'The lands of the Eastern Caliphate Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia from the Moslem conquest to the time of Timur' [‎304] (343/586)

304
KIRMAN.
[CHAP.
stood the Great Mosque, a magnificent building. The city had
four gates, the first three being called after the towns whither their
roads led, namely, Bab Mahan, Bab Khabis, and Bab Zarand;
the fourth was the Bab Mubarik, 4 the Blessed Gate,' or possibly
so called after somebody of the name of Mubarik, or Mubarak.
Mukaddasi adds that the place was full of gardens, wells were
common, and underground channels gave an abundant water-
supply 1 .
From the time when Ibn Ilyas in the reign of ^dud-ad-
Dawlah removed the government offices (Divan) to Bardasir,
this town, as already said, remained the chief capital of Kirman,
and followed the fortunes of the province, which, as a rule, was
annexed by whoever was the ruler of Fars. In the early part of
the 5th (nth) century, the Buyids fell before the rising power of
the Saljilks, who were masters of the Kirman province from 433
to 583 (1041 to 1187). Under them, though Sirjan is one of
their chief cities, Bardasir continued as the 4 Dar-al-Mulk ? or
official capital of this governorship. In the Saljtik chronicle
written by Ibn Ibrahim the name of the capital is given some
times as Bardasir, sometimes as Guwashir; while in the
corresponding chapters of the Raw da t- as-Sa/d, Mirkhwand in
variably refers to the Saljiik capital as 4 the city of Kirman,' or
more briefly as Kirman, and the name Bardasir is nowhere men
tioned by him. The two names, therefore—Bardasir and Kirman
—were for a time used indifferently to denote one and the same
place. Ibn-al-Athir, for example, under the year 494 (noi),
relates how Iran Shah the Saljtik was expelled 4 from the city of
Bardasir, which same is the city of Kirman 2 .'
In 583 (1187) the province of Kirman was overrun by the
1 Muk. 461.
2 Ibn-al-Athir, x. 219. This passage has a fallacious appearance of being
conclusive evidence that Bardasir was later Kirman city. But though the fact
is beyond doubt from both history and topography this passage is no real
proof of it, for ' the city of Kirman' (Madmah Kirmdri) merely means the
capital (city) of Kirman (province), and is ambiguous. In an earlier volume >
Ibn-al-Athir (iii. 100) relating how, under the Caliphate of 'Omar, Sirjan was
first taken by the Arab armies, adds the words 4 which same is the (capital) city
of Kirman' [Madinah Kirmdn), though Sirjan certainly is not the modem city
of Kirman, as might be inferred at first sight from this passage.