In England, Bell also made the decision to write to Herzfeld (Fig. 4.20), whose 1907 report on Samarra she had consulted in the field. One of her principal inquiries concerned Herzfeld's ‘woefully bad’ plan of the Great Mosque at Samarra. She may have written to him in the hope of getting further clarification on the structure's architectural details, or perhaps she wanted to present her own corrected version for his consideration. After all, she had earlier written that with her new, improved plan of the Great Mosque, she would ‘have a merry time showing up Herzfeld’. Whatever the motivation for her writing, she received in return from Herzfeld a great deal of valuable information about Samarra and its monuments. Most significantly, Bell learned that Herzfeld had been back to Samarra with Friedrich Sarre in 1909, and that a more comprehensive report on the site was about to be published that would do much to improve on his earlier – and somewhat cursory – Samarra report. She also learned that Sarre and Herzfeld were returning to Samarra, and were planning a full exploration of the site and its monuments on behalf of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin.
Fig. 4.18 Bell’s photograph of the spiral minaret of the Abu Dulaf mosque at the northern end of Samarra, built by the caliph al-Mutawakkil, c.847–61 CE. The minaret is similar in plan to the Malwiye of the Great Mosque at Samarra, although it is less than half of that mosque’s height.
Fig. 4.19 Bell’s photograph of the mausoleum of Imam al-Dur at the northern end of the Samarra ruin fields, built in the eleventh century CE. At the time of the photo, in April 1909, the distinctive lobed domes of the structure’s roof were topped by several storks’ nests. Sadly, this lovely Shi’a structure no longer exists, having been destroyed by the Islamic State in October 2014.
In light of this information and the investigations already carried out by Viollet, Sarre and Herzfeld, and despite some of the objections she had to their work, Bell appears to have abandoned her plan to publish Samarra's art and architecture in a grand fashion. In the end, her short excursus on the site, which is included in Amurath to Amurath – accompanied by some of her photographs and plans of buildings, such as the Great Mosque, the Qasr al-‘Ashiq, the Qubbat al-Sulaybiyya and the Abu Dulaf mosque – comprise the sum total of her published investigations of the place. One suspects that Bell, having seen the work of the other Samarra scholars and learning that further intensive investigations were about to commence, realized that this spectacular site and its valuable remains were now in the hands of people who had more time and effort to commit to it than she. In the end, it would seem that Bell was content to dedicate herself to Ukhaidir, resolving to make that site the subject upon which she would leave her lasting scholarly mark.
The correspondence between Bell and Herzfeld continued for about three years (1909–12) and reveals a lively exchange between two individuals who shared a similar interest in Samarra's art and architecture, as well as other topics pertaining to the archaeology of the Near East.92 The letters written by Herzfeld to Bell have been located and studied, and they are extraordinary for the wealth of archaeological details they contain, highlighting especially Herzfeld's prodigious learning and the rapacious interest he took in practically every ancient site and monument he visited and studied. Of Samarra, Herzfeld's letters contain extensive comments about: the layout, construction and building materials of the Great Mosque and the mosque of Abu Dulaf, along with enclosed plans of these structures; a discussion of the stucco decoration from the Dar al-Khilafa; his identification of the Samarra cubit; his discovery of the palace of Mutawakkil at Balkuwara and notes about its layout and architecture, including the disposition of its mosque in comparison to mosques found at Mshatta and Ukhaidir; and his own work on the Imam al-Dur mausoleum, with comments about its architecture, decoration and the content and palaeography of its inscriptions. Beyond Samarra, Herzfeld's letters also make reference to Coptic art, Syrian and Anatolian Christian architecture, Sasanian pottery and architecture, the development of arch and vault construction – with reference to Ctesiphon, Sarvistan, Qasr-i-Shirin, Ukhaidir, Mshatta and Raqqa – and his own views (which differed from Bell's) on the proper location of the ancient sites of Thapsakos and Opis. The sheer breadth of Herzfeld's interests is clearly apparent from this manifest of topics, which fill page after page of his letters. This compendious information was not wasted on Bell. She would have been the one who queried many of the topics upon which Herzfeld commented. There is no question that Bell was an eager recipient of the knowledge contained in Herzfeld's letters, and his influence on her scholarship should not be underrated.
Fig. 4.20 Photograph of Ernst Herzfeld as a young man. After Bell’s visit to Samarra in 1909, she and Herzfeld engaged in a spirited correspondence. Despite whatever initial objections Bell may have had about Herzfeld’s scholarship, she became highly influenced by his work, adopting especially many of his ideas regarding the development of early Islamic art and architecture
Besides their astonishingly learned character, Herzfeld's letters to Bell are also interesting for the glimpse they provide of the often turbulent environment of Oriental scholarship at the time, and the maelstrom of jealousies, disagreements and back-stabbing that frequently churned among European academics. Neither Herzfeld nor Bell were completely removed from or blameless in this acrimonious environment, as revealed in the letters, and much of the conflict centred around the controversial figure of Josef Strzygowski. In contrast to Bell's long-standing positive regard for this scholar's work, Herzfeld frequently disagreed with Strzygowski, calling into question the methods by which he tracked artistic developments through time and space, and his dogged insistence on the Eastern origins of all important early Islamic artistic and architectural developments. Herzfeld, in contrast, emphasized the multiplicity of directions from which early Islamic art and architecture was inspired and the fact that older forms indigenous to a particular place of construction were often emulated and built upon. Unlike Strzygowski, Herzfeld acknowledged the complex, entwined manner in which influences were utilized and melded into novel forms to create the new art of Islam.
Although Bell and Herzfeld held different views about Strzygowski, the two were unanimous in their highest esteem for another scholar of repute, Max van Berchem (Fig. 4.21). Unlike Strzygowski, whose churlish behaviour frequently antagonized other scholars, van Berchem had a likeable personality and was universally respected by everyone with whom he came into contact.93 Born in Geneva and having studied in Stuttgart and Leipzig, by the opening of the twentieth century, van Berchem had gained a reputation as a leading European scholar in Arabic epigraphy as well as Islamic art and archaeology. One of his major projects was the Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum. Initiated in 1893, this involved an international collaboration of scholars to collect and publish Arabic inscriptions found on Islamic monuments from around the Middle East. Van Berchem himself contributed to this ambitious project with epigraphic materials from Egypt, Jerusalem, Syria and Anatolia, these appearing in several volumes of Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum between 1894 and his death in 1921.
Ernst Herzfeld had frequent contact with van Berchem through his own contributions to the Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, frequently sending van Berchem copies of inscriptions, photographs and notes from his extensive travels through Syria, Mesopotamia and Anatolia.94 In return, van Berchem wrote the epigraphic section of Sarre and Herzfeld's four-volume work Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, which surveyed and charted Islamic monuments in Mesopotamia.95
Interestingly, Bell also developed a close personal relationship with Max van Berchem, probably the result of their mutual interest in Islamic period monuments and the fact that Bell had visited or was planning to travel to many places from which van Berchem was seeking inscriptions. They began to exchange letters around 1909, the year of Bell's first Mesopotamian journey, and she appears to have seen him in person on at least two occasions.96 Significantly, Bell and van Berchem shared a friendly relationship with the ever-problematic St
rzygowski, resulting in their scholarly contributions to his Amida, a study of the medieval architecture, art and epigraphy of the region of Diyarbakir and the Jazireh.97 Like Herzfeld, Bell sent van Berchem materials collected from her travels, namely architectural plans and photographs of the sites that she had visited and inscriptions she had seen, these all gratefully received by van Berchem, who praised Bell for the care and precision with which she carried out her research.98 Van Berchem must have been a welcome correspondent to Bell, who had few colleagues with whom she could share her scholarly interests so completely and unreservedly. Moreover, van Berchem's unsurpassed knowledge of Arabic history and culture, which he imparted generously, was matched by his kind-hearted attentiveness. He conveyed keen interest in Bell's travels and research and flattered her with praise for her achievements. Consider here the exchanges between the two:
(van Berchem to Bell, 18 October 1911, in French): It's largely thanks to you, your plans and your splendid photographs that I was able to give him such precise instructions, because your documents are much better than those of other investigators (with the exception of Mr. Sarre). It seems to me that most investigators are too rushed. They want to see too much in too short a time, and they just use their Kodaks and take rapid notes. But later when you want to make use of their documents, you find that you have to go back on site to complete them yourself.
Your photos are so beautiful that one wouldn't in any case want to use any others, and your plans as far as I can tell are as precise as those of Rivoira. While we are on this subject, I'd like to ask permission to keep these beautiful photographs. I consider them so precious that I wouldn't know how to do without them, and they currently constitute the most solid basis of the future Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum for the section on Mesopotamia.99
(Bell's response in a letter dated October 1911, in English): Of course you must keep the photographs and I must, moreover, send you those which give the architectural details… But you must please clearly understand that it is a pleasure and an honour to send you photographs and you must always ask me for any that you want.100
Fig. 4.21 Max van Berchem, the prominent Swiss scholar of Islamic art and archaeology and Arabic epigraphy, with whom Bell developed a close friendship because of their shared scholarly interests. The photograph, taken in Cairo in 1913, shows a seated van Berchem, while the individual to the right is believed to be Ali Bahgat, an Egyptian scholar of Islamic archaeology with whom van Berchem regularly worked.
(van Berchem's next letter to Bell, dated 28 October 1911, in French): I can't thank you enough for your very kind letter and your generous offer for me to keep the beautiful photos you sent. I do believe, all things considered, that I am obliged to accept, because, as an old French poet once said, ‘A woman's wish is God's pleasure.’101
Van Berchem clearly knew how to navigate wisely and graciously among his friends and associates. To be sure, the fact that he had a long-time friendship with Strzygowski – given the latter's absolute genius for making enemies – speaks volumes about the Swiss scholar's personal qualities.102 He was a good judge of character and had a knack for reconciling others’ differences, as evidenced in a letter in which he endeavours to temper Bell's fierce loyalty to Strzygowski and her critical opinion of Herzfeld:
I haven't yet really read Herzfeld's article on Amida. I had a quick look at it, but these unending arguments between the Germans really put me off so much that I haven't had the heart to read it in detail. I already gave you my opinion on Strzygowski; I fear that with his uncompromising approach, he only makes difficulties for himself. If you're going to get on your high horse with people, you'd better be sure of what you're arguing about. Still, in Kunstgeschichte, you can never be completely sure you're right and unfortunately, for all his brilliant qualities, our friend definitely has a weakness for crazy theories which don't have a lot to do with science. If I admire Herzfeld, it's not for his theories on the history of art (I told him they don't interest me much), it's because he's very good at collecting material, maybe a little too fast, it's true, but nevertheless fast and with an abundance of detail! He sends me something interesting almost every week. Quite a while ago, he wrote to me that the mysterious building on the citadel at Diyarbekr was of no great value; I'm curious to know what exactly he thinks of it.
As for your theories, they still interest me because you are clever but cautious; and you document things so well!103
Bell's relationship with Herzfeld did not remain strained forever. Perhaps she took van Berchem's perceptions to heart, or possibly she was swayed by the indisputable erudition of Herzfeld's scholarship. Whatever was the case, by 1912, the two appear to have reached a respectful, friendly accord. This culminated in a pleasant and productive visit by Bell to Berlin to see Herzfeld in person and to discuss their mutual interests. They pored over their photographs and plans of Samarra and Ukhaidir, and Bell even had the pleasure of meeting members of Herzfeld's family, whom she deemed ‘nice people’.104 In light of this rapprochement, it is not surprising to find Herzfeld's scholarship well reflected in Bell's 1914 publication on the site of Ukhaidir. Later, amid the turbulence of war in 1915, Bell managed to convey a letter to Herzfeld through van Berchem, inquiring after him and her other German friends such as Koldewey and Andrae and reminding him that ‘friendship is stronger than war’.105
World War I and its aftermath did not bring an end to Bell's relationship with Ernst Herzfeld and the site of Samarra, although circumstances certainly altered these associations. Now, besides her archaeological knowledge of Mesopotamia, Bell was also a British colonial officer in that country, and part of her responsibility in this new capacity was the governance of the country and its cultural property. The issue of Samarra came up in 1917, after Britain's Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force had found at that site numerous cases of antiquities that had been left by Herzfeld's German archaeological team from before the war.106 There was considerable debate within the War Office and India Office back in London as to who should ultimately take possession of these antiquities and where they should go.107 Were the Samarra antiquities to be considered trophies of the war against Germany and hence go to Britain to fill its national museums? Alternatively, and especially in light of post-war sentiments about state-building and the right of each nation to its own culture and identity, should the objects remain in their natural home and be housed in some future museum of Iraq? Bell herself inspected the antiquities in her office in Baghdad. Wearing her hat as a loyal daughter of the British Empire and probably swayed by her knowledge of Samarra and its value to the understanding of early Islamic art, she recommended that the cases of Samarra antiquities, which included examples of stucco, frescoes, glass and pottery, be shipped to Britain, where they might augment the Islamic collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum.108 This proved to be a controversial proposal – there was a great deal of opposition to removing antiquities from their country of origin – but in the end, most of the cases wound up in the hands of British authorities in London.109 In 1921, it was decided – under the consultation of T.E. Lawrence and, interestingly, Ernst Herzfeld – that the items were to be parcelled off to museums in Europe, North America and the Middle East, with the British Museum and the Berlin Museum receiving the choicest pieces.110 Part of the agreement was that a representative selection of the antiquities should return to the Iraqi government, free of charge, once ‘they are prepared to receive it’.111 Regrettably, not until 1936 was some of the Samarra material returned to its native country, and by then, the share ‘had deteriorated and was hardly representative of the overall collection’.112 Given this final outcome, it is hard not to be critical of Bell and her part in this Samarra affair. While she would become a champion of the new Iraq and an ardent defender of its cultural property, particularly as Iraq's Antiquities Director, there were also times, as here, when her actions seemed at odds with her ideals. This unusual contradiction in Bell's behaviour will be addressed again in further detail in this
book's last chapter.
As for Ernst Herzfeld, he did not excavate again in Samarra until 1930. His principal attentions after the war were focused on Persia, and most of his energies were dedicated to the archaeology of important sites in that country, such as Pasargadae and Persepolis.113 In 1923, however, Herzfeld did pass through Iraq on his way to Iran and received a warm welcome there from Bell, who was now Iraq's Director of Antiquities.114 Bell describes a motor excursion that she took with Herzfeld to Hillah, Babylon and Kish, the last being the site of recent excavations. In letters to her parents, Bell refers to Herzfeld as ‘an archaeological friend’ and mentions the fact that she has loved being ‘with a learned German again’.115 Clearly, her old differences with Herzfeld were long forgotten.
Returning again to 1909 and Bell's four-day visit to Samarra, it is hard to anticipate the significance the place would have in her life and achievements. Samarra opened up a new world to Bell. It added greatly to her knowledge of the early Islamic period and galvanized her interest in the art, architecture and history of that era. It was instrumental in her assessment of Ukhaidir's date and architectural context. Most importantly, Samarra exposed Bell to the wider world of European scholarship, facilitating her connection with other important researchers who were engaged in the still-fledgling study of Islamic art and archaeology. Through connections with scholars such as van Berchem, Viollet and Herzfeld, and the exchange of valuable data with them, Bell earned her own right to be counted among this learned cohort of individuals and their advancement of the field of Mesopotamian late antiquity. The experience that Bell gained from knowledge of Samarra and its remains would ultimately factor into her later political life, governing her actions both as an officer of Britain and as one charged with Iraq's antiquities.
Britain and the Arab Middle East Page 18