cultural encounters in anatolia in the medieval period: the ......the ilkhanate: the mongols’...

21-22 May 2015, Ankara

Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period:The Ilkhanids in Anatolia

SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS

Koç Üniversitesi VEKAM /⁄ Koç University VEKAMVehbi Koç Ankara Araştırmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi 2019Vehbi Koç Ankara Studies Research Center 2019

ISBN: 978-605-9388-23-81. Baskı /⁄ First Printing: 500 adet | copies

Yayına Hazırlayan /⁄ Prepared for Publication by Suzan Yalman, Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu

Copy EditorsAlev Ayaokur, Defne Karakaya

Her hakkı mahfuzdur. Bu yayının hiçbir bölümü kopya edilemez. Kaynak göstermeden alıntı yapılamaz. VEKAM’ın izni olmadan elektronik, mekanik, fotokopi ve benzeri yollarla kopya edilip yayımlanamaz.All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced. No quotations are allowed without citing. It may not be published in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying or otherwise without the prior permission of VEKAM.

Kapak Görseli /⁄ Cover ImageÇifte Minareli Medrese, 1271-72, Sivas, detail of portal (photograph: P. J. Lu, courtesy of Harvard Fine Arts Library, Special Collections, d2016.01403).

Tasarım /⁄ Design: Barekwww.barek.com.tr

Basım /⁄ Print: Dumat OfsetBahçekapı Mh. 2477. Sk. No: 6 Şaşmaz, Etimesgut, Ankara / Turkey T +90 312 278 82 [email protected]

Koç Üniversitesi VEKAM /⁄ Koç University VEKAM Vehbi Koç Ankara Araştırmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Vehbi Koç Ankara Studies Research CenterPınarbaşı Mahallesi, Şehit Hakan Turan Sokak, No: 9, Keçiören 06290 Ankara / TurkeyT +90 312 355 20 27 F +90 312 356 33 94www.vekam.ku.edu.tr

VEKAM Yayın No /⁄ Publication No: 54

VEKAM Kütüphanesi Kataloglama Bilgisi // VEKAM Library Cataloging-in Publication Data Cultural encounters in Anatolia in the medieval period : the Ilkhanids in Anatolia symposium proceedings, 21-22 May 2015, Ankara / prepeared for publication by Suzan Yalman, Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu -- Ankara : VEKAM, 2019. 136 pages ; 20x25 cm.-- VEKAM Yayınları ; No. 54. ISBN 978-605-9388-23-8 1. Ilkhanid dynasty-- Congresses. 2. Art, Ilkhanid-- Congresses. 3. Illumination of books and manuscripts, Ilkhanid-- Congresses. 4. Architecture, Medieval--Turkey-- Congresses. 5. Architecture, Ilkhanid—Turkey-- Congresses. 6. Islamic architecture--Turkey-- Congresses. 7. Madrasahs--Turkey-- Congresses. 8. Architecture, Seljuk-- Congresses. 9. Historic buildings—Turkey-- Congresses. 10. Religious architecture—Turkey-- Congresses. 11. Çifte Minareli Medrese (Erzurum, Turkey) -- Congresses. 12. Turkey—History-- To 1453-- Congresses. 13. Sivas (Turkey)—History—13th century-- Congresses. 14. Erzurum (Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 15. Erzincan (Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 16. Kastamonu (Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 17. Beyşehir (Konya, Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 18. Turkey—Relations—Ilkhanids-- Congresses. 19. Ilkhanids—Relations—Turkey-- Congresses. 20. İlhanlılar—Türkiye—Kongreler. 21. Türkiye—Tarihi—Kongreler. 22. Türkiye—Tarihi—Orta Çağ—Kongreler. I. Yenişehirlioğlu, Filiz. II. Yalman, Suzan. III. VEKAM. IV. Title. DR479.I45 C85 2019

Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period:The Ilkhanids in Anatolia

Contents

7 Preface Ilkhanids and their Western Frontier SUZAN YALMAN

11 TwoSufisofIlkhanidAnatoliaandtheirPatrons: Notes on the Works of Mu’ayyid al-Din Jandi and Da’ud al-Qaysari A.C.S. PEACOCK

31 ArtisticIlkhanidManuscriptsintheTopkapıPalaceLibrary ZEYNEP ATBAŞ

53 TheAyas-TabrizCommercialLinkandItsImpactontheCitiesof Sivas,Erzincan,andErzurum TOM SINCLAIR

65 BuildingaFrontier:ArchitectureinAnatoliaunderIlkhanidRule PATRICIA BLESSING

87 İsmailAğa,BeyşehirandArchitecturalPatronagein14th-CenturyCentralAnatolia

OYA PANCAROĞLU

117 OntheOutskirtsoftheIlkhanate:TheMongols’RelationshipwiththeProvinceofKastamonuintheSecondHalfofthe13thCentury

BRUNO DE NICOLA

AnkaraCitadelllkhanidTaxTablet*

Photograph: Gökçe GünelSource: Translation from Wittek, P. (1931). Ankara'da bir İlhanî Kitabesi. (Offprint: Türk Hukuk ve İktisat

Tarihi Mecmuası, v.1). Istanbul: Evkaf.

*The translation of the Ilkhanid inscriptions carved on the gateway of Ankara Citadel is as follows:

“Allah is the one who makes things easier. People complained about high quantity of wheat and high kupçur tax collected from them. When the decree of

the conqueror of the world arrived in Engüriye, it was ordered by law that the city issues its own money with the seal of the city and registered in the books as of

the beginning of March, seven hundred thirty, for the continuation of the state of the Sultan of Muslims (may his dominion be everlasting). This is an act of law.

Whoever claims more kupçur or illegal tithe than provided by law, may the curse of Allah, angels and prophets be upon him. Whoever changes this order after hearing

of it falls into sin. Made by Halil.”

Hisar Gate, Ankara Citadel, 1932.Source: Koç University VEKAM Library and Archive, Inv. No:2009

Ilkh

anidsinAn

atolia(c

a.13

00)

The

map

is b

ased

on

Phili

p Sc

hwar

tzbe

rg's

Ana

tolia

map

(Mer

idia

n M

appi

ng)

Çankırı

Baghdad

Preface

The legendary Mongols, under Genghis Khan (ca. 1162-1227) and his successors, are recognized primarily for their military prowess, creating the largest land empire ever to exist, from China to Central Asia and the Islamic world, all the way to Europe. For this reason, their reputation related to war, pillaging, and bloodshed in the vast lands that they conquered, seems to precede them. In the aftermath of Genghis Khan’s death, four states emerged: Chagatai in Central Asia (1227-1363), Golden Horde in southern Russia (1227-1502), Ilkhanid in greater Iran (1256-1353), and Yuan in China (1271-1368). Nevertheless, thanks to the lifting of borders, people, goods, ideas, and information could circulate, helping to contribute to the cultural achievements of the era. Under their dynastic rule, this great geographic expanse was united in what is known as the “Mongolian Peace” (Pax Mongolica). This said, however, due to the memory of violence they were often associated with, positive aspects involving their intellectual, artistic and architectural heritage have been overlooked. This book emerged from an interest in shedding

light on the brief but significant Mongol interlude in Anatolia that proved to be a vital period of cultural transformation.

The historical context in West Asia was impacted by Genghis Khan’s grandson Hülegü, whose forces subjugated all of Iran and, moreover, in 1258, captured Baghdad, bringing an end to the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258). Assuming the title Il-khan, meaning “lesser khan” (i.e. subordinate to the Great Khan ruling in China), Hülegü established rule over most of West Asia, including parts of Asia Minor. Due to their titulature, this branch of the Mongol dynasty became known as the Ilkhanids and centered its power in northwest Iran. In history books and surveys, 1258 is con-sidered a watershed moment not only in terms of the political context—given the end of centuries of caliphal rule—but also as a turning point in Islamic art and architec-tural history. For, in terms of its periodiza-tion, significant changes are noted in the arts of the book and ceramic production, as well as in architecture, where monumen-tality became du jour. Following the conver-sion to Islam of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304)

Ilkhanids and their Western Frontier

SUZAN YALMANKoç University

8

in 1295 and his creation of a cultural policy that supported his new religion, Islamic art and architecture would flourish again.

As with 1258, in Turkey, too, the cul-tural memory still retains the Seljuk de-feat at the Battle of Kösedağ in 1243, after which Seljuk sultans became vassals to the Mongols. For this reason, the period is often remembered as a blight on Turkish history. Thus, even though Anatolia was part of the Mongol landscape and map, in the mindset, it has not always been in the picture. The negative connotations made it difficult to break free from the teleo-logical model that favors the clear-cut and straightforward periodization of Seljuk-Beylik-Ottoman eras. In nation-state nar-ratives, the Mongol period was often either glossed over under the rubric of “Seljuk” or “Beylik,” until the flourishing of the “Ottoman” period.

In general, medieval Anatolia has of-ten been marginalized in scholarship; by Byzantinists it is the periphery to the im-perial capital of Constantinople, and for scholars of Islamic history, it is perceived as an eclectic or marginal zone that comes nowhere near vital centers such as Baghdad, Cairo or Isfahan. For the Mongol era, with the focus on Ilkhanid Iran, Anatolia was perceived as an unruly frontier. Although Turkish scholarship tried to counterbal-ance this, the rhetoric was nationalist and the agency of Turkic dynasties played a key role, leaving little or no room for the Mongols. Underlining the consequences for the Turks, some even remarked on how the period in fact helped strengthen the role of Turks in their new geography.

In terms of shedding light on the Mongol and Ilkhanid cultural achieve-ment, a significant development was the landmark exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 2002-3 entitled “The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353.” The exhibition catalogue with the same title, edited by Linda Komaroff and Stefano Carboni, further contributed to scholarship in this area. The essays in the publication highlight how East Asian elements fused with the existing Perso-Islamic repertoire to create a new artistic vocabulary that was emulated from the bor-ders of India to Anatolia and thus affected artistic production profoundly.

A few years later (2006-7), a popular “Mongol” exhibition was put together in Turkey at the Sakıp Sabancı Museum. As its title “Genghis Khan and His Successors: The Great Mongol Empire” (Cengiz Han ve Mirasçıları: Büyük Moğol İmparatorluğu) suggests, this exhibition was not focused on the Ilkhanids but conceptualized in broad-er terms. Curiously, local contribution to this exhibition was mostly in the form of important artifacts borrowed from Turkish museum collections and not in the form of scholarship in the related catalogue (edited by Samih Rıfat). Perhaps the partial silence is once again related to the cultural memory of 1243.

How can we move beyond these per-ceptions of the Ilkhanid period in Anatolia? Most tangibly, what about the cultural ef-florescence in Anatolian cities such as Sivas that witnessed the construction of a number of major monuments in the 1270s

9ILKHANIDS AND THEIR WESTERN FRONTIER

(Çifte Minareli Medrese, Buruciye Medrese and Gök Medrese)? How do we handle these contradictions? Such initial questions in-spired the symposium entitled “Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period: The Ilkhanids in Anatolia” which took place at Koç University’s Vehbi Koç Ankara Studies Research Center (VEKAM) on 21-22 May 2015. For the symposium and its publication, we envisioned bringing to-gether Turkish and international scholars from different disciplines, in order to paint a more complete picture of this complex period in Anatolia.

In their discussion of history, litera-ture, Sufism, arts of the book, urban his-tory and architecture, the articles in the present volume include of some of the new directions in the field. Highlighting the role of Sufism, Andrew Peacock examines the role of two notable figures in his work, “Two Sufis of Ilkhanid Anatolia and their Patrons: Notes on the Works of Mu’ayyid al-Din Jandi and Da’ud al-Qaysari.” In terms of the intellectual and artistic herit-age of the Mongols, manuscripts that made their way into the Ottoman royal collection are discussed by Zeynep Atbaş in “Artistic Ilkhanid Manuscripts in the Topkapı Palace Library.” The importance of commerce, regional networks and urban history are addressed by Tom Sinclair in “The Ayas-Tabriz Commercial Link and Its Impact on the Cities of Sivas, Erzincan, and Erzurum.” Elaborating on the concept of the fron-tier, Patricia Blessing examines the de-velopments in architecture at the time in her article entitled, “Building a Frontier: Architecture in Anatolia under Ilkhanid

Rule.” Also focusing on architecture, Oya Pancaroğlu analyzes the prominent role of local powerholders in her case study, “İsmail Ağa, Beyşehir and Architectural Patronage in 14th Century Central Anatolia.” Bruno De Nicola studies the case of another province in his article, “On the Outskirts of the Ilkhanate: The Mongols’ Relationship with the Province of Kastamonu in the Second Half of the 13th Century.”

We are grateful to these authors for their invaluable contributions that have made this volume possible. İlhan Erdem, Kemal Göde, Hesna Haral, Nakış Karamağaralı, Peter Lu, Canan Parla, and Sara Nur Yıldız were also among the schol-ars who presented papers at the symposium but could not be part of the publication for a variety of reasons. Serpil Bağcı and Rıza Yıldırım graciously accepted to chair ses-sions at the symposium. We would like to thank each and every one of them, as well as the students and lively audience for their participation.

Finally, this symposium and its pub-lication would not have been possible with-out the vision and generosity of VEKAM Director, Prof. Yenişehirlioğlu, and the energetic VEKAM team consisting of Arzu Beril Kırcı and Mehtap Türkyılmaz for the symposium, and Alev Ayaokur for the vol-ume. The final printed form was achieved thanks to copy-editor Defne Karakaya, translator Umur Çelikyay, and designer Damla Çiftçi.

64

Ilkhanid Coin, Ankara, 1304-1316.Yapı Kredi Museum Collection, Inv. No. 10830

BuildingaFrontier:Architecture inAnatoliaunderIlkhanidRulePATRICIA BLESSINGPomona College

AbstractIslamic architecture in medieval Anatolia, built between the late 11th and the early 14th cen-tury, has long been viewed as being uniformly Seljuk and associated with the Turko-Muslim dynasty that ruled much of the region before the Mongol conquest. This article argues that in fact there was a profound shift in the dynamics of patronage and architecture, due to the integration of Anatolia into the geographic and political orbit of the Mongol Empire in the second half of the 13th century.

The notion of medieval Anatolia as a frontier zone, in terms of the core concepts of mobil-ity, frontier, and geography, is essential in this reevaluation. This interpretation is particularly pertinent following Cemal Kafadar’s influential book on the genesis of the Ottoman Empire and its ghāzī culture. During the period of the Mongol conquest, Anatolia, despite its fron-tier character, initially became a comparatively attractive destination for refugees, including scholars and craftsmen. However, when the Mongol armies conquered Anatolia in the 1240s, the region’s position as a frontier was redefined. The area now lay at the western edge of the Mongol realm, and so was no longer just a borderland between Christianity and Islam.

This article proposes two new perspectives, the first of which is for Anatolia to be considered within the larger context of the Mongol Empire, while the second is the inclusion in the over-view of several cities and various types of monuments. By shifting the perspective to east-ern Anatolia, this article traces the changes in architecture and patronage as first Seljuk, and then Mongol, hold over the region progressively slipped away, and new political actors rose. Even though the focus remains on Anatolia and monuments within this region, this shift in perspective allows a new view to emerge that includes the surrounding regions – Iran and the Caucasus, in particular – as well as Byzantine, Ilkhanid, and Armenian architecture.

Keywords: Anatolia, Architecture, Ilkhanids, Mongol Empire, Seljuks

66

The First Case Study: The Çifte Minareli Medrese in Sivas

The first monument for consideration demonstrates some of the central issues that should be considered when study-ing 13th- and 14th-century architecture in Anatolia. The monument is the Çifte Minareli Medrese (Figure 1), which is one of three madrasas built in Sivas, a city in central Anatolia, in the year 670 AH/1271-1272 CE. This type of monument was a pop-ular object of patronage in a period when Friday Mosques (Sözen 1970; Kuran 1979), built in the 12th and early 13th centuries, al-ready existed in cities across Anatolia. The portal of the monument (Figure 2) can be said to be typical of Islamic architecture in central and eastern Anatolia from the 12th to the 14th centuries, and is a common aspect of studies of the spread of Seljuk architecture (Pyle, 1980; Wolper, 1999). While the argument that this style is typical of the period may be contested, as I discuss elsewhere in more detail (Blessing, 2012; Blessing, 2014a; Blessing 2018), it here stands as an example, often encountered in the scholarly literature until recently, of the idea of there being a unified Seljuk style in medieval Anatolia. I critically examine this notion in more detail below.

Returning to the façade of the Çifte Minareli Medrese, the minarets, built in brick and adorned with tiles, are some-times considered as having been imported from Iran, even though it is difficult to es-tablish the actual chronology of such use of glazed tile (Meinecke, 1976). The muqar-nas’ niche and frames on the portal are

Figure1.Çifte Minareli Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, façade (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure2.Çifte Minareli Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, portal. (photograph: P. J. Lu, courtesy of Harvard Fine Arts Library, Special Collections, d2016.01403).

67BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE

common motifs. The stone carving (Figure 3) on the portal, with its floral motifs jut-ting out from the surface of the wall, exhibit a close connection to other monuments in the region of Sivas and in the city itself.

The patron of this monument, Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Juwayni (d. 683 AH/ 1284 CE), was not a Muslim ruler of Anatolia, but a dignitary of the Mongol court in Iran, with few known connections to Anatolia (Rogers 1971, pp. 230-232; Blessing, 2014a, pp. 77-79; Blessing 2018, pp. 113-116). The foundation inscription (Figure 4) uses royal titles for the patron and omits the name of a ruler:

The construction of this blessed madrasa was ordered by the great statesman, the king of the viziers (ministers) of the world, Shams al-Dīn wa-l-Dunyā Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, the ṣāḥib dīwān, may God perpetuate his rule, in the year 670. (Combe et al. [1931-1996], no. 4464; Blessing, 2014a, p. 79)

With the use of these titles, and the ex-clusion of the standard reference to the patron’s overlord, the text represents a break from the previous epigraphic pro-tocol that was the standard in Ayyubid Syria by the late 12th century, and was often used in Seljuk buildings within Anatolia as the Rūm Seljuks established their dynastic claims (for Zengid and Ayyubid examples, see Elisséeff, 1954; Tabbaa, 2000).

Figure3.Çifte Minareli Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, detail of portal (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure4.Çifte Minareli Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, foundation inscription (photograph: P. Blessing).

68

Only the façade of the Çifte Minareli Medrese has been preserved, as shown by the earliest available photographs of the monument taken in the 1880s, and it is unclear when the rest of the monument was destroyed (Berchem and Halil Edhem, 1917, p. 5; Rıdvan Nâfiz and İsmail Hakkı, 1928, p. 113; Kuran, 1969, pp. 115-116; Jerphanion, 1928, plates XXVIII and XXIX; Blessing, 2014a, pp. 81-82; Blessing, 2018, 116-118). The façade of the monument, with its foundation inscription referring to an Ilkhanid patron, and the strong local references expressed in its architecture, raise central issues related to building in Anatolia after the Mongol conquest. These issues will be considered in this article.

Historical and Geographical Background

In the late 11th century, Turkic speaking Muslims had begun to conquer the parts of eastern Anatolia that had been part of the Byzantine Empire. These new rulers brought their religion, Islam, to Anatolia, although only some of the population con-verted from Christianity over the follow-ing decades (Turan, 1971; Vryonis, 1971; Cahen, 2001). In addition to a new reli-gion, the conquerors brought new lan-guages: the Turkic that they spoke among themselves, Arabic as the language of Islam, and Persian as the preferred lan-guage of the court. The local population, depending on the region, spoke Greek, Armenian, or Syriac, and these languages persisted during the subsequent centu-ries.

Over the course of the 12th century, the Seljuk Turkic group emerged as the dominant force and progressively absorbed other local Muslim rulers, such as the Danishmendids, in the expansion of their hold over former Byzantine territories. By around 1200, the Seljuks had established the city of Konya in central Anatolia as their capital and subsequently began to central-ize their rule (McClary, 2017; Yalman, 2011 and 2012; Redford, 1993). However, this process of Seljuk consolidation became under threat in the late 1230s as Mongol armies, during their advance from central Asia, began to conduct occasional raids in the region. Anatolia gradually came under the influence of the Mongol Empire, and by 1243, the Seljuk sultan had been reduced to the status of a vassal of the Mongol khan (Cahen, 2001, pp. 187-205; Turan, 2004 [1971], pp. 485-497; Yıldız, 2006). This meant that the region was now part of a new cultural and political framework with networks of rulership and trade reaching from the Mediterranean to central Asia and China. In the 1250s, the Mongol Empire was split into four distinct realms due to suc-cession struggles. The area was ruled by the Ilkhanids dynasty centered around Tabriz in western Iran, and Anatolia became part of their sphere of influence. Several archi-tectural studies have shown that there were important shifts in patronage in Anatolia during the period (Rogers, 1971; Crane, 1993; Blessing, 2014a; Blessing, 2018).

This article will illustrate the multi-ple visual languages present in Anatolia in this period by examining examples built throughout medieval Anatolia, between the


last quarter of the 13th century and the sec-ond quarter of the 14th century. It will emerge that in the context of medieval Anatolia, ar-chitecture was flexible and did not adopt the single style that was imposed by imperial patronage, whether it was Seljuk or Mongol. That said, although increased mobility pro-vided craftsmen with new venues for their work and new models to translate into their preferred materials, localisms were pre-served, and could even be said to have been accentuated. This was due to both local pa-trons and craftsmen being left to their own devices once a leveling imperial patronage was removed. A combination of local tra-ditions and newly acquired elements were used as a consequence.

Geography is a central factor in this analysis in which medieval Anatolia does not emerge as an insular unit. Instead, connections can be made that led to the emergence of new outlooks in the study of architecture in neighboring areas, as well as in Anatolia itself. The distinctions be-tween eastern and western Anatolia are im-portant, as are the ties that existed between regions established through trade, mobil-ity, and portable objects (Hoffman and Redford, 2017).

The concept of Anatolia being a fron-tier zone plays an essential part in this reevaluation. The term “lands of Rūm” thus alludes to core concepts: mobility, frontier, and geography (Bozdoğan and Necipoğlu, 2007; Kafadar, 2007). Prior to the Mongol conquest, the region, despite its frontier character, was a comparatively attractive destination for refugees, including scholars and craftsmen. However, when the Mongol

armies conquered Anatolia in the 1240s, the region’s position as a frontier was rede-fined as it was now also at the western edge of the Mongol realm, and was thus more than just a borderland between Christianity and Islam. The notions of frontier and frontier culture are essential in any study of medieval Anatolia, especially after Cemal Kafadar’s influential book on the genesis of the Ottoman Empire and its ghāzī culture (Kafadar, 1995).

Focusing on central and eastern Anatolia provides a new perspective on a crucial zone of connection and interac-tion, a reassessment of center and periph-ery, and fresh insights into the dynam-ics of patronage, style, and politics. The monuments discussed in this article, built in Anatolia under Mongol rule, are part of the set of buildings that require such reas-sessment, as they have not been previously included in studies of Islamic architecture within the Mongol Empire (Wilber, 1955. For a historiography and literature review, see Blessing, 2015a, pp. 134-136). Instead, previous studies have tended to focus on Iran and the few monuments that are ex-tant there, dating for the most part to the beginning of the 1310s and the reigns of the last Ilkhanid sultans. Until this was chal-lenged over the course of the last few dec-ades (Pancaroğlu, 1995; Ousterhout, 2004; Çağaptay, 2011), Anatolia was firmly un-der the grasp of a narrative that insists on a continuity of Seljuk architecture existing from the late 11th to the rise of the Ottomans in the early 14th century.

The prevailing historiographical method was to separate monuments that

70

were built under Ilkhanid rule into two groups: those located in Iran on the one hand, and those located in Turkey, on the other. For example, monuments such as the early 14th-century mausoleum of Sultan Uljaytu (Figure 5), in Sultaniyya and the Yakutiye Medrese (Figure 6) in Erzurum, are not viewed together within the broader context of Mongol rule. Instead, the stylis-tic differences between the two monuments were used as further justification for sepa-rating them based on national boundaries. The emergence of Turkey and Iran as nation states in the 1920s and 1930s created nar-ratives in art history that have been sup-ported by national ideologies (Pancaroğlu, 2007; Redford, 2007; Blessing, 2015a). These narratives represent a break with earlier discussions on the subject. Scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in the context of the Ottoman and German Empires, viewed Seljuk architecture in Anatolia as Persian. The German art his-torian Friedrich Sarre, in particular, em-phasized the larger Persianate culture of the Seljuk court, and highlighted connec-tions to Iran (Pancaroğlu, 2011; Blessing, 2014b). Due to conflicting narratives, such as that of Persianate culture and that of the Turkish nation, the historiography of me-dieval Anatolia is fraught with tensions and contradictions.

In Turkey, the foundation of a na-tion state in 1923 following the end of the Ottoman Empire resulted in a compli-cated series of ideological changes. In this revision, Anatolia emerged as the origi-nal center of civilization (Redford, 2007; Strohmeier, 1984). The Seljuks, a Turkic

Figure5.The Mausoleum of Sultan Uljaytu, 708-713 A.H./ 1309-1313 CE, Sultaniyya, Iran. (photograph: Ali Khan Vali (1845/1846-1902), from an album of photographs by Ali Khan Vali, p. 4, courtesy of Harvard Fine Arts Library, Special Collections).

Figure6.Yakutiye Medrese, 710 A.H./ 1310 CE, Erzurum, view (photograph: P. Blessing).


dynasty who ruled over this region, were attractive candidates for the representa-tives of the region before the rise of the Ottomans, a now defunct dynasty that was not fondly remembered, and no place was left for other influences, particular-ly the Mongols. The historian, Mehmed Fuad Köprülü (1890-1966), was a driving force in establishing this new narrative. Köprülü was involved in the commission-ing of French archaeologist, Albert Gabriel (1883-1972), to write a two-volume history of the “Turkish” monuments of Anatolia which focused on medieval and early mod-ern Islamic architecture (Gabriel, 1931; Redford, 2006).

In the case of Iran, Donald Wilber’s survey on Ilkhanid architecture in Iran is symptomatic of the English-language liter-ature on the subject of the period (Wilber, 1955). Wilber’s book is deeply rooted in the framework of a Pahlavi national nar-rative, and carries the heritage of A Survey of Persian Art, Arthur Upham Pope’s major documentation of the arts of Persia begun in 1925 (Pope and Ackerman, 1938; on Pope: Kadoi, 2016). In his survey, Wilber argues for the existence of a continuity of style beyond the end of Ilkhanid rule in Iran. In fact, his research on monuments within the confines of Iran served as cover for his intelligence work during the Second World War (Blessing, 2015a, pp. 122-123 and 126-131). Even though these frame-works have been revisited in recent histori-ographical studies, they remain underlying in studies of architecture, as they dominate previous scholarship that serves as a basis for discussion.

A Local Center Between Anatolia and Iran: Erzurum

Erzurum is an important city in north-east-ern Anatolia, close to Iran and the Caucasus, particularly Armenia. The area contains many examples of Armenian architecture, and the earliest Islamic monuments that have been preserved in this region, such as the Great Mosque and the Citadel Mosque, date back to the late 12th century.

Before returning to the main discus-sion, it is necessary to revisit the fraught distinction between Armenian build-ings and Islamic architecture. The term “Armenian” is as problematic as the terms Turkish, Turkic, Seljuk, or Islamic, as it relies on national and religious categories to identify a local tradition and limits it to Christian monuments such as churches and monasteries (Blessing, 2016). While it is true that many Armenian buildings are churches and monasteries, this is not the whole story. It is quite possible for lo-cal forms of architecture to be used in both Islamic and Christian monuments. In this use, features of the plan may change ac-cording to function, but decorative, and especially structural, elements (such as muqarnas domes) remain the same. Islamic monuments, so labelled here because of their religious function, in Erzurum are a rich area of study of the intersection be-tween Islamic and Armenian architecture.

The Citadel Mosque (Kale Camii) in Erzurum (Figure 7) is one such ex-ample. The mosque has a lantern that is reminiscent of those over the crossings of Armenian churches. However, the lantern

72

in the Citadel Mosque forms a dome in front of the miḥrāb, the niche that indicates the direction of Mecca for Muslim prayer. This is an example of how, by 1200, many elements such as this intertwined flu-idly with ones associated more commonly with Islamic architecture, such as muqar-nas. Another example can be found in the Yakutiye Medrese (see Figure 6), which was built in 710 AH/ 1310 CE by an Ilkhanid governor of Erzurum, where stone cells were used to cover the center of the monu-ment. The same form was used in the Great Mosque in the same city around 1200, but it also appears in monasteries in Armenia dating back to the 1220s. The chronology and the direction of influence (a problem-atic notion in any case) are not the point here, but rather the extent to which such features were regionally engrained in an area reaching from Erzurum into today’s Armenia.

Some elements, particularly the re-lief carvings of animals, and sometimes humans, were often used across Anatolia as apotropaic figures. Examples are the li-ons and the eagle which appear on the side of the portal of the Yakutiye Medrese, and the dragons which form the base of a large tree of life motif on a late 13th-century Çifte Minareli Medrese (Figure 8) in the same city (Blessing 2014a, pp. 130-142; Blessing, 2018, pp. 171-185, Rogers, 1972). Such mo-tifs, such as the large-scale lions and eagle to be found in a late-13th-century funerary chapel in the monastery of Geghard, were also very common in Armenian architec-ture at the time (Figure 9). Fragments from the city walls of Konya (Figure 10 and Figure

11) exhibit their use in the Seljuk capital. The careful program that was shaped with these and other reliefs have been analyzed to the extent possible considering that the walls are no longer extant, and the pieces no longer in situ (Redford, 1993, pp. 153-155; Yalman, 2011, pp. 41-47, 142-145, 178-191, 255-261; Yalman, 2012).

Thus, many architectural features such as conical domes, blind arches, and muqar-nas fluidly crossed the imposed boundaries between mosques and churches, between Islamic and Armenian architecture. The Yakutiye Medrese is a case in point: the plan of the madrasa is evidence of its reli-gious function, with a prayer niche inserted into one of the side chambers (Ünal, 1968, fig. 12; Blessing, 2014a, fig. 3.13). This plan, arranged around a courtyard, is typi-cal for madrasas across Anatolia, as numer-ous comparative examples with variants of two or four eyvans show (Sözen, 1970; Kuran, 1969). The mausoleum (Figure 12) of the founder, however, which is at-tached to the outside of the monument in the central axis, is constructed in way that is found only locally in Erzurum in the Çifte Minareli Medrese (Figure 13), an undated monument probably built a few decades earlier, although the date of the monument has been disputed (Rogers, 1972; Blessing, 2014a, pp. 130-131; Blessing, 2018, pp. 178-179). Freestanding mausolea of this type, built between the 12th and 14th century, abound in Anatolia, as studies of such mon-uments (Bates, 1970; Önkal, 1996) have clearly shown. However, attaching such structures to larger monuments example of a local idea, rather than of a wide scale


Figure7.Kale Cami, late 12th century, Erzurum, view (photograph: P. Blessing)

Figure8.Çifte Minareli Medrese, c. 1280 CE, Erzurum, tree-of-life motif on portal (photograph: P. Blessing).

74

Figure9.Proshian Chapel, 1215 CE and 1283 CE, Monastery of Geghard, Armenia, lion and eagle motif (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure10.Fragment of a stone carving from Konya city walls, early 13th century, Museum of Stone and Wood Carving, İnce Minareli Medrese, Konya (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure11.Fragment of a stone carving from Konya city walls, early 13th century, Museum of Stone and Wood Carving, İnce Minareli Medrese, Konya (photograph: P. Blessing).


took hold here. In fact, apart from the rich-ly painted cave settlements of Cappadocia, remains of Byzantine architecture in cen-tral and eastern Anatolia are rare, and so it is not known exactly what Byzantine architecture in this region looked like. Furthermore, it is only recent studies which have begun to investigate the rela-tionship between Seljuk/Islamic art and the painted churches of Cappadocia (Uyar, 2015; Öztürk, 2017).

While central and eastern Anatolia had slipped from Byzantine hold by the mid-12th century, western Anatolia re-mained closely within the cultural and po-litical orbit of Byzantium for several cen-turies. This was the case even during the decades between the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and 1261, when the Byzantine Empire was in exile before Manuel VIII Palaiologos

trend. Connections to Ilkhanid architec-ture in Iran, on the other hand, are scarce. The only examples may be the tiles on the minaret of the Yakutiye Medrese similar to those on the Çifte Minareli Medrese in Sivas, which could point to a connection to Iran.

Byzantium in Mongol Anatolia and the Question of Materials

At this point of the study, the reader may le-gitimately ask where the Byzantine element is in this architecture. In fact, the region of Erzurum was always a frontier zone, also for the Byzantine emperors who struggled to deal with the powerful Armenian landlords of this area. Thus, the brick architecture of Constantinople, the typical image that one may have of Byzantine monuments, never

Figure12.Yakutiye Medrese, 710 AH/ 1310 CE, Erzurum, mausoleum (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure13.Çifte Minareli Medrese, c. 1280 CE, Erzurum, mausoleum (photograph: P. Blessing).

76

conquered Constantinople and ended Latin rule there (Angold, 1999). The architec-ture of western Anatolia and the Balkans remained within the stylistic and technical grasp of the Byzantine capital, and so it is in these regions that the idea of central style in Byzantium was formed (Ousterhout, 2004; Çağaptay, 2011). Byzantine rule persisted in these regions, and when the Ottomans captured Bursa in 1326, they conquered the capital of the Byzantine province of Bithynia. Therefore the architecture of the earliest Ottoman monuments is essen-tially Byzantine in its technique, although plans were adapted for the construction of mosques. Byzantine heritage in the region remained strong and constituted one of the bases of the Ottoman construction of a new empire and its identity (Pancaroğlu, 1995; Ousterhout, 2004; Çağaptay, 2011).

A look at Islamic monuments in cen-tral and eastern Anatolia, which were built according to locally available materials and skills, gives reason to pause. Local ar-chitecture in Erzurum never looked like the monuments of the Byzantine capital. Similarly, Byzantine architecture in central Anatolian cities such as Kayseri and Sivas, and even Konya, was quite likely rather dif-ferent. This observation raises questions of center and periphery in Byzantine archi-tecture and cautions against the assump-tion of Constantinopolitan monuments be-ing replicated elsewhere.

The prevalent use of stone architec-ture is particularly striking the further east we move in Anatolia, with Konya, the former capital of the Seljuks in central Anatolia, containing a number of brick construc-

tions. Significant examples are the large domes of several madrasas in the city, such as that of İnce Minareli Medrese (Figure 14) from the mid-13th-century, which were constructed of brick over a stone struc-ture. The decoration, however, is largely connected to the Islamic architecture of Iran and Central Asia, where the earliest example of brick patterns with colored ac-cents appear (on the early transfer of this architecture to Anatolia: McClary, 2015a). Additionally, in Konya beginning in the 1220s, carefully cut and assembled tile mosaics were widely used to decorate en-tire interior spaces, such as with the inte-rior of Karatay Medrese (Figure 15), dated 649 AH/1251-52 CE, or the courtyard of the Sırçalı Medrese, dated 642 AH/1243 CE (Figure 16). These projects confirm the presence of a workshop (or a series of relat-ed workshops) that were active into the late 13th century, and were likely based in Konya (Meinecke, 1976, vol. 2, pp. 269-270).

The overall effect of the monuments, from their planning for the requirements of Islamic religious practice to their con-struction of imposing stone portals and Arabic inscriptions, is far removed from the aesthetic of Byzantine monuments in Constantinople. It is clear that the influ-ence of local heritage behind these monu-ments, even though it can only rarely be traced, meant that these monuments looked quite distinctive. While the use of spolia means that the origin of some of the pre-Islamic past of central Anatolia can be traced, the original context of the use of these pieces is no longer known (McClary, 2015b; Vassilopoulou, 2015; Yalman 2011).


Figure14.İnce Minareli Medrese, c. 1265 CE, Konya, interior (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure15.Karatay Medrese, 649 AH/1251-52 CE, Konya, interior (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure16.Sırçalı Medrese, 642 AH/1243 CE, Konya, courtyard (photograph: P. Blessing).

78

The use of different plans was based on the needs of Islamic prayer and ritual, while the technique and decoration in these new monuments were much more varied and based on both available materi-als and skills. For example, in the monu-mental façade of the Sahib Ata Complex in Konya (1258-1285), there is a multi-func-tional combination of monuments where a mosque (Figure 17), mausoleum, and khanqah are combined to form an archi-tectural complex with multiple functions. The mausoleum (Figure 18), which is richly decorated with tiles, is not accessible from the mosque, thus conforming to the prohi-bition of placing burials within the actual mosque. The mausoleum contains multi-ple burials, each marked by its own tiled

cenotaph. However, the bodies were not contained in these, but were instead placed in wooden coffins located in the crypt be-low the accessible level of the mausoleum (Blessing 2015b, pp. 236-237). A separate entrance leads to the interior of the khan-qah, with provides access to the mausoleum and to which the resident Sufi community (mentioned in the foundation inscrip-tion: Combe et al. [1931-1996], no. 4470; Blessing 2015b, p. 241) would have provid-ed the necessary prayers for the deceased.

These varied spaces, decorations, and functions are eloquent in and of them-selves, reflecting the rich cultural milieu and the changes in patronage that occurred in the wake of the Mongol conquest. In many ways, the architecture is the strongest

Figure17.Sahib Ata Complex, 656-684 AH/ 1258-1285 CE, Konya, portal of mosque (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure18.Sahib Ata Complex, 656-684 AH/ 1258-1285 CE, Konya, mausoleum (photograph: P. Blessing).


source for its own history, considering that written sources often contain little detail on monuments and their construction.

Sources on Architecture in Medieval Anatolia

Written sources of the period, such as chronicles and hagiographies, do not provide information about the makers of monuments, only about their patrons. Moreover, written sources for medieval Anatolia do not always conform to the norms of medieval sources from other parts of the Islamic world (Redford, 2007). A larger and more thorny problem is that sources remain unedited, let alone trans-lated, and new manuscripts remain in li-braries (Köprülü, 1943; Köprülü, 1992; Peacock, 2004). For example, the 14th-century Walad al-Shafīq by Qāḍī Aḥmad of Niğde, the same text that Peacock refers to in his 2004 article, was recently published in a Turkish translation and a critical edi-tion of the Persian text (Ertuğrul, 2015). With regard to architecture, any discus-sion of workshops must rely on stylistic grounds, and is often complicated by the lack of technical analysis of the buildings, and by the accidents of preservation.

The signatures of architects and craftsmen carved into the stone of por-tals, or into the wood of mosque furniture, are rare, but provide the only source of the identity of the creators of these monu-ments. That said, signatures do appear on several buildings that were commissioned by the notable Sahib Ata Fakhr al-Din Ali (d. 684 AH/ 1285 CE). One example is the

case of the mosque portal of the Sahib Ata Complex in Konya (Figure 19), where the signature of Qaluyan al-Qunawi appears on a medallion above one of the side niches. Another signature appears on the portal of the Gök Medrese in Sivas (670 AH/ 1271-72 CE; Figure 20), although in this case dif-ferent variants of the name appear (Brend, 1975; Tuncer, 1985; Blessing, 2014a, pp. 115-117; Blessing 2018, pp. 154-158). Nothing more is known about the iden-tity of this individual, and the fact that the signature reads simply: “work of….” [in Arabic: ʿamal + Genitive] poses the further problem of assessing his role on the build-ing site. Qaluyan has often been described as the architect of the monuments, yet he may well have also been responsible for the stone carving on the portals, or for the tile work. The name is not a Muslim one, and its ethnic and religious connotations are un-clear. While a close affiliation with Konya (Arabic: Qūniyat) is implied in the nisba Qunawi, it is unclear what the nature of this relationship to the city might be (Blessing and Goshgarian, 2017, pp. 16-17).

In both cases, the signatures are small and appear as part of the marble carving on the portal, a feature more common in Konya than in other parts of Anatolia. In Sivas, where marble is rare on contempo-rary buildings, these moldings may be seen as being the mark of either the architect or the patron. At the same time, local elements can be clearly seen in the Gök Medrese, particularly in the carving on the buttresses of the madrasa (Figure 21). The floral carv-ing used here does not appear in this form outside Sivas, and is nearly identical with

80

Figure19.The Sahib Ata Complex, Konya, 656-684 AH/ 1258-1285 CE, signature on the portal of mosque in the right-hand medallion above the muqarnas (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure20.Gök Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, view (photograph: P. Blessing).


that on the Çifte Minareli Medrese, the first monument mentioned in this article (see Figures 1-3). These forms are strongly asso-ciated with the city of Sivas and its immedi-ate region, including an earlier mosque and hospital in Divriği built in 626 AH/1228-29 CE (Pancaroğlu, 2009). However, the mar-ble carvings on the Gök Medrese (Figure 22) may point to a connection to Konya, the former Seljuk capital and still an important center of construction in the second half of the 13th century, as seen in the example of the Sahib Ata Complex. There is also a direct connection to Ilkhanid Iran on the portal of the Gök Medrese where animal figures are placed at the corners of the en-trance (Blessing, 2014a, Figure 2.20) Their fine design suggest that they may have been based on a long-lost drawing, perhaps car-ried to Sivas from Iran, and are similar to

the vivid depictions of animals that we find in Ilkhanid miniatures of the time (Grabar and Blair, 1980).

Conclusion

In the narrative that has traditionally been constructed around the monuments of the area, the prevailing focus has been on no-tions of Seljuk continuity in patronage and style. However, this research has rein-terpreted this notion by placing Anatolia within the context of the Mongol empire. Similar narratives also occur in the rise of Ottoman architecture, with the standard narrative presenting a linear progression from the late 13th century to the masterpiec-es of Sinan, the architect who built the great mosque complexes of the Ottoman sultans in the sixteenth century. The frontier does

Figure21.Gök Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, buttress (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure22.Gök Medrese, 670 AH/ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, detail of a marble carving on the portal (photograph: P. Blessing).

82

not end here, in some ways it even extends across Anatolia until the 16th century.

The argument presented in this paper can be summarized in several important conclusions: first, local styles remained in place and actually became more prevalent as patronage was decentralized following the Mongol conquest. Second, workshops in the same city could clearly be active on several construction sites. Third, there seem to have been some association be-tween certain patrons and workshops, but not necessarily an effort to create a uniform look. Fourth, Anatolia was never isolated, and local styles interplayed with the effects of mobility across regions and the impact of portable objects.


References

Angold, M. (1999). Byzantium after the fourth crusade: Byzantium in exile. In D. Abulafia (Ed.) The new Cambridge medieval history (Vol. 5, pp. 543-568). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bates, Ü. (1970). The Anatolian mauso-leum of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Berchem, M. van and Halil Edhem [Eldem] (1917). Matériaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum: troisième Partie: Asie mineure. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’archéologie orientale du Caire.

Blessing, P. (2012). Reframing the lands of Rūm: Architecture and style in eastern Anatolia, 1240-1320. PhD dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Blessing, P. (2014a). Rebuilding Anatolia after the Mongol conquest: Islamic Architecture in the lands of Rūm, 1240-1330. Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishers.

Blessing, P. (2014b). Friedrich Sarre and the discovery of Seljuk Anatolia. Journal of Art Historiography, 11. https://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/blessing.pdf, accessed on December 11, 2019.

Blessing, P. (2015a). From the Survey of Persian Art to the CIA: Donald N. Wilber and Ilkhanid archi-tecture in Iran. In M. Gharipour (Ed.). Historiography of Persian Architecture (pp. 112-146). New York and London: Routledge.

Blessing, P. (2015b). Buildings of com-memoration in medieval Anatolia:

The funerary complexes of Sahib Ata and Mahperi Khatun. Al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 2 (3), 225-252.

Blessing, P. (2016). Medieval monuments from empire to nation-state: Beyond Armenian and Islamic ar-chitecture in the south Caucasus (1180-1300). Convivium: Exchanges and Interactions in the Arts of Medieval Europe, Byzantium, and the Mediterranean, Seminarium Kondakovianum, Series Nova 3.2.

Blessing, P. (2018). Moğol Fethinden Sonra Anadolu’nun Yeniden İnşası: Rum Diyarında İslami Mimari, 1240-1330 (M. Özkılıç, Trans.). Istanbul: Koç University Press.

Blessing, P. and Goshgarian, R. (2017). Introduction: Space and place - applications to medieval Anatolia. In P. Blessing and R. Goshgarian (Eds.). Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500 (pp. 1-24). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Bozdoğan, S. and Necipoğlu, G. (2007). Entangled discourses: scrutiniz-ing orientalist and nationalist legacies in the architectural his-toriography of the ‘lands of Rum’. Muqarnas, 24, 1-6.

Brend B. (1975). The patronage of Faḫr al-Din ‘Ali ibn al-Husain and the work of Kaluk ibn ‘Abd Allah in the development of the decoration of portals in thirteenth-century Anatolia. Kunst des Orients, XI(2), 160-185.

Çağaptay, S. (2011). Frontierscape: Reconsidering Bithynian structures and their builders on the Byzantine-Ottoman cusp. Muqarnas, 28, 157-193.

Cahen, C. (2001). The formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm: Eleventh to fourteenth

century (P. M. Holt, Trans.). Harlow, England and New York: Longman.

Combe, E., Sauvaget, J., Wiet, G., et al. (1931-1996). Répertoire chro-nologique d’épigraphie arabe. Le Caire: Impr. de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Crane, H. G. (1993). Notes on Saljūq architectural patronage in 13th-century Anatolia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 36 (1), 1-57.

Elisséeff, N. (1954). La titulature de Nūr ad-Dīn d’après ses inscriptions. Bulletin des Etudes Orientales, 14, 155-196.

Ertuğrul, A. (2015). Niğdeli Kadı Ahmed’in el-Veledü’ş-şefîk ve’l-hâfidü’l-halîk’ı: (Anadolu Selçuklularına dair bir kaynak). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Gabriel, A. (1931). Monuments turcs d’Anatolie. Paris: E. de Boccard.

Grabar, O., and Blair, S. (1980). Epic Images and Contemporary History: The Illustrations of the Great Mongol Shahnama. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hoffman, E. R. and Redford S. (2017). Transculturation in the eastern Mediterranean. In F. B. Flood and G. Necipoğlu (Eds.). A companion to Islamic art and architecture (Vol. 1, pp. 405-430). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Jerphanion, G. de (1928). Mélanges d’archéologie anatolienne—Monuments prehelléniques, gréco-romains, byzantins et mu-sulmans de Pont, de Cappadoce et de Galatie. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique.

Kadoi, Y. (2016). Arthur Upham Pope and a New Survey of Persian Art. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

84

Kafadar, C. (1995). Between two worlds: The construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kafadar, C. (2007). A Rome of One’s own: Reflections on cultural ge-ography and identity in the lands of Rum. Muqarnas, 24, 7-25.

Köprülü, M. F. (1943). Anadolu Selçuklu tarihinin yerel kaynakları. Belleten, VII, 379-458.

Köprülü, M. F. (1992). The Seljuks of Anatolia: Their history and culture according to local Muslim sources (G. Leiser, Trans. and Ed.). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Kuran, A. (1969). Anadolu medreseleri. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

McClary, R. P. (2015a). From Nakhchivan to Kemah: The western extent of brick Persianate funerary architecture in the sixth/twelfth century. Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, LIII, 119-142.

McClary, R. P. (2015b). The re-use of Byzantine spolia in Rūm Saljūq architecture. Copy – Paste. The Reuse of Material and Visual Culture in Architecture, Bfo-Journal, 1, 14-22.

McClary, R. P. (2017). Rum Seljuq archi-tecture, 1170-1220: The patronage of sultans. Edinburgh Studies in Islamic Art. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Meinecke, M. (1976). Fayencedekorationen seld-schukischer Sakralbauten in Kleinasien. Tübingen: Wasmuth.

Ousterhout, R. G. (2004). The East, the West, and the appropriation of the past in early Ottoman Architecture. Gesta, XLIII (2), 165-176.

Önkal, H. (1996). Anadolu Selçuklu türbeleri. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi.

Öztürk, F. G. (2017). Transformation of the ‘sacred’ image of a Byzantine Cappadocian settlement. In P. Blessing and R. Goshgarian (Eds.). Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500 (pp. 134-154). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Pancaroğlu, O. (1995). Architecture, landscape, and patronage in Bursa: The making of an Ottoman capital city. Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 20 (1), 40-55.

Pancaroğlu, O. (2007). Formalism and the academic foundation of Turkish art in the early twentieth century. Muqarnas, 24, 67-78.

Pancaroğlu, O. (2009). The mosque-hospital complex at Divriği: A history of relations and transitions. Anadolu ve Çevresinde Ortaçağ, 3, 169-198.

Pancaroğlu, O. (2011). A fin-de-siècle re-connaissance of Seljuk Anatolia: Friedrich Sarre and his Reise in Kleinasien. In R. Ousterhout, Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik and E. Eldem (Eds.). Scramble for the past: A story of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914 (pp. 399-416). Istanbul: SALT.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2004). Aḥmad of Niğde’s al-Walad al-Shafīq and the Seljuk past. Anatolian Studies, 54, 95-107.

Pope, A., and Ackerman, Ph. (1938). A survey of Persian art from prehis-toric times to the present. London and New York: Oxford University Press.

Pyle, N. S. (1980). Seljuk portals of Anatolia. Unpublished PhD dis-sertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Redford, S. (1993). The Seljuqs of Rum and the antique. Muqarnas, 10, 148-156.

Redford, S. (2006). Albert Gabriel, les turcs, et l’architecture seld-joukide. In P. Pinon (Ed.). Albert Gabriel: architecte, archéologue, artiste, voyageur (pp. 79-84). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Redford, S. (2007a). ‘What have you done for Anatolia today?’: Islamic archaeology in the early years of the Turkish Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 243-252.

Redford, S. (2007b). Words, books, and buildings in Seljuk Anatolia. International Journal of Turkish Studies, 13, 7-16.

Rıdvan Nâfiz (Edgüer) and İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı (1928). Sivas şehri. Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.

Rogers, J. M. (1971). Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia, 1200–1300. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Rogers, J. M. (1972). The date of the Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum. Kunst des Orients, 8 (1–2), 77-119.

Strohmeier, M. (1984). Seldschukische Geschichte und türkische Geschichtswissenschaft. Berlin: K. Schwarz.

Sözen, M. (1970). Anadolu medre-seleri: Selçuklu ve Beylikler devri. Istanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi-Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü.

Tabbaa, Y. (2000). Ḍayfa Khātūn, Regent Queen and Architectural Patron. In D. F. Ruggles (Ed.). Women, Patronage, and Self-representation in Islamic Societies (pp. 17-34). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Tuncer, O. C. (1985). Mimar Kölük ve Kalûyân. Vakıflar Dergisi, XIX, 109-118.


Turan, O. (2004 [1971]). Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye: Siyasî Tarih Alp Arslan’dan Osman Gazi’ye, 1071–1318 (8th ed.). Istanbul: Ötüken.

Uyar, T. (2015). 13th-century monumental painting in Cappadocia and the question of the Greek paint-ers at the Seljuk court. In A. C. S. Peacock, B. De Nicola and S. N. Yıldız (Eds.). Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia (pp. 215-231). Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Ünal, R. H. (1968). Les monuments islamiques anciens de la ville d’Erzurum et de sa région. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.

Vassilopoulou, S. (2014). Imperial references: The Gök Medrese in Sivas as an example of the use of marble in thirteenth-century Anatolia. Funun/ kunsttexte.de, 3, http://www.kunsttexte.de/index.php?id=916&L=0&idartikel=40960&ausgabe=40954&zu=919&L=0, accessed on July10, 2016.

Vryonis, S. (1971). The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wilber, D. N. (1955). The architecture of Islamic Iran—the Il-Khanid period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wolper, E. S. (1999). Portal patterns in Seljuk and Beylik Anatolia. In Ç. Kafescioğlu and L. Thys-Şenocak (Eds.). Aptullah Kuran İçin Yazılar (pp. 65-80). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Wolper, E. S. (2003). Cities and saints: Sufism and the transforma-tion of urban space in medieval Anatolia. University Park, PA: The

Pennsylvania State University Press.

Yalman, S. (2011). Building the Sultanate of Rum: Religion, urbanism and mysticism in the architectural patronage of ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad (r. 1220–1237). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge MA.

Yalman, S. (2012). ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad illuminated: A Rum Seljuq sultan as cosmic ruler. Muqarnas, 29, 151-186.

Yıldız, S. N. (2006). Mongol rule in thirteenth-century Seljuk Anatolia: The politics of conquest and history writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

cultural encounters in anatolia in the medieval period: the ......the ilkhanate: the mongols’...

Documents