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

21-22 May 2015,

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

21-22 May 2015, Ankara Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period: The Ilkhanids in Anatolia

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

ISBN: 978-605-9388-23-8 1. Baskı /⁄ First Printing: 500 adet | copies

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

Copy Editors Alev 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 It may not be published in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying or otherwise without the prior permission of VEKAM.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 Image Çifte Minareli Medrese, 1271-72, , detail of portal (photograph: P. J. Lu, courtesy of Harvard Fine Arts Library, Special Collections, d2016.01403).

Tasarım /⁄ Design: Barek www.barek.com.tr

Basım /⁄ Print: Dumat Ofset Bahçekapı Mh. 2477. Sk. No: 6 Şaşmaz, Etimesgut, Ankara / T +90 312 278 82 00 [email protected]

Koç Üniversitesi VEKAM /⁄ Koç University VEKAM Vehbi Koç Ankara Araştırmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Vehbi Koç Ankara Studies Research Center Pınarbaşı Mahallesi, Şehit Hakan Sokak, No: 9, Keçiören 06290 Ankara / Turkey T +90 312 355 20 27 F +90 312 356 33 94 www.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. --Turkey-- Congresses. 7. Madrasahs--Turkey-- Congresses. 8. Architecture, Seljuk-- Congresses. 9. Historic buildings—Turkey-- Congresses. 10. Religious architecture—Turkey-- Congresses. 11. Çifte Minareli Medrese (, 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 (, 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 Contents

7 Preface Ilkhanids and their Western Frontier SUZAN YALMAN

11 Two Sufis of Ilkhanid Anatolia and their Patrons: Notes on the Works of Mu’ayyid al-Din Jandi and Da’ud al-Qaysari A.C.S. PEACOCK

31 Artistic Ilkhanid Manuscripts in the Topkapı Palace Library ZEYNEP ATBAŞ

53 The Ayas-Tabriz Commercial Link and Its Impact on the Cities of Sivas, Erzincan, and Erzurum TOM SINCLAIR

65 Building a Frontier: Architecture in Anatolia under Ilkhanid Rule PATRICIA BLESSING

87 İsmail Ağa, Beyşehir and Architectural Patronage in 14th-Century Central Anatolia OYA PANCAROĞLU

117 On the Outskirts of the : The Mongols’ Relationship with the Province of Kastamonu in the Second Half of the 13th Century BRUNO DE NICOLA Ankara Citadel llkhanid Tax Tablet* *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.”

Photograph: Gökçe Günel Source: Translation from Wittek, P. (1931). Ankara'da bir İlhanî Kitabesi. (Offprint: Türk Hukuk ve İktisat Tarihi Mecmuası, v.1). : Evkaf. Hisar Gate, Ankara Citadel, 1932. Source: Koç University VEKAM Library and Archive, Inv. No:2009 Çankırı

Baghdad

Ilkhanids in Anatolia (ca. 1300) The map is based on Philip Schwartzberg's Anatolia map (Meridian Mapping) Preface Ilkhanids and their Western Frontier

SUZAN YALMAN Koç University

The legendary Mongols, under Genghis light on the brief but significant Mongol Khan (ca. 1162-1227) and his successors, interlude in Anatolia that proved to be a are recognized primarily for their military vital period of cultural transformation. prowess, creating the largest land empire The historical context in West Asia ever to exist, from China to and was impacted by Genghis Khan’s grandson the Islamic world, all the way to Europe. For Hülegü, whose forces subjugated all of this reason, their reputation related to war, and, moreover, in 1258, captured , pillaging, and bloodshed in the vast lands bringing an end to the that they conquered, seems to precede (750-1258). Assuming the title Il-khan, them. In the aftermath of Genghis Khan’s meaning “lesser khan” (i.e. subordinate death, four states emerged: Chagatai in to the Great Khan ruling in China), Hülegü Central Asia (1227-1363), Golden Horde established rule over most of West Asia, in southern Russia (1227-1502), Ilkhanid including parts of Asia Minor. Due to in greater Iran (1256-1353), and Yuan in their titulature, this branch of the Mongol China (1271-1368). Nevertheless, thanks to dynasty became known as the Ilkhanids the lifting of borders, people, goods, ideas, and centered its power in northwest Iran. and information could circulate, helping In history books and surveys, 1258 is con- to contribute to the cultural achievements sidered a watershed moment not only in of the era. Under their dynastic rule, this terms of the political context—given the great geographic expanse was united in end of centuries of caliphal rule—but also as what is known as the “Mongolian Peace” a turning point in and architec- (Pax Mongolica). This said, however, due tural history. For, in terms of its periodiza- to the memory of violence they were often tion, significant changes are noted in the associated with, positive aspects involving arts of the book and ceramic production, as their intellectual, artistic and architectural well as in architecture, where monumen- heritage have been overlooked. This book tality became du jour. Following the conver- emerged from an interest in shedding sion to of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304) 8

in 1295 and his creation of a cultural policy In terms of shedding light on the that supported his new , Islamic art Mongol and Ilkhanid cultural achieve- and architecture would flourish again. ment, a significant development was the As with 1258, in Turkey, too, the cul- landmark exhibition at the Metropolitan tural memory still retains the Seljuk de- Museum of Art in New York in 2002-3 feat at the Battle of Kösedağ in 1243, after entitled “The Legacy of Genghis Khan: which Seljuk sultans became vassals to the Courtly Art and Culture in , Mongols. For this reason, the period is 1256-1353.” The exhibition catalogue with often remembered as a blight on Turkish the same title, edited by Linda Komaroff history. Thus, even though Anatolia was and Stefano Carboni, further contributed part of the Mongol landscape and map, in to scholarship in this area. The essays in the mindset, it has not always been in the the publication highlight how East Asian picture. The negative connotations made elements fused with the existing Perso- it difficult to break free from the teleo- Islamic repertoire to create a new artistic logical model that favors the clear-cut and vocabulary that was emulated from the bor- straightforward periodization of Seljuk- ders of India to Anatolia and thus affected Beylik-Ottoman eras. In nation-state nar- artistic production profoundly. ratives, the Mongol period was often either A few years later (2006-7), a popular glossed over under the rubric of “Seljuk” “Mongol” exhibition was put together in or “Beylik,” until the flourishing of the Turkey at the Sakıp Sabancı Museum. As “Ottoman” period. its title “Genghis Khan and His Successors: In general, medieval Anatolia has of- The Great ” (Cengiz Han ten been marginalized in scholarship; by ve Mirasçıları: Büyük Moğol İmparatorluğu) Byzantinists it is the periphery to the im- suggests, this exhibition was not focused on perial capital of Constantinople, and for the Ilkhanids but conceptualized in broad- scholars of Islamic history, it is perceived er terms. Curiously, local contribution to as an eclectic or marginal zone that comes this exhibition was mostly in the form of nowhere near vital centers such as Baghdad, important artifacts borrowed from Turkish Cairo or . For the Mongol era, with museum collections and not in the form of the focus on Ilkhanid Iran, Anatolia was scholarship in the related catalogue (edited perceived as an unruly frontier. Although by Samih Rıfat). Perhaps the partial silence Turkish scholarship tried to counterbal- is once again related to the cultural memory ance this, the rhetoric was nationalist and of 1243. the agency of Turkic dynasties played a How can we move beyond these per- key role, leaving little or no room for the ceptions of the Ilkhanid period in Anatolia? Mongols. Underlining the consequences Most tangibly, what about the cultural ef- for the Turks, some even remarked on how florescence in Anatolian cities such as the period in fact helped strengthen the Sivas that witnessed the construction of a role of Turks in their new geography. number of major monuments in the 1270s ILKHANIDS AND THEIR WESTERN FRONTIER 9

(Çifte Minareli Medrese, Buruciye Medrese Rule.” Also focusing on architecture, Oya and Gök Medrese)? How do we handle these Pancaroğlu analyzes the prominent role contradictions? Such initial questions in- of local powerholders in her case study, spired the symposium entitled “Cultural “İsmail Ağa, Beyşehir and Architectural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Patronage in 14th Century Central Anatolia.” Period: The Ilkhanids in Anatolia” which Bruno De Nicola studies the case of another took place at Koç University’s Vehbi Koç province in his article, “On the Outskirts of Ankara Studies Research Center (VEKAM) the Ilkhanate: The Mongols’ Relationship on 21-22 May 2015. For the symposium and with the Province of Kastamonu in the its publication, we envisioned bringing to- Second Half of the 13th Century.” gether Turkish and international scholars We are grateful to these authors from different disciplines, in order to paint for their invaluable contributions that a more complete picture of this complex have made this volume possible. İlhan period in Anatolia. Erdem, Kemal Göde, Hesna Haral, Nakış In their discussion of history, litera- Karamağaralı, Peter Lu, Canan Parla, and ture, , arts of the book, urban his- Sara Nur Yıldız were also among the schol- tory and architecture, the articles in the ars who presented papers at the symposium present volume include of some of the new but could not be part of the publication for directions in the field. Highlighting the a variety of reasons. Serpil Bağcı and Rıza role of Sufism, Andrew Peacock examines Yıldırım graciously accepted to chair ses- the role of two notable figures in his work, sions at the symposium. We would like to “Two Sufis of Ilkhanid Anatolia and their thank each and every one of them, as well Patrons: Notes on the Works of Mu’ayyid as the students and lively audience for their al-Din Jandi and Da’ud al-Qaysari.” In participation. terms of the intellectual and artistic herit- Finally, this symposium and its pub- age of the Mongols, manuscripts that made lication would not have been possible with- their way into the Ottoman royal collection out the vision and generosity of VEKAM are discussed by Zeynep Atbaş in “Artistic Director, Prof. Yenişehirlioğlu, and the Ilkhanid Manuscripts in the Topkapı Palace energetic VEKAM team consisting of Arzu Library.” The importance of commerce, Beril Kırcı and Mehtap Türkyılmaz for the regional networks and urban history are symposium, and Alev Ayaokur for the vol- addressed by Tom Sinclair in “The Ayas- ume. The final printed form was achieved Tabriz Commercial Link and Its Impact on thanks to copy-editor Defne Karakaya, the Cities of Sivas, Erzincan, and Erzurum.” translator Umur Çelikyay, and designer Elaborating on the concept of the fron- Damla Çiftçi. tier, Patricia Blessing examines the de- velopments in architecture at the time in her article entitled, “Building a Frontier: Architecture in Anatolia under Ilkhanid 64

Ilkhanid Coin, Ankara, 1304-1316. Yapı Kredi Museum Collection, Inv. No. 10830 Building a Frontier: Architecture in Anatolia under Ilkhanid Rule

PATRICIA BLESSING Pomona College

Abstract Islamic 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 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 , in particular – as well as Byzantine, Ilkhanid, and .

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 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 (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 (Pyle, 1980; Wolper, 1999). Figure 1. While the argument that this style is typical Çifte Minareli of the period may be contested, as I discuss Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, elsewhere in more detail (Blessing, 2012; façade (photograph: Blessing, 2014a; Blessing 2018), it here P. Blessing). 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 Figure 2. Minareli Medrese, the , built in Çifte Minareli Medrese, 670 A.H./ brick and adorned with tiles, are some- 1271-72 CE, Sivas, times considered as having been imported portal. (photograph: from Iran, even though it is difficult to es- P. J. Lu, courtesy tablish the actual chronology of such use of of Harvard Fine Arts Library, glazed tile (Meinecke, 1976). The muqar- Special Collections, nas’ niche and frames on the portal are d2016.01403). BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 67

common motifs. The stone carving (Figure The patron of this monument, Shams 3) on the portal, with its floral motifs jut- al-Din al-Juwayni (d. 683 ting out from the surface of the wall, exhibit AH/ 1284 CE), was not a Muslim ruler of a close connection to other monuments in Anatolia, but a dignitary of the Mongol the region of Sivas and in the city itself. court in Iran, with few known connections to Anatolia (Rogers 1971, pp. 230-232; Figure 3. Blessing, 2014a, pp. 77-79; Blessing 2018, Çifte Minareli pp. 113-116). The foundation inscription Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, (Figure 4) uses royal titles for the patron detail of portal and omits the name of a ruler: (photograph: P. The construction of this blessed Blessing). was ordered by the great statesman, the king of the (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 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).

Figure 4. Çifte Minareli Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, foundation inscription (photograph: P. Blessing). 68

Only the façade of the Çifte Minareli Over the course of the 12th century, Medrese has been preserved, as shown the Seljuk Turkic group emerged as the by the earliest available photographs of dominant force and progressively absorbed the monument taken in the 1880s, and it other local Muslim rulers, such as the is unclear when the rest of the monument Danishmendids, in the expansion of their was destroyed (Berchem and Halil Edhem, hold over former Byzantine territories. By 1917, p. 5; Rıdvan Nâfiz and İsmail Hakkı, around 1200, the Seljuks had established 1928, p. 113; Kuran, 1969, pp. 115-116; the city of Konya in central Anatolia as their Jerphanion, 1928, plates XXVIII and XXIX; capital and subsequently began to central- Blessing, 2014a, pp. 81-82; Blessing, 2018, ize their rule (McClary, 2017; Yalman, 2011 116-118). The façade of the monument, with and 2012; Redford, 1993). However, this its foundation inscription referring to process of Seljuk consolidation became an Ilkhanid patron, and the strong local under threat in the late 1230s as Mongol references expressed in its architecture, armies, during their advance from central raise central issues related to building in Asia, began to conduct occasional raids in Anatolia after the Mongol conquest. These the region. Anatolia gradually came under issues will be considered in this article. the influence of the Mongol Empire, and by 1243, the Seljuk sultan had been reduced Historical and Geographical to the status of a vassal of the Mongol khan Background (Cahen, 2001, pp. 187-205; Turan, 2004 [1971], pp. 485-497; Yıldız, 2006). This In the late 11th century, Turkic speaking meant that the region was now part of a Muslims had begun to conquer the parts new cultural and political framework with of eastern Anatolia that had been part of networks of rulership and trade reaching the Byzantine Empire. These new rulers from the Mediterranean to central Asia and brought their religion, Islam, to Anatolia, China. In the 1250s, the Mongol Empire was although only some of the population con- split into four distinct realms due to suc- verted from Christianity over the follow- cession struggles. The area was ruled by the ing decades (Turan, 1971; Vryonis, 1971; Ilkhanids dynasty centered around Tabriz Cahen, 2001). In addition to a new reli- in western Iran, and Anatolia became part gion, the conquerors brought new lan- of their sphere of influence. Several archi- guages: the Turkic that they spoke among tectural studies have shown that there were themselves, as the language of important shifts in patronage in Anatolia Islam, and Persian as the preferred lan- during the period (Rogers, 1971; Crane, guage of the court. The local population, 1993; Blessing, 2014a; Blessing, 2018). depending on the region, spoke Greek, This article will illustrate the multi- Armenian, or Syriac, and these languages ple visual languages present in Anatolia in persisted during the subsequent centu- this period by examining examples built ries. throughout medieval Anatolia, between the BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 69

last quarter of the 13th century and the sec- armies conquered Anatolia in the 1240s, ond quarter of the 14th century. It will emerge the region’s position as a frontier was rede- that in the context of medieval Anatolia, ar- fined as it was now also at the western edge chitecture was flexible and did not adopt the of the Mongol realm, and was thus more single style that was imposed by imperial than just a borderland between Christianity patronage, whether it was Seljuk or Mongol. and Islam. The notions of frontier and That said, although increased mobility pro- frontier culture are essential in any study of vided craftsmen with new venues for their medieval Anatolia, especially after Cemal work and new models to translate into their Kafadar’s influential book on the genesis preferred materials, localisms were pre- of the Ottoman Empire and its ghāzī culture served, and could even be said to have been (Kafadar, 1995). accentuated. This was due to both local pa- Focusing on central and eastern trons and craftsmen being left to their own Anatolia provides a new perspective on a devices once a leveling imperial patronage crucial zone of connection and interac- was removed. A combination of local tra- tion, a reassessment of center and periph- ditions and newly acquired elements were ery, and fresh insights into the dynam- used as a consequence. ics of patronage, style, and politics. The Geography is a central factor in this monuments discussed in this article, built analysis in which medieval Anatolia does in Anatolia under Mongol rule, are part of not emerge as an insular unit. Instead, the set of buildings that require such reas- connections can be made that led to the sessment, as they have not been previously emergence of new outlooks in the study of included in studies of Islamic architecture architecture in neighboring areas, as well within the Mongol Empire (Wilber, 1955. as in Anatolia itself. The distinctions be- For a historiography and literature review, tween eastern and western Anatolia are im- see Blessing, 2015a, pp. 134-136). Instead, portant, as are the ties that existed between previous studies have tended to focus on regions established through trade, mobil- Iran and the few monuments that are ex- ity, and portable objects (Hoffman and tant there, dating for the most part to the Redford, 2017). beginning of the 1310s and the reigns of the The concept of Anatolia being a fron- last Ilkhanid sultans. Until this was chal- tier zone plays an essential part in this lenged over the course of the last few dec- reevaluation. The term “lands of Rūm” thus ades (Pancaroğlu, 1995; Ousterhout, 2004; alludes to core concepts: mobility, frontier, Çağaptay, 2011), Anatolia was firmly un- and geography (Bozdoğan and Necipoğlu, der the grasp of a narrative that insists on 2007; Kafadar, 2007). Prior to the Mongol a continuity of Seljuk architecture existing conquest, the region, despite its frontier from the late 11th to the rise of the Ottomans character, was a comparatively attractive in the early 14th century. destination for refugees, including scholars The prevailing historiographical and craftsmen. However, when the Mongol 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 (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 th th in the late 19 and early 20 centuries, in Figure 5. the context of the Ottoman and German The Mausoleum Empires, viewed Seljuk architecture in of Sultan Uljaytu, 708-713 A.H./ 1309- Anatolia as Persian. The German art his- 1313 CE, Sultaniyya, torian Friedrich Sarre, in particular, em- Iran. (photograph: phasized the larger Persianate culture of Ali Khan Vali (1845/1846-1902), the Seljuk court, and highlighted connec- from an album of tions to Iran (Pancaroğlu, 2011; Blessing, photographs by 2014b). Due to conflicting narratives, such Ali Khan Vali, p. 4, as that of Persianate culture and that of the courtesy of Harvard Fine Arts Library, Turkish nation, the historiography of me- Special Collections). 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- Figure 6. cated series of ideological changes. In this Yakutiye Medrese, revision, Anatolia emerged as the origi- 710 A.H./ 1310 CE, Erzurum, view nal center of civilization (Redford, 2007; (photograph: P. Strohmeier, 1984). The Seljuks, a Turkic Blessing). BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 71

dynasty who ruled over this region, were A Local Center Between Anatolia and attractive candidates for the representa- Iran: Erzurum tives of the region before the rise of the Ottomans, a now defunct dynasty that was Erzurum is an important city in north-east- not fondly remembered, and no place ern Anatolia, close to Iran and the Caucasus, was left for other influences, particular- particularly . The area contains ly the Mongols. The historian, Mehmed many examples of Armenian architecture, Fuad Köprülü (1890-1966), was a driving and the earliest Islamic monuments that force in establishing this new narrative. have been preserved in this region, such as Köprülü was involved in the commission- the Great and the Citadel Mosque, ing of French archaeologist, Albert Gabriel date back to the late 12th century. (1883-1972), to write a two-volume history Before returning to the main discus- of the “Turkish” monuments of Anatolia sion, it is necessary to revisit the fraught which focused on medieval and early mod- distinction between Armenian build- ern Islamic architecture (Gabriel, 1931; ings and Islamic architecture. The term Redford, 2006). “Armenian” is as problematic as the terms In the case of Iran, Donald Wilber’s Turkish, Turkic, Seljuk, or Islamic, as it survey on Ilkhanid architecture in Iran is relies on national and religious categories symptomatic of the English-language liter- to identify a local tradition and limits it to ature on the subject of the period (Wilber, Christian monuments such as churches 1955). Wilber’s book is deeply rooted in and monasteries (Blessing, 2016). While the framework of a Pahlavi national nar- it is true that many Armenian buildings rative, and carries the heritage of A Survey are churches and monasteries, this is not of , Arthur Upham Pope’s major the whole story. It is quite possible for lo- documentation of the arts of Persia begun cal forms of architecture to be used in both in 1925 (Pope and Ackerman, 1938; on Islamic and Christian monuments. In this Pope: Kadoi, 2016). In his survey, Wilber use, features of the plan may change ac- argues for the existence of a continuity of cording to function, but decorative, and style beyond the end of Ilkhanid rule in especially structural, elements (such as Iran. In fact, his research on monuments ) remain the same. Islamic within the confines of Iran served as cover monuments, so labelled here because of for his intelligence work during the Second their religious function, in Erzurum are a World War (Blessing, 2015a, pp. 122-123 rich area of study of the intersection be- and 126-131). Even though these frame- tween Islamic and Armenian architecture. works have been revisited in recent histori- The Citadel Mosque (Kale Camii) ographical studies, they remain underlying in Erzurum (Figure 7) is one such ex- in studies of architecture, as they dominate ample. The mosque has a lantern that is previous scholarship that serves as a basis reminiscent of those over the crossings of for discussion. Armenian churches. However, the lantern 72

in the Citadel Mosque forms a in 11) exhibit their use in the Seljuk capital. front of the miḥrāb, the niche that indicates The careful program that was shaped with the direction of for Muslim prayer. these and other reliefs have been analyzed This is an example of how, by 1200, many to the extent possible considering that the elements such as this intertwined flu- walls are no longer extant, and the pieces no idly with ones associated more commonly longer in situ (Redford, 1993, pp. 153-155; with Islamic architecture, such as muqar- Yalman, 2011, pp. 41-47, 142-145, 178-191, nas. Another example can be found in the 255-261; Yalman, 2012). Yakutiye Medrese (see Figure 6), which Thus, many architectural features such was built in 710 AH/ 1310 CE by an Ilkhanid as conical domes, blind arches, and muqar- governor of Erzurum, where stone cells nas fluidly crossed the imposed boundaries were used to cover the center of the monu- between mosques and churches, between ment. The same form was used in the Great Islamic and Armenian architecture. The Mosque in the same city around 1200, but Yakutiye Medrese is a case in point: the it also appears in monasteries in Armenia plan of the madrasa is evidence of its reli- dating back to the 1220s. The chronology gious function, with a prayer niche inserted and the direction of influence (a problem- into one of the side chambers (Ünal, 1968, atic notion in any case) are not the point fig. 12; Blessing, 2014a, fig. 3.13). This here, but rather the extent to which such plan, arranged around a courtyard, is typi- features were regionally engrained in an cal for madrasas across Anatolia, as numer- area reaching from Erzurum into today’s ous comparative examples with variants Armenia. of two or four eyvans show (Sözen, 1970; Some elements, particularly the re- Kuran, 1969). The mausoleum (Figure lief carvings of animals, and sometimes 12) of the founder, however, which is at- humans, were often used across Anatolia tached to the outside of the monument in as apotropaic figures. Examples are the li- the central axis, is constructed in way that ons and the eagle which appear on the side is found only locally in Erzurum in the Çifte of the portal of the Yakutiye Medrese, and Minareli Medrese (Figure 13), an undated the dragons which form the base of a large monument probably built a few decades tree of life motif on a late 13th-century Çifte earlier, although the date of the monument Minareli Medrese (Figure 8) in the same has been disputed (Rogers, 1972; Blessing, city (Blessing 2014a, pp. 130-142; Blessing, 2014a, pp. 130-131; Blessing, 2018, pp. 2018, pp. 171-185, Rogers, 1972). Such mo- 178-179). Freestanding mausolea of this tifs, such as the large-scale lions and eagle type, built between the 12th and 14th century, to be found in a late-13th-century funerary abound in Anatolia, as studies of such mon- chapel in the monastery of Geghard, were uments (Bates, 1970; Önkal, 1996) have also very common in Armenian architec- clearly shown. However, attaching such ture at the time (Figure 9). Fragments from structures to larger monuments example the city walls of Konya (Figure 10 and Figure of a local idea, rather than of a wide scale BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 73

Figure 7. Kale Cami, late 12th century, Erzurum, view (photograph: P. Blessing)

Figure 8. Çifte Minareli Medrese, c. 1280 CE, Erzurum, tree-of- life motif on portal (photograph: P. Blessing). 74

Figure 9. Proshian Chapel, 1215 CE and 1283 CE, Monastery of Geghard, Armenia, lion and eagle motif (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure 11. Fragment of a stone carving from Konya city walls, early 13th century, Museum of Stone and Wood Carving, İnce Minareli Medrese, Figure 10. Konya (photograph: Fragment of a stone P. Blessing). carving from Konya city walls, early 13th century, Museum of Stone and Wood Carving, İnce Minareli Medrese, Konya (photograph: P. Blessing). BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 75

Figure 12. Yakutiye Medrese, 710 AH/ 1310 CE, Erzurum, mausoleum (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure 13. Çifte Minareli Medrese, c. 1280 CE, Erzurum, mausoleum (photograph: P. Blessing).

trend. Connections to Ilkhanid architec- took hold here. In fact, apart from the rich- ture in Iran, on the other hand, are scarce. ly painted cave settlements of Cappadocia, The only examples may be the tiles on the remains of in cen- of the Yakutiye Medrese similar tral and eastern Anatolia are rare, and to those on the Çifte Minareli Medrese in so it is not known exactly what Byzantine Sivas, which could point to a connection to architecture in this region looked like. Iran. Furthermore, it is only recent studies which have begun to investigate the rela- Byzantium in Mongol Anatolia and tionship between Seljuk/Islamic art and the Question of Materials the painted churches of Cappadocia (Uyar, 2015; Öztürk, 2017). At this point of the study, the reader may le- While central and eastern Anatolia gitimately ask where the Byzantine element had slipped from Byzantine hold by the is in this architecture. In fact, the region of mid-12th century, western Anatolia re- Erzurum was always a frontier zone, also for mained closely within the cultural and po- the Byzantine emperors who struggled to litical orbit of Byzantium for several cen- deal with the powerful Armenian landlords turies. This was the case even during the of this area. Thus, the brick architecture of decades between the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, the typical image that one 1204 and 1261, when the Byzantine Empire may have of Byzantine monuments, never was in exile before Manuel VIII Palaiologos 76

conquered Constantinople and ended Latin tions. Significant examples are the large rule there (Angold, 1999). The architec- domes of several madrasas in the city, such ture of western Anatolia and the Balkans as that of İnce Minareli Medrese (Figure remained within the stylistic and technical 14) from the mid-13th-century, which were grasp of the Byzantine capital, and so it is in constructed of brick over a stone struc- these regions that the idea of central style in ture. The decoration, however, is largely Byzantium was formed (Ousterhout, 2004; connected to the Islamic architecture of Çağaptay, 2011). Byzantine rule persisted Iran and Central Asia, where the earliest in these regions, and when the Ottomans example of brick patterns with colored ac- captured Bursa in 1326, they conquered cents appear (on the early transfer of this the capital of the Byzantine province of architecture to Anatolia: McClary, 2015a). Bithynia. Therefore the architecture of the Additionally, in Konya beginning in the earliest Ottoman monuments is essen- 1220s, carefully cut and assembled tile tially Byzantine in its technique, although mosaics were widely used to decorate en- plans were adapted for the construction of tire interior spaces, such as with the inte- mosques. Byzantine heritage in the region rior of Karatay Medrese (Figure 15), dated remained strong and constituted one of the 649 AH/1251-52 CE, or the courtyard of bases of the Ottoman construction of a new the Sırçalı Medrese, dated 642 AH/1243 empire and its identity (Pancaroğlu, 1995; CE (Figure 16). These projects confirm the Ousterhout, 2004; Çağaptay, 2011). presence of a workshop (or a series of relat- A look at Islamic monuments in cen- ed workshops) that were active into the late tral and eastern Anatolia, which were built 13th century, and were likely based in Konya according to locally available materials (Meinecke, 1976, vol. 2, pp. 269-270). and skills, gives reason to pause. Local ar- The overall effect of the monuments, chitecture in Erzurum never looked like from their planning for the requirements the monuments of the Byzantine capital. of Islamic religious practice to their con- Similarly, Byzantine architecture in central struction of imposing stone portals and Anatolian cities such as and Sivas, Arabic inscriptions, is far removed from and even Konya, was quite likely rather dif- the aesthetic of Byzantine monuments in ferent. This observation raises questions of Constantinople. It is clear that the influ- center and periphery in Byzantine archi- ence of local heritage behind these monu- tecture and cautions against the assump- ments, even though it can only rarely tion of Constantinopolitan monuments be- be traced, meant that these monuments ing replicated elsewhere. looked quite distinctive. While the use of The prevalent use of stone architec- spolia means that the origin of some of the ture is particularly striking the further east pre-Islamic past of central Anatolia can be we move in Anatolia, with Konya, the former traced, the original context of the use of capital of the Seljuks in central Anatolia, these pieces is no longer known (McClary, containing a number of brick construc- 2015b; Vassilopoulou, 2015; Yalman 2011). BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 77

Figure 14. İnce Minareli Medrese, c. 1265 CE, Konya, interior (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure 15. Karatay Medrese, 649 AH/1251-52 CE, Konya, interior (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure 16. Sırçalı Medrese, 642 AH/1243 CE, Konya, courtyard (photograph: P. Blessing). 78

Figure 17. Sahib Ata Complex, 656-684 AH/ 1258- 1285 CE, Konya, portal of mosque (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure 18. Sahib Ata Complex, 656-684 AH/ 1258-1285 CE, Konya, mausoleum (photograph: P. Blessing).

The use of different plans was based cenotaph. However, the bodies were not on the needs of Islamic prayer and ritual, contained in these, but were instead placed while the technique and decoration in in wooden coffins located in the crypt be- these new monuments were much more low the accessible level of the mausoleum varied and based on both available materi- (Blessing 2015b, pp. 236-237). A separate als and skills. For example, in the monu- entrance leads to the interior of the khan- mental façade of the Sahib Ata Complex in qah, with provides access to the mausoleum Konya (1258-1285), there is a multi-func- and to which the resident Sufi community tional combination of monuments where (mentioned in the foundation inscrip- a mosque (Figure 17), mausoleum, and tion: Combe et al. [1931-1996], no. 4470; are combined to form an archi- Blessing 2015b, p. 241) would have provid- tectural complex with multiple functions. ed the necessary prayers for the deceased. The mausoleum (Figure 18), which is richly These varied spaces, decorations, and decorated with tiles, is not accessible from functions are eloquent in and of them- the mosque, thus conforming to the prohi- selves, reflecting the rich cultural milieu bition of placing burials within the actual and the changes in patronage that occurred mosque. The mausoleum contains multi- in the wake of the Mongol conquest. In ple burials, each marked by its own tiled many ways, the architecture is the strongest BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 79

source for its own history, considering that case of the mosque portal of the Sahib Ata written sources often contain little detail Complex in Konya (Figure 19), where the on monuments and their construction. signature of Qaluyan al-Qunawi appears on a medallion above one of the side niches. Sources on Architecture in Medieval Another signature appears on the portal of Anatolia the Gök Medrese in Sivas (670 AH/ 1271-72 CE; Figure 20), although in this case dif- Written sources of the period, such as ferent variants of the name appear (Brend, chronicles and hagiographies, do not 1975; Tuncer, 1985; Blessing, 2014a, pp. provide information about the makers 115-117; Blessing 2018, pp. 154-158). of monuments, only about their patrons. Nothing more is known about the iden- Moreover, written sources for medieval tity of this individual, and the fact that the Anatolia do not always conform to the signature reads simply: “work of….” [in norms of medieval sources from other Arabic: ʿamal + Genitive] poses the further parts of the Islamic world (Redford, 2007). problem of assessing his role on the build- A larger and more thorny problem is that ing site. Qaluyan has often been described sources remain unedited, let alone trans- as the architect of the monuments, yet he lated, and new manuscripts remain in li- may well have also been responsible for the braries (Köprülü, 1943; Köprülü, 1992; stone carving on the portals, or for the tile Peacock, 2004). For example, the 14th- work. The name is not a Muslim one, and its century Walad al-Shafīq by Qāḍī Aḥmad of ethnic and religious connotations are un- Niğde, the same text that Peacock refers to clear. While a close affiliation with Konya in his 2004 article, was recently published (Arabic: Qūniyat) is implied in the in a Turkish translation and a critical edi- Qunawi, it is unclear what the nature of this tion of the Persian text (Ertuğrul, 2015). relationship to the city might be (Blessing With regard to architecture, any discus- and Goshgarian, 2017, pp. 16-17). sion of workshops must rely on stylistic In both cases, the signatures are small grounds, and is often complicated by the and appear as part of the marble carving lack of technical analysis of the buildings, on the portal, a feature more common in and by the accidents of preservation. Konya than in other parts of Anatolia. In The signatures of architects and Sivas, where marble is rare on contempo- craftsmen carved into the stone of por- rary buildings, these moldings may be seen tals, or into the wood of mosque furniture, as being the mark of either the architect or are rare, but provide the only source of the the patron. At the same time, local elements identity of the creators of these monu- can be clearly seen in the Gök Medrese, ments. That said, signatures do appear on particularly in the carving on the buttresses several buildings that were commissioned of the madrasa (Figure 21). The floral carv- by the notable Sahib Ata Fakhr al-Din Ali ing used here does not appear in this form (d. 684 AH/ 1285 CE). One example is the outside Sivas, and is nearly identical with 80

Figure 19. 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).

Figure 20. Gök Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, view (photograph: P. Blessing). BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 81

Figure 21. Gök Medrese, 670 A.H./ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, buttress (photograph: P. Blessing).

Figure 22. Gök Medrese, 670 AH/ 1271-72 CE, Sivas, detail of a marble carving on the portal (photograph: P. Blessing).

that on the Çifte Minareli Medrese, the first the vivid depictions of animals that we find monument mentioned in this article (see in Ilkhanid miniatures of the time (Grabar Figures 1-3). These forms are strongly asso- and Blair, 1980). ciated with the city of Sivas and its immedi- ate region, including an earlier mosque and Conclusion hospital in Divriği built in 626 AH/1228-29 CE (Pancaroğlu, 2009). However, the mar- In the narrative that has traditionally been ble carvings on the Gök Medrese (Figure constructed around the monuments of the 22) may point to a connection to Konya, the area, the prevailing focus has been on no- former Seljuk capital and still an important tions of Seljuk continuity in patronage and center of construction in the second half style. However, this research has rein- of the 13th century, as seen in the example terpreted this notion by placing Anatolia of the Sahib Ata Complex. There is also a within the context of the Mongol empire. direct connection to Ilkhanid Iran on the Similar narratives also occur in the rise of portal of the Gök Medrese where animal , with the standard figures are placed at the corners of the en- narrative presenting a linear progression trance (Blessing, 2014a, Figure 2.20) Their from the late 13th century to the masterpiec- fine design suggest that they may have been es of Sinan, the architect who built the great based on a long-lost drawing, perhaps car- mosque complexes of the Ottoman sultans ried to Sivas from Iran, and are similar to in the sixteenth century. The frontier does 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. BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 83

References The funerary complexes of century (P. M. Holt, Trans.). Harlow, Sahib Ata and Mahperi Khatun. England and New York: Longman. Al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Angold, M. (1999). Byzantium after Combe, E., Sauvaget, J., Wiet, G., et al. Mediterranean, 2 (3), 225-252. the fourth crusade: Byzantium (1931-1996). Répertoire chro- in exile. In D. Abulafia (Ed.) The Blessing, P. (2016). Medieval monuments nologique d’épigraphie arabe. Le new Cambridge medieval history from empire to nation-state: Caire: Impr. de l’Institut français (Vol. 5, pp. 543-568). Cambridge: Beyond Armenian and Islamic ar- d’archéologie orientale. chitecture in the south Caucasus Cambridge University Press. Crane, H. G. (1993). Notes on Saljūq (1180-1300). Convivium: Exchanges Bates, Ü. (1970). The Anatolian mauso- architectural patronage in 13th- and Interactions in the Arts of leum of the twelfth, thirteenth, and century Anatolia. Journal of the Medieval Europe, Byzantium, and fourteenth centuries. Unpublished Economic and Social History of the Mediterranean, Seminarium PhD dissertation, University of the , 36 (1), 1-57. Kondakovianum, Series Nova 3.2. Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Elisséeff, N. (1954). La titulature de Nūr Blessing, P. (2018). Moğol Fethinden Berchem, M. van and Halil Edhem ad-Dīn d’après ses inscriptions. Sonra Anadolu’nun Yeniden İnşası: [Eldem] (1917). Matériaux pour un Bulletin des Etudes Orientales, 14, Rum Diyarında İslami Mimari, Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum: 155-196. 1240-1330 (M. Özkılıç, Trans.). troisième Partie: Asie mineure. Istanbul: Koç University Press. Ertuğrul, A. (2015). Niğdeli Kadı Ahmed’in Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut el-Veledü’ş-şefîk ve’l-hâfidü’l- Blessing, P. and Goshgarian, R. (2017). Français d’archéologie orientale halîk’ı: (Anadolu Selçuklularına Introduction: Space and place - du Caire. dair bir kaynak). Ankara: Türk Tarih applications to medieval Anatolia. Blessing, P. (2012). Reframing the lands Kurumu. In P. Blessing and R. Goshgarian of Rūm: Architecture and style in (Eds.). Architecture and Landscape Gabriel, A. (1931). Monuments turcs eastern Anatolia, 1240-1320. PhD in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500 d’Anatolie. Paris: E. de Boccard. dissertation, Princeton University, (pp. 1-24). Edinburgh: Edinburgh Grabar, O., and Blair, S. (1980). Epic Princeton, NJ. University Press. Images and Contemporary Blessing, P. (2014a). Rebuilding Anatolia Bozdoğan, S. and Necipoğlu, G. (2007). History: The Illustrations of after the Mongol conquest: Islamic Entangled discourses: scrutiniz- the Great Mongol Shahnama. Architecture in the lands of Rūm, ing orientalist and nationalist Chicago: University of Chicago 1240-1330. Farnham, Surrey legacies in the architectural his- Press. and Burlington, VT: Ashgate toriography of the ‘lands of Rum’. Hoffman, E. R. and Redford S. (2017). Publishers. Muqarnas, 24, 1-6. Transculturation in the eastern Blessing, P. (2014b). Friedrich Sarre and Brend B. (1975). The patronage of Faḫr Mediterranean. In F. B. Flood and the discovery of Seljuk Anatolia. al-Din ‘Ali ibn al-Husain and the G. Necipoğlu (Eds.). A companion Journal of Art Historiography, 11. work of Kaluk ibn ‘Abd Allah in the to Islamic art and architecture https://arthistoriography.files. development of the decoration (Vol. 1, pp. 405-430). Hoboken, NJ: wordpress.com/2014/11/blessing. of portals in thirteenth-century John Wiley & Sons Inc. pdf, accessed on December 11, Anatolia. Kunst des , XI(2), Jerphanion, G. de (1928). Mélanges 2019. 160-185. d’archéologie anatolienne— Blessing, P. (2015a). From the Survey of Çağaptay, S. (2011). Frontierscape: Monuments prehelléniques, Persian Art to the CIA: Donald Reconsidering Bithynian gréco-romains, byzantins et mu- N. Wilber and Ilkhanid archi- structures and their builders on sulmans de Pont, de Cappadoce tecture in Iran. In M. Gharipour the Byzantine-Ottoman cusp. et de Galatie. Beirut: Imprimerie (Ed.). Historiography of Persian Muqarnas, 28, 157-193. catholique. Architecture (pp. 112-146). New Kadoi, Y. (2016). Arthur Upham Pope York and London: Routledge. Cahen, C. (2001). The formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate and a New Survey of Persian Art. Blessing, P. (2015b). Buildings of com- of Rum: Eleventh to fourteenth Leiden and Boston: Brill. memoration in medieval Anatolia: 84

Kafadar, C. (1995). Between two worlds: Önkal, H. (1996). Anadolu Selçuklu Redford, S. (1993). The Seljuqs of Rum The construction of the Ottoman türbeleri. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür and the antique. Muqarnas, 10, State. Berkeley, CA: University of Merkezi. 148-156. California Press. Öztürk, F. G. (2017). Transformation of Redford, S. (2006). Albert Gabriel, les Kafadar, C. (2007). A Rome of One’s the ‘sacred’ image of a Byzantine turcs, et l’architecture seld- own: Reflections on cultural ge- Cappadocian settlement. In P. joukide. In P. Pinon (Ed.). Albert ography and identity in the lands Blessing and R. Goshgarian (Eds.). Gabriel: architecte, archéologue, of Rum. Muqarnas, 24, 7-25. Architecture and Landscape in artiste, voyageur (pp. 79-84). Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500 (pp. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Köprülü, M. F. (1943). Anadolu Selçuklu 134-154). Edinburgh: Edinburgh tarihinin yerel kaynakları. Belleten, Redford, S. (2007a). ‘What have you University Press. VII, 379-458. done for Anatolia today?’: Islamic Pancaroğlu, O. (1995). Architecture, archaeology in the early years of Köprülü, M. F. (1992). The Seljuks of landscape, and patronage in the Turkish Republic. Muqarnas, Anatolia: Their history and culture Bursa: The making of an Ottoman 24, 243-252. according to local Muslim sources capital city. Turkish Studies (G. Leiser, Trans. and Ed.). Salt Redford, S. (2007b). Words, books, Association Bulletin, 20 (1), 40-55. Lake City: University of Utah and buildings in Seljuk Anatolia. Press. Pancaroğlu, O. (2007). Formalism and International Journal of Turkish the academic foundation of Studies, 13, 7-16. Kuran, A. (1969). Anadolu medreseleri. in the early twentieth Ankara: Technical Rıdvan Nâfiz (Edgüer) and İsmail Hakkı century. Muqarnas, 24, 67-78. University. Uzunçarşılı (1928). Sivas şehri. Pancaroğlu, O. (2009). The mosque- Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. McClary, R. P. (2015a). From Nakhchivan hospital complex at Divriği: to Kemah: The western extent Rogers, J. M. (1971). Patronage in Seljuk A history of relations and of brick Persianate funerary Anatolia, 1200–1300. Unpublished transitions. Anadolu ve Çevresinde architecture in the sixth/twelfth PhD dissertation, Oxford Ortaçağ, 3, 169-198. century. Iran: Journal of the British University, Oxford, UK. Pancaroğlu, O. (2011). A fin-de-siècle re- Institute of Persian Studies, LIII, Rogers, J. M. (1972). The date of the connaissance of Seljuk Anatolia: 119-142. Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum. Friedrich Sarre and his Reise in McClary, R. P. (2015b). The re-use of Kunst des Orients, 8 (1–2), 77-119. Kleinasien. In R. Ousterhout, Z. Byzantine spolia in Rūm Saljūq Bahrani, Z. Çelik and E. Eldem Strohmeier, M. (1984). Seldschukische architecture. Copy – Paste. The (Eds.). Scramble for the past: Geschichte und türkische Reuse of Material and Visual A story of archaeology in the Geschichtswissenschaft. : K. Culture in Architecture, Bfo- Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914 (pp. Schwarz. Journal, 1, 14-22. 399-416). Istanbul: SALT. Sözen, M. (1970). Anadolu medre- McClary, R. P. (2017). Rum Seljuq archi- Peacock, A. C. S. (2004). Aḥmad of seleri: Selçuklu ve Beylikler tecture, 1170-1220: The patronage devri. Istanbul: İstanbul Teknik of sultans. Edinburgh Studies in Niğde’s al-Walad al-Shafīq and the Seljuk past. Anatolian Studies, Üniversitesi-Mimarlık Tarihi ve Islamic Art. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Rölöve Kürsüsü. University Press. 54, 95-107. Tabbaa, Y. (2000). Ḍayfa Khātūn, Meinecke, M. (1976). Pope, A., and Ackerman, Ph. (1938). A Regent Queen and Architectural Fayencedekorationen seld- survey of Persian art from prehis- Patron. In D. F. Ruggles (Ed.). schukischer Sakralbauten in toric times to the present. London Women, Patronage, and Self- Kleinasien. Tübingen: Wasmuth. and New York: Oxford University Press. representation in Islamic Societies Ousterhout, R. G. (2004). The East, the (pp. 17-34). Albany, NY: State Pyle, N. S. (1980). Seljuk portals of West, and the appropriation University of New York Press. of the past in early Ottoman Anatolia. Unpublished PhD dis- Tuncer, O. C. (1985). Mimar Kölük ve Architecture. Gesta, XLIII (2), sertation, Harvard University, Kalûyân. Vakıflar Dergisi, XIX, 165-176. Cambridge, MA. 109-118. BUILDING A FRONTIER: ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA UNDER ILKHANID RULE 85

Turan, O. (2004 [1971]). Selçuklular Pennsylvania State University Zamanında Türkiye: Siyasî Tarih Press. ’dan Osman Gazi’ye, Yalman, S. (2011). Building the Sultanate th 1071–1318 (8 ed.). Istanbul: of Rum: Religion, urbanism and Ötüken. mysticism in the architectural Uyar, T. (2015). 13th-century monumental patronage of ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad painting in Cappadocia and the (r. 1220–1237). Unpublished PhD question of the Greek paint- dissertation, Harvard University, ers at the Seljuk court. In A. C. S. Cambridge MA. Peacock, B. De Nicola and S. N. Yalman, S. (2012). ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad Yıldız (Eds.). Islam and Christianity illuminated: A Rum Seljuq sultan in Medieval Anatolia (pp. 215-231). as cosmic ruler. Muqarnas, 29, Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, 151-186. VT: Ashgate. Yıldız, S. N. (2006). Mongol rule in Ünal, R. H. (1968). Les monuments thirteenth-century Seljuk Anatolia: islamiques anciens de la ville The politics of conquest and d’Erzurum et de sa région. Paris: A. history writing. Unpublished Maisonneuve. PhD dissertation, University of Vassilopoulou, S. (2014). Imperial Chicago, Chicago, IL. 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=4096 0&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