Konya: the Seljuks and the Antique Past


The Seljuks had a robust interest in reusing the classical past for decorative purposes in their fortifications, and were unusual in their acceptance of iconic sculpture, including sarcophagi. Sarre has provided a photographic record of some of their spolia-rich creations.[1] The most famous are the walls of Konya[2], whose towers were erected by Alaeddin Kuykubad I in 1221; he encouraged the inclusion of figural sculpture, inscriptions, and having sculptured stones of various sorts set into both his gateways[3]. So exuberant was the Seljuk reuse here (with inscriptions dated 1067 through to 1184 and even 1206-10) of figurative sculpture that one scholar suggests that this was an index of whether rebuilds with such sculpture were Seljuk or not, and draws the evident conclusion that les conquérants n’auraient pas conçu d’architecture militaire non historiée[4] - in practical effect, that such architecture was inconceivable without spolia.


Konya, in all its glory, could have been well known to the mediaeval West, since it had French and Genoese merchants in the thirteenth century[5]. The walls and gates are now gone, but descriptions survive, the best being by Kinnear. They contained many broken columns, capitals, pedestals, bas reliefs and other pieces of sculpture Loop-holes were formed by pillar pedestals, some with Greek inscriptions; the north walls displayed an excellent Roman bas-relief and a colossal statue of Hercules, damage to both of which has been repaired by the Turks. Gates and towers are embellished with Arabic inscriptions, and a relief of a lion couchant is above the Gate of Aiash.[6] Some of the antiquities displayed in the walls, such as the Apollo sarcophagus from the citadel, are now in Konya museum. Konya is mentioned by one of Barbarossa’s Crusaders in 1190 as already having walls and a citadel but, unfortunately, we do not know what these earlier walls looked like, hence whether Alaeddin’s rebuild incorporated spolia from what he replaced in the 13th century[7].


Again, just as the Seljuks conjure up Roman glory by incorporating spolia in their walls, so also they imitate antique practice by adopting the use of frieze-like inscriptions on a monumental scale - a particular version of continuous moulding, also found imitated from classical and Byzantine monuments in Syria.[8] This did not apparently happen in the West, where there is no proof for a continous tradition in the use of monumental inscriptions during the Middle Ages: after the Arch of Constantine, Mitchell suggests the practice died out except for Corvey, the Golden Gate at Constantinople, and S. Vincenzo al Volturno.[9] An additional attraction for such large inscriptions, beyond mere decoration, is that they may have been associated with venerable antiquity, as in William of Tyre's estimation of the Dome of the Rock.[10] Such a taste surely derives from knowledge and admiration of antique inscriptions, even when the new mode is kufic. Nor is such display confined to Konya. Considerable remnants of an “inhabited frieze” (with human & animal heads) survives in the walls of the fortress at Baku, many from the prominent NW tower. Also at Baku, the Muhammed Camii has a large inscription as a frieze around the top of the minaret, just below the corbels for the walkway. Again, the use of symmetrical decorated roundels is common throughout Anatolia[11] and Syria[12], flanking the entrances of mosques, turbes and pious institutions, as well as cervanserais and bridges[13]  and often used in associated with protruding column-shafts and other spolia. So what price column shafts as decoration? Indeed, could any of these roundels actually be decorated column shafts? In other cases, the influence of adjacent classical work is clear, as at Balat (Miletus), when the Ilyas Bey mosque is made out of spolia from the site, and a new frieze is cut to decorate the external walls. This frieze is clearly Turkish, and just as clearly inspired by classical work – parallel examples are at Solhat, at the Ozbek Han Camii (Ulu Camii, dated 1332).


Another motif vigorously employed by the Seljuks is the lion, in bas-relief or in three dimensions - a favourite further West as well[14] (where there is evidence of the reworking of antique lions[15]). This may be why the Knights incorporated lions, (presumably from the Mausoleum: there were estimated to be either 56 or 72 lions decorating the Mausoleum) in their fortress.[16] Given that the motif precedes the Greeks as well as the Romans, and may well come from further East (nearer the homelands of the Seljuks), nevertheless the combination of monumental inscriptions and apotropaic lions, as at Diyarbakir[17]; of spolia lions couchant from ancient Pyrgi to decorate the mosque at Birgi, dated 1312, and almost completely built of spolia blocks[18]; of lions on the fortress at Kayseri (with a rebuild by Alaeddin Keykubad) as well as Konya; and of contemporary columns clearly modelled on antique spolia[19] - the inspiration of the antique for the Seljuks can be considered to be strong. It has also been suggested that the Seljuks helped revive the institution of the Roman bath at Constantinople[20] - a likely notion given the later Ottoman propensity for fountains, which are often based on Roman spolia[21].


For the Seljuks, then, stripping antique cities led in part to a renewed display of antique splendour with which they wished to associate themselves, and this was both conspicuous and admired. Thus during his 1800 visit to Konya, Leake remarks[22] on its walls, of the time of the Seljukian kings, who seem to have taken considerable pains to exhibit the Greek inscriptions, and the remains of architecture and sculpture belonging to the ancient Iconium, which they made use of in building their walls.





For Ankara[23], the best descriptions of the city walls, which were largely pulled down by the beginning of this century, is (like that of Konya) given in the accurate and careful account of Kinnear[24], who visited Anatolia in the years 1813 and 1814. They were clearly works of some splendour, incorporating many antiquities in decorative order, and with fragments of columns and entablatures strewn around; he identified the site of the amphitheatre spolia from which he believed were used in the walls, from which the residents were still taking the external coating (presumably ashlar blocks) to build their houses. He compared the gates of Constantinople and of Changora with that of Smyrna, and noted the use of spolia inscriptions in Greek. If Pitton de Tournefort’s sketch-engravings are accurate, there were plenty of spolia around: columns and other marbles litter the streets and the area outside the walls, and even the mud-brick houses contain de fort belles pièces de marbre. As for the walls, he remarks Greek, Latin, Arabic and Turkish inscriptions, and admires the beauty of the lions at the Smyrna Gate, which apparently incorporated material from a portico or temple, with remains of the amphitheatre in the walls.[25]


Spolia lions are a leitmotif here, as at Konya. Kinnear saw lions at the Caesarea Gate, and counted in all six of the same size and figure in the circuit. At the fortress also (which survives), he logged two more lions (one life-size, the other colossal), as well as bas-reliefs and inscriptions on the gate, and observed that some great building must once have stood near this place, as an adjoining mosque abounds with the most beautiful columns: in one part of the wall I observed ten pedestals of pillars ranged in order, four bas reliefs, and [and inscription] on a block of marble about eight feet in length. He then went back to the castle, and copied some inscriptions, which he illustrated in order to examine with more attention the mosque and bas reliefs.[26]


Lions, inscriptions and architectural spolia can only be deliberate decoration. Just as at Nicaea or Seljuk, the spolia at Ankara were placed where they would have been clearly visible; and there seems no doubt they were used for decorative [27] and, it has been argued[28], for numinous effect, as at Miletus, Ephesus, Sardis and Pergamum.





The coastal site of Korykos, in the region called Karamania, was a familiar point of reference for mediaeval sailors[29], as well as an end-point for routes from inland. There are two castles, but no mediaeval town wall. The building dates for the land castle are disputed, [30] although what we now see is probably 12th century; and the sea castle has foundation inscriptions of 1206 and 1251, but these do not necessarily reflect any original build date. A comment by Anna Comnena (Alexeiad xi.10C) that the land castle was ruinous when the Crusaders on the First Crusade occupied it in 1100 gives us a date for repairs, but not necessarily for the main spolia decoration, let alone the start date for the incorporation of such spolia (Lawrence reminding us that it was permissible to demolish temples only after 391). Nevertheless, analogous to the present appearance of the land castle at Korykos are the fortifications at Heraclea Pontica, where a tower is conveniently provided with an inscription dating the work to 1207.[31]


The land castle made full use of the blocks from the ancient city on the same site (many relics of which still lie all around), in some cases dismantling whole buildings for the task, as well as conceivably building the west-facing facade of the castle around a still-standing Roman gate.[32] The castle prominently displays decorated entablature blocks, and column shafts, and also reuses Roman limestone waterpipe sections. It also boasts bossed stonework. Still to be seen around the area are the ruins of baths, houses and rock-cut tombs (some of these with relief sculptures), together with the quarrying beds: near the castle, a bow’s shot to the east, si trovano arche di marmi d’un pezzo. Buona parte delle quali sono rotte da un capo. E queste sono si da uno, come dell’altro canto della strada, et durano infino a una certa chiesa mezo miglio distante, laqual mostra essere stata assai grande, et ben lavorata di colonne di marmo grosse, e di altri eccellenti lavori.[33] Indeed, nearly all the castle is built from spolia, including some very large blocks, and also some make-and-mend walls with outer faces smooth, but inner faces all jutting and receding because of the irregular antique bits and pieces used for their construction. Several towers of the land castle are decorated with columns, which could conceivably be in secondary reuse, taken from any of the twelve Byzantine churches parts of which still survive here[34]; the same applies to the use of stone arches, which could simply have been dismantled, marked and re-erected, because several survive hereabouts as chancel arches of churches[35].


“Decorate” is indeed the correct word, and travellers recognised the beauty of the walls. Thus Beaufort writes[36] that in some parts these broken shafts are laid in regular courses, and in one place they appear to be symmetrically arranged, somewhat resembling the balls in the arms of Tuscany. All the shafts are laid in exact patterns, symmetrically disposed, and protruding a few centimetres from the face of the wall, giving a bossed, sculptural effect to a geometrical pattern. An elegant variation of this is seen on the second tower from the west, east-facing side, inner ward, where it is the flange of the head or foot of the column which protrudes, creating an attractive profile. There is no need here for shafts against sapping or sea erosion, since the whole structure is built on bed-rock, to a visible depth of 3-4m at the SE and 4-5m at the NE corners of the rock-cut moat. Entry to the tower is difficult and dangerous, passes masonry with a bossed, sculptural effect. From two samples lying at its foot, it appears that the shafts are used solely for decoration, because they are cut-down columns of about half their original length, and not the full-length ones needed to span the thickness of the wall. There is no instance where they appear to have been floor-joists, which were catered for by wooden putlog holes, still to be seen; and, visibly in the NE tower of the outer defences, by orthostats, perhaps doorjambs, from nearby ancient houses.


The present appearance of Korykos, especially the treatment of bossed masonry and column shafts, compares well with the walls in other constructions of securely Armenian date. Thus at Findikh, Payas and Gosne, and in the sea castle at Korykos, we find bossed masonry. In the land castle at Ayas (modern Yumurtalik), column shafts feature on the towers and the curtains [37] - taken from antique Aegae, to the north and west of this little seaside town. The fort has a curtain wall extending down to the harbour, and both use column shafts in the footings, and bossed blocks. Luckily, part of that wall is ruinous, which clearly reveals that (as we have noticed at Korykos) the shafts are cut off short and therefore definitely not used in all cases as tie-bars: inside the fort, for instance, column shafts also appear, so strength does not appear to be a factor here. But decoration does, since the watchtower of Suleyman I uses multi-coloured blocks in a distinct diapering effect (also seen in the found towers of Silifke), as well as column-shafts. With the demise of the fine spolia traffic island at Sultanhisar (near Nyssa), where a column shaft supported the town clock, Yumirtalik is the only municipality I know that ornaments its road with very large spolia column shafts. Just as towns in Turkey today use spolia as decoration, there is no doubt whatsoever of the intention of the fortress builders to decorate their castle, and it seems likely that the work carries meaning[38], even if only as continuing a tradition of splendour that its builders could have observed both in the antique city on the site and the Byzantine churches in the surroundings.



Syrian Cities


Antique cities in Syria were often to be stripped by the Crusaders, just as cities in Turkey and North Africa had been by the Byzantines. At Chastel Pelerin they built on Phoenician ruins; at Gabala (French Zibel), the Roman theatre became a fortress. But most rebuilds were on Byzantine fortresses[39], and they show the same interest in  the use of spolia for strength as well as for decoration. Thus for Ascalon, we have a reference in Matthew Paris (by Richard of Cornwall, relayed by Matthew, and relating to the rebuild of 1240-1)[40] which makes it clear that he believed the use of marble used in its fortifications was indeed for decoration: duplici muro cum altis turribus et propugnaculis et lapidibus quadris et incisis columpnis marmoreis decenter ornato et circumeunte, omnia quae ad castrum pertinent et rite erant perfecta… – and Pringle, surely correctly, translates incisis columpnis marmoreis as cut-up marble [through] columns.[41] The harbour moles were also graced with projecting column shafts, so much in evidence that Guerin, writing in a century of artillery advances , fancied that they figurent de loin autant de pièces de canon se projetant hors de leur embrasures…[42]


At Darum, south of Gaza, William of Tyre (XX.19) writes that the fortress was made occasione vetustorum aedificiorum, quorum aliqua adhuc ibi supererant vestigia[43]; and the same author (XV.24) mentions that Jabneh (French Ibelin) was also built from ruins: Pierres trouverent en cel leu des forteresses qui jadis y avaient este, car, si comme l’en dist, Chastel abbatuz est demi refez. Some at least of the contemporary terminology would suggest Roman remains, as in Blanche-Garde, of which William of Tyre (XV.25) writes of aedificant solidis fundamentis et lapidibus quadris oppidum cum turribus quatuor, congruae altitudinis. Or at Bethgibelin in 1143 (XV.24-5), where  aedificant praesidium cum turribus quattuor, veteribus aedificiis, quorum multa adhuc supererant vestigia, lapidum ministrantibus copiam; puteis quoque vetusti temporis, qui in ambitu urbis dirutae frequentes apparebant, aquarum abundantiam This is entirely convincing, given that the nearby amphitheatre was still being ripped up in the 18th century, with gunpowder as necessary, to build a nearby mosque[44].


Nor were spolia being reused simply for fortress walls, but also to beautify living quarters therein. In what is surely a large exception to any rule, Wildbrand of Oldenbourg, who visited Syria about 1212, describes[45] a room in the chateau of Barut that must surely be completely spolia, with a mosaics floor which represente une eau ridee par la brise et on est tout etonne en marchant de ne pas voir ses pieds empreints sur le sable represente au fond. Les murs sont revetus de placages de marbre qui simulent des tentures. The painted vault displays the Zodiac, and in the middle of the room is un bassin en marbres de couleurs diverses formant un ensemble admirable ou l’on voit une variete infinie de fleurs qui eblouissent le regard. We know almost nothing of palace architecture in this area, but can be categorical that Moslem and Christian alike prized marble spolia for secular decoration, as we learn from the life of Saladin[46]: capturing Jerusalem in 1187, which  ils avaient reconstruite avec des colonnes et des plaques de marbre, ou ils avaient fondé leurs églises et les palais des Templiers et des Hospitaliers, de belles (fontaines) en marbre dont l'eau ne cessait de couler ... On ne voit que des demeures aussi agréables que des jardins et brillantes de la blancheur du marbre, que des colonnes auxquelles leurs feuilles donnaient l'aspect d'arbres verdoyants. Presumably the marble must have come from ruined Roman cities, or from the ruined monuments of Jerusalem itself, because there is no marble anywhere near Jerusalem. Unfortunately, nothing survives of Barut, though apparently wisely run by Jean d’Ibelin after being re-taken in 1197 from Saladin. So we can never know whether this was a deliberate evocation of a classical environment, analogous to the Seljuk rebuild of the walls of Konya - or perhaps to the pseudo-antique rooms later favoured by the princes of the Renaissance.





Similar examples of spolia decoration exist in Greece – witness the Castle of the 40 Columns at Paphos, so called because of its granite shafts; this was destroyed by earthquake in 1222, and used henceforth for building stone[47]. Indeed, many Byzantine fortifications in Greece incorporate spolia: the east wall at Sparta, with column shafts and marble blocks arranged in a decorative attempt to imitate a Doric frieze; whilst at Aegina, decorative alternation of courses as well as ancient inscriptions, many of them upside down or sideways, were used to decorate the exterior[48], and the custom seems to have continued into the later Middle Ages, most notably on islands such as Sipanto, near Melos[49], and especially on Paros, where much material remained above ground in the 18th century, but was frequently carted off. Pitton de Tournefort gives a full description of Parechia, the main town, and admires the spolia walls, noticing the column-shafts used en boutisse. But he is alarmed by the casual treatment accorded antiquities in his own day: the French, British and Venetians remove them, while the Greeks break them to make field-walls.[50] Other travellers describe both the spolia in the castle, and likewise deplore the bad treatment accorded to beautiful antique remains. Thus Charles Tompson visits the quarries, and goes thence to Parechia, remarking also on the destructive cruel Ignorance of the Greeks, noting that walls formerly were a Part of much nobler Structures,[51] and describing the litter of antiquities which for some reason or another could not be loaded into boats - an index of the continuing spoliation: Several fine blocks of marble – fragments of columns, are lying close to the water’s edge, and seem to have been brought there by travellers, who for want of a proper purchase to get them on board, have not been able to carry them farther[52].



[1] SARRE, Reise in Kleinasien, cit., plates XVII for Konia, XLIV for Suverek, LXI for Egherdir;

[2] I.H. KONYALI, Konya Tarihi, Konya 1964, p. 133ff, pp.146ff;

[3] T. TALBOT RICE, The Seljuks in Asia Minor, London 1961, p. 153ff

[4] J.-P. ROUX, La sculpture figurative de l’Anatolie Musulmane, in Turcica, 24 (1992), pp. 27-90. Includes inventory at pp. 85-89; p. 43ff for the walls of Diyarbakir. Important iconographic program, difficult to date, but he estimates 10th and 11th centuries: p. 45;

[5] Voyage remarquable de Guillaume de Rubruquis, envoie en Ambassade par le roi Louis IX en différentes parties de l’Orient, l’An MCCLIII, in P.BERGERON, Voyages faits principalement en Asie dans les XII, XIII, XIV et XV siècles, I, The Hague 1735, col.147: he found French, Genoese and Venetian merchants there, trading in alum;

[6] KINNEAR, Journey, cit., pp. 219ff;

[7] C. CAHEN, Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history c.1071-1330, London 1968, p. 201; pp. 262-3: nobody has yet studied Seljuk debt to Armenian and Byzantine military architecture. A fierce review of this book by J.M. Rogers, Recent work on Seljuk Anatolia, in Kunst des Orients VI, 1969, pp. 134-169, with a bibliography at pp. 165ff;

[8] TABBA, Survivals and archaisms, cit., pp. 33ff;

[9] J. MITCHELL, The display of script and the uses of painting in Longobard Italy, in Testo e Immagine nell'Alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1993 (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo XLI), pp. 887-951. See pp. 895ff for the monumental inscriptions at Tempietto sul Clitunno and the Palace Chapel of Duke Arechis II at Salerno;

[10] WILLIAM OF TYRE, Hist. Rerum Transmarin., J.-P. MIGNE, PL CCI, Paris 1903. I.2 (col 215): Exstant porro in eodem templi aedificio, intus et extra, ex opere Musaico, Arabici idiomatis litterarum vetustissima monumenta, quae illius temporis [i.e. of Titus!] esse creduntur;

[11] O. L. ASLANAPA, Kirim ve Kuzey Azerbaycan’da Turk Eserleri, Istanbul 1979, pp. 92ff , for the Kasir Mausoleum at Nahcivan, dated 1162, which has a five-foot-high brick kufic inscription; pp. 50ff & pp. 36ff for Baku; pp. 14-15 for the two turbes at Bahcesaray, 14thC and 15thC respectively;

[12] E. HERZFELD, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Deuxième Partie, Syrie du Nord: Inscriptions et monuments d'Alep, 3 vols, Cairo 1954-5-6: cf.plates X, XI, XXIII, CLXXIII;

[13] J. SAUVAGET, Studies in the historical geography and topography of Syria, Frankfurt-am-Main 1994, pp. 327-8 for marble disks with heraldic devices in the cervanserae of Khan Shaikhun (14th century), and p. 335 for inscribed disks flanking inscription on the cervanserai at Khan El 'Asal. J. PRAWER, Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, 2 vols, Paris 1975, II, plate VIII for the bridge built by Baibars at Jisr Jendas, near Lydda, in 1273: a central inscription is flanked by opposed lions in relief and, below, two protruding column shafts each side;

[14] L. TODISCO, Scultura antica e reimpiego in Italia meridionale, I: Puglia, Basilicata, Campania, Bari 1994, p. 501; cf. pp. 373-422: L’antico nel campanile normanno di Melfi, including plenty of lions;

[15] L. TODISCO, Il leone "custos iusticie" di Bari, in Xenia, X (1987), pp. 129-51; that is, an antique lion reworked for display (and with new inscription) sometime between late 11thC and 1150;

[16] DE THEVENOT, Relation, cit., pp. 214-6: contre la mur qui est battue de la mer il y a aussi trois demy lions sortans de la muraille depuis la teste iusqu’à la moitie du corps;

[17] A. ALTUN, Anadolu’da Artuklu Devri Turk Mimarisi’nin Gelismesi, Istanbul 1978, pp. 215ff. For Ic Kale; pp. 228ff for the fortress tower of Ulu Bedeb Burcu;

[18] O. ASLANAPA, Yuzyillar Boyunca Turk Sanati (14. Yuzyil), Istanbul 1977, pp. 40, 133;

[19] G. ONEY, Anadolu Selcuklu Mimarisinde Susleme ve el Sanatlari {Architectural decoration and minor arts in Seljuk Anatolia), Ankara 1978, p. 37: Ulu Camii, Diyarbakir; p.13: Gok Medrese, Sivas; p.14: Ince Minareli Medrese, Konya; p.19: Cifte Minareli Medrese, Erzerum; p.23: Karatay Medresesi, Konya. See also A. GABRIEL, Monuments turcs d’Anatolie I, Paris 1931, pp. 19-30;

[20] YEGUL, Baths and bathing, cit., p. 315;

[21] For romanization of the Turks, cf. on Istanbul fountains I.H. Tanisik, Istanbuler Cesmeleri, 2 vols, Istanbul 1943 & 1945. The author catalogs 404 fountains in vol 1, and 381 in vol 2!!

[22] LEAKE, Journal, cit.;

[23] LAWRENCE, A skeletal history, cit., pp. 171-227: cf. 204ff & plates 16-17 for spolia in the walls of Ankara. C. FOSS, Late antique and Byzantine Ankara, cit., pp. 62ff for the walls;

[24] KINNEAR, Journey, cit., p. 67;

[25] PITTON DE TOURNEFORT, Relation d’un voyage du Levant, 3 vols, London 1717, III. Opposite p. 311 for view of Ankara;

[26] KINNEAR, Journey, cit., p. 69, pp. 71-2;

[27] cf. FOSS, Byzantine fortifications, cit., pp. 134f;

[28] L. JAMES, Pray not to fall into temptation and be on your guard: pagan statues in Christian Constantinople, in Gesta, XXXVI (1996), pp. 12-20; cf. p.16: statues were carefully arranged in the seventh-century city wall next to the main south gate all face outwards;

[29] e.g. Les Périples de Syrie et d’Arménie in Archives de l’Orient Latin, II, Paris 1884, pp. 329ff. see p. 350 for Korykos, and also for Elaiussa;

[30] LAWRENCE, A skeletal history, cit., pp. 171-227; pp. 177ff. for Korykos. He illustrates the use of column shafts as stretchers in the tower walls, and as decoration, plates 8b, 9a; FOSS, Byzantine Fortifications, p. 221, for building periods of 5th/6th, 9th and 13th centuries; R. W. EDWARDS, The fortifications of Armenia Cilicia, Washington 1987, pp. 161ff., for early 12th century;

[31] FOSS, Byzantine fortifications, cit., pp. 150ff & p. 294, fig. 29;

[32] E. HERZFELD & S. GUYER, Miriamlik und Korykos. Zwei christliche Ruinenstaetten des Rauhen Kilikiens (Monument Asiae Minoris Antiqua 2), Manchester 1930, pp. 90-207; pp. 173-5 & figs 183-6 for the spolia in the land castle;

[33] RAMUSIO, Delle Navigationi, cit., vol II.98r ff for Viaggio di M. Josafa Barbaro nella Persia, begun in 1471. Fol 100r & 100v for description of the Land and Sea Castles at Korykos;

[34] HILL, Byzantine Churches, cit., pp. 116ff;

[35] R. W. EDWARDS, Two new Byzantine churches in Cilicia, in Anatolian Studies, 32 (1982), pp. 23-32 for illustrations;

[36] BEAUFORT, Karamania, cit., p. 241;

[37] Illustrations in EDWARDS, Fortifications, cit., 26a, 27b;

[38] HERZFELD & GUYER, Meriamlik, cit., pp. 178-9, on spolia and column shafts;

[39] P. DESCHAMPS, Le Crac des Chevaliers, Paris 2 vols, 1934, p. 45;

[40] MARSHALL, Warfare, cit., p. 103;

[41] D. PRINGLE, King Richard I and the walls of Ascalon, in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 116 (1984), pp. 133-47; Matthew of Paris Chron. Maj (4) p. 143;

[42] V. GUERIN, Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, I: Judée, vol II, Paris 1869, pp. 138-9;

[43] Cited in DESCHAMPS, Le Crac, cit., p. 44; perhaps the same castle, lapidibus quadratis exstructum, prope quod rudera supersunt Palatii illius, quod Samsonis robore ludibrio Philistinorum axpositi, by Christophori FUERER, Itinerarium Aegypti, Arabiae, Palaestinae, Syriae, aliarumque regionum Orientalium, Nuremberg 1620, p. 47;

[44] AEGIDIUS VAN EGMONT, Travels, cit., II, pp. 312-3;

[45] cf. J.C.M. LAURENT, Peregrinatores medii aevi quatuor, Leipzig 1864, p. 167; cited in DESCHAMPS, Le Crac, cit., p. 69;

[46] ACADEMIE DES INSCRIPTIONS, Croisades, cit., III, from Ibn Khallican's Life of Saladin, pp. 421-2;

[47] A.H.S. MEGAW, The Castle of the 40 Columns at Paphos, in Pepragmena: Les fortifications depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’au Moyen Age dans le monde méditerranéen, Athens 1971, pp. 65-70;

[48] T. GREGORY, The fortified cities of Byzantine Greece, in Archaeology, 35 (1982), 1, pp. 14-21; cf. pp. 17-18;

[49] DE TOURNEFORT, Relation, cit., vol I, p. 211, who describes the statues and bas-reliefs in the town gate, which bears a date of 1445;

[50] Ibid., vol I, p. 238;

[51] The travels of the late Charles Thompson, containing his observations on France, Italy, Turkey in Europe, 3 vols, Reading 1744, I, p. 309;

[52] Captain D. SUTHERLAND, A tour up the straits from Gibraltar to Constantinople, London 1790, pp. 149-50;