Having visited these meagre relics on either cliff of the volcanic valley, we descend to the western ravine. The stream is flowing beneath the deep shade of trees, and prattling over ledges of rock. This portion of the ravine is termed Takht-i-Suleyman, or Solomon’s throne, from the appearance of the lofty platform which it skirts. Just north of the citadel the valley narrows, and becomes a deep gorge. We make our way along the side of the cleft. It was once spanned by the single arch of a stone bridge. A little distance further, the stream from Kulaxis joins our stream, coming in on the left bank through a ravine and by a cascade. Pursuing our course up the glen, for the space of half-an-hour from the confluence, we reach the Armenian village of Madavantz.
Madavantz is a semi-troglodyte village, which reminds one of Vardzia (Vol. I. Fig. 18, p. 80). The dwellings are only partially built out from caves in the face of the lava. The place seems as old as the hills. The valley has become extremely narrow, and the cliffs rise with considerable steepness on either bank of the little stream. The village of caves overhangs the right bank. On the left bank is a little church, of which the interior chapel and altar are sunk into the rock. The main body is built out, and is supported on stone columns. The priest informs us that the chapel was built by the Apostle Thaddeus, who also preached at Madavantz. However this may be, it evidently dates from a hoary antiquity, and it is by far the most ancient building in the whole district.[7] It is dedicated to the Mother of God—Astvatsatsin.
Let me review, for the sake of the reader who may not have leisure to pursue the excursions which are embodied in the above description, the results and impressions of our visit to these ruins. There are two distinct sites of cities which once were prosperous, but which now harbour a mere handful of miserable human beings. There is the walled fortress on the shore, a work of the sixteenth century, built by order of Ottoman Sultans. It is usually termed the kala, or fortress; while the more ancient site in the ravine north-west of this kala is generally alluded to as the kharab-shehr, or ruined city. In the case of the Ottoman stronghold the walls and two mosques, one with a fine minaret, are still erect. But it is rather the happy choice of situation that impresses the traveller, than any special merit in the architecture. If Akhlat should ever recover her former position, let us hope that the new city will grow around this site. At the present day, even the seat of administration for the district has been removed from the kala to the suburb of Erkizan.
Of the older city in the ravine scarcely a remnant remains, although it is still possible to trace the foundations of the walls. On the other hand, several of the mausolea are still erect, and are distributed over a considerable space of ground. These, and extensive graveyards, are the monuments of that ancient city which have been spared by the ravages of war and the lapse of time. Among the tombs, there is one of particular excellence, reproduced in my illustration ([Fig. 182]). It would do honour to any school of architecture. It is one of the fine things in the world. A glance at the illustrations of the circular chapels of Ani (Vol. I. Ch. XVIII. Figs. 85, 86, 88), and at some of the elaborate stone traceries of the Armenian style (ibid. Figs. 73 and 77) will throw light upon the source of the inspiration which produced it, or contributed thereto in the greatest degree. This and the several similar tombs at Akhlat are all works of the latter portion of the thirteenth century. A later and less pleasing development is the tomb of Prince Bayindar, erected at an interval of two centuries.
But who was Bayindar, and who the persons with the cacophonous names to whose memory these mausolea were built? The East, which ever opposes the type to the individual, leaves so little for busy History to explore. At a time when Dante was composing the Divine Comedy, and when the Italian cities were commencing to throb with a new life of which every impulse is reflected both in literature and in art, architects, whose names soon perished, were erecting these monuments to princes of whom the names alone remain. What little may be gleaned from the sources at my disposal of the history of Akhlat, may be summarised in the following short account.
The place is first known under the name of Khlath, and as an important Armenian town. Literature thus confirms the surmise which is readily suggested by the little chapel in the gorge at Madavantz. Indeed, one feels that this village of caves is perhaps the oldest of these ancient sites, like the crypt upon which in Europe has risen the edifice of some Gothic cathedral, but which once served as a Druids’ shrine. The shrine still remains; but the churches and monasteries have disappeared which, even as late as the end of the thirteenth century, were flourishing at Akhlat.[8] But the city does not appear to have again come into Armenian possession after its conquest by the Arabs during the era of the caliphs. Its close vicinity to the Kurdish mountains and to the passage of Bitlis explains the long sequence of Mussulman rule.
The Byzantine Empire, however, was successful in wresting it from the Mohammedans, but only for a short time. It paid tribute to Leo VI., a successor of the Cæsars (A.D. 886–911);[9] and it was annexed to the Empire under Basil the Second (in 993). But it fell to the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh century, from whose hands it passed into those of the Merwanids, a line of Kurdish princes which had arisen from the debris of the caliphate, and whom the Seljuks had dispossessed of their seats about Diarbekr.[10] The rule of these Kurds appears to have been so harsh that they were driven out by the inhabitants; a warrior of Turkish descent, who had been the slave of the Seljuk governor of Marand in Azerbaijan, was called in as their Prince. This individual, by name Sokman, founded a so-called Seljuk dynasty, which, under the pompous title of Shahs of Armenia, reigned at Akhlat for upwards of a hundred years (1100–1207).[11] They were succeeded by the Ayubids, descendants of the renowned Saladin, and of Kurdish extraction. The great siege of Akhlat by the Sultan of Kharizme (Khwarazm) falls within this period. The event still forms the centre of the slight historical knowledge which is possessed by the least uneducated of the present inhabitants. They attribute to it the present condition of the walls. After two attempts which were unsuccessful, the sultan made desperate efforts to reduce this strong place. Twenty siege machines were brought against it from the side of the sea; and, so complete was the investiture, that the besieged were compelled to kill their dogs for food. It was at last taken by storm (in A.D. 1229). But the triumph of Jelal-ud-Din was not of long duration; his successes aroused the alarm of the Seljuk sultan of Iconium; and the bloody battle of Akhlat at once decided the fate of his prize and sounded the death-knell of the Kharizmian empire.
Engraved and printed by Published by Longmans, Green & Co., London Wagner & Debes, Leipzig
PLAN OF AKHLAT