Dicle Bridge: A Historic Ten-Arch Crossing of the Tigris River
Site at a Glance
- Rating
- 4.6
- Popularity
- Very High
- Country
- Turkey
- Primary era
- Medieval
- Eras represented
- Medieval
- Civilizations
- Unclassified
- Site type
- Infrastructure
- Remains
- Bridge
On this page12 sections
History
Dicle Bridge is a historic stone bridge in Türkiye, about 3 km south of Diyarbakır, crossing the Tigris River outside Mardin Gate. It stands on the former route to Silvan and connects the city with Bağıvar and nearby villages. The bridge is also called Ten-Arch Bridge for its ten openings and Silvan Bridge because of its position on the Silvan road. Its history combines an uncertain earlier phase with a major reconstruction during the Marwanid period in 1064–1065.
Origins and Marwanid reconstruction
The earliest history of a bridge at this location remains uncertain. Some interpretations place a crossing here in antiquity, while others view the present structure as the product of repeated destruction and rebuilding. An inscription on the bridge assigns construction or reconstruction in 1064–1065 to the Marwanid period. The Marwanids were a Kurdish-ruled dynasty that governed parts of Upper Mesopotamia, including Diyarbakır, during the eleventh century.
The inscription names Nizam al-Dawla Nasr and states that the judge Abu al-Hasan Abd al-Wahid commissioned the work. It also identifies an architect named Ubayd as the person who carried it out. These details connect the bridge’s principal medieval phase with the administration and building activity of Marwanid Diyarbakır.
Earlier repairs and conflict damage
Carsten Niebuhr argued that the bridge predated 1065. M. van Berchem, J. Strzygowski, and Albert Gabriel also regarded it as pre-Islamic and proposed that flood damage led to repairs. In this interpretation, restoration began in 742 under the Umayyad caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, but remained unfinished after his death.
Another tradition links damage to the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimiskes’s siege of Diyarbakır in 974. The bridge was then rebuilt or repaired, according to that account. Later conflicts around the city also repeatedly placed the crossing at risk.
Modern use and preservation
Dicle Bridge underwent restoration between 2008 and 2012. The construction of a new Mardin Bridge about 1 km farther south, completed in 2009, provided another crossing, although heavy vehicles and tractors have continued to use the historic bridge. Water erosion beneath the cutwaters, cracking in piers and cutwaters, heavy traffic, and disturbance of the surrounding ground have contributed to the structure’s deterioration. Debris and refuse have also accumulated around parts of the bridge.
The bridge is classified as a historic monument and is owned by Turkey’s General Directorate of Highways. It also remains connected with a local religious practice involving the Tigris. On the evening of the Feast of the Sacrifice, women and girls have traditionally written wishes and prayers on paper and cast them into the river from the bridge, believing that the current carries them toward heaven.
Remains
Dicle Bridge is a flat-deck, multi-arch structure built throughout with basalt, much of it locally available. Its ten arches extend for approximately 172 m. The bridge changes in width along its length, and its northern upstream side is reinforced by nine pyramidal-capped cutwaters, projecting structures that divide and deflect flowing water away from the piers.
Layout and structural divisions
Arches and roadway
Across the first five openings, the bridge measures about 5.45–6.24 m in width. From the fifth opening onward, it broadens to approximately 9.69–10.20 m. The side parapets are about 85 cm high and rise to roughly 155 cm toward the middle. The capstones measure approximately 31 cm high and 71 cm wide, with a front face 7 cm deep. The longest span is about 14.70 m.
Arches 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are similar in width and height, while arches 3, 4, and 5 are wider and higher. A distinct central pier divides the bridge into eastern and western sections. The western section has thicker walling and wider openings, an arrangement associated with resistance to the force of the river.
Cutwaters and masonry phases
Nine cutwaters line the upstream, northern side. The first four are lower than the others. The spandrel walls, the masonry between an arch and the bridge deck, above arches 6–10 preserve older construction characteristics up to about half their height. Arches 1–5 use different stonework, indicating changes in construction or repair.
The southern downstream side has a different arrangement from the northern face. The arches of openings 1–5 are set approximately 4 m farther inward. Basalt forms the main fabric, while rubble masonry appears in repair areas extending from the arch crowns, and in some places from the springing level, up to the capstones. The vaults over openings 1–5 and openings 7 and 8 were plastered. Where plaster has fallen from the vault over opening 5, brickwork can be seen, and brick was also used within other plastered arches.
Inscriptions and carved details
Medieval inscriptions
The inscriptions occupy the downstream southern side, within the approach wall and the spandrel walls of arches 9 and 10. Fluted cornices frame them. Their text records the date of the Marwanid-period work, its patron, the official responsible for the commission, and the builder. Limestone appears in the voussoirs, the wedge-shaped stones forming an arch, of arches 1 and 2 and in the inscriptions.
Lion relief
A side-view lion relief is carved into a basalt block to the left of the first western inscription. The animal is shown walking, with its body in profile and its head turned three-quarters toward the viewer. Its open mouth, protruding tongue, closely set eyes, lowered ears, and stern expression give the carving a strongly defined character.
Mason’s marks
The bridge contains 29 different forms of mason’s marks. Two further series occur on block surfaces. One arranges the Latin letters K, O, and E vertically, while the other uses punctuation-like marks placed vertically, horizontally, and diagonally. Together with the varied stonework and repairs, these marks form part of the physical evidence for the bridge’s complex building history.
Nearby sites
