¶ÙÄ€²ÑḠĶı·, Persian town located on a plain south of the Alborz range, 342 km east of Tehran (54° 20’, 36° 10’ N, 1115-30 m above sea level). It was for a long time the capital city of the small province of KÅ«meš (Ar. QÅ«mes, Gk. KÅmisÄ“nḗ; Lat. Comisene; see, e.g., Strabo 11.9.1), now OstÄn-e SemnÄn (for the geomorphological and ecological setting of the DÄmḡÄn plain, see O. G. Meder in Dyson and Howard, pp. 7-12). The town was reputed to have been founded by HÅšang, the second of the mythical PÄ«šdÄdÄ«Än kings of Iran (Mojmal, ed. Ba³óÄår, p. 39; Nozhat al-qolÅ«b, ed. Le Strange, I, p. 161). There is apparently no satisfactory explanation of the name or its origin, though it has been suggested that DÄmḡÄn may be a contraction of deh-e moḡÄn (village of the magi; ḤakÄ«m, p. 591; YaḡmÄʾī, p. 5; on Zoroastrians living in DÄmḡÄn, see below).
DÄmḡÄn, which is situated on the main highway from Tehran to NÄ«šÄpÅ«r, Mašhad, and Herat, also dominates less important roads north to SÄrÄ« and GorgÄn, as well as tracks leading south to Yazd and Isfahan via Jandaq (Le Strange, Lands, map V; Adle, 1971, pp. 74-85). From the quasi-triangular plan of its high defensive wall (Figure 37; Schmidt, 1937, figs. 4-5; Adle, 1971, p. 93 figs. 4-5) it can be seen how the streams fanning out to the southeast from Ä€bbaḵšÄn (cf. Adle, 1971, p. 73; idem, 1970, I, pp. 27-29 fig. 7; ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«, pp. 14-15) determined its layout; the wall was constructed, probably in the late Sasanian period (BalÄá¸orÄ«, ¹ó´Ç³Ùūḥ, p. 318, referring to the Muslim assault on the city gates), along canals and irrigated gardens. The present wall was built in 309/921-22, in order to ward off Ê¿Alid attacks (Ebn al-Aṯīr, VIII, p. 124). In the 19th century the town had five gates, but originally the wall was pierced by only three gates, one in each of its three sides: the Ray gate (west), the Khorasan gate (east), and a southern gate of unknown name (Figure 37 nos. 10, 15, 19). AbÅ« Dolaf, who visited DÄmḡÄn in the mid-10th century, expressed admiration for it (fol. 193b), but MaqdesÄ« (ca. 375/985; MoqaddasÄ«, pp. 355-56), who was there shortly afterward, does not seem to have shared his admiration, describing it as a small town with unattractive baths and ugly ²úÄå³úÄå°ùs (cf. Adle, 1971, pp. 91-100). The names of the quarters (³¾²¹á¸¥a±ô±ôÄå³Ù) at that period are unknown, but in 1300/1883 they were mentioned by EÊ¿temÄd-al-Salá¹ana in his thorough description of the town (III, pp. 266-302; Adle, 1971, p. 101). The rapid modern expansion of the built-up areas has been concentrated on the northern and northwestern side, toward SemnÄn and Tehran (µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, maps 36-38).
The windy climate of DÄmḡÄn was noted by AbÅ« Dolaf (fol. 193b; cf. YÄqÅ«t, µþ´Ç±ô»åÄå²Ô II, p. 539). From at least as early as the 12th century it was believed that the wind blowing from the valley of the ÄŒašma Ê¿AlÄ«, 25 km northwest of DÄmḡÄn and the mountains surrounding it, was caused by impure matter thrown into a mineral spring called BÄd-ḵÄnÄ«, 27 km northeast of DÄmḡÄn (Adle, 1970, I, pp. 42-44, fig. 14). Thanks to Moḥammad ṬūsÄ« (pp. 113-14) and ZakarÄ«yÄʾ QazvÄ«nÄ« (p. 180), it is possible to identify this spring, with its yellow-ocher waters, with the one mentioned by AbÅ« Dolaf (fol. 143v) and other authors, who referred to a spring carrying blood capable of transforming quicksilver into stone. Aside from this northern wind, there are seven other winds that also blow irregularly in DÄmḡÄn (ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 22-23; µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, pp. 131-32; see climate). January is the coldest month, with an average temperature of -5.8° C, and August the hottest, with an average temperature of 34.4° C, but extreme temperatures range from -15° C to 41° C. Precipitation in the region is irregular, the yearly average being 87 mm (O. G. Meder in Dyson and Howard, pp. 7-8; for the latest figures, see µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, pp. 133-34).
History. In prehistoric times a settlement, known today as Tepe Hissar (Tappa Ḥeá¹£Är; ca. 4590-1705 b.c.e.; Dyson and Howard, p. 143), was established southeast of the present town of DÄmḡÄn on raised ground next to an old bed of the DÄmḡÄnrÅ«d, a permanent stream flowing from ÄŒašma Ê¿AlÄ« (Dyson; idem and Howard; Schmidt, 1931; idem, 1937). From the modern headwork north of the town there is a fan of canals extending south to within 500 m of the Tehran-Mašhad road; the surface of this area is heavily scattered with a mixture of late Iron Age, Parthian, and Sasanian potsherds. In the Parthian period, after a hiatus of 1,500 years, DÄmḡÄn again became a major settlement in the province of KÅ«meš and remained so through the Sasanian period as well (Maurer Trinkaus, 1981b, figs. 3, 4; idem, 1985, pp. 130, 132, figs. 2-3). Although DÄmḡÄn was long identified in Western literature with the ancient city of Hecatompylos (Šahr-e KÅ«meš), recent excavations have proved that identification incorrect (see Hansman; idem and Stronach). The province of KÅ«meš was the location of one of the renowned sacred fires of Sasanian Persia (Ätaxš Ä« axwarišnÄ«h “fire without nutriment”; Bundahišn 18.24; cf. MasÊ¿Å«dÄ«, ²Ñ´Ç°ùÅ«Âá, ed. Pellat, II, p. 398; ŠahrestÄnÄ«, II, p. 59). The remains of a Sasanian palace just southeast of the present town and next to Tepe Hissar (Schmidt, 1933, pls. 76, 78-79; idem, 1937, pp. 327-50) attest the importance of DÄmḡÄn in the late Sasanian period; they may be dated to the end of the 6th century, when Prince µþ±ð²õá¹Äm revolted against Ḵosrow II ParvÄ“z (590-628), his nephew, and established an ephemeral independent kingdom (ca. 592-96 or 600; see besá¹Äm o bendÅy). Perhaps it was at that time that the seat of government was transferred from Šahr-e KÅ«meš to DÄmḡÄn (Hansman, 1968, p. 138; cf. Markwart, Provincial Capitals, pp. 55-58). The palace seems to have remained in use in the 7th century under Omayyad rule (41-132/661-750; Thompson, p. 7). Although pre-Islamic remains have not yet been discovered in the town of DÄmḡÄn itself (cf. Schmidt, 1933, pp. 329-31; idem, 1937, pp. 11-16; Maurer Trinkaus, 1985, p. 131), it is nevertheless difficult to rule out the existence of an urban center on the site. The earliest references to the name DÄmḡÄn do not seem to predate the mid-9th century (QodÄma, KetÄb al-ḵarÄj, p. 244; BalÄá¸orÄ«, ¹ó´Ç³Ùūḥ, p. 318; YaÊ¿qÅ«bÄ«, µþ´Ç±ô»åÄå²Ô, p. 276), but the city must already have been in existence when the Arab armies arrived there.
DÄmḡÄn, sometimes referred to as QÅ«mes or Šahr QÅ«mes in the early Islamic sources (Ebn ḴordÄá¸beh, p. 23; cf. Le Strange, Lands, pp. 364-65; Schwarz, Iran, p. 814), may have submitted temporarily to the invading Arab armies in 22/643 (ṬabarÄ«, I, pp. 2656-57; BalÄá¸orÄ«, ¹ó´Ç³Ùūḥ, p. 318) and then definitively in 30/651-92 (YaÊ¿qÅ«bÄ«, µþ´Ç±ô»åÄå²Ô, p. 276). Its primacy as an urban center must have been enhanced when the congregational mosque known as the TÄrÄ«-ḵÄna was built there, probably around the middle of the 8th century (Godard, pp. 231-35; see below). Nevertheless, it can be assumed that there were Zoroastrians in DÄmḡÄn, as there were in neighboring µþ±ð²õá¹Äm, at least until the 9th century. The city was devastated on 18 ŠaÊ¿bÄn 242/20 December 856 by a violent earthquake, which destroyed half the buildings and supposedly caused the death of 45,096 people (Ambraseys and Melville, p. 37), a number that, though undoubtedly exaggerated, is indicative of the extent of the damage. About sixty years later Ebn Rosta (p. 170) referred to the ruins caused by the same cataclysm in ḤaddÄda, 36 km east of DÄmḡÄn (cf. MoqaddasÄ«, p. 355, affirming that the outskirts of DÄmḡÄn were in ruins). The damage to the town itself must have been repaired by the mid-10th century, however, for AbÅ« Dolaf characterized DÄmḡÄn as a fine town (fol. 193v). Perhaps after the disaster the center of the built-up area shifted north from the TÄrÄ«-ḵÄna quarter toward those where new monuments were constructed in the 11th century (e.g., PÄ«r-e Ê¿AlamdÄr and the minaret of the Great Mosque; Adle, 1971, fig. 4; see below). The earliest known coins from DÄmḡÄn are dated 336/976-77 and 369/979-80; there are, however, coins inscribed QÅ«mes dated between 91/709 and 170/787. According to some Arab geographers, the ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«s were pale-faced, affable, and cooperative but warlike (YaÊ¿qÅ«bÄ«, µþ´Ç±ô»åÄå²Ô, p. 276; MoqaddasÄ«, pp. 355, 368; ḤodÅ«d al-Ê¿Älam, ed. SotÅ«da, p. 146). They spoke an idiom close to that of the GorgÄnÄ«s but sharper than that of the MÄzandarÄnÄ«s, making frequent use of a prefixed ³óÄå (e.g., ³óÄådeh “give,” ³óÄåkon “do”; MoqadassÄ«, p. 368; cf. ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1344 Š./1965).
DÄmḡÄn apparently reached its zenith in the first half of the 11th century, under the governorship of AbÅ« Ḥarb b. Moḥammad BaḵtÄ«Är, a Ziyarid general and patron of the poet ManÅ«ÄehrÄ«, who celebrated him in his panegyrics (Adle, 1972, pp. 271-73). Its population had presumably increased to about 25,000, and it had long since escaped from direct Ê¿Abbasid rule and become a bone of contention among various Persian dynasties (Taherid, Saffarid, and above all Samanid) and the Ê¿Alids of ṬabarestÄn (see below), as well as a number of condottieri. Some of these disputing warlords had founded important dynasties, like the ShiÊ¿ite Ziyarids, whose ancestor MardÄvij b. ZÄ«Är (315-23/927-35) had controlled DÄmḡÄn (Ebn al-Aṯīr, VIII, p. 304). In 417-18/1026-27, during the reign of the Ziyarid ManÅ«Äehr (402-23/1012-32), AbÅ« Ḥarb succeeded his father, the ḥÄj±ð²ú (in this instance a general) AbÅ« JaÊ¿far Moḥammad b. EbrÄhÄ«m, as governor of DÄmḡÄn and perhaps the whole of QÅ«mes. ManÅ«Äehr died in 423/1032, presumably poisoned by AbÅ« Ḥarb, if the latter can be identified with AbÅ« KÄlÄ«jÄr, maternal uncle of the new, infant ruler, AnÅ«šÄ«rvÄn b. ManÅ«Äehr (423-41/1032-49; see, e.g., Adle and Melikian-Chirvani, pp. 292-95). AbÅ« Ḥarb was thus able to extend his power. He took, or was granted by the Ghaznavid sultan MasÊ¿Å«d I (421-32/1030-41), the title ²¹³¾Ä«°ù-²¹±ô-´Ç³¾²¹°ùÄåʾ and managed to attach himself directly to the Ê¿Abbasid caliph al-QÄʾem (422-67/1031-75), with the title mawlÄ amÄ«r-al-moʾmenÄ«n. It was after he had assumed this title that he built the minaret of the mosque in SemnÄn, probably before 425/1034, when both DÄmḡÄn and SemnÄn were sacked by marauding Ḡozz Turks (Adle, 1975). Soon after the defeat of Sultan MasÊ¿Å«d at ¶Ù²¹²Ô»åÄå²Ô±çÄå²Ô in 431/1040 AbÅ« Ḥarb lost his power (Adle and Melikian-Chirvani, pp. 269-82). Although the ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«s were said to be Hanafites in the 10th century (MoqaddasÄ«, p. 365), the town also contains one of the oldest ShiÊ¿ite ±ð³¾Äå³¾³úÄå»å²¹s in the Persian-speaking world (see below). As it was controlled by the ShiÊ¿ite Ziyarids and was considerably influenced by the IsmaÊ¿ilis and the ShiÊ¿ite rulers of MÄzandarÄn, it can safely be assumed that at least a substantial minority of the population was ShiÊ¿ite or sympathetic to ShiÊ¿ism, perhaps following different tendencies.
In 434/1042-43 the Saljuqs divided their newly conquered territories, and on that occasion DÄmḡÄn, ṬabarestÄn, and GorgÄn were allotted to Qutulmuš b. EsrÄʾīl, a cousin of Ṭoḡrel (429-55/1038-63), the first Saljuq sultan. He did not keep it long, for in 433/1041-42 Ṭoḡrel entrusted it to AsfÄr b. KordÅ«ya, a Deylamite chief whom he had previously appointed as guardian over AnÅ«šÄ«rvÄn b. ManÅ«Äehr. AsfÄr in his turn built a fine funerary tower, ÄŒehel DoḵtarÄn, in 446/1054-55 for one PÄ«r-e Eá¹£fa³óÄån, undoubtedly a respected Sufi guide (Adle, 1972, pp. 273-76, 282-83; idem, 1975, pp. 183-86; see below). Soon after 474/1082 Saljuq power was challenged by the IsmaÊ¿ilis, when the province of QÅ«mes was visited by Ḥasan á¹¢abbÄh (see »åÄåÊ¿Ä«). Through the efforts of Raʾīs Moẓaffar (MostawfÄ«), one of his ardent followers, in 489/1096 he was able to take possession of GerdkÅ«h fortress (Dež-e GonbadÄn), 18 km west of DÄmḡÄn. That stronghold, one of the mightiest and most impregnable in Persia, ensured the IsmaÊ¿ilis’ supremacy in the entire region for nearly 180 years (Adle, 1972, pp. 283-84; SotÅ«da, pp. 143-64), until at least the end of 658/1260; they refused to submit to the invading Mongols (JÅ«zjÄnÄ«, Ṭa²ú²¹±çÄå³Ù II, p. 186). In that period DÄmḡÄn was caught between a variety of rival forces: the official central power (represented in turn by the Saljuqs, the ḴᵛÄrazmšÄhs, and the Il-khanids) and various local and ShiÊ¿ite powers (IsmaÊ¿ilis, the reinstalled Bavandids, etc.), who also fought among themselves. It was in this context and probably starting in the 12th century that the decline of DÄmḡÄn began; the city also suffered several episodes of famine and destruction (see, e.g., µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, pp. 40-42, 45-48; ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 72-76; ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«, pp. 29-53).
DÄmḡÄn was a mint town only sporadically before the Mongol invasion, after which it minted almost continuously from about the 1230s or 1240s until the early Safavid period (S. Album, personal communication; cf. Zambaur, p. 115). With the fall of the Il-khanids and the rise of local dynasties, DÄmḡÄn was transformed into a center of agitation under the revolutionary SarbadÄrs, who did not recognize the institution of kingship. In 759/1357-58 PahlavÄn Ḥasan ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ« became ²õ²¹°ù»åÄå°ù (i.e., commander) in their chief city, SabzavÄr; in the same year he had to face an uprising led by Ê¿AlÄ« Moʾayyad in DÄmḡÄn. Ê¿AlÄ« struck ShiÊ¿ite coins in DÄmḡÄn, and this practice became standard in 763/1361-62, when the SarbadÄrs accepted his authority and recognized ShiÊ¿ism as the official religion (Smith, pp. 77-78, 143-46; ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«, pp. 55-61). It is clear that ShiÊ¿ism already had a firm foothold in the town, probably from at least as early as the period of Ziyarid rule (see above). At any rate the spread of ShiÊ¿ism in DÄmḡÄn must have been complete long before its establishment as the official religion of Persia by Shah EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l I (907-30/1501-24) in 907/1502. In 783/1381, however, the ²õ²¹°ù²ú²¹»åÄå°ù Ê¿AlÄ« Moʾayyad had to submit in his turn to TÄ«mÅ«r (771-807/1370-1405), whose reign brought ruin and misfortune to DÄmḡÄn. In a period of fifty-five years it experienced three massacres and destructive raids (806/1404 under TÄ«mÅ«r, 852/1448 under the Timurid MÄ«rzÄ Ê¿Abdal-Laá¹Ä«f, and in 861/1457 under Moḥammad MÄ«rzÄ Qara QoyunlÅ«; Adle, 1970, pp. 89, 100-01, 116).
In 914/1508 the Timurids lost DÄmḡÄn, their last refuge, to the Uzbeks, who in turn had to abandon it to the Safavid EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l I in 916/1510. The town was reoccupied in 933/1527 by the Uzbeks, but it was definitively retaken in 934/1528 by Shah ṬahmÄsb (930-84/1524-76; Adle, 1970, pp. 143-48, 154-55, 159, 173, 177-79); the town, which had suffered heavily during the preceding twenty years, remained in Safavid possession until the conquest of Isfahan by the rebellious Afghans in 1135/1722. During the Timurid and Safavid periods the population was only about 2,000-3,000, and the decline continued through the 18th century (Adle, 1971, pp. 102-04). In the anarchic situation that prevailed in that century Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« Khan, chief of the AšÄqabÄš Qajar tribe, apparently took a position against the weak Safavid ruler ṬahmÄsb II (1135-45/1722-32). He besieged DÄmḡÄn, forcing the governor, Ḏu’l-FeqÄr Khan, to flee, but soon he changed his mind and became ṬahmÄsb’s commander-in-chief for a short time, in 1138/1726 (Lockhart, p. 280). He was eliminated by NÄder (subsequently NÄder Shah, 1148-60/1736-48), who entered DÄmḡÄn victoriously with the shah on 9 RabÄ«Ê¿ I 1142/2 October 1729, after having defeated Ašraf Ḡilzay three days earlier in MehmÄndÅ«st, 21 km east of DÄmḡÄn. Displeased with the manners of DÄmḡÄn’s prefect (»åÄå°ùūḡa), NÄder had his quarters and the neighboring part of the town destroyed by gunfire. Later he commanded that a small defensive wall be constructed within the old city wall (ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, p. 66).
A new period of political and military upheaval in DÄmḡÄn began with the assassination of NÄder Shah in 1160/1747. It lasted until the conquest of the town by Ä€qÄ Moḥammad Khan QÄjÄr, whose nephew and successor, Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« Shah (1212-50/1797-1834), had been born there on 18 ŠawwÄl 1185/24 January 1772 during the period 1182-91/1769-77, when his father, ḤosaynqolÄ« Khan QÄjÄr Ja³óÄånsÅ«z, was governor under KarÄ«m Khan Zand (1163-93/1750-79). ḤosaynqolÄ« Khan rose against KarÄ«m Khan but was driven back by ZakÄ« Khan Zand, who massacred the ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«s during his march toward MÄzandarÄn against Ja³óÄånsÅ«z (ca. 1184-90/1770-76; Perry, pp. 139-46; MÅ«sawÄ«, pp. 170-75; ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 81-83; ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«, pp. 73-74; Adle, 1971, pl. 16A). Ä€qÄ Moḥammad Khan, having conquered Khorasan from the Afsharid prince ŠÄhroḵ AfšÄr (1210/1796), tortured him to death for having carried off NÄder Shah’s treasury. The deposed prince was buried in the ḵÄn²¹±çÄå³ó at DÄmḡÄn, subsequently known as Qabr-e ŠÄhroḵ (see below; Adle, 1974, pp. 182-84). By the second half of the 19th century DÄmḡÄn had only about 1,500 inhabitants (Adle, 1972, pp. 102-04).
The last bloody and destructive events in DÄmḡÄn took place on 8 Moḥarram 1330/30 December 1911, during the Constitutional Revolution, when constitutionalists from Tehran successfully defeated supporters of Moḥammad-Ê¿AlÄ« Shah (1324-27/1907-09) who had taken control of the town on their march toward the capital (ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 84-85; ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«, pp. 78-82). At about the beginning of the 20th century the population apparently started to climb (5,000 in 1308 Š./1929, 8,900 in 1335 Š./1956; Adle, 1971, pp. 102-03), reaching 13,175 in 1345 Š./1966 (ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1968, p. 31) and 25,500 in 1362-63 Š./1983-84 (6,369 families; annual rate of growth 5.6 percent, with a 73.6 percent literacy rate; Markaz-e ÄmÄr, 1364 Š./1985, table 2). The last census, conducted in 1365 Š./1986, revealed that 34,057 people were then living in the town of DÄmḡÄn itself (Markaz-e ÄmÄr, 1368 Š./1989, p. 1). The presence, if any, of Jews or Christians in DÄmḡÄn has gone unnoticed in the historical sources, but in the census of 1365 Š./1986 twenty-seven people in the town and twenty-six in the villages of the surrounding district declared themselves to be Zoroastrians (Markaz-e ÄmÄr, 1368 Š./1989, p. 4). Today DÄmḡÄn, which is the administrative center of a &²õ³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;²¹³ó°ù±ð²õ³ÙÄå²Ô, is only the third city of the region, after SemnÄn and ŠÄhrÅ«d.
Monuments. DÄmḡÄn is among the richest Persian cities in archeological remains and monuments ranging from the 5th millennium b.c.e. to the Qajar period (for the most important pre-Islamic sites, see above).
The earliest surviving Islamic monument is the TÄrÄ«-ḵÄna mosque (second half of the 8th century, perhaps earlier). It was built by means of traditional Sasanian architectural techniques on an imported hypostile (sometimes called “Arab”) plan. In structure it shows remarkable affinities with the Sasanian palace at Tepe Hissar (Godard; Schmidt, 1937, pp. 12-16, 327-50). This mosque and its less impressive counterpart in Fahraj are the oldest standing mosques in Persia. The cylindrical minaret attached to the TÄrÄ«-ḵÄna mosque is datable to 418-19/1027-28 by a Kufic building inscription in the name of AbÅ« Ḥarb BaḵtÄ«Är as ḥÄj±ð²ú of ManÅ«Äehr; it was perhaps a replacement for an earlier minaret destroyed in the earthquake of 242/856 (for other evidence, cf. Bloom, pp. 150-52) and can be considered the earliest datable monument of its kind in Persia (Adle, 1972, pp. 242-48, 263-64, 269-70, 285-86, fig. 2, pl. 26; Bloom, pp. 152-55; Blair, pp. 96-97).
The second important surviving monument is PÄ«r-e Ê¿AlamdÄr (417/1026), a cylindrical tomb tower, one of the earliest of its kind, constructed by AbÅ« Ḥarb for his father (Adle, 1972, pp. 231-35, 250-56, 270, pls. 18-20, 29 and 35; Blair, pp. 93-95). In the first years of the 14th century a small mosque, now in ruins, was added to this mausoleum. The work was carried out by the ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ« master ḤÄjÄ« b. Ḥosayn b. AbÄ« ṬÄleb, who also worked on the architectural complex of BÄyazÄ«d at µþ±ð²õá¹Äm (Sarre, pp. 113-14, pl. 84, figs. 154-55; Wilber, pp. 149-50).
Of the pre-Saljuq Great Mosque at DÄmḡÄn nothing seems to remain. From the mid-11th century, however, there survives a fine cylindrical minaret with a Kufic inscription in blue-glazed tiles at the top. The inscription, which has not yet been deciphered, is the oldest specimen of glazed tiles in situ in Persian architecture (Adle, 1972, pp. 248-49, 264-68, 284-85, fig. 3, pls. 27, 36; idem, 1983, illustrations facing p. 300; idem, 1984, pp. 290-92, figs. 7-8; Bloom, p. 160; Blair, pp. 191-93).
The architectural complex of EmÄmzÄda JaÊ¿far (q.v.) is built around the tomb of JaÊ¿far b. Ê¿AlÄ«, a descendant of Ḥosayn b. Ê¿AlÄ«, the third ShiÊ¿ite imam, and a brother of Oá¹rÅ«š (NÄá¹£er KabÄ«r), who restored the ZaydÄ« kingdom in ṬabarestÄn. JaÊ¿far was killed around 287-89/900-01, when his brother, having been defeated by the pro-Samanid general Moḥammad b. HÄrÅ«n, took refuge in DÄmḡÄn (Adle, 1984, pp. 294-97 figs. 9-10; Blair, pp. 123-25). The complex that developed there became renowned as both a place of pilgrimage and a center (ḵÄn²¹±çÄå³ó) for Sufi mystics. The tombstone of JaÊ¿far bears perhaps the oldest existing Kufic inscription in Persia, datable shortly after his death. Later, in the 11th century, the tomb itself was decorated with a new inscription molded in plaster (Adle, 1984, pp. 292-97, figs. 9-10). The mausoleum, an almost square domed building, has often been repaired but dates mainly from the 11th century, or perhaps even earlier, as some parts are constructed of large sun-dried bricks, typical of earlier building techniques. An imposing tomb tower, the ÄŒehel DoḵtarÄn, dated 446/1054-55, stands on its northern side (Adle, 1972, pp. 235-38, 256-59, 282-83, pls. 21-23, 30-32); it was probably built under the influence of the Sufi structures in neighboring µþ±ð²õá¹Äm. At the southeastern corner of the complex is a small domed chamber known as Qabr-e ŠÄhroḵ (ŠÄhroḵ’s tomb), perhaps of the late Saljuq period. The room was used as an abode or a meeting place for Sufis under the Timurid ŠÄhroḵ (807-50/1405-47), who ordered extensive repairs. It remained in use to the reign of the Safavid shah Solá¹Än-Ḥosayn (1105-35/1694-1722). In 1210/1796 it became the last resting place of ŠÄhroḵ AfšÄr (see above; Adle, 1974, pp. 173-85; Hillenbrand, pp. 160-01, pl. 7a).
(For other historical buildings in DÄmḡÄn see EÊ¿temÄd-al-Salá¹ana, III, pp. 267-81; YaḡmÄʾī, pp. 31-32, 36-60; ḤaqÄ«qat, pp. 321-29; ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 100-42; ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«, pp. 88-103, 115-39; for town planning and houses, see µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, pp. 163-282.)
Agriculture. Agriculture in DÄmḡÄn has always depended mainly on the waters flowing from ÄŒašma Ê¿AlÄ« (Nozhat al-qolÅ«b, ed. Le Strange, p. 161), rather than on ±ç²¹²ÔÄå³Ùs (underground aqueducts), which were, if not invented in KÅ«meš, at least known there from the late 3rd century b.c.e. (Polybius 10.28). The distribution of the waters of the ÄŒašma Ê¿AlÄ« among the town and the nearby villages has been regulated since the pre-Islamic period; AbÅ« Dolaf reported on a weir dating from the time of the Sasanians, the remains of which were still visible next to the village of LabrÅ«d some decades ago (fol. 193v; tr. Minorsky, p. 57). Eá¹£á¹aḵrÄ« (340/951, p. 211), Ebn Ḥawqal (367/978, p. 380), and to a lesser extent the anonymous author of ḤodÅ«d al-Ê¿Älam (372/982-83, p. 146), all of whom were unaware of the existence of the weir, reported that DÄmḡÄn suffered from lack of water and produced less abundant fruits than µþ±ð²õá¹Äm. YÄqÅ«t (µþ´Ç±ô»åÄå²Ô II, p. 539), who was in DÄmḡÄn in 613/1217, knew of the weir but did not see it. Despite the negative reports, fruits, especially red apples known as ±çÅ«³¾±ð²õÄ«, seem to have been the main agricultural products of DÄmḡÄn and were exported, as were those of µþ±ð²õá¹Äm, to Mesopotamia (AbÅ« Dolaf, fol. 193v). MostawfÄ« mentioned pears in 740/1340 (Nozhat al-qolÅ«b, ed. Le Strange, p. 161); those of Ä€stÄna, a village close to ÄŒašma Ê¿AlÄ«, are still well known. Perhaps from the Qajar period (EÊ¿temÄd-al-Salá¹ana, III, p. 281) until the 1950s DÄmḡÄn was renowned for almonds and above all pistachios (2,000 tons a year; ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, p. 45). Agricultural activities today still remain limited in scale, but wheat and cotton, the latter used in the textile industry (MoqaddasÄ«, p. 367), are of good quality (YaḡmÄʾī, pp. 91-93; ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 42-49, 56; µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, pp. 228-29).
Commerce and industry. Thanks to the presence of natural, especially mineral, resources in the DÄmḡÄn basin; to the position of the town on the main east-west route; and perhaps to limited agricultural potential, DÄmḡÄn developed a remarkable capacity for industry and commerce in the past. Metal slag, as well as raw lapis lazuli and abundant small concentrations of calcite and steatite, were found with artifacts at Tepe Hissar; the semiprecious stones showed various stages of bead making. The presence of lapis lazuli indicates trade with eastern lands (Dyson, p. 419; idem and Howard, pp. 13-20, 25-33). Gold used in ornaments (Schmidt, 1937, pl. 35) certainly came from the KÅ«h-e Zar (Gold mountain) 80 km south of DÄmḡÄn, mentioned by AbÅ« Dolaf (fol. 193v). It was still being exploited in the first four decades of the 14th century (KÄšÄnÄ«, p. 216; Nozhat al-qolÅ«b, ed. Le Strange, p. 195), but an attempt to reactivate it under NÄá¹£er-al-DÄ«n Shah Qajar (1264-1313/1848-96) failed (Sepehr, p. 172). The names DarvÄza-ye Zaá¹›ÄÅ«b (Gold-wood gate) and ZarjÅ«y (Gold-seeker brook) in DÄmḡÄn certainly refer to this activity (EÊ¿temÄd-al-Salá¹ana, III, p. 267; ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, 1347 Š./1968, p. 54). Other mines mentioned by AbÅ« Dolaf were those for iron sulfate and salt. Today three coal mines, one turquoise mine, and some other smaller mines are being worked (µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå, p. 143).
Wool and vegetable fibers were in use at Tepe Hissar in prehistoric times (E. Ellis in Dyson and Howard, pp. 119-20), and the tradition was revived later. In the early Islamic period the ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ«s were known for their skill in making fine woolen garments (YaÊ¿qÅ«bÄ«, µþ´Ç±ô»åÄå²Ô, p. 276; MoqaddasÄ«, p. 367), small and large, simple or expensively trimmed, as well as decorated cotton head scarves, turbans, and handkerchiefs that might fetch as much as 2,000 dirhams each (MoqaddasÄ«, p. 367; ḤodÅ«d al-Ê¿alam, p. 146). In addition to bags and sacks, white shawls worn over the head and shoulders (á¹a²â±ô²¹²õÄå²Ô) were also made and sold in great quantities (Ebn Rosta, p. 170; MoqaddasÄ«, p. 367). No manufacture of the sort is left in DÄmḡÄn today, but until forty years ago printed cloth and a type of textile suitable for making tents were still being produced. A zone of light industry is now being introduced in DÄmḡÄn.
Bibliography:
AbÅ« Dolaf, Vtoraya zapiska AbÅ« Dulafa (The second epistle of AbÅ« Dolaf), facs. ed. P. G. Bulgakov and A. B. Khalidov, Moscow, 1960; ed. and tr. V. Minorsky as AbÅ«-Dolaf MisÊ¿ar Ibn Muhalhil’s Travels in Iran, Cairo, 1955.
C. Adle, Une région frontalière iranienne. Le DÄmqÄn de la mort de Tamerlan (807/1405) à l’avènement de ŠÄh Ê¿AbbÄs le Grand (995/1587), Mémoire pour l’École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 2 vols., Paris, 1970.
Idem, “Contribution à la géographie historique du Damghan,” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 1, 1971, pp. 69-104.
Idem, “Note sur le "Qabr-i ŠÄhrūḫ" de Damghan,” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 2, 1974, pp. 173-85.
Idem, “Le minaret du Masjed-e JâmeÊ¿ de Semnân, circa 421-25/1030-34,” Stud. Ir . 4/2, 1975, pp. 177-86.
Idem, “KatÄ«ba-ye kĚī-e menÄr-e masjed-e jÄmeÊ¿-e DÄmḡÄn,” ´¡á¹¯a°ù 7-9, Bahman 1361 Š./February 1983, pp. 297-300.
Idem, “Recherches archéologiques en Iran sur le Kumeš médiéval,” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, November 1984, pp. 271-99.
Idem and A. S. Melikian-Chirvani, “Les monuments du XIe siècle du DâmqÎÊ·ân,” Stud. Ir. 1/2, 1972, pp. 229-97.
N. N. Ambraseys and C. P. Melville, A History of Persian Earthquakes, Cambridge, 1982.
C. A. Azami, “Parmgar Fire Temple,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 55, 1988, pp. 200-06.
µþ²¹²ÔÄå³óÄå wa šahr-e DÄmḡÄn, Tehran, 1368 Š./1989.
S. S. Blair, The Monumental Inscriptions from Early Islamic Iran and Transoxiana, Leiden,1992.
J. Bloom, Minaret. Symbol of Islam, Oxford, 1989.
Ê¿A. A. ¶ÙÄ峾ḡÄnÄ« (KešÄvarz), á¹¢addarvÄza. Moḵtaá¹£ar-Ä« dar tÄrīḵ wa joḡrÄfÄ«Ä-ye DÄmḡÄn, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973.
R. H. Dyson, “Tepe Hissar, Iran Revisited,” Archaeology 30/6, 1977, pp. 418-20.
Idem and S. M. Howard, eds., Tappeh Hesar. Reports of the Restudy Project, 1976, Florence, 1989.
Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan á¹¢anÄ«Ê¿-al-Dawla EÊ¿temÄd-al-Salá¹ana, Maá¹laÊ¿ al-šams, 3 vols., Tehran, 1301-03/1883-86.
A. Godard, “Le Tarikhana de Damghân,” La gazette des beaux-arts 12, 1934, pp. 225-35.
M.-T. ḤakÄ«m, Ganj-e dÄneš, ed. Ê¿A.-Ḥ. NavÄʾī, Tehran, 1366 Š./1987.
J. Hansman, “The Problem of QÅ«mis,” JRAS, 1968/3-4, pp. 111-39.
Idem and D. Stronach, “Excavations at Shahr-i QÅ«mis,” JRAS, 1970/1, pp. 29-62.
Ê¿A.-R. ḤaqÄ«qat (RafÄ«Ê¿), °ÕÄå°ùīḵ-±ð²ÏÅ«³¾±ð²õ, Tehran, 1344 Š./1965.
R. Hillenbrand, “Mosques and Mausolea in KhurÄsÄn and Central Iran,” Iran 9, 1971, pp. 160-62.
Abu’l-QÄsem KÄšÄnÄ«, Ê¿ArÄʾes al-jawÄher wa nafÄʾes al-aá¹Äyeb, ed. Ī. AfšÄr, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966.
L. Lockhart, The Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia, Cambridge, 1958.
W. Madelung, “The Minor Dynasties of Northern Iran,” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 198-249.
Markaz-e ÄmÄr-e ĪrÄn, ŠenÄs-nÄma-ye šahr³óÄå-ye kešvar, 1364, XXII.
OstÄn-e SemnÄn, Tehran, 1364 Š./1985.
Idem, Sar-šomÄrÄ«-e Ê¿omÅ«mÄ«-e nofÅ«s wa maskan, mehr-mÄh-e 1365. NatÄyej-e tafṣīlÄ«, &²õ³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;²¹³ó°ù±ð²õ³ÙÄå²Ô-e DÄmḡÄn 3-182, Tehran, 1368 Š./1989.
K. Maurer Trinkaus, The Partho-Sassanian Northeast Frontier. Settlement in the Damghan Plain, Iran, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1981a.
Idem, “Pre-Islamic Settlement and Land Use in Damghan, Northeast Iran,” Iranica Antiqua 18, 1981b, pp. 119-44.
Idem, “Settlement of Highlands and Lowlands in Early Islamic DÄmg³óÄån,” Iran 23, 1985, pp. 129-40.
Moḥammad-á¹¢Ädeq MÅ«sawÄ«, °ÕÄå°ùīḵ-±ð²µÄ«³ÙÄ«²µ´Ç&²õ³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;Äå, ed. S. NafÄ«sÄ«, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1363 Š./1984.
J. R. Perry, Karim Khan Zand. A History of Iran, 1747-1779, Chicago, 1979.
ZakarÄ«yÄʾ QazvÄ«nÄ«, Ê¿AjÄʾeb al-maḵlÅ«qÄt wa ḡarÄʾeb al-mawjÅ«dÄt, ed. W. á¹¢abūḥī, Tehran, n.d.
Moḥammad b. Ê¿Abd-al-KarÄ«m ŠahrestÄnÄ«, al-Melal wa’l-nehal, ed. Ê¿A.-M. WakÄ«l, Cairo, 1968.
F. Sarre, Denkmäler persischer Baukunst, 2 vols., Berlin, 1901-10.
E. F. Schmidt, “Tepe Hissar Excavations, 1931,” The Museum Journal 23/4, 1933, pp. 323-483.
Idem, Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, Philadelphia, 1937.
A.-Ê¿A. Mowarreḵ-al-Dawla Sepehr, ĪrÄn dar jang-e bozorg, Tehran, 1336 Š./1957.
J. M. Smith, Jr., The History of the SarbadÄr Dynasty 1336-1381 A.D. and Its Sources, the Hague and Paris, 1970.
M. Sotuda, QelÄÊ¿-e EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«ya dar rešta kÅ«h³óÄå-ye Alborz, Tehran, 1345 Š./1965.
M.-Ê¿A. ṬÄherÄ«yÄ, TarÄna³óÄå wa folklor³óÄå-ye DÄmḡÄn, DÄmḡÄn, 1344 Š./1965.
Idem, DÄmḡÄn-e šeš-hazÄr sÄla, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968.
D. Thompson, Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqabad near Rayy, London, 1976.
Moḥammad b. Aḥmad ṬūsÄ«, Ê¿AjÄʾeb al-maḵlÅ«qÄt wa ḡarÄʾeb al-mawjÅ«dÄt, ed. M. SotÅ«da, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966.
D. N. Wilber, The Architecture of Islamic Iran. The Il-K³óÄånid Period, Princeton, N.J., 1955.
E. YaḡmÄʾī, JoḡrÄfÄ«Ä-ye tÄrīḵī-e DÄmḡÄn, Tehran, 1326 Š./1947.
E. von Zambaur, Die Münzprägungen des Islams, zeitlich und örtlich geordnet I, Wiesbaden, 1968.
Figure 37. Summary plan of DÄmḡÄn, with main arteries and sites. 1. City wall. 2. Stream; presumed water courses are indicated by dotted lines. 3. Presumed cultivated lands abandoned during periods of decline, approximately 13th-20th centuries. 4. Garden areas (kÅ«Äa-bÄḡ). 5. Inhabited town, ca. 15th century. 6. Safavid caravansary. 7. Portion of the road to SemnÄn in use from the 17th century to the 1930s. 8 EmÄmzÄda JaÊ¿far complex. 9. Pre-17th century portion of the road to SemnÄn, in use again since the 1930s. 10. Ray gate and the ²úÄå³úÄå°ù. 11. Citadel (arg or qaḷʿa). 12. Main artery linking Ray gate to Khorasan gate. 13. The Great Mosque. 14. PÄ«r-e Ê¿AlamdÄr. 15. Khorasan gate. 16. Road to Khorasan. 17. Cemetery. 18. TÄrÄ« ḴÄna mosque. 19. Southern gate. 20. Road to KÅ«h-e Zar, Jandaq, and Yazd. 21. New main avenues: a. Connecting the Ray gate to the SemnÄn Road; b. To ŠÄhrÅ«d; c. To the railway station.
(Chahryar Adle)
Originally Published: December 15, 1993
Last Updated: November 14, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. VI, Fasc. 6, pp. 632-638
