amadiya/Amedi seems to have been near the shifting border between Gordyene (which later became a vassal to Rome) and Adiabene (in the Parthian sphere of influence); by the 1st century BC, it seems clear that it was within the Adiabenean dominion.2 The site remained occupied into Late Antiquity, during which time Adiabene was a border province of the Sasanian Empire; the Christian community must have been established by this time, as attested by the arcosolia graves dug into the cistern (5th/6th century AD).3 

    The early medieval phase of Amadiya/Amedi is also obscure. Later medieval scholars writing in Arabic refer to it as a long-occupied site, but they do not go into any significant detail. By the 11th century, the region was settled predominantly by a Kurdish tribe called the Hakkari, one of whose fortresses was apparently located on the citadel in question. Both Yakut al-Rumi al-Hamawi and Ibn al-Athir (referring to the citadel as Āshib) recount its capture by the Seljuk emir and founder of the Zengid dynasty, Imad al-Din Zengi (r. 1085–1146 AD); they assert that upon its ruins a new fortress was built, named al-‘Imadiyya in the conqueror’s honor.4 The Zengid period lasted in Amadiya/Amedi until the early 13th century. During this time, the city was home to a diverse population that included people of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths. It was this religious diversity that attracted one of the earliest voyagers to the city: in 1170, Benjamin of Tudela (Spain) visited during the course of his travels, counting 2000 members of the Jewish community—one of the largest in the entire region, speaking Aramaic (also the language of the Christian community).5 Shortly after this time, the Ezekiel synagogue was built. 

    In 1225, Badr al-Din Lu’lu’—atabeg and regent of the Zengid heir—brought Mosul, Amadiya/Amedi, and several other cities in the region under is personal control.6 This ruler, of Hakkari Kurdish affiliation, traced his descent from the figure of Baha ad-Din, who was himself supposed to be related to the Abbasids. Lu’lu’s lineage ruled what became known as the Bahdinan Emirate under the nominal suzerainty of the Abbasids, with Amadiya/Amedi serving as its seat of power. Along with the other Kurdish principalities in the vicinity, it maintained a complex relationship with the evolving empires that surrounded it—particularly, from the early 16th century, that of the Ottomans. However, it was one of the most prosperous and independent of the regional emirates during the 17th and 18th centuries. At its height, it encompassed a swath of territory that included Zakho, Duhok, and Akre. Visitors from the 16th through the early 19th century were invariably impressed by the strength of the dynasty and its capital city (see “Early Publications”). They also describe a multi-ethnic community that remained religiously diverse. The residents spoke Kurdish and Arabic, along with Aramaic among the Jews and Christians.

    Significant troubles began in 1830, when Bahdinan participated alongside several other emirates in a revolt against Ottoman domination; in the midst of this crisis, the ruler of the neighboring Soran Emirate seized the opportunity to consolidate his regional power, deposing the Bahdinan prince and taking Amadiya/Amedi under his sway in 1833. The brutal struggle devasted the local population. A few years later, the Ottomans supported the restoration of the Bahdinans. However, in 1842, the Ottomans themselves overthrew the emirate, besieging Amadiya/Amedi and destroying much of the old urban fabric. No longer a capital city, it was now absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. Travelers of the mid-19th century refer to the city’s impoverishment and ruinous condition resulting from the conflict.7 After the Great War, Amadiya/Amedi—along with the rest of the area—was contested between Turkey and the British Mandate of Iraq; a large number of British troops, as well as a Turkish administrator, were stationed here during this time. The city was officially incorporated into Iraq after the Mosul Settlement of 1926. 

    In 1958, with the end of the Iraqi monarchy, Amadiya/Amedi became involved in the regional autonomy movement and war that lasted through the 1960s. During this conflict, the city was bombed by the Iraqi air force, resulting in great loss of life and further destruction of the city’s historical buildings.8 Since 1992, Amadiya/Amedi has been administered by the Kurdish Regional Government. Situated within the Duhok Governorate, it serves as the district capital of the same name, about 2700 km2 and home to about 10,000 people. The citadel itself numbers roughly 4000 inhabitants; the city’s Christian population has greatly diminished and the Jewish community has entirely emigrated, though the tomb of Hazana is still greatly venerated by both Muslims and Christians. 

    • 1. Bahrani et al. 2019, n. 7.
    • 2. On the territorial definitions of these two kingdoms, see Michal Marciak, Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene: Three Regna Minora of Northern Mesopotamia between East and West (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
    • 3. Boehmer 1976.
    • 4. Yakut al-Rumi al-Hamawi, Mu’jam al-Buldan (vol. 3, S–F, 717). Ibn al-Athir, al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh (vol. 9 [From the Year 489 to the Year 561 Hijri], 275, 326); see the English translation in Richardson 2006, 366. Ibn al-Athir suggests this occurred in either 528 H (1133 AD) or 537 H (1142/1143 AD); Yakut gives the date as 537 H (1142 AD). On these primary sources, among others, see Streck and Minorsky 1960.
    • 5. For an overview of the city’s Jewish community, see Fischel 2007. This includes a discussion of the messianic movement, led by David Alroy, to capture Amadiya/Amedi in the early 12th century.
    • 6. The primary source for the accession of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ is Ibn al-Athir’s al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh; for an English translation of the relevant section, see Richards 2012, 185–187. On the succeeding Bahdinan Emirate, see the overview in Hassanpour 1998.
    • 7. E.g. Layard 1849 (1), 161; Badger 1852 (1), 199.
    • 8. See Amman 2004/2005, 220.

    “History” general sources: Streck and Minorsky 1960; Hassanpour 1998; Amman 2004/2005.

    Geographers and historians writing in Arabic, including Yakut al-Rumi al-Hamawi, are the key primary sources for the history of Amadiya/Amedi during the medieval period.1 They provide important information on the status of the citadel before the Zengid occupation; for example, Ibn al-Athir writes: 

    • “In this year [537 H- 1142/1143 AD/CE] Atabeg Zengi sent an army to the citadel of Āshib, which was the greatest of the fortresses of the Hakkari Kurds and the strongest, where they kept their wealth and their families. They besieged it and pressed hard on the defenders, until they took it and then he ordered its destruction and the construction of the citadel known as al-‘Imādiyya to replace it. Among their fortresses this al-‘Imādiyya had been a great one, but they destroyed it on account of its size, because it was very large indeed and they were incapable of holding it. At this present time Āshib was demolished and al-‘Imādiyya was rebuilt. It was called al-‘Imādiyya with reference to his [Imad al-Din Zengi's] title.”2 

    Benjamin of Tudela passed through in 1170, a few decades after the Zengid conquest; he was particularly interested in the city’s considerable Jewish population, recounting in detail the story of David Alroy’s messianic revolt earlier in the same century.3 More detailed observations on the city’s government and customs were offered by Sharafkhan Bitlisi (16th century) and Evliya Çelebi of the Ottoman court at Istanbul (visiting in 1655).4 By Çelebi’s time, Western voyagers were also beginning to pass through the region, the first being the French adventurer Jean-Baptiste Tavernier (1663).5 In the 1700s and early 1800s, certain Dominican monks who lived for periods of time in the city recorded brief comments on its monuments.6 With the increasing numbers of travelers arriving in the city from the 19th century on—including, e.g., Austen Henry Layard—several extensive descriptions of the city were published.7 The earliest photographic images of the city were taken during the decades around the turn of the 20th century.8 The site was studied and documented by the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage of Iraq in the mid-20th century, and certain of its monuments were published by Tariq al-Janabi in 1982.9 

    • 1. See a listing in Streck and Minorsky 1960. It is not clear whether these geographers visited the cities in person or not.
    • 2. Ibn al-Athir, al-Kāmil fī al-tārīkh (vol.9, 326); for English translation: Richardson 2006, 366.
    • 3. Benjamin of Tudela, Sefer ha-Massa‘ot (ed./trans. Marcus N. Adler, 1907), 54–56.
    • 4. On Bitlisi’s Sharafname, see the summary in Ammann 2004/2005, 192. On Çelebi’s Seyahatname (vol. 4), see the summary in van Bruinessen 2000, 9–11.
    • 5. Tavernier 1677, 281.
    • 6. Including Domenico Lanza and Giuseppe Campanile; see the quotations in Galletti 2001, 116–117.
    • 7. John Kinneir described the territory of Amadiya/Amedi without going up the citadel (Kinneir 1818, 456). Visitors exploring the citadel itself include, among others: William Ainsworth, visiting in 1840 (Ainsworth 1842 (2), 195–204); Henry Ross, visiting in the mid-1840s (Ross 1902, 106–112); George Percy Badger, visiting in the later 1840s (Badger 1852 (1), 199–207); Austen Henry Layard, visiting in 1846 (Layard 1849 (1), 157–166).
    • 8. Binder 1887, 196–207, with the photographs inserted passim; also note here the author’s interpretive sketch of the city’s bazaar. Warkworth 1898, 182–184, with plate; Sykes 1904, 165–169 (photographs passim); Bachmann, diagrams and photographs inserted in pp. 1–3, pl. 1.
    • 9. Al-Janabi (1982) focuses mainly on a door and minbar from Amadiya/Amedi’s Great Mosque (see further in the MMM site entry on this monument) but also discusses the Mosul Gate and publishes a key photograph of it (p. 253 and pl. 175).

    Ainsworth, William. 1842. Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, and Armenia. 2 volumes. London: J. W. Parker.

    Al-Hamawi Al-Rumi Al-Baghdadi, Yaqut. 1868. Mu'jam al-Buldan [Jacut's Geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Handschriften]. Edited by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. Vol. 3. Leipzig: In Commission Bei F. A. Brockhaus.

    Al-Janabi, Tariq. 1982. Dirāsāt fī al-ʻimārah al-ʻIrāqīyah fī al-ʻuṣūr al-wusṭá. Baghdad: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al-Iʻlām. [Turkish translation: Al-Janabi, Tarık. 1982. Studies on Medieval Iraqi Architecture. Baghdad: Iraqi State Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Board.]

    Ammann, B. 2004/2005. "Kleine Geschichte der Stadt Amadiya: Von streitbaren Fürsten, kurdischen Juden und grausamen Zeiten." Kurdische Studien 4/5, 175–226.

    Bachmann, Walter. 1913. Kirchen und Moscheen in Armenien und Kurdistan. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich.

    Badger, George Percy. 1852. The Nestorians and Their Rituals. 2 volumes. London: J. Masters.

    Bahrani, Zainab, Haider Almamori, Helen Malko, Gabriel Rodriguez, and Serdar Yalcin. 2019. "The Parthian Rock Reliefs and Bahdinan Gate in Amadiya/Amedi: A Preliminary Report from the Columbia University Mapping Mesopotamian Monuments Survey." Iraq 81: 47-62.

    Binder, Henry. 1887. Au Kurdistan en Mésopotamie et en Perse. Paris: Maison Quantin.

    Boehmer, Rainer M. 1976. "Arcosolgräber im Nord-Irak." Archaeologischer Anzeiger 91: 416-421.

    Erich Brauer. 1993. The Jews of Kurdistan. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Fischel, Walter J. 2007. "'Amadiya." In Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition, vol. 2, dzl. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 27-28. Detroit: Macmillan Reference.

    Galletti, Mirella. 2001. "Kurdish Cities through the Eyes of Their European Visitors." Oriente Moderno (n.s.) 20 (81): 109-148.

    Hassanpour, A. 1998. "Bahdīnān." In Encyclopaedia Iranica, 3. Volume (5): 485.

    Ibn Al-Athir, Ali. 2003. al-Kāmil fī al-tārīkh [The Complete History]. 4th ed. Edited by Mohammed Al-Daqaq. Vol. 9. Beirut: Dar al-kotob Al-Ilmiyah.d

    Kinneir, John Macdonald. 1818. Journey through Asia Minor, Armenia, and Coordistan in the Years 1813 and 1814. London: J. Murray.

    Layard, Henry Austen. 1849. NINEVEH and Its Remains. 2 volumes. London: J. Murray.

    Marf Zamua, Dlshad A. 2008. "Al Manhutat al Sakhriya al Qadima fi Madinat (Amedi) Al Amediyah." Subartu 2008 (2): 113–121 (in Arabic).

    Richards, D. S. (dzl.). 2006. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fīl-Ta'rīkh, Part 1: The Years 491–541/1097–1146; The coming of the Franks and the Muslim response. Crusade Texts in Translation 13. Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Richards, D. S. (dzl.). 2010. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fīl-Ta'rīkh, Part 3: The Years 589–629/1193–1231; The Ayyubids after Saladin and the Mongol Menace. Crusade Texts in Translation 17. Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Ross, Henry James. 1902. Letters from the East by Henry James Ross, 1837-1857. London: Dent.

    Streck, M., and V. Minorsky. 1960. "'Amādiya.' In Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition, 1. Volume: 426-427. Leiden: Brill.

    Sykes, Mark. 1904. Dar-ul-Islam: A Record of a Journey Through Ten of the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. London: Bickers.

    Tavernier, Jean-Baptiste. 1677. Les six voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier, ecuyer baron d'Aubonne, en Turquie, en Perse, et aux Indes [...]. Volume 1. Paris: G. Clouzier and C. Barbin.

    Van Bruinessen, Martin. 2000. "Kurdistan in the 16th and 17th Centuries, as Reflected in Evliya Çelebi's Seyahatname." Journal of Kurdish Studies 3: 1-11.

    Warkworth, Lord [Henry A. G. Percy]. 1898. Notes from a Diary in Asiatic Turkey. London: Arnold.

    Content Manager
    Matthew Peebles (2020)