Diriyah Narrated by Its Built Environment: the Story of the First Saudi State (1744-1818)

Home , Banu Tamim, Battle of Jeddah (1813), Diriyah, Eastern Arabia, House of Saud, Mehmed IV

Diriyah Narrated by Its Built Environment: The Story of the First Saudi State (1744-1818)

By Nawaf Bin Ayyaf Almogren

Bachelor of Architecture King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 2016

Submitted to the Department of Architecture in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Architecture Studies

at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

May 2020

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.

Signature of Author: ______Department of Architecture May 8th, 2020

Certified by: ______Nasser Rabbat Professor and Director of the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by: ______Leslie K. Norford Professor of Building Technology Chair, Department Committee on Graduate Students

Thesis Supervisor

Nasser Rabbat, PhD Aga Khan Professor of Islamic Architecture

and readers

Timothy Hyde, PhD Professor of the History and Theory of Architecture

Abdullah Al-Mutawa, PhD Professor of Modern History

2 Diriyah Narrated by Its Built Environment: The Story of the First Saudi State (1744-1818)

Nawaf Bin Ayyaf Almogren

Submitted to the Department of Architecture on May, 28, 2020

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Architecture Studies, AKPIA

Abstract:

Diriyah is a parched settlement in the arid deserts of Central Arabia. It went, very swiftly, from not differing much compared to its local sphere, to assuming the role of a beacon capital which controlled Arabia almost in its entirety. From its ambitious emergence in 1744– which stemmed from a historical pact between political authority and religious influence, until its punitive downfall in 1818– after assuming the role of a bunker under siege for six long months, Diriyah witnessed numerous political stages which effected its built environment. Between a dire need to defend and fortify at one point, and an eager desire to show luxuriousness and grandeur at another, Diriyah’s built environment became a shimmering pond reflecting the ever-shifting political status of the state at any given time.

By relying on historical textual accounts, infused with visual means of analysis, this thesis explores, and narrates, the urban development history of Diriyah during the timeframe of the First Saudi State (1744-1818), through using its built environment as a main examination tool. Accordingly, Atturaif historic district in Diriyah, was chosen as an urban model which directly stemmed as a result of establishing the state under the double weight of politics and religion. Located on an elevated majestic plateau, Atturaif became the center of power, and the decision-making hub of the ever-growing ambitious state. Hence, its urban form was examined, its core elements investigated, and notions of its symbolism analyzed.

Eventually, the project described herein argues that the urban story of Diriyah presented an interesting model to analyze. How a strategic pact between the two different entities of politics and religion came together to turn a small patch of land, amongst ever-battling tribally- ruled settlements, into a capital of a State which possessed the largest extent of influence in the Arabian Peninsula since the 7th century.

Thesis Advisor: Nasser Rabbat Title: Aga Khan Professor of Islamic Architecture

3 v Acknowledgments:

“All praise, glory, and thanks be to Allah, the most beneficent and most merciful”

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my thesis supervisor and student adviser, Professor Nasser Rabbat, for guiding my journey at MIT every step of the way.

Without his persistent help and continuous advice, this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my committee members, Professor Timothy Hyde and Professor

Abdullah Al-Mutawa, for kindly enriching this project with valuable inputs and kind feedbacks.

Above ground, I am eternally indebted to my family: My father Abdulaziz– my mentor and champion, my mother Hind– my rock and guardian, my beloved brothers Faisal and

Salman, and my dearest sisters Sara, Nouf, and Sheikha for their undying support. I must also thank my friends for their unwavering encouragement. Additionally, I am exceptionally grateful to my country and leadership for sponsoring my studies and providing me with this opportunity of a lifetime. I will forever cherish my time at MIT, and treasure the astounding memories and life experiences I had encountered these past two years.

In end, I must not forget to steer my utmost feelings of gratitude towards Diriyah. Those parched ruins, shells of the vibrant structures they once were, acted as a shimmering light amidst all the gloom and isolation caused by COVID-19. So far away from home, Diriyah kept persistently providing me with unceasing motivation. I found in exploring those prized ruins a comforting virtual sanctuary which made me feel significantly less-distant.

4 v Table of Contents:

• Page 3. Abstract • Page 4. Acknowledgements • Page 6. Introduction

Chapter 1. Literature Review 1.1 Historical Textual Sources: • Page 11. Local Historian Narratives • Page 12. Orientalist Travelers Accounts • Page 14. Poet Descriptions • Page 15. Supplementary Indirect Sources

1.2 Architectural - Textual Sources: • Page 16. On Diriyah’s Fortifications • Page 17. On Diriyah’s Distinctive Structures • Page 18. On Diriyah’s Residential Styles • Page 19. On Models & Prototypes of Settlements in Najd

Chapter 2. (1446 - 1744): • Page 21. (1446) The Return Back... Diriyah’s First Settlement • Page 25. (1446-1744) The Following Three Centuries • Page 29. (1744) Arrival of Ibn Abdulwahhab & Declaring a Saudi State • Page 33. - Features of a Historic Pact Declaring a Saudi State • Page 35. - Qualities of a Unique Relationship

Chapter 3. (1765 - 1818): • Page 39. (1765) Diriyah After Ibn Saud’s Passing • Page 43. (1765-1818) Fate of a Unique Governing Relationship • Page 46. (1818) Downfall of Diriyah • Page 51. - The Defensive Strategy • Page 53. - The Siege and the Battle • Page 57. - Deserting Diriyah... or What is Left of It

Chapter 4. Atturaif As Model: • Page 60. Neighborhoods or Towns? Notions of Urban Autonomy and Independence • Page 67. Apparent and Symbolic Needs for Atturaif • Page 73. Analyzing Atturaif’s Urban Fabric and Central Core • Page 79. A Matchless Structure to the Region Introduced in Atturaif • Page 86. Atturaif’s Architectural Decorating & Ornamenting

• Page 91. Conclusion • Page 96. Illustration Credits • Page 97. Bibliography

5 v Introduction:

“Superiority results from a group feeling (‘asabiyyah). Only by God’s help in

establishing his religion do individuals desires come together in agreement … And

hearts become united. … When hearts are turned towards the truth and reject the

world and whatever is false, and advances toward God, they become one in their

outlook. There are a few differences. As a result, the extent of the state widens, and

the dynasty grows.” – Ibn Khaldun1

Present-day Saudi Arabia is the third version of a Saudi State since the mid 18th century.

Prior to that period, the reins of power swiftly shifted among local tribes throughout Arabia, with no real tie to unify them all. The first ‘unifying-all’ Saudi state was founded in 1744, with the city of Diriyah serving as its capital. The state lasted until its downfall, by the mighty

Ottoman forces, in 1818. The second Saudi state founded in 1824, and collapsed in 1891. While the third and current Saudi state was founded in 1932, after a long unification process which started in 1902, and thrives to this day. Spanning the time period of the first Saudi state (1744-

1818), this thesis will explore and narrate the urban story of the city of Diriyah.

Diriyah was first settled in the mid-15th century by the great-grandfather of the Al-Saud family upon his return to his ancestral home in central Arabia from the Arabian Peninsula’s eastern region.2 After nearly three centuries of relative stability, Diriyah welcomed a highly revered religious reformer, Muhammed Bin Abdulwahhab, who was forced off a neighboring settlement. His arrival resulted in a historical pact between this prominent religious cleric,

1 Ibn Khaldun (1332-1405), Muqaddimah Chapter 3 section 4. Translated by Franz Rosenthal 2 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982). Dir’iyyah the First Capital. Riyadh. First Edition. p.5

6 Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Abdulwahhab3, who sought to reform Islamic teachings from what was believed to be heretic practices, and Diriyah’s political ruler, Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud4, who had aimed to unify Arabia under his rule. That pact resulted in (Diriyah’s Charter)– which asserted the birth of the First Saudi State in 1744. Their agreement established a steadfast union between the political and religious powers, forming two presiding entities that profoundly relied upon one another to maintain their linked legitimacy in a codependent fashion. Diriyah was the seat of this emerging power, and that is partly what makes it a compelling case to investigate through its built environment: as the double pronged power manifested itself in the city layout by allotting different clusters to its different entities.

Diriyah emerged as the capital of an overly-ambitious state in 1744. Moving forwards, under the three rulers who succeeded Ibn Saud (Imam Abdulaziz Ibn Muhammed, Imam Saud

Ibn Abdulaziz, and Imam Abdullah Ibn Saud), the state boundaries stretched to include almost the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula through varying phases of expansion and growth. Some were gradual and cautious, while others were intense and abrupt. Hence, not long after, its overreaching influence and steadfast acquisition of both supporters and lands, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, the region’s ostensible authority– the Ottoman Empire– became agitated and inclined to confront. The thesis will present a brief history of how the tension between the two sides developed, and what caused the Ottoman’s final viewpoint that an attack on Diriyah was a necessity.

In 1818, after drawn-out and destructive battles in lands under the control of the Saudis,

Diriyah was destined to be the final stage of the struggle. Diriyah had to serve as a military

3 Except for specific placements, he will be referred to as (Ibn Abdulwahhab) throughout the thesis. 4 Except for specific placements, he will be referred to as (Ibn Saud) throughout the thesis.

7 bunker under a brutal 6-month siege and heavy bombardment from the robust Ottoman armies.

Diriyah was not prepared for, nor anticipating, such a battle with a far grander adversary with superior artillery capabilities and equipment, despite its defensive towers, barrier-walls and other fortifications employed in its attempt to serve as a bunker. It could not withstand the relentless bombardment carried out by its attackers. The battle led to Diriyah’s utter destruction as a city in 1818, and the consequent relocation of the capital to Riyadh for the newly-emerging second Saudi state afterwards.

Although Diriyah has been heavily studied from multiple approaches and varied perspectives, as the forthcoming literature review will show, not many sources exist on the urban history of Diriyah. As a result, this thesis aims to answer the following key enquires:

What made Diriyah physically different, in comparison to the neighboring settlements scattered around the central region of Arabia? How did the interdependent relationship between the two power entities, of political authority and religious influence, actually function in the layout of the city? And eventually, what effect did the pact between the two entities, which declared the new state, have on the built environment and urban fabric of Diriyah?

To properly answer those queries, this thesis developed a methodology that will help enhance studying the case of Diriyah, and hopefully similar cases of cities that either lost their archives, or never had them, yet still exists descriptions of them. Being that this thesis explores a version of the city of Diriyah that is lost in ruins, it struggled with sources in its attempt to reconstruct history. Hence, it adopted two analytical means of textual and visual investigations, which will hopefully complement one another and can be put together in the service of an interpretation.

8 First, this thesis has identified a crucial timeline of key dates and vital events which took place in Diriyah during, and before, the establishment of the state. This timeline will help situate the reader to better understand the final result of Diriyah’s downfall and destruction as an accumulative process. The historical chapters of this thesis will be approached in a chronological manner, through an infused historical and urban scope analysis. 1446-1744: from Diriyah’s first settlement until the establishment of a Saudi state, 1744: the arrival of Ibn

Abdulwahhab to Diriyah and the consequential historic pact with Ibn Saud, 1765-1817:

Diriyah after Ibn Saud’s passing until its final days, and 1818: the downfall of Diriyah. Each event will be examined by a merged narrative of a historical perspective, which attempt to answer the previously-introduced key enquiries, as well as provide a section-specific exploration through an urban lens. By examining each of the events individually, it is hoped that the reader will better comprehend the aforementioned first two enquiries, regarding what made Diriyah unique.

Ultimately, a cornerstone of this thesis is its urban related investigation. To tackle the final enquiry on what effects did the momentous pact had on Diriyah’s built environment, this thesis will examine one of Diriyah’s core urban foundations, the Atturaif historic district. Atturaif presents a stimulating model of an urban product which stemmed from the pact between political and religious powers. This thesis argues that Atturaif being formed as a new governmental-hub for the state’s rulers, circa 1766, should be regarded as the most crucial event of urbanization in Diriyah’s history during the timespan of the first Saudi State. For it gives a vivid and symbolic clue on the suggested uniqueness of Diriyah.

Hence, it is hoped that the reader of this thesis will be able to better fathom not only the urban history of the city of Diriyah and its urban development stages during the timeframe

9 (1744-1818), but specifically to better comprehend the historical events which induced the final urban outcome we seek to explore. Wittingly and unwittingly, Diriyah was forced to play multiple roles in its short lifespan. It went from being a humble, arid, and small-scaled Najdi settlement; to emerging as a capital of an overly-ambitious state that ruled Arabia from sea to sea; to eventually serving as a military bunker under a brutal siege with heavy bombardment.

For those reasons, and many more illuminated within the folds of the forthcoming thesis,

Diriyah presents a case of a city dictated by dual-pronged authority. The overlap between the co-dependent political and religious entities in urban layouts is what makes the case of Diriyah worthy of being examined, studied, and further reviewed.

10 v Chapter 1. Literature Review:

Diriyah, a parched town in the arid Najd5 region, was the governing force of Islam’s Two

Holy Places as well as the decision-making center for almost all of Arabia in the mid 18th century. That made it the subject of various studies, local and foreign, ranging from academia to popular history and well beyond. Thus, attempting to successfully tackle all available sources within the scope of this thesis, requires classifying them into two main sets. Historical textual sources– indirect sources that do not necessarily touch upon Diriyah’s built environment, but rather offer historical inputs and narratives that are of extreme value, either to properly introduce the hypothesis or to set its proper contextual framework, and architectural textual sources– that are directly built-environment related.

• 1.1 Historical – Textual Sources:

1.1.1 – Local Historian Narratives:

This set consists of numerous accounts on the emergence of Diriyah as capital; the materialization of the first Saudi State; and the origins of what some refer to as the Wahhabi movement, or the Salafi call as it is labeled in local contexts.6 The first of these sources comprises of the extremely important, locally-celebrated narratives of those few historians who lived during that time and narrated their personal perspectives, such as Ibn Bishr (1780 - 1873)7

5 Najd is a commonly-used term in reference to the central region of Saudi Arabia. 6 “Wahhabi or Wahhabisim” are terms of which Saudis do not necessarily adhere to or agree with. As they argue that Mohammed Ibn Abdulwahhab was merely a reformer and a person who renewed previously- established ideas and attempted to clarify Islamic thought from novelty and heresy, not a creator of new teachings. Other words such as “Salafi” are locally-used to refer to such movement. 7 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd. Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives

11 and Ibn Ghannam (birth unknown - 1811).8 They are considered the primary sources on that time period. Being among the few contemporary sources, their perspective is extremely valuable. Although they provide an overview of political contexts, and in covering historical events, these sources regrettably lack in providing significant details on how the city was formed and operated. Being memoire-like journals for their writers’ personal experiences, they are most notable for their descriptive scenes of everyday life in Diriyah during that time. Other more contemporary sources to our day, from select Diriyah natives, such as Ibn Khamis

(1982)9, Al-Awwad (2019)10, and Al-Othaymeen (2013)11 also offer extreme valuable perspectives, being that they cover local opinions and native views. Al-Awwad is an emerging scholar with deep family roots in Diriyah. What particularizes his work is the distinctive number of oral sources stemming from the staggering number of interviews he conducted over the years with local experts and elderly Diryah natives, who passed down their stories from generation to another. Hence, although not exclusively reliable as sole sources, the significance of his work reside in his unmatched reach to verbal sources, which may verify or discourage certain claims and theories. While Ibn Khamis is a source that is considered Diriyah’s lead historian locally, being that he dedicated his life to narrating the story of Diriyah. Although his publication on Diriyah was published almost four decades ago, it is still the lead referenced source on Diryah, other than the aforementioned historical narratives of Ibn Bisher.

1.1.2 – Orientalist Travelers Accounts:

The travel logs of European (mostly French) travelers during the 18th and early 19th centuries are an important source of information as well, as they were the first to report on the new

8 Ibn Ghannam, Husain. (1994), Ibn Ghannam’s History: Rawdat al-Afkar wal-Afham li-Murtad Hal al-Imam wa-Ta’dad Ghazwat dhawi al-Islam. Amman: Dar Al-Shurooq 9 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital. Riyadh. First Edition 10 Al-Awwad, Abdulhakeem. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. Beirut: Jadawel 11 Al-Othaymeen, Abdullah. (2013), Al-Diri’yah Nush’atan wa Tatawworan fi ‘Ahd al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula. Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives

12 emergence of a Saudi State based on the pact between Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud and Sheikh

Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab. The French were believed to have been particularly interested given the influence, and reach, the enjoyed in Egypt during the timeframe when a Saudi state had emerged. Al-Boqaa’y12 conducted a study to trace the earliest references in French historiography on the Saudis, Diriyah, Muhammed Ibn Saud, or Muhammed Ibn

Abdulwahhab, pointing out that the Danish traveler Carsten Niebuhr, 1774, was the first

Westerner to report on the Saudis. While Guillaume-Antoine Olivier (Voyage dans l’empire

Ottoman, 1800) was the first Frenchman to do so.13 He was later followed by other Frenchmen, such as Redmond 1806, Rousseau in 1818, and namely Corancez (Histoire des Wahabis, 1810).

One of the most notable accounts from French travelers reporting on Arabia, came from the Frenchman Felix Mengin years after the establishment of the Saudi State. With the exclusive influence he possessed– stemming from his close relationship with Muhammed Ali

Pasha of Egypt, and the unique exposure he obtained– a result of his opportunity to interview

Saudis in exile after Diriyah collapsed, Felix Mengin (Histoire de l'Égypte, 1823) produced one of the most important reports on the downfall of the Saudi state.14 It was translated into

Arabic with appendices and introductions from the translator, Mohammed Al-Boqaa’y,15 and to this day is considered a cornerstone in understanding the narrative of the Egyptian Ottomans as well as the perspective of the Saudis from the assault of which they faced. Reasons for the significance of Mengin’s accounts is the close relationship he enjoyed with Egypt’s Wali

Muhammed Ali Pasha, which provided him with a great level of exposure. Not only that, but

12 Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2004), Awa’il al-Kutob al-Faranseyya ‘an Da’wat al-Shaikh Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab al-‘Eslahiyya. Al-Darah Journal, 30(3), 9-34 13 Olivier, Guillaume Anotine. (1800), Voyage dans l'empire Othoman, l'Égypte et la Perse. Paris H. Agasse 14 Mengin, Felix. (1823), Histoire de l'Égypte sous le gouvernement de Mohammed-Aly, ou, Récit des événemens politiques et militaires qui ont eu lieu depuis le départ des Français jusqu'en. Paris 15 Mengin, Felix & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali ‘ala al-Jazirah al-Arabiya. Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives

13 Mengin was also able to interview some of the Saudis in exile, including the grandson of

Muhammed Bin Abdulwahhab. Forster Sadlier is another provider of valuable insights (Diary of a Journey Across Arabia, 1866)16, as the part of his journey when he passed by Diriyah was just after the its defeat and consequent destruction in 1819. Hence, he provided an insight to its fresh ruins. The French were not alone in showing interest in Arabia by covering Diriyah’s downfall. Sir Harford Jones-Brydges (1834)17 provided a British insight as part of his accounts covering the transactions of the King’s mission to the court of Persia in the years of 1807 to

1811. In it, Brydges appended a separate section introducing a brief history on what he referred to as the “Wahauby”, which was backed by further reports from different travelers and writers, such as Burckhardt, among others. His accounts are another essential source in understanding the rise and fall of the first Saudi State, hence they were correspondingly translated into Arabic, but at a much later stage by Al-Juhany (2005).18

1.1.3 – Poet Descriptions:

A crucial method of expressing oneself and asserting history in Arabia throughout history is through oral narrative and poetry. These orators and poets tended to focus upon critical events and periods of social and political change as they came and went, and Diriyah’s downfall was one of the most vital ones. Such a key event indeed spurred many poets to document their own experiences about what they had encountered. Foremost would indisputably be Muhammed

Abu Nuhayya- who is also known as Diriyah’s poet. In 1818, Abu Nuhayya wrote a celebrated poem lamenting his beloved Diriyah after its destruction, in which he described scenes of once vibrant sites now becoming shells of what they were. That vital event not only inspired

16 Sadlier, Forster. (1866), Diary of a Journey Across Arabia. From El Khatif in the Persian Gulf, to Yambo in the Red Sea, During the Year 1819. Education Society’s Press, Byculla 17 Brydges, Sir Hardord Jones. (1834), An Account of the Transactions of His Majesty’s Mission to the Court of Persia in the Years 1807-11. London: J. Bohn 18 Al-Juhany, Uwaidah. (2005), Moojaz li Tareekh al-Wahhabi. Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives

14 Diriyah’s then-poets, but also numerous ones in successive eras. Fortunately, a large number of such poetry was traced and gathered in a singular publication (Ibn Khamis, 1982)19 which may be branded as a key reference. From this compilation, one can infer certain aspects of the built environment of Diriyah during the timeframe under review. As poetry is often exaggerated in its descriptions, it cannot be taken as a credible source if it offered exclusive intel. Nonetheless, it does provide an excellent source of local portrayal and depiction.

1.1.4 – Supplementary Indirect Sources:

Further literature themes were also published on the related topic, and local literature was not alone in such mission. A few Western scholars wrote on the rise of a Saudi state in Arabia and the emergence of the Wahhabi movement– namely David Commins (The Wahhabi Mission,

2006)20, whose study was translated into Arabic at a later stage.21 Interestingly, some rather inventive studies, namely Facey’s,22 attempted to reconstruct a visual impression of how life was lived in Diriyah 200 years ago. Similarly, Al-Mutawa23 attempted to examine both the positions and roles of Diriyah’s community in events transpiring in the surrounding area during the timespan of the first Saudi State. Though scarce, some studies made attempts at examining the overall situation in Najdi settlements prior to 1744, as in, even prior to the thought of a state that unifies them all. Such aims are presented in Al-Juhany’s research.24 In those, the approach was to study the social, political, and religious conditions in Najd during the three centuries preceding the rise of the Saudi State.

19 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital. Riyadh. First Edition 20 Commins, David. (2006), The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. New York: I.B. Tauris. 21 Al-Askar, Abdullah. (2012), Al-Dawa Al-Wahabeyya wal Mamlakah al-Arabeyya al-Saudia. Beirut: Jadawel 22 Facey, William. (2001), Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. London: Stacey International 23 Al-Mutawa, Abdullah. (2003), Mujtama' al-Diriyah fi 'Ahd al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula. Riyadh: Saudi Historical Society 24 Al-Juhany, Uwaidah. (2002), Najd Before the Salafi Reform Movement; Social, Political, and Religious Conditions During the Three Centuries Preceding the Rise of the Saudi State. Reading: Ithaca Press

However, to properly do so, an important set of resources to tackle would be the Ottoman

Archives. Given that not only were they the leading regional power during that timeframe, and held control over Najd’s neighbors on the east and west of the peninsula, but also given the fact that they were the power which eventually handed Diriyah its defeat and caused its downfall. Some studies, like those compiled by Zakaria Gurshon (2010),25 explored the rather untouched Ottoman archives, which regarding their encounters with the Saudis were relatively unexamined by Arabic scholars for unknown reasons. Although this specific study’s timeline

(1745 – 1914) goes further than the scope of this thesis, it does however cover a reasonable extent of useful information transcribed from the Ottoman accounts of Diriyah and the rise of the Saudi State.

• 1.2 Architectural – Textual Sources:

1.2.1 – On Diriyah’s Fortifications:

Many studies have attempted to investigate Diriyah’s fortifications during the timespan of the first Saudi State. Some, like Al-Shehri (2018)26, focused on tracking their technical aspects by detailing the two main types of fortifications – defense towers and defensive walls/barriers – as well as their building material and structuring methods. This study, although providing an excellent survey of the fortification structures, does not answer enquiries as to why such measures took shape the way they did, nor does it deal with the importance of their location.

For those objectives, other scholars such as Al-Qahtani (2010),27 analytically examined the

25 Gurshon, Zakariyya. (2010), Al-Uthmaniyoon wa al-Saud fel ‘Ersheef al-Uthmani (1745-1914). Beirut, Al- Dar Al-Arabiyyah lel Mawsoo’at 26 Al-Shehri, Suleiman. (2018), Tahseenat al-Diri’yah al-Difa’eyyah Iban al-Dawlah al-Saudia al-Aula (1744- 1818). Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives 27 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah wa Su’qotoha (1816-1818). Riyadh: DARAH - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives.

16 opposite angle of military tactics, movements, and campaigns which led to Diriyah’s downfall.

By tracing the stages of the campaign’s progress – from its first entry in the Arabian Peninsula until its arrival to Diriyah – and progressing through the successive battles along the way, this study attempted to present justifications for why such fortification measures were found the way they were, in the places where they were found. While admirable, these reports are still of minor impact to the analytical aim of this thesis study. Although some scholars28 had briefly touched upon how Diriyah’s fortifications were apparently aesthetically different from ones found elsewhere in Najd or in the larger region of Arabia, no studies managed to identify how

Diriyah’s built fortifications functioned in comparison to other examples found in the region.

Such a comparative reading is of an immense necessity to better answer enquiries of how was

Diriyah different compared to its surrounding settlements. If it followed the functions of models found elsewhere, in Arabia or beyond, that could also give a perspective on who did

Diriyah’s builders look to for inspiration. What other paradigms did they look at as a sample?

Did they recognize that the Ottoman forces were the vital threat? If so, did they look at other successful attempts from the enemies of the Ottomans? Those are important analytical enquiries that this thesis will attempt to tackle.

1.2.2 – On Diriyah’s Distinctive Structures:

Diriyah was home to a variety of extraordinary structures which deservedly attracted the interest of historians, architects and archeologists, for their rich representations, exquisite building methods, and grandiose uniqueness. Studies were conducted to survey some of those key structures prior to any restoration and rehabilitation attempt. Besides the momentous Salwa

28 Al-Awwad, Abdulhakeem. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. Beirut: Jadawel, and, Al- Othaymeen, Abdullah. (2013), Al-Diri’yah Nush’atan wa Tatawworan fi ‘Ahd al-Dawla al-Saudia al- Aula. Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives

17 Palace29 which was studied extensively30, other fundamental buildings were also on the receiving end of considerable scholarly focus. For the unique value it represented, being such a distinctive structure in its function for that region, one study31 examined Diriyah’s marvelous bath and annex structures. The palace of Fahd Ibn Saud– one of the last defenders of Diriyah– is another example that was notably scrutinized by Jamal Olayan (Palace of Fahd Ibn Saud,

2019).32 This specific study’s importance lies in its endeavor to identify evidence of the lost architectural elements and structural components of this unique 18th century palace, prior to the multiple restoration and rehabilitation efforts, as well as to discern its original form and spatial composition at the time of its construction. From it, one can indirectly extract building methods of that time period.

1.2.3 – On Diriyah’s Residential Styles:

Furthermore, Diriyah’s residential styles and how they changed over the years were at heart of certain studies. In a fundamental study, Al-Fukair33 attempted to tackle a vital and persistent enquiry of Diriyah’s built form in its current status: whether the present residential styles, which were developed in sequential stages, did in fact stem from local needs and fit its historical urban environment or not. Furthermore, for some, tracing Diriyah’s historical mosques was a scholarly goal in its own, Al-Jideed.34 This study examined the five different mosques found in Diriyah’s historical neighborhood of Atturaif, which will help lay the

29 The ruling palace. 30 Hashim, Syed Anis. (2005), The Salwa Palace and the Salwa Mosque. Cultural Program, Arriyadh Development Authority. Riyadh, KSA 31 Yassin, Zuhair. (1980), Al-Turaif Bath and its Annexes. Jeddah: KSA General Administration of Antiquities and Museums 32 Olayan, Jamal. (2019), Drafting the History of the Palace of Fahd Ibn Saud at al-Diriyyah and the Analysis of its Components Utilizing Architectural Evidence. Al-Darah, 11-56 33 Al-Fukair, B. (2005), Ta’gyeer al-Anmat al-Sakaniya fi Madinat al-Diri’yah. Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives 34 Al-Jideed, M. (2009), Al-Masajid al-Taqlediyya bi Hay al-Turaif fel Diri’yah. Riyadh: King Saud University, College of Architecture and Planning Research Center.

18 groundwork for this thesis, not only in its attempt to trace commonalities which may lie in different Diriyah mosques, but also in identifying the general theme and key design concepts of mosques in Diriyah, and how might they differ in comparison to other non-religious structures or mosques elsewhere.

1.2.4 – On Models & Prototypes of Settlements in Najd:

Many have struggled to visualize a model of a traditional Najdi settlement, and all have faced similar obstacles which made such ambitious attempts extremely challenging. “The Bulldozer is our (urban historians) worst enemy” is a statement which I repeatedly encountered while conducting interviews and gathering information. To account for the continuous growth and ever-expanding population, Saudi Arabia saw a major overhaul by development projects in recent years as a result of its wealth. Although that certainly improved the country’s different facilities, services and infrastructure, it also assigned the bulldozer its dubious status as one’s

“worst enemy” by merely doing its job of demolishing, except that it was sometimes demolishing sites of vital historical significance.

Luckily, a few settlements/towns/sites/houses withstood that fanaticism of demolition and were preserved either by official orders, as in the case of Diriyah, or by their inhabitants preferring to withstand transformation attempts and preserving their towns, as in the case of

Sados village. As a result, both Diriyah and Sados offered distinctive perspectives in comprehending how the built environment of an 18th century Najdi town appeared, represented and inhabited. The German Christoph Maria Hanke (2007)35 chose to present Sados as such a

35 Hanke, Christoph Maria. (2007), Qariat Sadus: Prinzipien der Planung und Gestaltung einer Ortschaft in Zentralarabien. P.h.D. Dessertation.

19 model for his Ph.D. research. Studying its physical building foundation, urban fabric and key architectural structures, Hanke advocated seeing Sados as a possible prototype for a traditional village in central Arabia during the 18th century. Similarly, Diriyah appeared to leap out as the choice for an analogous task. Admired and renowned architect Hassan Fathy was invited to

Diriyah during the mid-1970s for an ambitious task. Under the sponsorship of the United

Nations Rural Development Project, the iconic innovator was asked to extract an envisioned prototypical housing unit for Diriyah from the preserved ruins of the town, as during that time its rehabilitation/restoration tasks had not yet begun. Derived from what he had encountered,

Fathy imagined what a traditional residential structure in Najd looked like, and what key design concepts and strategies they adapted for their built environment at that time.36 Both samples will be examined and analyzed in later stages of the thesis.

Evidently, there is a lack of studies that examine Diriyah’s urban form, ones that go well-beyond the mere task of documentation to offer an analysis on Diriyah’s urban form and the city’s layout in regards to its governing relationships. Although somewhat limited, using the material that is found, as well as what the indirect sources reticently offer, this thesis hopes to do just that. It aims to present an alternative perspective of operating the built environment as a tool of better understanding historical events which altered the shape of Arabia.

Going forward, a timeline comprising of key dates and vital events which will constitute the historical analysis this of this thesis. Divided into two chapters, the first covers Diriyah’s timespan from its first settlement until the establishment of a Saudi State in 1744, while the second covers Diriyah from establishing the State until its downfall in 1818.

36 Steele, James. (1989), The Hassan Fathy Collection. A Catalogue of Visual Documents at the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Bern: The Aga Khan Trust for Culture

20 v Chapter 2. (1446 – 1744) Diriyah’s First Settlement; the Three Centuries that Followed; Ibn Abdulwahhab’s Arrival; and the Consequent Declaring of a Saudi State:

This chapter taps into the early days of Diriyah. It will first introduce Diriyah’s first settlement and the story of those settlers’ voyage back to central Arabia from the peninsula’s

Eastern parts. It will also explain certain theories behind Diriyah’s name and the importance of its vibrant location. Then, this chapter will outline the three centuries which followed Diriyah’s first settlement in 1446, including the rise of Ibn Saud as ruler shortly prior to 1744. Eventually, this chapter will cover the arrival of a religious Sheikh named Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab, leading to the consequent declaring of a Saudi state in 1744. On the one hand, the chapter explores reasons of his relocation and of choosing Diriyah as a final destination amid the other settlements scattered through Najd. On the other, it explores reasons why Ibn Saud welcomed

Ibn Abdulwahhab. Moreover, it will introduce the alliance between political rule– presented by Ibn Saud, and religious influence– presented by Ibn Abdulwahhab. Which resulted in the pact declaring a Saudi State.

• 2.1 – (1446) The Return Back… Diriyah’s First Settlement:

At an unknown date, the ancestors of one of Al-Saud’s earliest known grandfathers, Mani’ Al-

Muraidy, had emigrated from Central Arabia towards its Eastern parts. There, near Al-Qatif and Buqaiq, they founded and inhabited a town for many years.37 That little town, found in the

Eastern part of Arabia, was named Diriyah.38 Alas, little is known on the details and duration of their stay in Eastern Arabia, in a small town near today’s Al-Ahsa, partially because they

37 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982), Diriyah the First Capital. p. 79 38 Not the Diriyah that this thesis will explore, which is in Central Arabia. The names and backstories will be elucidated and clarified in the next section.

21 were not so welcomed by the rulers towards its end. Therefore, after facing a variety of troubles,39 Al-Muraidy desperately longed for a return to his ancestor’s domain of Arabia. As the leader of his clan, Al-Murairdy wrote beseechingly to a powerful relative in central Arabia,

Ibn Dir‘, who was ruler of Hajr Al-Yamamah40 in Central Arabia.41 Ibn Dir‘ cordially responded to Al-Muraidy’s plea and offered his returning relative two unoccupied sections of land in the region of central Arabia where he held certain influence.42

The reason for this is unknown in local history, perhaps Ibn Dir‘ wanted to surround himself with trusty family members to possibly strengthen his influence or better equip himself in case of battle. The two lands he bestowed upon his returning relative were strategical (Figure 1).

One, a fertile area for cultivation, swarming with palm trees, called Mulaibeed. The other, not so far from the cultivation area, was meant for the returnees to reside and inhabit- called

Ghasibah. Returning to their ancestral parts of Arabia and settling in the two bestowed pieces of land marked the first materialization of Diriyah in the mid 15th century. Thus, the return of

Al-Muraidy, along with his family, allies, and followers, declared the first “Emarah of Diriyah” in 1446 by Al-Saud’s great-grandfather, Mani‘ Al-Muraidy.43

39 The exact type of trouble they were facing are not asserted. Although many believe it was political pressures from influential rulers of neighboring settlements, Ibn Khamis (1982, p. 45) asserts that the need for a return stemmed from constant sand storms attacking their small town located in the eastern region of Arabia. 40 .Hajr Al-Yamamah: An old settlement in the location of today’s Riyadh, KSA’s capital . ِﺣﺠﺮ اﻟﯿﻤﺎﻣﺔ :In Arabic 41 For a full analysis on probable reasons of why might Mani’ have contacted his cousin Ibn Dir’, refer to: Al- Oraini, Abdulrahman. (1999), Al-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud wa Juhooduh fe Ta'sees al-Dawla al- Saudia al-Aula. Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. p. 27 42 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982), Diriyah the First Capital. p.45 43 For more details on Al-Muraidy’s journey back from Arabia’s Eastern region to Diriyah in Central Arabia, refer to: Al-Fakhiry, Muhammed, (1861), Al-Fakhiry History; &, Ibn Ghannam, Husain, (1994). Ibn Ghannam’s History; &, Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd

(Figure 1: A satellite image of Diriyah pinpointing the two lands which Al-Muraidy was bestowed upon his return. Ghasibah for inhabitation and Mulaibeed for cultivation. The vibrant Wadi is also visible and emphasized.)

23 The small town which Al-Muraidy resided in Eastern Arabia is known to also have been called Diriyah. In a form of continuity, that name persisted and became the name for the new area in central Arabia which they came back to.44 Diriyah’s name however, and what engendered it, has long been a topic of endless debate. Through the many theories presented, it can be concluded that two main vectors of exploration were applied. The first batch of rationalizations attempting to understand Diriyah’s name were explanation of literality and etymology. In such, prior to the addition of (yah) to Diriyah for feminizing purposes,45 its origin word of Dir‘46 could be explained differently depending on the context of which it is found. To name a few, dir‘ can mean a shield a warrior wears during battle; dir‘ can also be used as a trait word which is given to sheep whom have black heads but full white bodies. Furthermore, dir‘ can be used in describng nights where the moon correspondingly appears along the light of day.47 However, backed by a more compelling and resonating explanation, all the linguistic rationalizations have been dismissed by historians and researchers of the field.

Instead, it is believed that Diriyah is a name attributed to the clan of Al-Duru‘. To which not only Al-Muraidy and his embracing cousin traced back to, but is also a segment of the

48 much larger tribe of Bani Hanifah – an essential tribe with roots extending to clans scattered around the region, from Jordan and Iraq in Arabia’s North; towards Yemen and Oman in the

South; and found scattered over areas of Arabia along the way. The clan of Al-Duru‘

44 This is the Diriyah that went on to serve as capital of the Saudi state, the one which fostered the pact between Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdulwahhab. The small town of Diriyah that is found in Eastern Arabia is not currently an inhabited town, rather it is a deserted space which consists of palm trees ruins and remains of vegetation. For more on the little town of Diriyah found in Eastern Arabia, refer to: Al- Dahiry, Abu Abdulrahman. (2003), 5. Al-Diriyah Bain al-Eshtiqaq al-Loghawi wal Efadah al- Tareekheyyah al-Adabeyyah. Ad Diriyah, 21(6), 7 – 39). p. 31 45 Such method, of referring to their lands in female tense, is commonly used by Arabs. 46 درع :In Arabic 47 For further etymological analysis on Diriyah’s name, refer to: Al-Dahiry, Abu Abdulrahman. (2003), 5. Al- Diriyah Bain al-Eshtiqaq al-Loghawi wal Efadah al-Tareekheyyah al-Adabeyyah. Ad Diriyah, 21(6), 7– 39) 48 ﻗﺒﯿﻠﺔ اﻟﺪروع ﻣﻦ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺣﻨﯿﻔﺔ :In Arabic

24 historically occupied central regions of Arabia, particularly along the banks of Wadi Hanifa.

Thus, when distant relative Mani‘ Al-Muraidy asked his cousin, ruler of large swaths of land in central Arabia, he was happily bestowed the previously introduced areas of Mulaibeed and

Ghasibah, creating Diriyah as we know it. This explanation means that wherever these individuals traveled, regardless of location and geography, the land which they occupied would inevitably be named Diriyah. Hence, “Dir” is palpably derived from their clan of Al-Duru‘, and “Yah” is added to feminize the name.

The “new” Diriyah is located in the central region of the vibrant Wadi Hanifah, northwest of Riyadh, which became the subsequent capital after Diriyah’s downfall. The Wadi’s name is derived from the principal Arab tribe, Banu Hanifah, who historically occupied and governed the region of the Wadi and, as stated prior, Ibn Dir’ and Mani‘ Al-Muraidy trace their family origins back to that tribe. Wadi Hanifah is a valley which runs for a length of approximately

120 km (75 mi) from northwest to southeast of the center of the Arabian Peninsula. On its way, it cuts through numerous villages, towns, and settlements, among them Diriyah. Its importance principally lies in what it had to offer. Wadi Hanifah is one of the few spaces which managed to take full advantage of the infrequent rainfall in the region, keeping it channeled and constrained for use. It was normally an oasis, a fertile farmland in the middle of the arid Arabian deserts, naturally creating a logical pit stop for those crossing Arabia from the east towards

Mecca and Medinah or the opposite side of the peninsula.

• 2.2 – (1446-1744) The Following Three Centuries:

The three centuries that followed Diriyah’s first settlement up until the rise of a Saudi State in

1744, are locally considered the era of rival emirates.49 Constant tribal battles over temporary

49 ﻋﮭﺪ اﻹﻣﺎرات اﻟﻤﺘﻨﺎﺣﺮة :In Arabic

25 dominance was the main theme in the region. Of those powerful tribal clans, the most influential ones were the descendants of Mani‘ Al-Muraidy who ruled the emirate of Diriyah,

Al-Mu’ammar clan who ruled the emirate of Al-‘Uyayna, the clan of Dahham Ibn Dawas who ruled the emirate of Riyadh, and the prominent emirate of Banu Khaled in Al-Ahsa. The next section will expand on the roles that the Al-Mu’ammar clan in Al-‘Uyayna (which was where

Ibn Abdulwahhab originated), and the emirate of Banu Khaled in Al-Ahsa played in pushing

Ibn Abdulwahhab into Diriyah.50

However, prior to the arrival of Ibn Abdulwahhab, the lands surrounding the ones which were bestowed to Al-Muraidy by his cousin Ibn Dir‘ were not inhabited. Yet, bordering them were lands which belonged to a clan, sharing a common origin to Banu Hanifah as well, called Al-Yazeed. The Al-Yazeed clan rulers did not mind Al-Muraidy’s arrival to lands neighboring theirs. However, soon after, Diriyah began to attract the spotlight from surroundings settlements, including Al-Yazeeds. Hence, Al-Yazeeds remained distanced with their influence gradually shrinking, until Mani‘ Al-Muraidy’s grandson, Musa Ibn Rabeeya Ibn

Mani‘ Al-Muraidy (Figure 2), attacked Al-Yazeed over a dispute regarding one of the water sources of the Wadi. He raided their territory and killed many of their already weakened rulers.

Thus, confiscating their lands as part of Diriyah.51 As Diriyah slowly expanded its base of inhabitants, it gradually increased its lands and expanding its tentative borders as town. It also gained legitimacy and validity from surrounding regional powers.

50 Al-Oraini, Abdulrahman. (1999), Al-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud. p.19 51 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982), Diriyah the First Capital. pp. 86-87

Grandfather of Al-Saud Family First Ruler of Diriyah 1446 (850H)

Saud of whom Al-Sauds are named after

Bin Saud- Founder of the First Saudi State- One Side of the Pact Unifying Arabia Ruled Diriyah From 1727 – 1744 | Founded and Ruled the Saudi State 1744-1765 Ruler 1765-1803 Ruler 1803-1814 Final Ruler 1814-1818

(Figure 2: An illustrative map regarding the origins of Diriyah’s first settler in 1446. It traces the lineage of Al-Saud’s grandfather Mani’ Al-Muraidy until the last ruler of the First Saudi State in 1818, going through the founder of the state, Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud, and the rest of the State’s rulers.)

27 The first documented mention52 of Diriyah from a non-native source is found in a correspondence sent from Sultan Selim I53 (1512-1520) of the Ottoman Empire, where he ordered a delegate in Al-Ahsa to continue rewarding rulers of Najdi towns who offered protection for the Hajj convoys passing through Najd on their way to Mecca from the peninsula’s eastern parts. In it, he mentions Diriyah’s ruler Ibrahim Ibn Musa, the fourth grandfather of Muhammed Ibn Saud– the founder of the first Saudi state.54

During the three centuries between 1446 and 1726, when Al-Muraidy’s seventh grandson Muhammed Ibn Saud assumed power of the Emirate of Diriyah, later establishing a

Saudi State, Diriyah was said to have been governed by sixteen rulers (refer to figure 2). At the time, the title of Diriyah’s ruler was Emir, but that changed after establishing the state, as later chapters will entail. Except for a few exceptions55, all of the sixteen rulers were of Al-

Muraidy’s descendants. Although, as one might expect for the lifestyle in that era, power transition was not always smooth and peaceful. Yet, although Diriyah witnessed a few struggles here and there among various branches of Al-Muraidy’s lineage over Diriyah’s rule,56 it is fair to say that Diriyah oversaw three centuries of overall stability prior to the declaration of a Saudi State in 1744. Such stability must make Diriyah’s inhabitants far from the long- standing tendency of labeling them as nomads, living a life in constant move. Indeed, although

52 For more on the first mentions of Diriyah found in Orientalist traveler’s maps, refer to the article: Al- Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2004), Awa’il al-Kutob al-Faranseyya. Al-Darah Journal, 30(3), 9-34 53 Also known as: Selim the Grim– or Selim the Resolute. 54 Al-Awwad, A. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. p.14 55 As validated by Ibn Khamis, (1982, Diriyah the First Capital. p.84) those 300 years had a few periods with an unverified governing history. There is also a period (1696-1709) where it is confirmed that Diriyah was governed by a ruler from a different clan, the only known period where a non-Mani’ Al-Muraidy...... decedent had control over Diriyah. He was Sultan Ibn Hamad Al-Qabas, who Saint John Philby reported was from the Bani Khaled clan in Al-Ahsa. He was killed by the Diriyah natives. After his death, the power over Diriyah was transitioned to his brother Abdullah, who was also killed in his 2nd year of assuming power by Diriyah’s inhabitants as well. After which the power returned to Al-Muraidy’s descendants. 56 The struggle between the two branches of Al-Muraidy’s descendants, Watban and Mogren, with rule eventually confined to Mogren’s offspring. For more information on this struggle, refer to: Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982). Dir’iyyah the First Capital. pp. 84-94.

28 not exceptionally prosperous, it is imperative to emphasize that having the same group of individuals settled in an unchanged geographical region, governed by the descendants of a single founding figure, practicing the same system of rule for around three centuries, 298 years to be exact, contradicts the misconceived, wide-believed nomadic perception of Diriyah’s inhabitants– they had been, in fact, settled since the mid-15th century.

• 2.3 – (1744) Arrival of Ibn Abdulwahhab & Consequent Declaring of a Saudi State:

A turbulent day in 1744 altered the course of Arabia and the region. When a religious Sheikh by the name of Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab– originating from the distinguished Arab clan of Banu Tamim– was pressured to leave his hometown of Al-‘Uyayna, thus resorting to Diriyah for safe harbor. Born in 1703, Ibn Abdulwahhab grew up in a family of jurists. Like many, he had memorized the Quran by heart before reaching the age of ten.57 Also like nearly all who grew up in the region of his birth, Ibn Abdulwahhab’s early education focused on the standard curriculum of orthodox jurisprudence according to the Hanbali School of Law. The Hanbali school derives its rules strictly from the Quran, the Hadith (the saying of Prophet Muhammed), and the views of the prophet’s companions. In lack thereof, the school teachings does not accept jurist discretion nor the customs of a community as basis of law. This strict traditionalist school of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam was spread across Arabia at the time.58

Before describing how Ibn Abdulwahhab acquired his reputation as an acclaimed religious Sheikh, it is imperative to highlight key points explaining how his horizon and perspective took shape. Arguably, his religious perspectives were not solely a product of his

57 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p.33 58 For a more in-depth perspective on the status of Najd’s religious life, as well as an in-depth look on Najd’s prominent religious figures prior to Ibn Abdulwahhab, refer to: Ibn Khamis, Abdullah. (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital, pp. 95-99

29 local environment and homegrown teachings. As not only was he influenced by many non- native clerics, whom he studied their scholarly works, or ones he met in his trips to Al-Ahsa, or on his prior trips to Mecca and Medina for his two Hajj journeys, but he was also influenced by scholars beyond Arabia. Ibn Abdulwahhab had heard of a school in Damascus that taught

Hanbali jurisprudence, one that relied upon the curriculum of Ibn Taymiyyah, and yearned to visit it. However, with no evident reasons as to why, his voyage was stopped at Al-Basrah.59

There, he met and studied under a number of cleric who peaked his interest, such as

Shiekh Hayat al-Sindi and Sheikh Abdullah Bin Saif.60 Most observably, however, young Ibn

Abdulwahhab was extremely devoted to the writing of the renowned Ibn Taymiyah.61 After his travels and a span of staying at the neighboring settlement of Huraimla to be with his father who served as judge, Ibn Abdulwahhab returned back to Al-‘Uyayna. Equipped with further knowledge and different perspectives which made his reasoning and persuasion skills much stronger, Ibn Abdulwahhab slowly grew close to Al-‘Uyayna’s ruler, Uthman Ibn Mu’ammar.

This resulted in Ibn Abdulwahhab marrying a relative of the ruler Ibn Mu’ammar, Al-Joharah bint Abdullah Ibn Mu’ammar. As Ibn Abdulwahhab gradually gained influence and the approval of Al-‘Uyayna’s ruler, he began carrying out his reforms practices. However, some of those practices, such as levelling the grave of Zayn Ibn Al-Khattab (a companion of prophet

Muhammed) whose grave was revered by locals; cutting down locally-believed sacred trees; and ordering stoning of a woman who committed adultery62, did not sit well with a few powerful locals. They wrote to Sulaiman Ibn Ourayr, ruler of Bani Khaled tribe in Eastern

Arabia, who held considerable influence in Najd, and namely in Al-‘Uyayna, asking for his

59 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. pp.35-37 60 Ibid. p. 186 61 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital, p. 104 62 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p.39

30 interference.63 He agreed, and threatened Al-‘Uyayna’s ruler, Ibn Mu’ammar, to withhold Al-

Ahsa’s annual financial aid to Al-‘Uyayna among further punitive actions, if Ibn Abdulwahhab was not killed or at least banished.64

Pressured to leave his hometown, Ibn Abdulwahhab saw in Diriyah a unique and perfect sanctuary (Figure 3). Several analytical reasons presumably made Diriyah unique, thus attracting Ibn Abdulwahhab. First, would be that Diriyah was relatively close in to Al-‘Uyayna, as roughly 30km separated the two. Also, unlike Al-‘Uyayna, Diriyah did not depend heavily on Al-Ahsa for its income, as they were not receiving any financial aids nor was Al-Ahsa their main trade market. Another reason is that Diriyah maintained friendly relationships with most of its neighbors, which would enable it to spread “the call” peacefully, thus gaining momentum and volume prior to the inevitable encounters with rivals. Diriyah also enjoyed relative political stability in comparison with neighboring settlements. However, the most important reason, in my opinion, is the religious link which connected Ibn Abdulwahhab with many of Diriyah’s inhabitants. Diriyah was home to several of Ibn Abdulwahhab’s students, ones who regularly attended his religious lessons. Key individuals among them were two of Muhammed Ibn

Saud’s brothers, Mishari and Thunayyan, and his son Abdulaziz– who went on to serve as the second ruler of the Saudi State after his father. Abdulaziz even reportedly wrote to Ibn

Abdulwahhab prior to the latter’s move to Diriyah asking for an explanation about a certain verse of Surat al-Fatiha.65Another important Diriyah native, who was a student of Ibn

Abdulwahhab, was a man by the name of Ibn Swailem, whose significance resides in hosting the Sheikh seeking refuge in his Diriyah home.

63 For more on reasons why Ibn Abdulwahhab’s call was criticized in its early days, prior to his move to Diriyah, refer to: Al-Bassam, Ahmed. (2001), Min Asbab al-Mo'aradah al-Mahaleyya li Da'wat al- Shaikh Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab fi 'Ahd al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula. Ad Diriyah. 4(13). pp. 23-77 64 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital, p. 40 65 Al-Qahtani, F. (2010). Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 43

(Figure 3: A map tracking the journey of Ibn Abdulwahhab from ‘Uyayna to Diriyah, with its stops. Measuring the distance from ’Uyayna to Diriyah and other neighboring settlements.)

32 Features of a Historical Pact Declaring the Saudi State:

Although he was not asked for his permission in advance, Ibn Saud was notified that Ibn

Abdulwahhab had arrived to Diriyah to seek shelter in Ibn Swailim’s residence. Though he did not immediately welcome Ibn Abdulwahhab’s presence in Diriyah with open arms, many reasons contributed to Ibn Saud’s eventual decision to not only welcome him, but also to support the religious Sheikh’s mission of reform. The first is that not only was Diriyah non- dependent on Al-Ahsa and their ruling clan of Bani Khaled as mentioned earlier, they were in

66 fact rivals, if not adversaries. Ibn Saud had even reportedly contemplated attacking Al-

‘Uyayna after Diriyah was assaulted earlier67 by the forces of Bani Khaled. It is certainly a possibility that part of the reason why Ibn Saud welcomed Ibn Abdulwahhab was to spite Ibn

Ourayr, ruler of Bani Khaled, who pushed Ibn Abdulwahhab out of his hometown. Another reason is that Ibn Abdulwahhab had no clear political aims or intentions, he only cared about reforming Islamic practices from what he believed were heretic ones. Hence, like any other traveler who would come to your city, he did not represent any real political danger to Ibn

Saud’s rule.

Additionally, sheltering the stranded was a key tenet of Arabia’s customs and traditions, especially from the rulers during that time. Thus, since Ibn Abdulwahhab was not seeking shelter as a criminal fugitive, but rather a religious preacher who was persecuted due to political reasons, Ibn Saud had the unwritten obligation of hosting him. Moreover, although not reformative, early sources confirm that even though Ibn Saud was a political figure, he had a devout conservative streak, having been brought up with a background of religious teachings.68

66 Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital, p. 110 67 In 1727. A campaign led by Saadon Ibn Muhammed, from Bani Khaled clan, originating in Arabia’s eastern regions. For more, refer to: Ibid. p.110 68 Al-Oraini, Abdulrahman. (1999). Al-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud

The last reason, and perhaps most vital, would be the persuasive attempts by Ibn Saud’s family members to host Ibn Abdulwahhab. Among them were his brothers Mishari and

Thunayyan, mentioned earlier, and most notably, Ibn Saud’s wife– Moudhi Ibnt Abi Wahtan.

While at Ibn Swailem’s residence, Ibn Abdulwahhab received visits from his supporters and followers. Some of those reached out to Ibn Saud’s wife, pleading for her to persuade her ruler husband about what Ibn Abdulwahhab had to offer and what he represented– she did just that.69

Fundamentally contributing, by so, in the historic unification between Ibn Abdulwahhab and

Ibn Saud, which established the first Saudi State in the 18th century.

The first meeting between the two took shape when Ibn Saud visited Ibn Abdulwahhab in his place of residence at Ibn Swailim’s home. There, the pair met for the first time, and engaged in an extensive conversation– where Ibn Abdulwahhab lengthily explained his religious perspectives as well as his aims and plans of carrying out his reforms. Unfortunately, the only source who reported that meeting is Ibn Bishr in his celebrated chronicles.70 Hence, there is a possibility we are dealing with a myth as reality in regards to the actual exchange that transpired between the two in that historic meeting. However, Ibn Bishr conveyed that in his reply, Ibn

Saud assured the following: “I promise you a country better than yours, and I promise to support and empower you.”71 Also in the meeting, Ibn Saud identified two main demands for the agreement to proceed. First, that he wanted assurance that Ibn Abdulwahhab would commit that their paths will be intertwined. Meaning that, if they triumph they do so together, and if

69 Ibn Bishr (1982, ‘Unwan al-Majd, p.42) reported her saying: “This man was led to you by God, he is a "إن ھﺬا اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺳﺎﻗﮫ ﷲ إﻟﯿﻚ وھﻮ ﻏﻨﯿﻤﺔ، :treasure, so take advantage of what God has offered you.” In Arabic .ﻓﺎﻏﺘﻨﻢ ﻣﺎﺧﺼﻚ ﷲ ﺑﮫ" 70 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd 71 "أﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﺒﻼد ﺧﯿﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼدك، وأﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺰ واﻟﺘﻤﻜﯿﻦ" :Exact quote in Arabic

34 they failed, or faced challenges, that Ibn Abdulwahhab would not depart to find another place to resume his call. 72

To that request, Ibn Abdulwahhab assured him that such thing would not happen and that their paths were indeed united.73 Second, Ibn Saud requested that the tariffs of which he collected from certain residents in harvest seasons would continue, and that Ibn Abdulwahhab would not object to it. To that, Ibn Abdulwahhab agreed and assured Ibn Saud that with the projected conquests and their prospected earnings, he would be gratified and local tariffs would not even need to be collected. To these, they agreed, shook hands, establishing the renowned

Diriyah Charter (Figure 4).74

Qualities of A Unique Relationship:

From just that first meeting, much can be extracted to help identify the unique type of relationship between the ruling political authority and emerging religious influence. Arguably, it was a relationship based on faith, trust in one another, as well as self-confidence and conviction. First, one can notice that it was Ibn Saud who visited Ibn Abdulwahhab in the latter’s place of residence. Where being the ruler, he could have easily ordered Ibn

Abdulwahhab be brought to him, not the other way around. That gives us a glimpse into the first impression which Ibn Saud wanted relayed on Ibn Abdulwahhab. Yet, Ibn Saud also wanted to establish dominance and set ground rules, thus stating his two main conditions prior to the agreement.

72 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p.42 73 "أﺑﺴﻂ ﯾﺪك، اﻟﺪم ﺑﺎﻟﺪم واﻟﮭﺪم ﺑﺎﻟﮭﺪم" :Exact quote in Arabic 74 Ibn Bishr, Uthman (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p. 42; and, Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital. pp. 110-112

(Figure 4: An extract from the famous Najdi chronicles of then-contemporary Uthman Ibn Bishr, copied in 1853. The text herein describes the historic meeting between the Emir of Diriyah, Muhammed Ibn Saud, and the religious Sheikh Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab which occurred in 1744. Ibn Bishr’s chronicles is the sole resource depicting that historic meeting.)

36 Although Ibn Saud trusted Ibn Abdulwahhab’s religious perspectives prior to meeting him, he needed to verify both the reform plans he was proposing, as well as his alliance and commitment, before committing. Consequently, this allowed him to elucidate his reform plans, ideas and initiatives, that would not interfere with Ibn Saud’s rule, but may rather support his validity to expand the boundaries of his rule. Thus, it was Ibn Abdulwahhab that had to do the convincing, despite hosting the meeting, ensuring that Ibn Saud held the upper hand in the negotiations. One can also notice that an important shift had also occurred based on that meeting. Prior to that, rulers were to be referred to as “Emir”. However, after that meeting and the consequent declaration of a Saudi State, Ibn Saud noticeably changed his title from “Emir” to “Imam”, a name which was used in reference of religious figures not political ones. Ibn

Bisher reports that Ibn Abdulwahhab, during his historical meeting with Ibn Saud, was the one who proposed the change. Emir is a title which stems from the Arabic word of “command.”

Generally, it has no religious connotation, unless followed by “Al-Mo’mineen” which means

Commander of the Faithful. Whereas the title of Imam is very important in Islamic History.

Ibn Abdulwahhab suggested it in praying for Ibn Saud: “I hope you become an Imam that

Muslims agree-on, and your offspring after you.”75

It is often a topic of debate as to the extent in which Ibn Abdulwahhab actually intervened or played part in the political aspect of the newly-found state. One can extract that, although not as powerful as Ibn Saud who was the undisputed ruler of Diriyah, Ibn

Abdulwahhab did play a vital role not only in the religious realm, but also was an important

75 Exact quote translated: “This is the calling of Tawheed (monotheism) that all prophets had called for. So whoever adheres, supports, and defends it will reign over the country and people. And as you can see that Najd (central region of Arabia) is seeing a spread of polytheism, ignorance, division, and fighting of one another.. so I hope you can become and Imam for Muslims to agree-on, and your offspring after "وھﺬه ﻛﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻮﺣﯿﺪ اﻟﺘﻲ دﻋﺖ إﻟﯿﮭﺎ اﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﻛﻠﮭﻢ، ﻓﻤﻦ ﺗﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﮭﺎ وﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﮭﺎ وﻧﺼﺮھﺎ.. ﻣﻠﻚ ﺑﮭﺎ اﻟﺒﻼد واﻟﻌﺒﺎد. :you.” In Arabic وأﻧﺖ ﺗﺮى ﻧﺠﺪ ﻛﻠﮭﺎ وأﻗﻄﺎرھﺎ أطﺒﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺸﺮك واﻟﺠﮭﻞ واﻟﻔﺮﻗﺔ واﻹﺧﺘﻼف وﻗﺘﺎل ﺑﻌﻀﮭﻢ ﺑﻌﻀ ًﺎ، ﻓﺄرﺟﻮا أن ﺗﻜﻮن إﻣﺎﻣ ًﺎ ﯾﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd - اﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻮن، وذ ّرﯾﺘﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪك."

37 factor in running the state. Particularly during Ibn Saud’s reign. Further examination of how the interrelationship between the two entities of politics and religion persisted, after Ibn Saud’s passing, will be discussed in the next chapter.

Nonetheless, despite the few non-religious duties he was handed, Ibn Abdulwahhab mainly focused on conducting his lessons and spreading Islamic teachings. He was essentially revered for his religious knowledge, not his political intelligence. Thus, both sides benefited from their agreement. Ibn Abdulwahhab found a home where he was free, and empowered to spread his religious thinking. A home with rulers whom honored and revered him, to the point where some were attending his classes and sitting along with his other students. Some also still debate whether he introduced new teachings or simply revived what was lost through the years.

The local belief was, and still is, that Ibn Abdulwahhab was merely a reformer who renewed previously established and agreed-upon Islamic teachings. Although overly strict in some aspects, the local narrative is that Ibn Abdulwahhab did not introduce new teachings, but rather attempted to filter and purify Islamic practice of novelty and heresy.

In Diriyah, the most notable of such practices was the visitation of deceased clerics’ tombs and their veneration.76 In this regard, Diriyah did not present a unique case, as similar situations were occurring all over the region of Najd. What made Diriyah unique, however, was that unlike surrounding settlements, it identified its faultiness and welcomed the religious reformer to restore Islamic teachings. Thus, Diriyah was unique in the fact that it not only sheltered the escaping religious Sheikh, but also empowered him– by morphing Ibn Abdulwahhab into an almost authoritative partnership with its ruler.

76 For detailed depictions on heretic scenes and their exact locations within Diriyah, refer to: Al-Awwad, Abdulhakeem. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. pp. 77-85

38 v Chapter 3. (1765 – 1818) Diriyah After Ibn Saud’s Passing; Fate of a Distinctive Governing Relationship; and the Downfall of the Saudi State:

This chapter will cover the period after the newly-found state’s primary years. First, it will present the conditions of Diriyah after the passing of its founder, by framing an overview of

Diriyah under the three different leaders who ruled Diriyah after its founder until its downfall:

Abdulaziz Ibn Muhammed (1765-1803); Saud Ibn Abdulaziz (1803-1814); and Abdullah Ibn

Saud (1814-1818). Then, by studying the ever-shifting characteristics of the interrelationship between the separate power entities, of politics and religion, this chapter will present extracts which helps explain the fate of the unique governing relationship which controlled Diriyah.

Finally, this chapter will offer an overview of Diriyah’s downfall after the 6-month siege by the Ottoman armies, led by Ibrahim Pasha– the son of Muhammed Ali of Egypt.

Besides discussing Diriyah’s defensive measures in preparing for the eminent attack, this section will also provide a concise framework to better understand the history of tension between the Saudis and the Ottomans during that timeframe, to explain how could those tensions reflected themselves on to the built environment. It will analyze different reasons for deserting Diriyah after its downfall and the consequent relocation to Riyadh as capital for the

Seond Saudi state afterwards. Why was the city of Diriyah no longer inhabited? And why was

Diriyah not suitable to serve as birthplace of their second attempt at a state?

• 3.1 – (1765) Diriyah After Ibn Saud’s Passing:

Four rulers in total, all direct descendants of one another, had governed Diriyah from the establishment of a Saudi State in 1744 until its punitive downfall in 1818.

39 First, Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud served as ruler of the nominal Emirate of Diriyah from 1726. Then, after the arrival of Ibn Abdulwahhab, he established a Saudi State in 1744.

Hence, he ruled Diriyah for around two decades prior to declaring a new Saudi State (1726-

1744). Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud then presumed his rule, but under a scope larger than that of just Diriyah, governing the newly-founded state up until his passing in 1765. Which makes his total tenure of rule last around 40 years between Diriyah alone and the larger Saudi state

(1726-1765). After which, his son Abdulaziz took over. Imam Abdulaziz ruled for a lengthy stretch (1765-1803).

During his tenure, which is regarded as a continuation of his father’s in all aspects, the

Saudi influence reached al-Ahsa, Qatar, Buraimi, and Bahrain in the east, where their ruling tribes had to pay Zakat (taxes) to their Diriyah-based ruler. As for the west, Abdulaziz’s influence expanded to reach portions of Hejaz (Taif and Khurma) as well as Turbah among other regions. In his reign, however, Diriyah saw a massive spread of learning institutions and the economic status of its populace increased along with income for the state.77 The passing of his father, Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud, could have prompted chaos in the relationship between the two entities of political rule– represented by Ibn Saud and his children– and religious influence– represented by Ibn Abdulwahhab and his offspring. However, as Abdulaziz was a deeply religious figure and cherished both religious scholars and their humble students. He was highly involved in the reform and propagation measures taking place. Indeed, Abdulaziz was smart in continuing the long-term governing traditions which were set by his father. These traditions included respecting the religious figures, offering them all the facilities they might need, and abiding by their advice on whatever challenges that faced the state. From a built-

77 For more on Abdulaziz Ibn Muhammed’s tenure as ruler, refer to: Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982), Dir’iyyah the First Capital. pp. 175-189

40 environment perspective, Abdulaziz evidentially reaped the benefits of what his father sowed, as he was the first to inhabit the Atturaif neighborhood, which will be introduced and examined later in the thesis. During the time of his father, Muhammed Ibn Saud, the government center was in the Samhan neighborhood. This continued until, for reasons that will be discussed in later stages of the thesis, a decision was made that a new government center was a needed. Ibn

Saud, however, did not live long enough to see the fruit of his labor, thus making Abdulaziz the first ruler to dwell in Atturaif. Although it is not confirmed, being that the exact timing of the relocation to Atturaif is still a topic of constant debate among scholars with no definite proof. It was at Atturaif’s mosque where Imam Abdulaziz, after nearly a decade of rule, was attacked and assassinated in the middle of the afternoon prayer.78

After Imam Abdulaziz came his son, Saud. Imam Saud was a different breed than his father.

Caring about extravagance and nonessential luxuriousness, Saud tended to care more about the materialistic perks of rule, unlike Abdulaziz before him. However, that perk is not what he was mostly known for. During his tenure (1803-1814), the Saudi state reached its peak in strength and expansion, which is where the term “Saud al-Kabeer” (Saud the great) originated. Most importantly, his reign oversaw the annexation of Hijaz and its two Holy Cities of Mecca and

Medina to the rule of the Saudi state in 1805. This act, some may argue, was the main reason for the impending Ottoman military campaigns which went on for seven years until finally destroying Diriyah and leaving it in ruins. In 1814, after the passing of Imam Saud, his son

Abdullah took the helm (Figure 5).

78 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p. 264

(Figure 5: Full-figure colored illustration of Imam Abdullah Ibn Saud, the last ruler of the First Saudi State. It is considered the only depiction of any ruler of that State. Its importance lies in the possibility of extracting the appearance, and dress, of the Saudi rulers at the time.)

42 Little did he know that he would be Diriyah’s very last ruler. Assuming rule at a delicate time, where the Saudi state was under constant pressure and endless attacks from the Ottomans,

Imam Abdullah’s tenure can be best categorized as a military-themed span.79 It will be examined thoroughly in later stages of the thesis concerning Diriyah’s siege and downfall.

• 3.2 – (1765-1818) Fate of the Unique Governing Relationship:

Returning back to the analysis of how the relationship between the religious and political entities functioned: the originators of the pact Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud and Sheikh

Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab held an undoubtedly special relationship since establishing the state– Ibn Abdulwahhab was extremely cherished by Muhammed Ibn Saud. Accordingly, his son and Diriyah’s second ruler, Imam Abdulaziz, continued along the same lines of appreciation and reverence if not more. Ibn Abdulwahhab was deliberated and referred back- to not only for religious matters, but also for insights over daily administrative life affairs.

According to Al-Awwad,80 at one point Ibn Abdulwahhab was even responsible for the state’s treasury. Having control over the finance, in a time when the state was economically booming, did not lure him to slip. On the contrary, Ibn Abdulwahhab lived a humble and a simple life, to the point that, during the early days of the state, he reportedly borrowed from wealthy merchants around Diriyah to provide welfare and aid to visitors whom travel to Diriyah for the sole purpose of attending his religious lessons. For that reason, Ibn Bishr reported that Ibn

Abdulwahhab carried debts of around 40.000 Mehmeden81– almost 1000 Ottoman Lira.

79 For more on Saud and his son Abdullah’s tenure as rulers, refer to: Ibn Khamis, Abdullah, (1982). Dir’iyyah the First Capital. pp. 189-228 80 Information retrieved by correspondence with Abdulhakeem Al-Awwad, Dated: 3/7/2020 81 A currency which was produced during the reign of Mehmed IV (1648-1686). Diriyah and - اﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﯾﺔ :Arabic other regions of Arabia dealt and used it along with the ‘Riyal Fransi’ and other copper, silver, and gold coins- as Diriyah did not issue its own currency.

43 Ibn Abdulwahhab acquiring such vital non-religious responsibility is a clear evidence of his position within the state– a verified compeer and trusty advisor to the ruler. Not a partner in rule, but the closest thing to it. Such status was reportedly sustained until sometime in Imam

Abdulaziz’s tenure, when a subtle shift in the governance structure occurred. In Ibn Bisher’s reports on the annexation of Riyadh, when it fell under the rule of the state by forces of

Abdulaziz, he conveyed that Ibn Abdulwahhab allotted the vital task of handling and distributing the spoils of war to Abdulaziz, and that after that, Ibn Abdulwahhab dedicated himself to the religious sciences, worship, and religious lessons. It can be inferred from Ibn

Bisher’s reporting that Ibn Abdulwahhab was the one who relinquished certain authorities he held, either due to his old age or to focus more on his main purpose, and that it was not Imam

Abdulaziz who stripped him of such. As numerous instances depict not only Abdulaziz’s personal religious habits and special reverence to Ibn Abdulwahhab, but also certain aspects which affirmed his tenure as being a continuum of his father’s era. Part of that is a result to his upbringing in the shadows of his father, as well as for the numerous responsibilities he was delegated during his fathers’ final years.

Moreover, the relationship between Ibn Saud’s children, namely Abdulaziz, with Ibn

Abdulwahhab’s children and grandchildren continued. It persisted in not only religious aspects, but also in other ties, most importantly in marriage alliances, most explicitly when Imam

Abdulaziz married the daughter of Sheikh Ibn Abdulwahhab. Reinforcing the notion, which

Ibn Saud emphasized during his first meeting with the Sheikh, that the future of the two families was intertwined. Additionally, since Abdulaziz was a frequent attendee at Ibn Abdulwahhab’s religious lessons, he continued to attend the lessons of Ibn Abdulwahhab’s children after him.

Thus endowing Ibn Abdulwahhab’s offspring with a certain amount of hereditary influence.

Such influence, however, was somewhat abated during the tenure of Imam Saud (al-Kabeer)–

44 Diriyah’s third ruler. Although Saud, as explained earlier, was an accomplished ruler who acquired Diriyah its golden era by extending its influence to by far its largest, his personal traits were those of luxuriousness and splendor. Such qualities did not seem to necessarily match the unalloyed religious trajectory of Ibn Abdulwahhab’s children.82

Regardless of their personal belief towards certain personal traits of their ruler, numerous evidences show that Ibn Abdulwahhab’s offspring held a certain level of influence, especially with regards to foreign powers in their handlings over Arabia’s political situations. Remond83 reports an incident where the British administrator in Basra was asked to mediate peace between Imam Saud (al-Kabeer), and the governor (Wali) of Baghdad. He stipulated a document to be signed by Saud, high-ranking members of his family, and Ibn Abdulwahhab’s son, Hussien.

Hence, although not as much as during Ibn Saud and their father’s tenure, Ibn

Abdulwahhab’s offspring still maintained a level of authority and influence with their political counterparts. They also heavily participated in the attempts to defend Diriyah during its final downfall battle, thus honoring their father’s original promise to not abandoning Diriyah and reiterating that “their paths were indeed united.” For the last time in the state’s 70-some-year lifespan, Diriyah’s final battle reinforced the characteristics of unity and the amalgamation between the political and religious entities. As by Diriyah’s downfall, members of both families faced death in their attempts of defending their homes. Together, at least 21 members from the al-Saud family leaders alongside a few of Ibn Abdulwahhab’s grandsons fought their final battle that day.84

82 Information retrieved by correspondence with Dr. Abdulhakeem Al-Awwad, Dated 3/7/2020 83 Remond, Jean, & Al-Boqaa’y , Muhammed. (2003), Al-Tathkira fe Asil al-Wahhabeyyeen 84 Ibn Bishr. (1982). ‘Unwan al-Majd, pp. 418-424

45 • 3.3 – (1818) Downfall of Diriyah:

History of Saudi-Ottoman Tension Building Up, and Diriyah’s Takedown:

News regarding the emergence of Ibn Abdulwahhab’s Salafi call reached the Ottoman state some years after its appearance. The first wording that got out on what was emerging throughout Arabia, was from the designated ruler of Mecca (Shareef Mecca)– Masoud Ibn

Said– who wrote to his superiors in the Ottoman Empire about the rise of Ibn Abdulwahhab in

1750. In that correspondence, he mentioned that the religious clerics of Mecca had issued a fatwa allowing for him to be fought. However, the response that Ibn Said received was to attempt at convincing Ibn Abdulwahhab to abandon his call, without any violence.85

This shows that at first, the Ottoman position towards the movement in Arabia was that of a non-threatening one. Such perspective could be due to them underestimating the capabilities of the Saudis, in believing that the emergence of such movement was a tribal-level internal matter, with minimal effects on vital Ottoman regional assets. Another reason of their initial position of nonintervention might be attributed to certain Saudi tactics of governance, as the first 40 years of the Saudi state saw expansions only in the Najd region, which were non-

Ottoman controlled. Moreover, the Saudis in numerous instances showed that they preferred to avoid any type of clash with the Ottomans.86

However, such perspective changed dramatically due to a number of reasons. Primarily, the Saudis quickly acquired momentum and attracted followers to the call, but also for the

85 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 47 86 When Abdulaziz refused to welcome an escaping individual, who was wanted by an ottoman-appointed ruler in a nearby settlement. As well as what Saud mentioned in his enquiring correspondence about an attack on Al-Ahsa, describng that it was not their intention to endanger any Ottoman assets. For more, refer to: Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. pp. 49-50

46 logical reason that the Saudi state began to attain and exert influence over regions which were under the Ottoman control. Hence, the Ottomans gradually began non-military actions against the Saudis. First, by spreading public messages, or propaganda, discrediting the call and religious message.87 Afterwards, they banned Saudis from performing Hajj in an effort to minimize their contacts with non-local pilgrims while performing the annual religious duty.88

Yet, such measures were not as effective or impactful as anticipated. Soon after, the Saudis added Hail and Al-Jouf to their influence territory in 1787, threatening the Ottoman-controlled

Levant; and Al-Ahsa in 1793, thereby threatening Ottoman-controlled Iraq. That triggered an additional need for a response.

The few years that followed (1796-1797) saw some failed attempts, mostly carried out by the appointed ruler (Wali) of Baghdad Sulaiman Pasha, who sent two military campaigns against the recently annexed Al-Ahsa.89 Ultimately, the Saudis managed to add Mecca to their influence territory in 1803 (Figure 6)– and additionally annexed Hijaz in its entirety in 1805.

By then, it seemed that the mighty Ottoman State realized the true extent of the threat it was facing. Their religious validity, which stemmed from the self-proclaimed title of “Protectors of the Two Holy Mosques,” was abruptly stripped away.

87 Ibid. p.53 88 Ibn Ghannam, Husain. (1994), Ibn Ghannam’s History. pp. 79-119 89 Refer to: Ibn Ghannam, Husain. (1994), Ibn Ghannam’s History. p. 186; and, Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p. 252

(Figure 6: A European illustration of Mecca, done in 1803- the same year that Imam Saud and his men gained authority over Islam’s holy city.)

48 Consequently, in 1805, the responsibility of taking down the rapidly-emerging state in

Najd turned to Egypt’s newly-appointed Wali– Muhammed Ali Pasha. Due to domestic challenges that Egypt was facing, Muhammed Ali did not make his first attempt at attacking the Saudi state until 1811. At that time, Muhammed Ali sent a campaign to Arabia led by his eldest son Tusun Pasha. The campaign first arrived and took hold over the city of Yanbu’ quickly and effortlessly. Their next objective was Medina, and on their way they battled Imam

Abdullah and his army in Wadi al-Safra, a Saudi-celebrated triumph which saw the defeat and consequent retreat of Tusun and his armies back to Yanbu’.90 Reinforced and re-equipped by his powerful father in Egypt, Tusun attacked again and conquered Medina in 1812.91 The fall of Medina paved the way for the fall of other cities in the region of Hijaz, which were conquered one after another until the eventual conquest of Mecca in 1813.92 By doing so, the

Ottomans were able to recover their title as Protectors of the Two Holy Mosques.

In recovering Mecca, they had achieved their main objective. Yet, Sultan Mahmud II93 and his Ottoman-appointed governor of Egypt, Muhammed Ali, had another aim in mind: to eliminate the rogue Saudi state in Arabia for good. The following few years witnessed numerous battles around Najd between the two sides, which this thesis will not delve into.

Although Diriyah was in reach, Muhammed Ali decided to return back to Egypt after he was present in Medina to oversee some of the battles. Gloating the Hejaz triumphs in a correspondence to his Ottoman superiors, Muhammed Ali regarded an attack on Diriyah as imminent, but would need more planning: “as for Diriyah… in order to purge it from… the

Kharijites… it has to be postponed to another time, as it needs more measures and

90 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 59 91 Ibn Bishr, (1982). ‘Unwan al-Majd. p. 328; and, Al-Jabarti, Abdulrahman. (1998), Al-Jabarti's History of Egypt. pp. 338-341 92 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010). Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 59 93 Mahmud II was the 30th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1808-1839)

49 arrangements. This has to be done to reach good results, which is why I have returned back from Medina to Egypt.”94

Hence, following Muhammed Ali’s return back to Egypt, the armies of Tusun Pasha found themselves as the inferior side in battles around the Qassim region in Najd. That is believed to have pushed Tusun to propose a peace treaty with Diriyah’s leader, Imam Abdullah

Ibn Saud, in order to protect himself. Imam Abdullah, perhaps not knowing he had the advantage against a weakened army at that times, accepted the widely-believed mock-peace treaty. That treaty required Tusun and his armies to vacate the Najdi settlements they had obtained, and retreat back to Medina. As expected, that peace treaty lasted only about a year, which supports the notion that the Ottomans did not intend peace by such truce, but rather needed to buy time to form a plan for an imminent attack.

The next year, Imam Abdullah was notified of the sudden, but predictable, change of heart from Muhammed Ali, as he demanded unreasonable terms for their truce to continue.

Such demands were for Abdullah to abandon Diriyah’s support for the Salafi95 call; to agree to the complete subordination towards their appointed ruler in Medina; and finally, to give-up

Diriyah for a new leader to be appointed by Muhammed Ali’s choosing– and that Abdullah would remain as simply a fictitious Imam of his people with no degree of authority on his lands whatsoever.96 Justifiably, those orders were rejected, which led to Muhammed Ali sending a new, vigorous, campaign to Arabia in 1816.

94 "أﻣﺎ اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ... ﻓﻤﻦ أﺟﻞ ﺗﻄﮭﯿﺮھﺎ ﻣﻦ... اﻟﺨﻮارج... ﻓﻘﺪ أرﺟﺊ أﻣﺮھﺎ إﻟﻰ وﻗﺖ ﻻﺣﻖ، ﻷﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﺤﺘﺎج ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﺪاﺑﯿﺮ واﻟﺘﺮﺗﯿﺒﺎت :In Arabic :Ottoman Documents – ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﮭﻤﺔ واﻟﻘﻮة، وھﺬا أﻣﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﮫ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮل إﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺣﺴﻨﺔ، وﻟﮭﺬا ﺗﺤﺮﻛﺖ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺪﯾﻨﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺼﺮ." Manuscript Number 1/5-40 and 1/5-222 (H.H19649). Dated: 17 Rajab, 1230 H. Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives 95 A term for referencing Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab’s religious reforms movement in Arabia. 96 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 67

50 Recalling Tusun back to Egypt, this new mission was entrusted to Muhammed Ali’s other son, Ibrahim Pasha, with the sole objective of bringing down Diriyah and eliminating the

Saudi state.97

The Defensive Strategy:

Diriyah’s fortifications could be traced back to the days of its first settlement. Gradually, it saw an abundance of trivial fortification attempts. However, Diriyah’s major defensive efforts came in preparation for eminent battle with the Egyptian-Ottoman armies. In 1815, the truce between

Imam Abdullah and Tusun gave Diriyah’s ruler time to reinforce his fortifications, in anticipation for the battles to resume if the fragile truce did not hold up– which it did not.98

Those efforts could be classified into two main categories: first, political efforts that might hinder the advancement of the rival armies in their route to Diriyah, including replacing disloyal rulers of settlements in Najd, placing the most trustworthy supporters in the settlements that were in the way of Diriyah,99 and carrying out an extensive publicity campaign that encouraged national poems and odes against the Egyptian-Ottoman foe.100 The second category includes efforts to fortify Diriyah physically, with machinery, equipment, and further defensive measures and shielding procedures that was hoped to enable Diriyah to withstand the probable attack.101

As the defensive side in the confrontation, the Saudis were faced with two possible methods of militarily confronting the inbounding Ottoman/Egyptian campaign. Either by a

97 For a comprehensive analysis on political, economic, religious and military reasons which deemed an attack on Diriyah a necessity, refer to: Ibid, pp. 75-101 98 Mengin, Felix, & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali. p. 111 99 Ibid, pp. 111-118 100 Ibid, p. 119 101 Sadlier, Forster. (2013), Rehla 'Abr al-Jazeerah al-Arabeyya. Cairo, Egypt. General Egyptian Book Organization. p. 143

51 mobile defensive mechanism– where the defensive side confronts the attacking enemy in an open space, then lure them into a defensive area where they can be struck with a counter attack.

Or, by the mechanism of a fortified defense– where the defensive activities could be carried out by stable forces, in pre-equipped garrisons and barracks with trenches and ammunition depots, as well as forts and castles, in preparation for a long-term siege. Imam Abdullah Ibn

Saud, Diriyah’s ruler at that time of ambiguity, reportedly102 held a military consultation assembly (Majlis), where he and his military aids discussed options to choose the optimal way in facing the imminent attack– which was to fortify Diriyah instead of partaking in an open- field battle. Looking back at the decision in retrospect, one would argue that implementing a mobile defensive mechanism, particularly in a terrain of which the Saudis unlike their rivals knew by heart, would have been a much wiser decision. Especially given the fact that the

Egyptians were coming well-prepared, with far grander military equipment that any humble fortification attempt could withstand.

Mengin103 reports a peculiar description of their reasoning. In his accounts, the

Frenchman points out that the person in Imam Abdullah’s military Majlis who suggested the plan of retreating and fortifying instead of confronting, was an Ottoman spy. This agent managed to infiltrate the ranks by pretending to follow the “Wahhabi” teachings. He was apparently planted to convince the Saudis to try to endure a siege for a long duration, which he expected to end in Ottoman triumph.104 For whatever reason, the decision for Diriyah’s to serve as a military bunker was chosen. Ignoring, by so, the well-known Arabic proverb “a city

102 Abdulrahman Ibn Hassan. (2005), Al-Maqamat. Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. p. 124 103 Felix Mengin, French orientalist traveler who enjoyed a special relationship with Muhammed Ali of Egypt. 104 Mengin, Felix. & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali. pp. 119-120

52 besieged.. is a city occupied.”105 Diriyah’s geographical location presumably played an integral role in sealing its fate in the defensive strategy. Unlike the scattered settlements on the route to

Diriyah, its geographical location was difficult to infiltrate. From one side, Diriyah was protected by the long series of Tuwaiq mountains, which were too challenging for any army to easily cross. At the same time, approaching from other sides required crossing vast distances of arid deserts lacking any signs of water sources. That made Diriyah such an expensive and burdensome prey. Hence why, in addition to the financial setbacks and human losses, Ibrahim

Pasha’s campaign required more than 18 months from their first arrival to Arabia, until finally reaching the fortified destination of Diriyah106– the final stage of the struggle.

The Siege and the Battle:

Arriving at Arabia, Ibrahim Pasha had two options for the journey from Hejaz to Diriyah. The first would pass through Yanbu – Medina – Qassim, penetrating Najd’s by its north side. While the second route would pass through Jeddah – Mecca – Taif – Turbah, penetrating Najd’s west to get to Diriyah. The first route was chosen (Figure 7).107 And on March 9, 1818, the campaign arrived at a location known as Al-Malqa, very close to Diriyah’s north. The next morning,

Ibrahim Pasha led a task force of 800 fighters in an attempt to scout the land, gather intelligence on their enemy’s deployed fortifications, and survey the area for the best possible location to base their camps.108 In that reconnaissance, a few skirmishes occurred with the Saudi’s first line of defense, apparently initiated by Ibrahim to get a better sense of what he was coming up against. That may be regarded as the first battle of many in Diriyah’s prolonged final war.109

105 اﻟﻤﺪﯾﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺻﺮة، ﻣﺪﯾﻨﺔ ﻣﺤﺘﻠﺔ :In Arabic 106 Al-Qahtani, F. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 67 107 For reasons on why this route was chosen over the other option, refer to: Ibid, pp. 103-104 108 Mengin, Felix, & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali. p. 160 109 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. p. 223

(Figure 7: A map showing the approximate movements of Ibrahim Pasha and his forces from their first arrival in Arabia to finally reaching Diriyah. It also traces movements of the defensive forces of the Saudis.)

54 Determining the exact number of Diriyah fighters during that time is challenging, as even Diriyah’s exact number of inhabitant during that time is not agreed upon. Given that these were times of war, many people either fled for their safety, or came to Diriyah’s aid. Jomard110 estimated Diriyah’s populace during that time at around 13,000 individual.111 Of those, the exact number of fighters who participated in Diriyah’s final battle is also unclear, as it has varied through different sources. In one correspondence112, Ibrahim Pasha estimated the number of his opponent’s armies at 3000 soldiers. Whereas Sadlier113 projected that number to have exceeded 4000.114 In a few days, Ibrahim Pasha’s attacking strategy was set, and the war had officially begun. Rather than entering it forcefully, Ibrahim Pasha decided to implement a siege around Diriyah. Writing to his father, he attributed that strategy to Diriyah’s significant defensive measures.115 The siege remained for the duration of six months and five days– from

March 11th, until September 9th of 1818.116 With an uncountable number of battles and an immeasurable extent of destruction in it, to the extent of which Ibn Bishr reported that the gunfire, between the two sides, did not stop for a single day during those 6 months.117 Hence, this thesis will not expand on details regarding those battles.118

110 Edme-François Jomard, a French cartographer, engineer, and archeologist. A member of the Institut d’Egypte which was established by Napoleon. Supervisor of the French cultural and educational missions in Egypt. 111 Mengin, Felix, & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003). Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali. p. 316 112 Ottoman Documents: Manuscript Number 1/2-27 and 1/2-46 (H.H1960). Dated: 19 Sha’ban, 1233 H. Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives 113 Forster Sadlier, a British officer who is the first European to cross Arabia from its east to its West. (1819) 114 Sadlier, Forster. (2013), Rehla 'Abr al-Jazeerah al-Arabeyya. p. 147 115 "ﻟﺬﻟﻚ رأﯾﻨﺎ أﻧﮫ إذا ﻣﺎ اﺗﺠﮭﻨﺎ إﻟﯿﮭﻢ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮة ﻓﻠﻦ ﺗﺤﺪث اﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪة اﻟﻤﺮﺟﻮة، وﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺣﺎﺻﺮﺗﮭﻢ وﺿﯿﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ، وھﻜﺬا ﻣﺎ :In Arabic Ottoman Documents: Manuscript Number 1/2- – أن ﯾﺼﻞ اﻟﻤﺪد ﺑﻔﻀﻠﮫ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻧﻘﻮم ﻛﻠﻨﺎ دﻓﻌﺔ واﺣﺪة ﺑﺎﻟﮭﺠﻮم اﻟﻌﺎم" 27 (H.H19609) Dated: 19 Sha’ban, 1233 H. Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives 116 Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. Page 228 117 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p. 407 118 For an extensive detailed reading on each battle and the exact progress of Ibrahim Pasha’s forces in Diriyah, refer to: Al-Qahtani, Fatima. (2010), Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah. pp. 222-317

55 After a long war of attrition, on September 6th, just two hours before dawn, Ibrahim

Pasha decided it was time to go for an all-out attack on Diriyah’s many fronts. Fatigued and weary as ever, Diriyah’s frontline soldiers could not cope with the intensity of the organized attacks coming from all fronts. During that time, Imam Abdullah Ibn Saud had assigned different squads around Diriyah to oversee its defensive operations. He was responsible for the

Samhan neighborhood squad, being that it was one of the major fronts in the Diriyah battle.

However, as Ibrahim Pasha’s forces began raiding Diriyah from every side, causing the downfall of many important postings, Imam Abdullah had no choice but to vacate his Samhan campsite and retreat to the fort-like neighborhood of Atturaif. Consequently, Ibrahim’s armies advanced to Samhan and transferred their base to the deserted camp of Diriyah’s ruler.119

Immediately then, began the horrendous attacks on Atturaif, with the purpose being its utter destruction and flushing out its now-surrounded leader. Not seeing the point of prolonging the resistance anymore, and with the notion of triumph diminishing by the day, Imam Abdullah was forced to surrender and ask for conciliation in September 10th of 1818.120 However, reports varied in the nature of the surrender and its details. Mengin reports that the pair agreed on the terms of the surrender, which specified Abdullah being sent to Egypt to face Ibrahim’s father,

Muhammed Ali, and the obvious execution to follow. Imam Abdullah agreed to give himself up and face his fate in return for Ibrahim’s assurance that no harm would fall upon his family, that his city of Diriyah not be destroyed, and that those who took up arms against the Ottomans not be punished, as they were acting on his command.121

119 Ibid, pp. 264-267 120 Ottoman Documents: Manuscript Number 1/2-221 (H.H19529A). Dated: 1234 H. Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives 121 Mengin, Felix, & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali. p. 179; and, Abbas, Ahmad Morsi. (1995), Al-Askariyyah al-Saudia fe Muwajahat al- Dawlah al-Othmaneyya. Riyadh: Dar al-Zahra. pp. 159-160

56 Therefore, Diriyah collapsed and Imam Abdullah Ibn Saud, along some of his family and close allies, were taken to Egypt. After its downfall, Ibrahim Pasha reportedly lodged in

Diriyah– precisely in Abdullah Ibn Saud’s palace for 8 months.122 He remained there until he received a correspondence ordering the utter destruction of Diriyah, or what was left of it.

Hence, farms were burnt and homes were destroyed, leaving behind ruins of what was once a vibrant capital. Diriyah’s downfall was a gradual and time-consuming one. Piece by piece, regions under its control and influence fell to the propelling Ottoman powers under their very eyes. Diriyah, based on its humble potential and limited resources, had put on an ostensible illusion of survival and endurance. Hence, the brutal truth emerged: the awe-inspiring state which rose from the arid deserts of Arabia and united the peninsula almost in its entirety, had fallen.

Deserting Diriyah... or What is Left of It:

A few years after Diriyah collapsed, attempts to recover, regroup, and restore a Saudi state had begun. In its core, it was meant to be as much a continuation to the recently-fallen precursor as possible. Those efforts were carried-out by Imam Turki Ibn Abdullah– a strategic warrior and the founder of the second Saudi state. Although he was successful in his efforts at establishing a state, Diriyah played no role in that. In an attempt to pinpoint the exact reason/s which led to deserting Diriyah after its downfall, not rebuilding it, or at a minimum using it as a foundation stone for new-emerging state, I have interviewed key scholars, historians, and public figures about their perspectives in elucidating such act.123

122 Mengin, Felix, & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali 123 Dr. Fahd Al-Samari, Secretary General of Darah (King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives). Date: (January, 27, 2020), Dr. Abdullah Al-Muneef, Dean of the College of Tourism and Archeology at King Saud University. Date: (January, 20, 2020), Dr. Badran Al-Honaihen, Head of Research at Diriyah Gate Development Authority (DGDA). Date: (January, 19, 2020), Dr. Abulrahman Al-Shuqair, Historian and Sociologist. Date: (January, 22, 2020)

Three different concepts were offered as the most plausible theories explaining deserting Diriyah and not rebuilding it. First, that Diriyah as a city was destroyed to its core; its trees were cut to their roots; and its farms burnt to the ground by the assailing Ottoman powers prior to their departure, leaving Diriyah in complete ruins. This made rebuilding it not only a difficult task, but also an unnecessary one, as an alternative was present– the city of

Riyadh was in close proximity and met all the needed criteria to serve as a capital city.

Secondly, as Diriyah’s natives witnessed such devastating and traumatizing events in their hometown, it could have been mentally challenging to have an optimistic beginning in a place linked, visually and emotionally, with reminders of defeat, destruction, and devastation, especially during the foundational phase. Thus, it might have been easier for them to find a new location which was detached from those negative notions.

Moreover, the third possible explanation entails a strategic political reasoning from the founder of the second Saudi state. It is inferable that he did not want to confront or offend the

Ottomans by establishing a state with similar governance mechanism, in the same exact location of which they previously destroyed, and from an individual who is a direct descendant of the ones they had fought and defeated. At least not until the state became established and recovered. However, the last two reasons in my opinion, do not provide a plausible explanation.

They do not provide an equitable explanation for reasons why did they not return to Diriyah, even after establishing themselves in Riyadh, to rebuild or inhabit it. Instead, Diriyah, during the second Saudi state (1824-1891), remained not only uninhabited, but also naturally forgotten or forcefully ignored.

58 v Chapter 4. Atturaif As Model; An Analysis on the Built Environment

and Urban Morphology of the Capital’s Capital:

This chapter aims to build off the previous historical investigation, by bringing a new line of analysis on the earlier examination of the relationship between the two entities, and overlaying it over how the city is actually developing under those historical notions. For the purpose of this thesis, the Atturaif historic neighborhood was chosen as a study model representing an urban product which stemmed from the pact between political and religious powers, presented by Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdulwahhab, forming the new state. It is a neighborhood which was planned, created and inhabited with the ambitions, as well as the dangers, of the newly-founded state present in their minds. Atturaif also shines in the fact that it was never inhabited since the state’s downfall and Diriyah’s destruction. Unlike the other neighborhoods which went through different phases of demolition and reconstruction throughout the years, Atturaif was left in ruins. Hence, it presents the best approximation attempt to understand the city and how it may have functioned.

This chapter will first introduce an overview of Diriyah’s neighborhoods, in an attempt to explain the different clusters which the urban environment had produced, then separated. Then, it will begin dissecting the chosen neighborhood of study, Atturaif. First, by presenting a brief on the fort-like neighborhood, which assigns political, geographical, and morphological reasons to the absolute need for a new government-center neighborhood at the time. Following that, a description of its fortification and defensive wall will take place to support a critical argument this thesis is presenting. Afterwards, an urban fabric analysis of Atturaif will take shape to identify its core elements, its assigned duties, its relationship to the vibrant Wadi and the other neighborhoods, and possibly relate its emergence to the political status of the state.

59 After that, the urban scope will offer a more detailed architectural analysis. This will lead to introduction and proper examination of a novel structure which emerged in Atturaif, one that the region had not seen before. Ultimately, to suitably conclude the built environment examination of this distinctive neighborhood, Atturaif’s architectural decoration means and ornamenting methods will be explored and thoroughly examined.

• 4.1 – Neighborhoods or Towns? Notions of Urban Autonomy and Independence:

Arguably, Diriyah’s neighborhoods presented a unique model worth exploring. In a novel move, besides the defensive wall covering Diriyah’s entire perimeter, every single neighborhood interestingly constructed their own private defensive walls. This, along with other notions of analyzing its distinct neighborhoods, which later stages of the thesis entails, will support the argument that this thesis is grounding its urban fabric analysis upon. The

“neighborhoods” which formed Diriyah could, and arguably should, be regarded as much more than simply “neighborhoods.” In his depiction of Diriyah, the French Orientalist Felix Mengin, who experienced first-hand exposure on Diriyah from the side of the Egyptian-Ottomans, describes Diriyah as “comprising five small towns (neighborhoods)… each surrounded by a wall.”124 The use of “towns” instead of “neighborhoods” was always taken at face value as a translation error. However, after examining the key features of Diriyah’s neighborhoods and particularly Atturaif, I would argue against such simple reading. Mengin was one of the very few non-locals who depicted Diriyah with great details during that timeframe, and looked at

Diriyah from the perspective of an enemy-outsider, his perspectives provide key inputs that should not be taken at face value. Hence, this thesis suggests revisiting that overlooked description by Mengin of Diriyah in retrospect. Instead of alluding his reference to its

124 Mengin, Felix, & Al-Boqaa’y, Muhammed. (2003), Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat Muhammed Ali. p. 161

60 neighborhoods as “small towns” being a simple translation blunder, we can now better fathom the reason for such wording and exact reference.

As in an urban context, having each neighborhood with a detached wall covering their own border, engendered a certain level of an urban autonomy. Unlike the forms found in neighboring settlements during such times, where they were accustomed to deploying a single wall to surround all their lands, or only the ones they needed to protect. Diriyah’s model was not satisfied with a mere outer defensive wall which protects all their lands at once, but rather empowered a unique feeling of urban independence and autonomy for each neighborhood by deploying individual defensive measures as well. Hence, the upcoming chapter will explore

Diriyah’s neighborhoods, namely Atturaif, not simply as neighborhoods, but rather it will suggest looking at them as single standing settlements, or as Mengin put it, small towns.

In the early 19th century, Diriyah was composed of eight neighborhoods/towns: Ghasibah;

Samhan; Atturaif; Al-Bujairy; Al-Duwaihrah; Al-Murayyh; Malwi; and Al-Sareehah (Figure

8).125 Ghasibah was Diriyah’s oldest. With an estimated area of 32,112m2, Ghasibah, along with a farming land called Mulaibeed were the first lands of Diriyah to be inhabited by the grandfather of the Al-Saud family– Mani‘ Al-Muraidy– in 1446. Upon his arrival from

Arabia’s eastern region, he was bestowed the two neighborhoods. Ghasibah was believed to had been inhabited prior to Al-Muraidy’s arrival, by the clan of Al-Yazeed, who were forcefully booted and their lands seized (or locally referred to as forced). That renders a possible explanation for its name of Ghasibah to have been derived from the Arabic word of force (Eghtisab).126

125 Al-Awwad, Abdulhakeem. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. p. 39 126 Ibid, p. 39

(Figure 8: A satellite image showing Diriyah’s eight historic neighborhoods, and Mulaibeed at the very bottom.)

62 Al-Bujairy was the neighborhood/town where Sheikh Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab resided along with his family after arriving to Diriyah. Acquiring it the trait of Diriyah’s religious center, Al-Bujairy was not only where the religious leader, his family, and students lived, but also where his mosque was located and where his religious lessons were taught. It is believed that Al-Bujairy was chosen by Ibn Abdulwahhab to dwell because it was located right on the banks of Wadi Hanifah, which provided an easy passage and a practical entrance for his traveling and non-resident students. Abdulrahman Ibn Hassan, the grandson of Ibn

Abdulwahhab, wrote that Al-Bujairy had encompassed some sort of a learning structure, one which Ibn Saud, Diriyah’s ruler and the State’s founder, built for the Sheikh. At one time, that structure (madsrasa) could accommodate around 200 men and “tens” of women.127 Although the location and properties of Ibn Abdulwahhab’s mosque were identified, the other structure which his grandson described unfortunately are not known, given the demolition and destruction that Al-Bujairy had gone through. Nonetheless, those religious lessons, whether they took place in the mosque itself or in the other lost structure, had attracted many visitors from afar. That solidified Al-Bujairy’s merited status as Diriyah’s core center for religious activity.128

On the other hand, Samhan was Diriyah’s largest neighborhood/town. With an estimated area of 211,586m2, it was assigned the role of a political hub in Ibn Saud’s early days of ruling the Emirate of Diriyah, prior to establishing the Saudi State. After establishing the state, and Bin Abdulwahhab acquiring the adjacent neighborhood of Al-Bujairy, it became very clear that Samhan was not fit to presume the hefty role it was assigned earlier. Sometime during his reign, Ibn Saud came to the realization that Diriyah needed a new governmental hub for the

127 Abdulrahman Ibn Hassan. (2005), Al-Maqamat. Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. 128 Al-Mutawa, A. (2003), Mujtama' al-Diriyah. p. 63

63 ruler to safely inhabit and function, which is when Atturaif was introduced as a new hub for the ruler, his family, and other governmental structures.

With Al-Bujairy assuming the role of the religious center, and Atturaif being constructed to serve the role of a political hub instead of its predecessor Samhan, it became clear that Diriyah’s urban fabric allocated different urban clusters to different group of individuals based on their activities (Figure 9). The two neighborhoods of Al-Bujairy and

Atturaif inherently overshadowed the other ones in the timeframe of the First Saudi state. While depicting the form of Diriyah, the French traveler Corancez129 only managed to describe the two above mentioned neighborhoods: Atturaif, as he put it “the home of the Saud royals”; and

Al-Bujairy, as “the home of Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab and his family.”130

Interestingly to some observers, rather than a grand mosque (jami’)131 to serve Diriyah in its entirety, both neighborhoods possessed their own versions of dominant mosques. One was based in Atturaif, named Muhammed Ibn Saud mosque, which was used by Diriyah’s ruler, and the other was based in Al-Bujairy, called Sheikh Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab

Mosque, which was used by the religious Sheikh (Figure 10). Those observes might link such occurrence with larger notions regarding the fascinatingly intertwined relationship between the two entities of politics and religion, which the two preceding thesis chapters entailed and explained. I would argue, however, that such view would bear it way more than it actually deserves.

129 Louis Alexandre Olivier De Corancez, French Orientalist, A member of the Institut d’Egypte, supervisor of its political economy section. He later became a counsel in Aleppo then Baghdad. 130 De Corancez, Louis. (2003), al-Wahhabiyyon. p. 79 131 is a central, and larger than the usual, mosque. One that a Friday prayer and Eid prayers are (ﺟﺎﻣﻊ) ’A Jami performed-in, not just the basic five daily prayers that other dispersed mosques also entail.

(Figure 9: An aerial showing damaged ruins of the three clusters of Samhan at the very top, Al-Bujairy in the center, and Atturaif at the bottom, across from the Wadi.)

(Figure 10: The original Sheikh Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab mosque in Al-Bujairy. This is the only known photograph of the historic mosque. It was subsequently replaced with a concrete-built mosque which was itself restored and improved in 2015.)

65 Their viewpoints on such undertakings usually stems from a few perspectives. First, given that Atturaif was clearly built with the notion of security, they used the rational of safety to support their claim. Explaining that it might not have been wise for the ruler of Diriyah to travel from his place of residence in Atturaif to attend prayers at the Sheikh’s mosque in Al-

Bujairy, especially not five times a day. However, having such rationalization as the sole purpose behind the existence of two independent grand mosques can be rebutted for many reasons. One of which would be that, although such claim is true in theory, some incidents suggests that acts of praying did not necessarily adhere to the supposed level of security one would imagine. Even at the supposedly secured mosque of Atturaif, the ruler was not always protected and shielded. Prayers at Atturaif’s mosque could be attended by anyone who was in the neighborhood during prayer time, an evident of such would be what was mentioned earlier in chapter three, Diriyah’s second ruler – Imam Abdulaziz – was indeed assassinated at the presumably safeguarded mosque of Atturaif.

Another observer might use a justification of autonomy between the two entities, with reasoning that the political side did not want to yield its right of religious authority to Ibn

Abdulwahhab and be stripped of the pivotal religious trait. Like the former theory, that notion can also be easily discredited. As historical narratives clearly indicate, even through its rough patches and darkest hours, the two sides maintained a relationship of respect and admiration.

There was never really any doubt as to who the State’s actual ruler was. The Saud dynasty were the rulers and both sides, and everyone else, knew it. Prior to moving to Atturaif, Ibn Saud along with his sons, namely Imam Abdulaziz, used to walk from their place of residence while still in Samhan neighborhood two times a day– every morning and evening– to attend Ibn

66 Abdulwahhab’s daily religious lessons in Al-Bujairy.132 That is an important incident can be used to support the notion that there was never any envy from the Al-Saud rulers towards the religious authority presented by Ibn Abdulwahhab and his offspring.

Hence, for my personal attempts to analyze why Diriyah possessed two grand mosques instead of one, I would not give it more elucidation than I believe it was worth. I would attribute such undertaking to mere convenience and nothing else. Attending a prayer with the masses in a mosque was considered an important trait for Diriyah’s rulers. For them, it revealed to their citizens that religious practices were a top priority for the ruler, and also illuminated that the ruler considered himself as part of the people of whom he governs. Hence, it was not practical for the ruler to disregard his governing tasks and travel to Al-Bujairy five times a day to attend the daily prayers there, nor was it sensible for the Sheikh to be required to drop his lessons and neglect his students five times a day.

• 4.2 – Apparent and Symbolic Needs for Atturaif:

Notions behind the construction of the majestic bunker-like district of Atturaif arguably gives an inkling about the uniqueness of Diriyah in comparison to its local sphere and surrounding settlements. Hence, For the symbolic reasons which will be presented henceforth, this thesis identifies the governmental location shift from Samhan to Atturaif as the most crucial event of

Diriyah’s history urbanization.

Once the historical pact between the political leader Ibn Saud, and the religious Sheikh

Ibn Abdulwahhab– declaring a Saudi state– occurred in 1744, the local perspective had

132 Al-Reeki, Hasan. (2005), Lam’ al-Shihab fe Sirat Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab. Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives

67 changed, and the future horizon that they had imagined for the new state and its people had expendably shifted. In their minds, Diriyah was no longer confined its local sphere, but in a league of its own. They had aimed for Diriyah to become a beacon- the capital of a state that would control Arabia in its entirety, from the Red Sea in the west towards the Gulf in the east.

The could foresee that this would spread what they believed was the true call of Islamic practices to the world. They also realized that those colossal ambitions, of extreme dominance and immeasurable influence, will surely cause or attract an elevated level of danger and threat, unlike anything they had previously witnessed. With that in mind, Ibn Saud realized that the then-current governmental center and ruling residences of Diriyah, located in Samhan, just would not suffice anymore with the magnitude of the task they had in mind. To properly understand reasons which could have instigated such rational, one has to examine the bunker- like new center of government in comparison to its former one, Samhan. What was so uniquely different about Atturaif’s urban morphology and urban form?

To start, Samhan was already occupied by the time the state was established. Hence, there was not much room to maneuver and construct better secured structures, or an integrated government complex, especially that Samhan was already considered over-populated in the early years of the state, as Ibn Bisher had repeatedly stated in his accounts. Atturaif, on the other hand, prior to its construction to serve as the new governmental-hub, was and uninhabited

“wasted” space.133 Unlike the stretched out and flattened neighborhood of Samhan, and every other Diriyah neighborhood for that matter, Atturaif was exceptionally built on a high-raised majestic plateau, overviewing the vibrant Wadi Hanifah below and the rest of the city of

Diriyah as a backdrop. By approaching Atturaif from the banks of the Wadi, one can see just how considerably elevated Atturaif was (Figures 11).

133 Al-Awwad, A. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. p. 43

(Figures 11: Photos taken from the famed Wadi Hanifah, showing the considerable magnitude of just how Atturaif was elevated from the Wadi and other towns of Diriyah.)

69 Such an advantage would help solidify the impression of a castle-like neighborhood. Not only that, but because Samhan, even as it assumed the role of a government center- by default, if not design, had numerous entry points with multiple gates from opposing directions.

Consequently, it was effortlessly attacked over the years by far less capable foes than the ones the new state would likely be provoking. It was looted and attacked by neighboring settlements numerous times in Ibn Saud’s early days of ruling the Emirate of Diriyah– prior to establishing a Saudi state. In one instance, Ibn Bishr reported in his accounts that Samhan was easily attacked in 1721 by a clan from Arabia’s eastern regions, led by Sa’doun Ibn Ghyrayr. This event was just one of many examples of Samhan’s humble defensive fortifications, or lack thereof.134 Hence, a need for a better-secured ruling hub was apparent

Situated on an elevated upland, and being bordered by numerous series of mountains and Wadis, namely overseeing Wadi Hanifah on its eastern side, Atturaif had all the natural perks and geographical properties to assume the desired responsibility. Such natural obstacles made it almost impossible for an attack to approach Atturaif from those segments, which consequently reduced the areas that needed considerable defensive focus. Besides its natural defensive perks, Atturaif was built with a man-made fortification wall which runs for 2.5km around it. The western part of the wall was extremely distinctive in its form and function. It uniquely comprised a ‘chemin de ronde’– a round path which allowed Atturaif’s defenders to patrol and guard their locations from the tops of ramparts. From the outside, it was protected by a battlement or a parapet, placing the defending soldiers in an advantageous position, with great visibility to perform their duties (Figures 12). In Atturaif’s instance, the thick defensive wall beneath the walkway was around three meters in thickness.

134 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. p. 363

(Figures 12: Photos showing the western wall of Atturaif’s fortifications, which comprises a chemin de ronde’– a path which allowed the defenders to patrol and guard their locations from above. It placed the defending soldiers in an advantageous position, with great visibility.)

71 Superficially, what drove the political transfer, from the earlier government-center of

Samhan towards the newly-constructed Atturaif, are aforementioned reasons of better security and higher defensibility. Atturaif’s natural properties, with its elevated location, controlled entry points with natural barriers, and the mere fact that it was not inhabited prior, provided an opportunity for the state’s most vital structures to be located in a much more secured and safeguarded setting against possible attacks and, indeed, looming assaults. However, although such motives of safety could possibly have played an integral role for the crucial location shift, this thesis argues that there is a grander symbolic meaning which deemed the move to the elevated Atturaif a necessity. As the historical aspect of this thesis extensively explained particulars on the relationship between the two entities of politics and religion, by broadly examining its development, fate, and endurance, it was clear that no matter how dynamic the relationship actually was, assertion of power was undoubtedly imminent. Although the religious Sheikh and his family were held in an extremely high level of reverence and respect, the Saud dynasty of political rulers were very keen on asserting their authority as the ones responsible for the political decision. Hence, the actual and sole rulers of the state.

After Bin Abdulwahhab, his family, and aids dwelled Al-Bujairy, and constructed his mosque in it, Al-Bujairy became a frequented destination by outsider-visitors for the acclaimed

Sheikh’s religious lessons. While neighboring the quickly-vibrant town of Al-Bujairy was the then-current governmental center of Samhan. Samhan’s built environment was quite average in its construction. Most importantly, it did not affirm nor reflect any deserved notions of power and authority for their ruling-inhabitants who essentially founded the state. Yearning for a home to assert their merited dominance, and to show their earned political power, what better than the elevated plateau of Atturaif, overviewing Ibn Abdulwahhab’s Al-Bujairy and the vibrant Wadi Hanifah, to serve that role?

Atturaif’s main attribute was its elevated location. It was high-raised above the Wadi and atop all of Diriyah’s other neighborhoods. Being higher, it looked down at everything else.

Symbolically, it is giving its residing ruler the higher position, and fulfilling what they had aspired for their dwelt built environment to portray– a subtle sense of superiority. Getting the chance to acquire the literal higher grounds was too good an opportunity to miss. Indeed, by shifting the governmental hub to the overviewing and elevated Atturaif, the ruler is using the architecture of the space to convey and assert his merited dominance.

• 4.3 – Analyzing Atturaif Urban Fabric and Central Core;

Unfortunately, the exact date is not clear as when Atturaif’s construction began, nor has the exact date of its first inhabitation been determined. However, sources agree that the construction began during the early years of the State, which must be shortly after 1744.135 It has also been established that Ibn Saud did not live long enough to harvest the fruit of his labor, as he died in 1765, before its habitation. Therefore, it was left to his son Abdulaziz, Diriyah’s second ruler, to be the first to relocate and reside in the fort-like neighborhood. Getting the chance to create a neighborhood, from scratch, that was worthy of their envisioned state and ambitions, was too good an opportunity to miss.

Although forming an entire neighborhood on an elevated plateau can be regarded as a tiring task for the difficulty of sourcing the construction material, but local builders took it as a challenge. Historically, ever since the pre-Islamic days, the natives of the Najd region – anciently referred to as Yamamah – have long pride themselves in being exceptional builders.

Such attribute of skill was profoundly reinforced by a saying of Prophet Muhammed, when he

135 Al-Awwad, Abdulhakeem. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. p. 44

73 complimented an individual – from Yamamah – who had helped in the construction of the

Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. “Bring the Yamami forward with the clay, he is better than you in building and is more skilled”– a rough translation of the prophet’s wording.136

In concept, the image of Atturaif, graciously elevated and hovering over its immediate surroundings, while emerging from within the countless palm trees and myriad farm lands, with distant non-essential built structures in a fascinatingly blurred backdrop, unwittingly reminds any observer of Islamic cities of the majestic Alhambra Palace overlooking the city of

Granada. With the obvious differences in size, grandeur, splendor, and almost every other aspect, yet, the sheer concept of an elevated, fort-like royal structure is reminiscent.

Looking at Atturaif’s masterplan (Figure 13), because its main function was intended to be a space where the rulers resided and where the government entities functioned, it is very perceptible that almost all of its structures are residential palaces for the ruling family.

However, by examining Atturaif’s core of pivotal structures, arguably presents an extremely interesting case of a city’s urban form. As every city or settlements throughout history clearly identified its core structures, earlier examples of historic Islamic settlements emphasized the trinity of a grand mosque, a ruler palace, and an adjacent market as “the triple structures forming the civil nucleus that determines the morphology of almost any historic Islamic city.”137 However, emerging from within the prevailing sphere of royal palaces, this thesis identifies four key and pivotal bordering structures (Figure 14), and labels them as Atturaif’s dominant core- a quartet instead of a trinity: Salwa Palace (ruler’s palace), Muhammed Ibn

Saud Mosque (grand mosque), Bayt al-Mal (treasury), Subalat Moudhi (waqf).

”ﻗﺪﻣﻮا اﻟﯿﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻄﯿﻦ، ﻓﺈﻧﮫ ﻣﻦ أﺣﺴﻨﻜﻢ ﻟﮫ ﻣﺴﺎ، وأﺷﺪﻛﻢ ﻟﮫ ﺳﺒﻜﺎ“ :In Arabic 136 137 -Djait, Hicham. (1986), al - ”اﻟﺒﻨﯿﺔ اﻟﺜﻼﺛﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻮاة اﻟﻤﺪﻧﯿﺔ، اﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﺘﺤﺪد ﻣﻮرﻓﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿﺎ اﻟﻤﺪﯾﻨﺔ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﺘﯿﺪة ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﮭﺎ" :In Arabic Madina al-‘Arabeyya al-Islamiyya. p. 97

(Figure 13: Atturaif masterplan with structures identified.)

(Figure 14: A satellite image emphasizing Atturaif proposed quartet of pivotal structures.)

(Figure 15: Salwa Palace floorplan that shows its complex-like form with the extra annexes.)

76 First and foremost is the marvelous Salwa Palace.138 It was the palace where the state affairs were run from. It oversaw constant modifications as the state’s needs changed through time.

Given its degree of grandeur, the palace was believed to have been built, or majorly reconditioned, during the reign of Diriyah’s third ruler Saud al-Kabir, given that the tenure of his father Abdulaziz, Diriyah’s second ruler, was known for tendencies towards austerity and asceticism.139 As Saud’s tenure witnessed major growth, the palace was expanded to accommodate the non-stop visiting envoys of neighboring rulers and sultans around the region, in addition to the ever-present elderly tribal leaders whom he depended on to gather and mobilize his armies. Thus, making Salwa Palace more of a building complex than a single structure (Figure 15). Annexing the palace, between its outer and inner gates, Ibn Bishr reports that Saud had built a large structure with 50 columns and comprised of three floors, for religious lessons.140 The complex, in its final version, was formed of at least six palaces, including

Saud’s majlis or guest hall.

At a later stage, the palace was attached to the neighboring second structure of aforementioned quartet, Muhammed Ibn Saud Mosque. The mosque was where the ruler performed all his daily prayers in. Prior to that adjunction, Saud’s father was assassinated in that very mosque in revenge for Karbala, as mentioned earlier in the thesis. That knife might have been intended for Saud, and not his father, as Saud was the one who led the attack on

Karbala.141 Which is why presumably after assuming rule, Saud attached the two structures by a raised protected walkway from the Salwa Palace complex to the mosque. The other two

138 It is not known where the name Salwa came from, nor is it clear where it originated and its reasoning. What is clear is that it is an invented title in labeling the palace, which was not used by the contemporary natives at the time, but rather only appeared later by Ibn Khamis and was adapted by historians and researchers that followed. Preceding sources and accounts referred to the structure as Qasr al-Hukom 139 Al-Awwad, Abdulhakeem. (2019), Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman. p. 47 140 Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (1982), ‘Unwan al-Majd. pp. 325-329 141 Facey, William. (2001), Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. p. 94

77 structures forming Atturaif’s quartet or its four-way frontline, were the Treasury– Bayt Al-Mal, and Subalat Moudhi. Both were marvelous structures in their architectural merits, but Subalat

Moudhi acquired its pivotal status for non-architectural reasons.

Subalah is a najdi-Arabic term that is used in reference for a building that is assigned by its owner as a (waqf).142 The Moudhi who allocated this structure its Waqfian status is a topic of debate among historians to this day. Some believe she is Moudhi Al-Kathir, wife of Imam

Muhammed Ibn Saud, who played a role in persuading the Imam to welcome the Sheikh to

Diriyah. This notion is refuted by historians who claim that the Imam had not resided in Atturaif being that he passed before its completion. The others believe the Moudhi in reference is rather the daughter of Ibn Abdulwahhab, who was married to Diriyah’s second ruler, Imam Abdulaziz

Ibn Muhammed, who also happened to be the first to reside the neighborhood. Hence, that might explain why such vitally-located structure could ever be allocated as a Subalah/waqf.

Hence, it became a charitable structure, it had a part turned to a prayer space, and another for

Diriyah guests, namely ones who visit Al-Bujairy for the Sheikh’s religious lessons.

Although marginal in its size, Subalat Moudhi deserved its status as one of Atturaif core structures for its extreme impalpable worth. However, the degree of grandiosity among

Atturaif’s built structures presents another very revealing extraction, especially between its mosque and its palace. Although they were connected and conjoined, Salwa Palace was indisputably the grandest structure found in the district. In Atturaif, the mosque trailed the palace and was clearly overshadowed by it.

142 A waqf in a term for an endowment by Muslims for charitable reasons in Islamic law. It ranges from donating a building structure, a plot of land, or other assets either for Muslim religious purposes or for general charitable ones. Such merit cannot be overturned even if its owner is passed, as their inheritors must abide by that status.

78 By visually analyzing the stimulating location that was chosen for Atturaif’s core structures, it is noticeable that as the core of the district, this quartet model of pivotal structures was located in the edges of the city, not in its center. Unlike earlier key models of Islamic settlements which saw the pivotal mosque or palace identifying as the focal point of the city’ urban fabric, where almost every activity in the city either revolved around it, or originated from it. Atturaif’s “central” core as not so central in its location, but rather, the quartet core was located in the northeastern edges of Atturaif. They were placed in that location to overlook the Wadi, and to basically overlook the other neighborhoods and towns across from the Wadi.

Such undertaking, of placing the core structures in the edges and borderlines of the district, can back the proposed notion of symbolism that Atturaif arguably presented. Just like

Alhambra purposely placed its key palaces on the edge to overlook the city, Atturaif could have deliberately done the same as a show of power. Placing the core structures, namely the ruling palace which overshadowed all its peers including the mosque, on the edges and borders was meant for everyone to see. An apparent declaration of power not only to their religious counterparts in the opposite town of Al-Bujairy, but also to whoever passed by along Wadi

Hanifah, being that it was the most vital trade route in the region.

• 4.4 – A Matchless Structure to the Region Introduced in Atturaif:

Given that Atturaif was gradually built as the newly-founded state grew, it encompassed

Diriyah’s most crucial built structures. More than the abovementioned quartet structures of

Salwa Palace, Muhammed Ibn Saud Mosque, Bayt al-Mal, and Subalat Moudhi, this novel town also housed key individuals from the ruling class within the Saudi state. That resulted in astonishing architectural wonders for palaces such as Umar and Saad’s– as the palaces of the house of Saud assumed the names of their final occupants. However, no matter how splendid

79 and aesthetically-pleasing those most-celebrated structures of Atturaif were, they did not present a new architectural product which the region had not seen before, nor were they innovative in their function and purpose. Hence, since part of this thesis’ mission is to explore how the pact declaring the state may have affected the built environment of the space, it is crucial to identify a structure which appeared in Atturaif for the first time in the region, one that the entire region of Najd had never seen before. The Atturaif Baths and Guest House.

Presenting the bath structure is fundamental, as it gives the reader a glimpse of the elevated level of luxuriousness and splendor that the arid desert settlement began to acquire, and present, to the region with regards to the built environment (Figure 16).

Standalone bath structures might be as old as civilization itself. Such types of structures were found in the Egyptian Pharaonic periods, and afterwards they appeared in the Aegean civilization where remains of baths were found in palaces of Cnossos and Tiryns– which dated back to the Bronze Age (3000-1200 B.C.).143 Throughout both the Greek and the Roman civilizations, baths had begun to spread in regions under their control. They also made their way into later Islamic civilizations, namely to the Ottoman Empire. Evidently, such structures were deemed vital throughout history. Besides its role offering both comfort and hygiene to the bathers, it was also the place where informal social, political, and economic dealings were held. Bath structures were also present in a few locations in the Arabian Peninsula, in the Hijaz region of Mecca and Medina, as well as in the infamous Ibrahim Palace found in the city of

Hofuf– located in the Al-Ahsa region in eastern Arabia. Yet, prior to Atturaif's baths, such structure never made its way to Najd or its surroundings. So, what instigated introducing such structure in Atturaif after all?

143 Yassin, Zuhair. (1980), Al-Turaif Bath and its Annexes. Jeddah: KSA General Administration of Antiquities and Museums. p. 6

(Figure 16: A drafted bird-eye perspective of Atturaif Bath and Guest House.)

(Figure 17: Plan for Atturaif Bath and Guest House with spaces identified.)

82 As the reign of Saud al-Kabir “Saud the Great” (1803-1814) could justifiably be classified as Diriyah’s golden era, being that it reached its apogee not only in the physical expansions of the state but also in its increasing economic earnings, that prosperous status was reflected in the built environment as well. Hence, Saud apparently wanted to build a novel cultural structure with unique architectural traits that would not only label his reign as a prosperous one, but one that he could also boast about to his important visitors and envoys from key states throughout, as Diriyah became more of a central destination in the region.

Furthermore, as the First Saudi state was based on a unification between political and religious powers, with the notion of spreading the true call of Islam as its focal mission, the Atturaif

Bath’s structure could also be justified from an Islamic rationale as well. Islam emphasized the importance of one’s hygiene and cleanliness repeatedly, as it required undergoing wudu144 in preparation for performing a prayer. There is also a notable saying (hadith) from the prophet to this regard, “Cleanliness is from faith.”145

The Atturaif Bath (Figure 17), is located just north of the banks of Sha’ib Safar, which feeds into the main valley of Wadi Hanifah. It is where the construction material for building the bath were gathered from, and it is also the place where the oval-shaped well which supplied the bath had existed. The water was carried on the back of donkeys, who transported it from the well to the bath, and the drainage ran through canals which were dug in the rock bedding of the space. The natural slope of the space, from the north to the south, helped that drainage process. The Bath structure was mainly comprised of a large open court, which was enclosed by 4-meter-high walls from all sides. Its main entrance was on the north side of the structure.

It contained a ‘cold room,’ which a bather first entered for the bath experience. As the cold

144 A procedure where Muslims cleanse parts of their bodies to perform religious duties, namely prayer. It includes the washing of hands, mouth, nostrils, face, arms, head and feet with water. 145 اﻟﻨﻈﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻹﯾﻤﺎن :In Arabic

83 room did not require the bather to take off his clothes, it was the social space of the structure, where individuals gathered and engaged in unformal conversations, relaxed, and had drinks.

The room also had an operator present at all times. In its northwestern corner, there was a basin of cold water, which was used to perform wudu. A door from the cold room led to a corridor that steered the bather to the ‘warm room,’ which was two steps lower than that of the corridor.

In this transitional space, clothes were supposed to be taken off prior to proceeding to the ‘hot room.’ Then, a steep and narrow 1.20cm corridor transferred the bather towards the hot room– the focal point of the entire bath structure.146

This room was square in its shape, with enormously thick stone-built walls. Just like hot rooms in baths of the Graeco-Roman Period, as well as the ones found throughout Arab and

Islamic countries, this hot room was also covered by a dome, which is extremely rare to be featured in Najdi architecture (Figure 18). Another interesting revelation was revealed during the excavation works, the dome was surprisingly constructed from bricks, a material which was also hardly ever used in the central region of Arabia. The bath also contained some adjacent structures to better serve its purpose, which are labeled as the bath’s annexes. They were split into two sections, a western and an eastern section. From the excavated ruins, it is clear that the western section was the residential unit, the guest house, which served as an accommodation to Diriyah’s significant guests and key visitors. It had six rooms, all overviewing a central open court, with some of the rooms having a clear view over the valley.

Meanwhile the eastern section was comprised merely of two very small rooms, which suggests they were not meant for accommodation, but rather operated as storage rooms or served similar purposes.147

146 Ibid, pp. 11-14 147 Ibid, pp. 15-22

(Figure 18: The unique to Najdi-architecture dome, which covered the Bath’s hot room.)

85 The Bath structure certainly presented a new architectural structure that the region was not used to building, or even seeing. One cannot attribute a single reason to explain its emergence. Rather, all the notions of the grandeur in Imam Saud’s personal character; and the fact that Diriyah saw an overwhelming economic boom that positioned it as a key state in the region, which rendered it to begin welcoming key guests and special envoys from influential states throughout the region; along with the general emphasis of hygiene in Islamic teachings, could collectively explain the creation of such exceptionally rare structure.

However, given that the notion of grandeur was introduced at later stages in the urban development process of Atturaif, as it was not there in the beginning, the idea of building monumental structures goes hand to hand with the notion of the rulers asserting their merited status as the dominant power in the settlement through the architecture. Placing the novel bath structure in the elevated plateau surely was a grim task, for they had to supply it with water by using donkeys– a very challenging and impractical water-transportation method. Such difficult task could have easily been avoided if a more suitable location for a Bath was chosen, but preferring Atturaif to embrace it, despite the hardships of that decision, surely supports the symbolism notions of Atturaif which this thesis had presented.

• 4.5 – Atturaif Architectural Decorating & Ornamenting:

To further elucidate Atturaif’s architectural distinctiveness, its decorating and ornaments needs to be examined. While an Islamic sense of reserve and modesty overshadowed almost every aspect of the lives of Atturaif’s residents, its structures did display distinct forms of architectural decorations and ornamenting. Although simple, those attempts were rhythmic and fell perfectly under the doctrine of unity which is vital to Islamic thinking, where multiplicity is seen through an order of unity: “Islamic art is a means of relating multiplicity to unity by

86 means of mathematical forms, not as mental abstractions but as reflections of the celestial archetypes.”148 While such approaches included using different types of crenellation styles on top of roofs and decoration of roof parapets, as well as the usage of bright colors in painting wooden parts of buildings, such as doors and wooden beams, the most profound decorative approach was clearly the usage of decorative and ornamental openings (ventilators) on the facades of Atturaif’s monumental structures. These open motifs had dual functions: they were not solely ornamental in their purpose, but rather provided the buildings with light and natural ventilation as well. Various geometric and non-geometric forms alike were clearly evident across Atturaif’s built environment.149

The geometric forms included triangular, square, rectangular, trapezoid and diamond- shaped openings that were used abundantly in Atturaif. However, there were also irregular, non-geometric forms that include the dew drop shaped openings, and what is labeled locally as a shouldered opening. Between the two general themes, triangular motifs were the most ubiquitous in Atturaif’s built environment, according to a major excavation study.150 These triangular-shaped openings were positioned differently to form diverse and unique kinds of arrangements (Figures 19). Most frequently, they were used adjacently to form a horizontal line pattern. Such arrangement can be observed in almost all palaces throughout Atturaif, especially in Salwa Palace. In more longitudinal structures, the triangular-shaped openings were placed above one another, forming a vertical line pattern. That arrangement first appeared on the defensive towers attached to Atturaif’s treasury “Bayt al-Mal”, built by Saud al-Kabeer, and appeared later in both palaces of Omar and Saad. Moreover, another pattern of using

148 Naser, Seyyed Hossein. (1976), Introduction to “Islamic Patterns” By Keith Critchlow. London: Thames and Hudson 149 Hashim, Syed. (2005), Typology and Development of Ventilators Used As Decorative Element In the Adobe Palaces, And Other Buildings at Turaif in Diriyah. Riyadh: Arriyadh Development Authority. p. 7 150 Hashim, Syed Anis. (2005), Typology and Development of Ventilators Used As Decorative Element In the Adobe Palaces, And Other Buildings at Turaif in Diriyah. Riyadh: Arriyadh Development Authority

87 multiple triangular openings arranged in a larger triangular-like form was evident in Atturaif’s structures, whether it would be three, six, ten, or fifteen small triangular openings all mounting to a larger one. Along with Salwa palace, this pattern was found in Atturaif’s grand mosque, and throughout the palaces and guest houses at later stages.

Other than the basic rhythmic and simplistic combinations, Atturaif’s structures also possessed certain rather unique arrangements of motifs. Many of those combinations only appeared once, which could give solid foundation to the notion that such ornamental efforts were not centralized nor institutionalized, but rather acted as a canvas for the local builders to, aesthetically and functionally, self-express as well as to experiment (Figures 20). One example of those is an arrangement which contained two sets of combinations, assembled from seven triangular openings, formed in a mihrab shape, and crowned with a dew drop motif. Its sole presence was in Salwa Palace, and never again was it seen. Another astonishing example is an arrangement which contained three triangular openings arranged in a triangular form, with the central one’s base triangle alternated with a trapezoid-shaped opening, crowned by a simple triangle. Numerous other unique examples also appeared throughout the different structures of

Atturaif.

(Figure 19: Three basic types of geometric triangular openings arrangement.)

(Figure 20: Examples of single-existent unique arrangements formed from basic geometric shapes.)

90 v Conclusion:

As a part of the objective of the thesis was to track the effects of establishing the new state on to the built environment, it chose Atturaif as an urban model which stemmed as a direct result of that. By exploring Atturaif’s apparent reasons for emergence, and introducing possible hidden symbolic ones, this thesis argued that the location shift for the political-governmental entity from Samhan to Atturaif should be considered as the most crucial event of urbanization for Diriyah in timeframe of the first Saudi State.

Prior to the establishment of the state, what had distinguished Diriyah in comparison to its local sphere were a few intangible traits. Situated in the central location on the vibrant Wadi

Hanifah, which for centuries acted as a cradle of civilizations, acquired Diriyah’s location a pivotal status. Furthermore, Diriyah was not a new-fangled construct, nor was it a novel tribal settlement. As earlier sections of the thesis had argued, from Diriyah’s first settlement in the mid-15th century, it oversaw three centuries of general stability prior to founding the State in

1744. In those years, the same group of individuals settled in an unchanged geographical location, and were governed by the descendants of a single founding figure, who practiced the same system of rule. Such stability surely renders Diriyah its unique merits against neighboring settlements, whose powers swiftly shifted among combating tribal leaders. To add to that notion of stability, the thesis argued that Diriyah was also governed not on a tribal basis- in that particular tribes would be favored over others, but rather functioned on notions of equality and fairness, again, in comparison to its local sphere at the time. Those intangible notions of governance, stability, and equality, along with the natural perks of Diriyah being scattered and located on the vibrant Wadi Hanifah, are what arguably made Diriyah such a unique model prior to establishing the State.

While after the state was established in 1744, it became very clear that the politics and the built environment became evidently linked and tightly conjoined. The architecture of the space served as a mere reflection to the pond of political standings of the state at any given time. When it first began, the state was dominated by a looming need for a sense of security to overcome the ranging notions of fear for the humble defensive measures, or lack thereof. So, at first, the political status of the state was reflecting defensive processes on to the built environment. Hence its innovative defensive walls being erected; and how the bunker-like neighborhood-town of Atturaif was built. Then, under Diriyah’s golden era, the priorities had changed. That celebrated span left its mark on the built environment as well. Instead of fortifying and defending like earlier times,

Imam Saud’s personal qualities of luxuriousness and splendor reflected itself in the acts of constructing the unique Atturaif Baths, a structure that the region had never seen before, and in constantly modifying Salwa Palace until it became a grand ruling complex instead of the single structure it once was.

However, this thesis argued for another impelling reason to crown Diriyah’s distinctiveness. Forming the First Saudi State from a pact between Ibn Saud and Ibn

Abdulwahhab resulted in the development of two different authoritative entities, one of politics and the other of religion. How a capital developed after such a historic pact between a political leader and a religious one, is precisely what this thesis argues rendered Diriyah its merited uniqueness and deserved distinctiveness compared to its local sphere of neighboring settlements.

While Ibn Abdulwahhab and his offspring after him were revered for their religious reforms and corrective Islamic ideology, there was no doubt that the Saud dynasty were the true rulers of the State. Being that they had the sole power over the political decision of the

92 State named after their grandfather, and for the fact that they were rulers of the Emirate of

Diriyah three centuries before the arrival of Ibn Abdulwahhab. Indicatively, when Ibn Saud passed away, the reign of power lucidly shifted to his son Abdulaziz, although Ibn

Abdulwahhab was still alive. This indicates that the scope of authority and level of responsibilities was clearly identified between the two entities of political power and religious influence, but was that dynamic relationship and power assertion reflected on the architecture?

This thesis presented the move from Samhan to Atturaif as the first, and possibly the only, incident of which the assertion of power was conveyed by using the built environment and the architecture of the space. Hence, the rise of Atturaif.

What made Atturaif a perfect model to highlight Diriyah’s urbanization during the desired timeframe of research, is that it provided a critical clue about the abovementioned uniqueness of Diriyah. As two seemingly dynamic centers of power can be seen as somehow unwittingly competing to become centers, the State’s political rulers realized that Samhan was not a suitable place for them to assert their centrality. Thus, a move to Atturaif was instigated.

Certainly, the natural defensive perks of Atturaif, and the lack thereof in Samhan, played an integral role to prompt such move, but notions of symbolism by the rulers assuming the verbatim higher grounds cannot be overlooked.

Standing tall upon elevated grounds, amid the glorious landscapes which hungrily fed- off Wadi Hanifah and overlooking areas far beyond its admirable yet comparatively humble defensive walls, laid Atturaif– a bunker-like, yet majestic silhouette, in all its splendor and grandeur. It represented a model capital of a nation with such a lofty dream to envision. Atturaif was the ambitious birthplace of a nation extending from the Red Sea to the Gulf, covering almost everything in between. Irrefutably, Atturaif was the heart of Diriyah, hence why as the

93 Ottoman forces of Ibrahim Pasha overran one town after another in their ruthless quest and senseless march towards the capital, Diriyah never conceded defeat until Atturaif had heartbreakingly fallen, like the final piece in an inequitable chess game. Although it fell well over two centuries ago, Atturaif still offers lessons for historians of all sorts, and architectural historians in particular.

“A city, its institutions, its structure and its architecture are impressively honest in laying bare the value structure of its builders and its inhabitants.”151 Built like a bunker that the region had not seen before, with fortification walls were astonishing in comparison to its neighboring settlements, with its entry points properly controlled, and its borders efficiently secured and effectively closed-off, Atturaif was clearly planned and built with dominating abstract notions of seeking a falsified sense of security in its fortress-like form. However, all those architectural measures and defensively-built strategies were not enough to withstand the constant bombardment and the relentless siege. Those remarkable defensive fortifications, no matter how admirable, did not prevent an attack, nor did it create a glorious triumph. Rather, they only postponed Diriyah’s cruel downfall by a mere duration of six months filled with agony and false pretenses of hope.

The case of Diriyah’s urban history, and specifically the urban development stages it went through during the timeframe of the first Saudi state, did indeed present a compelling model to analyze. How a strategic pact between a motivated political leader, with a reliable religious cleric, turn a small patch of land, amongst ever-battling tribally-ruled settlements, into a capital of a state which ruled Arabia almost in its entirety. Just as many lessons as one can learn from its quick emergence, one can also learn from its even quicker downfall. The journey of properly covering

151 Bokhari, Abdullah Yahiya. (1981), On the Identity of the Arab-Islamic City - Past and Present. The Arab City. p.78

94 Diriyah is in fact lengthy for the multiple dimensions it can be interpreted through. It is hoped that with narrating the urban story of the first Saudi state, by using the built environment as the main exploration tool to reveal the political story, this thesis had covered a satisfactory portion of that long journey.

Being that the thesis explored a version of city that is lost in ruins, it struggled with sources to reconstruct history. As anyone who deals with periods or areas that have either lost their archives, or never had them, could relate. Hence, it argued that its two deployed analytical means, of textual and visual investigations, complements each other in forming a compelling method of analysis.

One that can be used on similar cases of cities which no longer exists, or do exists but in ruins, and offer some sort of a literary source that can be used on similar examples of cities that have disappeared or are in ruins, but still exists descriptions of them. Thus, part of the work of this thesis was to explore the prospect of using these two methods of analysis to reinforce one another, and at the same to test the possibility for this methodology to be used in similar quests of exploring lost cities. It is hoped that others could benefit from the work this thesis had implemented, not necessarily to learn from Diriyah’s per se, but from its investigation methodology to use on analogous cases that has two similar forms of sources, and how can both be put together in the service of an interpretation.

95 Illustration Credits:

- Figure 1: Satellite image of Diriyah provided by ADA (Arriyadh Development Authority) – Identifying the two bestowed neighborhoods and the Wadi is a personal effort by the researcher. - Figure 2: Personal efforts by the researcher using information extracted from (Al- Ruwaished, Abdulrahman. (2013), Al-Jadawil Al-‘Ausariyya, Dar Al-Shibl Li Al-Nashr wal Tawzee’) - Figure 3: Arriyadh Development Authority. (2015), Al-Bujairy, Heart of the Call. Medina Publishing. Riyadh, p.19 - Figure 4: Ibn Bishr, Uthman. (2002), ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd. Edited and introduced By Abdullah Al-Muneef. Riyadh: King Abdulaziz Public Library, pp. 50-51 - Figure 5: Mengin, Félix. (1823), Histoire de l’Égypte. Paris. - Figure 6: Facey, William. (2001), Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. London: Stacey International, p.44 - Figure 7: The Historical Atlas of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, (2000), 2nd edition, Riyadh, Published by Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives - Figure 8: Satellite image of Diriyah provided by ADA (Arriyadh Development Authority) – Identifying the neighborhoods were personal efforts by the researcher. - Figure 9: Archives of the Arriyadh Development Authority (ADA) - Figure 10: Arriyadh Development Authority. (2015), Al-Bujairy, Heart of the Call. Medina Publishing. Riyadh, p.25 - Figure 11: Facey, William. (2001), Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. London: Stacey International, p.34, p.36, p.52 - Figure 12: Archives of the Arriyadh Development Authority (ADA) - Figure 13: Facey, William. (2001), Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. London: Stacey International, p.87 - Figure 14: Satellite image of Diriyah provided by ADA (Arriyadh Development Authority) – Identifying the quartet of core structures is a personal effort by the researcher. - Figure 15: Facey, William. (2001), Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. London: Stacey International, p.88 - Figure 16: Yassin, Zuhair. (1980), Al-Turaif Bath and its Annexes. Jeddah: KSA General Administration of Antiquities and Museums, Cover Page - Figure 17: Yassin, Zuhair. (1980), Al-Turaif Bath and its Annexes. Jeddah: KSA General Administration of Antiquities and Museums, p.10 - Figure 18: Al-Saud, Nouf. (2011), New Life for Old Structures, Al-Dir’iyyah - Saudi Arabia, Al-Turath Foundation - Figure 19: Hashim, Syed. (2005). Typology and Development of Ventilators Used As Decorative Element In the Adobe Palaces, And Other Buildings at Turaif in Diriyah. Riyadh: Arriyadh Development Authority - Figure 20: Hashim, Syed. (2005). Typology and Development of Ventilators Used As Decorative Element In the Adobe Palaces, And Other Buildings at Turaif in Diriyah. Riyadh: Arriyadh Development Authority

96 Bibliography:

Abbas, A. M. (1995). Al-Askariyyah al-Saudia fe Muwajahat al-Dawlah al-Othmaneyya - .Riyadh: Dar al-Zahra .اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﺟﮭﺔ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﻌﺜﻤﺎﻧﯿﺔ Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz .اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻣﺎت - Abdulrahman Bin Hassan. (2005). Al-Maqamat Foundation for Research and Archives. ADA. (2007). In the Memory of the Wadi. Arriyadh Develpment Authority, Riyadh. ADA. (2009). In the Memory of the Wadi. Arriyadh Develpment Authority, Riyadh. ADA. (2010). The Journey Back: Enviromental Rehabilitation Project. Arriyadh Development Authority , Riyadh. ADA. (2016). Riyadh: History, Heritage, Vision. Arriyadh Development Authority , Riyadh. ADA, Historic Diriyah Development Programme. (2015). Al-Bujairy: Heart of the Call. Arriyadh Development Authority . Riyadh: Medina Publishing. Aga Khan Award. (2013). Wadi Hanifa Wetlands Project Brief. Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Geneva. Al-Asad, M. (2004). Wadi Hanifa Wetlands On-Site Review Reports. Aga Khan Award for Architecture. اﻟﺪﻋﻮة Al-Askar, A. (2012). Al-Dawa Al-Wahabeyya wal Mamlakah al-Arabeyya al-Saudia .Beirut: Jadawel .اﻟﻮھﺎﺑﯿﺔ واﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺑﺎب ﺳﻤﺤﺎن ) Al-Awwad, A. (2019). Al-Dir’iyah Bain Bab Samhan wa Bab Salman .Beirut: Jadawel .وﺑﺎب ﺳﻠﻤﺎن (أطﻠﺲ وﺻﻔﻲ وﻟﻤﺤﺔ ﺗﺎرﯾﺨﯿﺔ Al-Bassam, A. (2001). Min Asbab al-Mo'aradah al-Mahaleyya li Da'wat al-Shaikh ﻣﻦ أﺳﺒﺎب اﻟﻤﻌﺎرﺿﺔ .Muhammed Bin Abdulwahhab fi 'Ahd al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula .(Ad Diriyah(14 .اﻟﻤﺤﻠﯿﺔ ﻟﺪﻋﻮة اﻟﺸﯿﺦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪاﻟﻮھﺎب ﻓﻲ ﻋﮭﺪ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ Al-Boqaa’y, M. (2004). Awa’il al-Kutob al-Faranseyya ‘an Da’wat al-Shaikh Muhammed أواﺋﻞ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﯿﺔ ﻋﻦ دﻋﻮة اﻟﺸﯿﺦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻮھﺎب .bin Abdulwahhab al-‘Eslahiyya .Al-Darah Journal, 30(3), 9-34 .اﻹﺻﻼﺣﯿﺔ Al-Dahiry, A. (2003, 5). Al-Diriyah Bain al-Eshtiqaq al-Loghawi wal Efadah al- ,Ad Diriyah .اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻹﺷﺘﻘﺎق اﻟﻠﻐﻮي واﻹﻓﺎدة اﻟﺘﺎرﯾﺨﯿﺔ اﻷدﺑﯿﺔ - Tareekheyyah al-Adabeyyah 21(6), 7 - 39. Al-Fakhiry, M. (1861). Al-Fakhiry History. ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ اﻷﻧﻤﺎط .Al-Fukair, B. (2005). Ta’gyeer al-Anmat al-Sakaniya fi Madinat al-Diri’yah Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz .اﻟﺴﻜﻨﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﯾﻨﺔ اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ (دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻐﺮاﻓﯿﺎ اﻟﺤﻀﺮﯾﺔ Foundation for Research and Archives. .ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ اﻟﺠﺒﺮﺗﻲ - Al-Jabarti, A. (n.d.). Al-Jabarti's History of Egypt اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺟﺪ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﯿﺪﯾﺔ .Al-Jideed, M. (2009). Al-Masajid al-Taqlediyya bi Hay al-Turaif fel Diri’yah Riyadh: King Saud University, College of Architecture and .ﺑﺤﻲ اﻟﻄﺮﯾﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ Planning Research Center. Al-Juhany, U. (2002). Najd Before the Salafi Reform Movement; Social, Political, and Religious Conditions During the Three Centuries Preceding the Rise of the Saudi State. Reading: Ithaca Press.

97 Riyadh: Darah - King .ﻣﻮﺟﺰ ﻟﺘﺎرﯾﺦ اﻟﻮھﺎﺑﻲ Al-Juhany, U. (2005). Moojaz li Tareekh al-Wahhabi Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ Al-Mutawa, A. (2003). Mujtama' al-Diriyah fi 'Ahd al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula .Riyadh: Saudi Historical Society .ﻓﻲ ﻋﮭﺪ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ Al-Oraini, A. (1999). Al-Imam Muhammed Bin Saud wa Juhooduh fe Ta'sees al-Dawla al- :Riyadh: Darah .اﻹﻣﺎم ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻮد وﺟﮭﻮده ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄﺳﯿﺲ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ - Saudia al-Aula King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. Al-Othaymeen, A. (2013). Al-Diri’yah Nush’atan wa Tatawworan fi ‘Ahd al-Dawla al- Riyadh: Darah - King .اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ ﻧﺸﺄة وﺗﻄﻮ ًرا ﻓﻲ ﻋﮭﺪ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ .Saudia al-Aula Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. Al-Qahtani, F. (2010). Hamlat Ibrahim Pasha ‘ala al-Dir’iyyah wa Su’qotoha (1816-1818). Riyadh: DARAH - King Abdulaziz Foundation for .ﺣﻤﻠﺔ إﺑﺮاھﯿﻢ ﺑﺎﺷﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ وﺳﻘﻮطﮭﺎ Research and Archives. ﻟﻤﻊ اﻟﺸﮭﺎب ﻓﻲ – Al-Reeki, H. (2005). Lam’ al-Shihab fe Sirat Muhammed Bin Abdulwahhab Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and .ﺳﯿﺮة ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪاﻟﻮھﺎب Archives. Al-Samhouri, W. (2010). Wadi Hanifa Wetlands On-Site Review Reports. Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Al-Saud, N. (n.d.). New Life for Old Structures, Al-Dir’iyyah - Saudi Arabia. 2011: Al- Turath Foundation. Al-Shehri, S. (2018). Tahseenat al-Diri’yah al-Difa’eyyah Iban al-Dawlah al-Saudia al-Aula Riyadh: DARAH - King .ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻨﺎت اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ اﻟﺪﻓﺎﻋﯿﺔ إﺑﺎن اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ . (1744-1818) Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives. Bokhari, A. Y. (1981). On the Identity of the Arab-Islamic City - Past and Present. The Arab City, 78-83. Brydges, S. (1834). An Account of the Transactions of His Majesty’s Mission to the Court of Persia in the Years 1807-11 . London: J. Bohn. Commins, D. (2006). The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. New York: I.B. Tauris. .Beirut: Riad El-Rayyes Books .اﻟﻮھﺎﺑﯿﻮن - De Corancez, L. (2003). al-Wahhabiyyon ﻧﺸﺄة اﻟﻤﺪﯾﻨﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ - Djait, H. (1986). Nush’at al-Madina al-‘Arabeyya al-Islamiyya al-Kufa .Beirut: Dar al-Talee'a .اﻹﺳﻼﻣﯿﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ Facey, W. (2001). Dir'iyyah and the First Saudi State. London: Stacey International. Gurshon, Z. (2010). al-Uthmaniyoon wa al-Saud fel ‘Ersheef al-Uthmani (1745-1914). .Beirut . اﻟﻌﺜﻤﺎﻧﯿﻮن وآل ﺳﻌﻮد ﻓﻲ اﻷرﺷﯿﻒ اﻟﻌﺜﻤﺎﻧﻲ (١٧٤٥-١٩١٤) Hanke, C. M. (2007). Qariat Sadus: Prinzipien der Planung und Gestaltung einer Ortschaft in Zentralarabien. P.h.D. Dessertation. Hashim, S. (2005). The Salwa Palace and the Salwa Mosque. Riyadh: Cultural Program - Arriyadh Development Authority. Hashim, S. (2005). Typology and Development of Ventilators Used As Decorative Element In the Adobe Palaces, And Other Buildings at Turaif in Diriyah. Riyadh: Arriyadh Development Authority . Heritage, C. f. (2008). Conservation, Restoration & Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings at At-Turaif Area, Old Dir'iyyah. Cairo.

98 Historic Diriyah Development Programme. (2008). Al-Diriyah; Past Originality and Present Radiance. Riyadh. ﻋﻨﻮان .Ibn Bishr, '. (1982). ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd. Maktabat al-Riyadh al-Hadithah Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and .اﻟﻤﺠﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ﻧﺠﺪ Archives. Ibn Ghannam, H. (1994). Rawdat al-Afkar wal-Afham li-Murtad Hal al-Imam wa-Ta’dad ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ اﺑﻦ ﻏﻨﺎم، اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻰ: روﺿﺔ اﻷﻓﻜﺎر واﻷﻓﮭﺎم ﻟﻤﺮﺗﺎد ﺣﺎل اﻹﻣﺎم وﺗﻌﺪاد .Ghazwat dhawi al-Islam .Amman: Dar Al-Shurooq .ﻏﺰوات ذوي اﻹﺳﻼم .Riyadh .اﻟﺪرﻋﯿﺔ: اﻟﻌﺎﺻﻤﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ .Ibn Khamis, A. (1982). Dir’iyyah.. the First Capital Mengin, F. (1823). Histoire de l'Égypte sous le gouvernement de Mohammed-Aly, ou, Récit des événemens politiques et militaires qui ont eu lieu depuis le départ des Français jusqu'en. Paris. Mengin, F., & Al-Boqaa’y, M. (2003). Tareekh al-Dawla al-Saudia al-Aula wa Hamlat ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ وﺣﻤﻼت ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ .Muhammed Ali ‘ala al-Jazirah al-Arabiya Riyadh: Darah - King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and .ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺠﺰﯾﺮة اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ Archives. Menoret, P. (2014). Joyriding in Riyadh: Oil, Urbanism, and Road Revolt. Cambridge, UK. Mohsen, M. (2011). Implicate & Explicate: Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Baden: Lars Muller Publishers. Naser, S. (1976). Forward to Islamic Patterns By Keith Critchlow. London: Thames and Hudson. Olayan, J. (2019). Drafting the History of the Palace of Fahd Bin Saud at al-Diriyyah and the Analysis of its Components Utilizing Architectural Evidence. Al-Darah, 11-56. Porter, W. (May 1980). Architecture in Islam: The Search for Form in Places of Public Gathering in Islamic Proceedings. Seminar 5. Architectural Transformations in the Islamic World. . Amman: The Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Geneva. Remond, J., & Al-Boqaa’y , M. (2003). Al-Tathkira fe Asil al-Wahhabeyyeen wa Riyadh: Darah: King Abdulaziz .اﻟﺘﺬﻛﺮة ﻓﻲ أﺻﻞ اﻟﻮھﺎﺑﯿﯿﻦ ودوﻟﺘﮭﻢ – Dawlatuhom Foundation for Research and Archives. Cairo: General .رﺣﻠﺔ ﻋﺒﺮ اﻟﺠﺰﯾﺮة اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ - Sadlier, F. (2013). Rehla 'Abr al-Jazeerah al-Arabeyya Egyptian Book Organization. Saudi Government. (2016). Vision 2030. Saudi Government. (2017). Quality of Life Program 2020. The Council of Economic Affairs and Development, Riyadh. Steele, J. (1989). The Hassan Fathy Collection. A Catalogue of Visual Documents at the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Bern: The Aga Khan Trust for Culture. Yaghi, I. (2010). History of Modern & Contemporary Islamic World. Yassin, Z. (1980). Al-Turaif Bath and its Annexes. Jeddah: KSA General Adminstration of Antiquities and Museums. Yavuz, Y. (2001). Wadi Hanifa Wetlands On-Site Review Reports. Aga Khan Award for Architecture.