Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia: the Funerary Complexes of Ṣāḥib ʿaṭā Fakhr Al-Dīn ʿalī and Māhperī Khātūn

Home , Alaeddin Mosque, Congregational mosque, Yakutiye Medrese

Al-Masāq Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean

ISSN: 0950-3110 (Print) 1473-348X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calm20

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia: The Funerary Complexes of Ṣāḥib ʿAṭā Fakhr al-Dīn ʿAlī and Māhperī Khātūn

Patricia Blessing

To cite this article: Patricia Blessing (2015) Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia: The Funerary Complexes of ṢāṢib ṢAṢā Fakhr al-Dīn ṢAlī and Māhperī Khātūn , Al-Masāq, 27:3, 225-252

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110.2015.1102494

Published online: 05 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=calm20

Download by: [171.67.216.22] Date: 06 January 2016, At: 07:00 Al-Masa¯q, 2015 Vol. 27, No. 3, 225–252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110.2015.1102494

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia: The Funerary Complexes of Sa¯hib ʿAta¯Fakhr al-D¯nı ʿAl¯ı and Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n* ˙ ˙ ˙

PATRICIA BLESSING*

ABSTRACT This article presents two seventh/thirteenth-century Islamic funerary complexes located in Anatolia (roughly today’s Turkey) in the context of multi-functional ensembles with a mausoleum enclosed within the larger structure. Such monuments, although quite numerous, are poorly understood in terms of their relationship to Islamic funerary practice. The case studies at the centre of this article, the Sahib ʿAta Complex in Konya, ˙ ¯ ˙ ˙¯ built between 656/1258 and 684/1285, and the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex in Kayseri, begun in 635/1237-38, are two funerary complexes that allow for an analysis of patronage, gender, the placement of the body (or bodies) of the deceased and spatial conception in these monuments. The article discusses the structural features of the two case studies, their patrons and inscription programmes in order to analyse how these architectural ensembles were used to frame, encase and protect the burials. Keywords: Architecture – religious / Islam / eastern Mediterranean; Ikonion/ Konya; Konya; Turkey; Kayseri; Turkey; Anatolia – architecture; Ru¯m (sultanate) – architecture; Burials – Muslim burials; Patronage; architectural – in Turkey

Among the Islamic monuments of medieval Anatolia, multifunctional funerary complexes abound, starting in the late-sixth/twelfth century with some of the earliest

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 extant Salju¯q buildings, and continuing into the ninth/fourteenth century with the burials of the first Ottoman sultans in Bursa. Some of these monuments were intended for the burial of holy men and holy women, while others contain the mausolea of notables, rulers and their families. These architectural ensembles have

Correspondence: Patricia Blessing, Society of Architectural Historians, 1365 N. Astor Street, Chicago, IL 60610, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

*The author would like to thank Nezar AlSayyad, Shahzad Bashir, Jelena Bogdanovic´, Maria Cristina Carile, Beate Fricke, Marisa Galvez, Seth Hindin, Alexander Key, Beatrice Kitzinger, Katherine Marsen- gill, Asa Mittmann, Heba Mostafa and Heghnar Watenpaugh for suggestions at various stages while this article was in preparation. Thanks are also due to the two anonymous reviewers for al-Masa¯q for their comments and suggestions, and to Alun Williams for editing. Related papers were presented at the Byzantine Studies Conference in 2012 in a panel sponsored by the International Center of Medieval Art, a workshop on New Approaches to Medieval Art at the University of California, Davis, in March 2013, and at the Theoretical Approaches to the Middle Ages Workshop at the Stanford Humanities Center in February 2014.

multiple functions in addition to burial. While a mausoleum is always integrated into the structure or stands nearby, other sections of the complexes may serves as mosques, madrasas, kha¯nqa¯hs, bathhouses, and nearly any possible combination of two or more functions appears in extant examples.1 The two case studies in this article, the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex in Kayseri, built in the second quarter of the seventh/thirteenth century, and the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex in Konya, built ˙ ˙ ˙ between 656/1258 and 684/1285 will stand as examples for the complex architecture and the inscription programmes that appear on these buildings, and frame their patrons’ burials (often in family mausolea that contained the graves of relatives). An important feature shared by these monuments is the placement of burials with respect to other parts of the site.2 Thus, knowledge of the spatial relationship between the burials and other parts of the building, the use of inscriptions to label certain sections, and the choice of site is essential in order to understand these monuments within the broader theme of Islamic funerary practices.3 Even though mausolea were seen as problematic in theological writings from an early point on, because of proscriptions against building on tombs, funerary monuments prolifer- ated in medieval Islamic architecture. The Qubbat al-Sulaybiyya in Sa¯marra¯ʾ (c. 247–248 862) is the earliest extant identifiable Islamic funerary monument, and consists of a domed chamber with an ambulatory.4 Freestanding structures domi- nated funerary architecture into the fifth/eleventh century, when mosque-mausolea appeared in Fa¯timid Egypt.5 Large multifunctional complexes, including mausolea, ˙ along with structures such as madrasas and hospitals, began to proliferate in Ayyu¯bid Syria and Egypt in the late sixth/twelfth century, only to be further expanded in

1From the period between 1200 and 1400, around 30 multi-functional funerary structures have been preserved in Anatolia. For surveys of this material, see Ülkü Bates, “The Anatolian Mausoleum of the Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Centuries”, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, 1970; Hakkı Önkal, Anadolu Selçuklu türbeleri (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 1996). 2On funerary practices and burial rites in early Islam, see Janine Sourdel-Thomine and Y. Linant de Bel- lefonds, “Kabr”,inEncyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth ˙ et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/kabr-SIM_3744, accessed 4 May 2015; Juan Eduardo Campo, “Burial”,inEncyclopaedia of the Qurʾa¯n, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/burial-EQSIM_00065, accessed 4 May 2015; Leor Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); Ignaz Goldziher, “Ueber Todtenverehrung im Hei-

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 denthum und im Islam”,inMuhammedanische Studien, volumes I–II (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961), I: 229–63; Ignaz Goldziher, “Veneration of Saints in Islam”,inMuslim Studies, ed. S.M. Stern, trans. C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, volumes I–II (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967), II: 255–341. 3The monumental construction of mausolea is connected to the larger issue of the permissibility of building on tombs. For an overview of relevant sources, see Thomas Leisten, Architektur für Tote: Bestattung in architektonischem Kontext in den Kernländern der islamischen Welt zwischen dem 3./9. und 6./12. Jahrhundert (Berlin: D. Reimer, 1998), pp. 5–23. On the development of mausolea, see further Oleg Grabar, “The Earliest Islamic Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents”, Ars Orientalis 6 (1966): 7–46; Melanie Dawn Michailidis, “Landmarks of the Persian Renaissance: Monumental Funerary Architecture in Iran and Central Asia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries”, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007. 4Grabar, “Earliest Islamic Commemorative Structures”,14–15; for an overview of mausoleum architecture, see also Mohammad Gharipour and Patricia Blessing, “Mausoleums of the Islamic World”,inEncy- clopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, third edition, ed. Helaine Selin (Berlin and New York: Springer, 2015), doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_10227-1, accessed 31 August 2015. 5Caroline Williams, “The Cult of ‘Alid Saints in the Fatimid Monuments of Cairo. Part II: The Mausolea”, Muqarnas 3 (1985): 39–60. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 227

Mamlu¯k architecture beginning in the second half of the seventh/thirteenth century. Such examples reached monumental scale, as, for instance, in the funerary complex of Sultan Qala¯wu¯n in Cairo (683–85/1284–85) with its large domed chamber connected to a madrasa and hospital.6 The combination of several functions, as the case studies from Anatolia below will show, had the double purpose of commemoration and charity, while also potentially providing financial security to the patron’s descendants. Thus, the memorial function cannot be untied from the broader economic, social and urbanistic properties of these monuments. It is also important to note that much research remains to be done on the archaeological aspects of funerary architecture, and particularly of the graves within the complexes. Understand- able reluctance to disturb tombs, particularly those within functioning monuments, plays a central role in this.7 Thus, research on funerary monuments often has to rely on textual sources, and on the study of extant monuments and their architecture, rather than on the burials. While the preservation of memory is a central concept in funerary practices, another is baraka (lit. blessing), which includes the notion that supplication at the tombs of saints or other venerated figures could be particularly beneficial.8 Even though described as problematic in early Islamic normative texts, the placement of tombs near mosques speaks to a desire on behalf of the patrons to preserve their memory in proximity to a place of prayer.9 The notion of ziya¯ra, visits to tombs (most often of saints, but also more generally), was more contentious and, as Josef Meri has pointed out, it was of most concern to Hanbal¯ı scholars, if not to Ibn Hanbal ˙ ˙ (d. 241/855) himself.10 Opposition came mostly from later disciples, most famously Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), who opposed the practice of ziya¯ra if it was to include supplication for the benefit of the living:

In the legally permissible ziya¯ra, the living does not have need for the dead by making a request of him (masʾala) or seeking his intercession (tawassul). ˙˙ But rather, the dead derives benefit from the living. God the Exalted has mercy upon the living who supplicates for the dead.11

From this point of view, it was thus acceptable to offer prayers for the benefit of those buried in a mausoleum, and the prayer could in effect be to the credit of the faithful offering it as well. Moreover, the Hanbal¯ı view was the strictest of the

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 ˙ four schools of Sunni Islam with regard to ziya¯ra; the other schools,

6Michael Meinecke, Die mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten und Syrien (648/1250 bis 923/1517), volumes I–II (Glückstadt: Verlag J.J. Augustin, 1992), I: 44–6. 7For an overview of funerary practices based on archaeological investigation, see Andrew Petersen, “The Archaeology of Death and Burial in the Islamic World”,inThe Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial, ed. Liv Nilsson Stutz and Sarah Tarlow (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 242–58, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199569069.013.0014, accessed 29 August 2015. 8G.S. Colin, “Baraka”,inEncyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/baraka-SIM_ 1216, accessed 4 May 2015; Joseph W. Meri, The Cult of Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 9–10, 121. 9Leisten, Architektur für Tote,15–23. 10Meri, Cult of Saints, 126–38. 11Ahmad b. ʿAbd al-Hal¯ım Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu¯ʿ fata¯wa¯ Shaykh al-Isla¯mAhmad b. Taymiyya, ed. ‘A. al- ˙ ˙ ˙ ʿA¯ sim¯ı, volumes I–XXXVII (Riyadh: Mata¯bi’ al-Riya¯d, 1991), XXVII: 71, translation in Meri, Cult of ˙ ˙ ˙ Saints, 131. 228 Patricia Blessing

including the Hanaf¯ı one prevalent in seventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia, did not ˙ reject it.12 More stringently, al-Ghaza¯l¯ı (d. 505/1111) proposed that visits to the tombs of saints and those of family members had the same aim: “supplicating God on behalf of the dead”.13 Practices connected to the remembrance of the dead were thus acceptable, and even desirable. Hence, the presence of a mausoleum near a mosque could be a tool to achieve prayers for the dead, as many visitors to the mosque would likely offer them. More pragmatically, the act of connecting a mausoleum to a large foundation could increase the likelihood of the structure itself surviving, by comparison to more vulnerable freestanding mausolea. Moreover, the larger monument – mosque, madrasa or kha¯nqa¯h – could be endowed with a waqf in order to ensure maintenance and staff for the mausoleum as well. Thus, the placement of the burial within a larger architectural complex is intrinsically connected to the notion of a space reserved for pious actions and religious practice, which could attract the faithful and eventually transform the site into a shrine.14 While the two tombs studied in this article do not belong to saints, they nevertheless take on many of the trappings of a sacred site15: the presence of a mosque near the tomb and hence the possibility for prayer, spatial strategies to emphasise the presence of the tomb, and inscription programmes to present prominently the patron buried at the site. In the analysis that follows, monumental inscriptions will be an important aspect, as part of an effort within the history of Islamic architecture to pay increased atten- tion to texts on buildings that are not strictly historical – such as Qurʾa¯norHad¯ıth ˙ passages – and to include them as sources for social analysis.16 Monumental inscriptions are generally divided into two broad categories. The first, that of historical inscriptions, includes texts referring to the foundation of the monument, its patrons or occasionally its waqf.17 The second includes texts that do not provide dates and names, mostly passages from the Qurʾa¯n and Had¯ıth.18 The classical col- ˙ lections of Arabic epigraphy focus on historical inscriptions for their documentary value; religious texts are rarely reproduced in full.19 In a rare study of Qurʾa¯nic

12Meri, Cult of Saints, 133. In Anatolia, the Hanaf¯ı school of law was prevalent because of the Salju¯q ˙ sultans’ adherence to it: W. Heffening and J. Schacht, “Hanafiyya”,inEncyclopaedia of Islam, second ˙ edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/hanafiyya-SIM_2703, accessed 4 May 2015.

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 13Meri, Cult of Saints, 139–40. 14On the notion of intercession and the role of relics in Islam, see most recently F. Barry Flood, “Bodies and Becoming: Mimesis, Mediation and the Ingestion of the Sacred in Christianity and Islam”,inSensa- tional Religion: Sensory Cultures in Material Practice, ed. Sally M. Promey (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), pp. 459–93. 15For a narrower definition, see Oleg Grabar, “La mosquée et le sanctuaire: Sainteté des lieux en Islam”, Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 222/4 (2005): 481–9. 16See the pioneering study by Irene A. Bierman, Writing Signs: The Fatimid Public Text (Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1998); more recently, see chapters in Calligraphy and Architecture in the Muslim World, ed. Mohammad Gharipour and Irviṅ Cemil Schick (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013). 17Waqf inscriptions are relatively rare in medieval Anatolia. Examples have been preserved in the Buruciye Medrese in Sivas (670/1271-72) and the Yakutiye Medrese in Erzurum (710/1310); see Patricia Blessing, “Allegiance, Praise, and Space: Monumental Inscriptions in Thirteenth-century Anatolia as Architectural Guides”,inCalligraphy and Architecture in the Muslim World, pp. 431–46. 18Sheila S. Blair, Islamic Inscriptions (New York: New York University Press, 1998), pp. 29–52. 19Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, ed. Etienne Combe, Jean Sauvaget, Gaston Wiet, volumes I– XVIII (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1931–1998), hereafter, RCEA; Max van Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 229

texts in monumental inscriptions, passages that frequently appear were catalogued and arranged by region, with emphasis on the so-called central Islamic lands (that is, Bila¯d al-Sha¯m, Mesopotamia, Khura¯sa¯n and Egypt).20 Regional context and specific meanings related to a particular building are not discussed, and Anatolia remains in the marginal place that it often holds in surveys of the medieval Islamic world. New approaches to Islamic epigraphy have emerged as scholars have begun increasingly to study the full inscription programmes of buildings in order to analyse specific monuments within their social and political space.21 In the context of funerary monuments, inscriptions on cenotaphs are important additions to the more prominent ones on portals. The question of interior and exterior placement, and hence public versus restricted access to the tomb, is central. These questions will emerge in the discussion of both case studies that will be introduced in the next section, and subsequently analysed in detail.

Funerary complexes in Anatolia: two case studies and their context

The two case studies in this article, the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex in Kayseri and the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex in Konya, show varied strategies to present and commemorate ˙ ˙ ˙ the founders of large monumental complexes containing burials in medieval Anato- lia, focusing on an analysis of architecture and inscriptions. While most studies of mausolea in medieval Anatolia have focused on the funerary structure, here, the broader architectural context of the burials will be analysed. In both the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex and the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, it is important to consider how ˙ ˙ ˙ burials were presented and memory was established. The comparison of the two case studies will show how space, commemoration and patronage were intertwined in Islamic funerary complexes in Anatolia in the seventh/thirteenth century. The choice fell on these two case studies for several reasons: first, to discuss both royal and non-royal and male and female patrons; second, because both include a mosque and a mausoleum, along with another structure; and third, because both complexes are relatively well preserved. Several central questions emerge that have larger implications for an understand- ing of Islamic funerary architecture in medieval Anatolia. First, one of the funerary

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 complexes was built for a female member of the Salju¯q dynasty, and the other for a male member of the ruling elite who was not related to the sultans. This leads us to question of the extent to which gender affected the construction of such funerary complexes, in both patronage and architectural detail. Second, one of the complexes was built before, and the other after the Mongol conquest of Anatolia in 641/1243. Power dynamics shifted greatly during this period, changing access to the resources

(footnote continued) Berchem and Halil Edhem (Eldem), Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, troisième partie – Anatolie (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1910), hereafter, MCIA. A further difficulty is that RCEA generally uses the Flügel, rather than Cairo, numbering when indicating Qur’a¯n verses, and does not cite the full text. Double-checking with photographs of each inscription is thus crucial, and additional difficulties arise when inscriptions are poorly preserved or have been destroyed. 20Erica Cruikshank Dodd and Shereen Khayrallah, The Image of the Word: A Study of Quranic Verses in Islamic Architecture (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1981). 21Irviṅ Cemil Schick and Mohammad Gharipour, “Introduction”,inCalligraphy and Architecture in the Muslim World,1–9. 230 Patricia Blessing

that were needed for high-level patronage.22 The Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex is a case in ˙ ˙ ˙ point: its patron, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı (d. 684/1285), rose to great power ˙ ˙ ˙ in the aftermath of the Mongol conquest. The patron of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n, was one of the wives of ʿAla¯ʾ al-D¯ın Kayquba¯d (r. 616/1219–635/1237), the last Salju¯q sultan before the Mongol conquest of Anato- lia. Her son, Ghiya¯th al-D¯ın Kaykhusraw II (r. 635/1238–644/1246), had to submit to Mongol rule in 641/1243. These events will be further discussed below.

The Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex in Kayseri The Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex (locally known as Huand Hatun Complex) stands facing the medieval citadel of Kayseri (Figure 1).23 The complex consists of a mosque, madrasa (Figure 2) and mausoleum, and the ruins of a bathhouse with separate sections for men and women. Inscriptions on both portals of the mosque date this section to 635/1237-38, while the other parts of the complex are undated. The patron, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n (d. after 643/1246), was the mother of the ruling Salju¯q sultan Ghiya¯th al-D¯ın Kaykhusraw II (r. 635/1238–644/1246) and one of the widows of his father and predecessor, ʿAla¯ʾ al-D¯ın Kayquba¯d (r. 616/1219–635/ 1237).24 Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n was one of the most prolific female patrons known in medieval Anatolia, although she is not mentioned in much detail in the written sources of the period, such as chronicles and hagiographies.25 The mausoleum of the patron, placed at the centre of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex, is the focal point of the foundation in spatial terms (Figure 3). Barely visible from the outside, the mausoleum is enclosed within the fabric of the building complex. Only its conical dome is visible above the surrounding walls. An analysis of the spatial connections between different parts of the building, and of the inscriptions that mark them will present the various layers of this funerary complex.26 Two portals, with muqarnas niches above the doorways, lead into the mosque, one on the eastern (Figure 4), and the other on the western side (see Figure 1) of the building. Buttresses accentuate the surface of the walls and give the building a

22J. Michael Rogers, “Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia, 1200–1300”, PhD Thesis, Oxford University, 1971; Howard G. Crane, “Notes on Salju¯q Architectural Patronage in 13th-century Anatolia”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 36/1 (Jan. 1993): 1–57; Patricia Blessing, Rebuilding Anatolia

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 after the Mongol Conquest: Islamic Architecture in the Lands of Ru¯m, 1240–1330 (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014). 23For a study of this monument in the context of female patronage, see Patricia Blessing, “Women Patrons in Medieval Anatolia and a Discussion of Ma¯hbar¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s Mosque Complex in Kayseri”, Bel- leten (Türk Tarih Kurumu) 78/282 (August, 2014): 475–526. 24Antony Eastmond, “Gender and Patronage between Christianity and Islam in the Thirteenth Century”, in Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, 1 Uluslararası Sevgi Gönül Bizans Araşrmalartı ı Sempozyumu / First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, ed. Aynur Ödekan, Esra Akyürek, Nevra Necipog˘lu (Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 2010), pp. 78–88. 25For an overview of female patrons and their foundations in medieval Anatolia, see Aynur Durukan, “Anadolu Selçuklu sanatında kadın baniler”, Vakıflar Dergisi 17 (1998): 15–36. 26Since only fragments of Qurʾa¯n passages have been preserved in this building, analysis will focus on historical inscriptions. The following passages appear on the complex: the Throne Verse (Q II: 255) just below the roof of the mausoleum, and Q IX: 18 twice, first on the western portal of the mosque, and second, in a short fragment in the outer wall of the mausoleum courtyard. This last fragment is limited to the section: “[a]qama l-salaw[a]t wa-ʿata l-zakaw[a]t” ([who] keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ alms). All English translations of Qurʾa¯n passages are from: The Qur’an, trans. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 231

FIGURE 1. View of western portal of mosque, dome of mausoleum, and minaret, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph. Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 2. View of madrasa, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph.

fortified aspect; otherwise, only small windows interrupt the strong stone-built walls. In the north-western corner of the mosque, a corridor leads from the portal into the prayer hall. Entering through the portal, the viewer is offered a glimpse of the mausoleum through a partially open arch. The visual tease does not lead to access, however, and the visitor must either stop and contemplate the mausoleum from a distance, or walk on into the sanctuary of the mosque. Having entered through this portal on the western side of the mosque, the visitor has had the chance to see the foundation inscription, placed on a marble plaque high above the muqarnas niche, which provides information about the patron: 232 Patricia Blessing Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 3. View of mausoleum, taken around 1900, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n Complex, Kayseri (Halil Edhem, Kayseriye Şehri, plate 8). ˙ ˙ Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 233

FIGURE 4. Eastern portal of mosque, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph.

[It] ordered the construction of this blessed mosque in the days of the greatest sultan, Ghiya¯th al-Dunya¯ wa-l-D¯ın, the father of conquest, Kaykhusraw son of Kayquba¯d, the great queen, the wise, the ascetic, Safwat al-Dunya¯ ˙ wa-l-D¯ın, Ma¯hbar¯ı Kha¯tu¯n, may God perpetuate the shadows of her splendour and multiply her power, in the year 635/1238.27

The mosque is the only part of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex that is securely dated with building inscriptions, pointing out the patron’s position as the mother of the ruling sultan. The inscription on the eastern portal closely echoes the one just cited, although it does not mention the patron’s name, only her titles and her role as the ruling sultan’s mother.28 Like its counterpart on the western portal, this foundation inscription is placed high up on the façade, and legibility from the ground is limited. This poses the question of the extent to which the content of these inscriptions would have been readily available.29 Symbolically, the mosque Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 takes centre-stage in these texts. They do not refer to the mausoleum: neither its presence, nor the fact that Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n is buried next to her mosque, is

27“(1) Amara bi ʿimarat hadh(a) l-masjid al-mubarak fı ayyam al-sultan al-aʿzam Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Abu l-Fath Kaykhusraw b. (2) Kayqubad al-malika al-kabıra Safwat al-Dunya wa-l-DınMahbarı (3) Khatun ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ adama allahzilal jalaliha fı sanat khamsa wa-thalathın wa-sittamıʾa”, RCEA, No. 4147, and Halil Edhem ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (Eldem), Kayseriye Şehri: Mebanı-yi islamıye ve kitabeleri: Selçuki ta’riḫinden birıt k‘a (Istanbul: Matba‘a-yı ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ Orḫ¯niye,a 1334/1918-19), p. 65. Unless otherwise noted, all transliterations and translations are the author’s. 28On the eastern portal: “[It] ordered the construction of this blessed congregational mosque in the days of the greatest sultan, Ghiya¯th al-Dunya¯ wa-l-D¯ın, the father of conquest, Kaykhusraw son of Kayquba¯d, the great queen, the wise, the ascetic, Safwat al-Dunya¯ wa-l-D¯ın, his mother, the opener of good deeds, ˙ may God perpetuate the shadows of her splendour and multiply her power, in Shawwa¯l of the year 635/ May–June 1238,” RCEA, No. 4146, and Edhem, Kayseriye Şehri, 64. ˙ ˙ 29On this issue, see Richard Ettinghausen, “Arabic Epigraphy: Communication or Symbolic Affirma- tion”,inNear Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, ed. Dikran K. Kouymjian (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974), pp. 297–317. 234 Patricia Blessing

acknowledged.30 This point will be discussed further below, but it may hint at the fact that the elements of the complex were considered separate entities within the larger whole. The solution to this question is not helped by the uncertainty of some points in the construction history of the monument. The chronology of the building beyond the date of construction of the mosque, clearly indicated in the inscriptions just discussed, is unclear. Scholars have suggested two possible sequences of construction, which affect interpretation of the monument. Art historian Albert Gabriel and, later, archaeologist Mahmud Akok have suggested that the mosque and the madrasa were built in close succession, perhaps as a single project and that the mausoleum was added later, at an unknown date.31 Archaeologist Haluk Karamag˘aralı suggests that the site of the mausoleum was occupied by a baptistery or similar Christian structure before the Salju¯q conquest of Kayseri, and that the mosque and madrasa were added later to transform the site into an Islamic place of worship and commemoration.32 This hypothesis finds a correlation in what little information is available about the patron. Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n was probably born as a Christian and converted to Islam after the death of her husband, Salju¯q sultan ʿAla¯ʾ al-D¯ın Kayquba¯d, in 635/1237.33 Hence, the mosque – built in 635/1238 – may have been her first act of patronage as a Muslim. This point of chronology is not easily solved, and it does not distract from the fact that the patron’s mausoleum clearly dominates the complex. Its position at the juncture between mosque and madrasa emphasises the commemoration of Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n. The mausoleum is undated, and is adorned only by a Qurʾa¯nic inscription (Q II: 255, the so-called “Throne Verse”), which runs along the top of the octagonal section, just below the muqarnas cornice at the base of the dome (Figure 5).34 The mausoleum stands in a small courtyard, visible only from the entrance to the mosque. One of the funerary structure’s eight walls is connected to the madrasa; the latter extends to the north, at a ninety-degree angle to the mosque.35 The mausoleum used to be surrounded by tombstones, of which only

30The same is true in the Buruciye Medrese in Sivas (670/1271-72) where the funerary function is not mentioned in external inscriptions, only in those in the interior of the mausoleum itself: Blessing, “Alle- giance, Praise, and Space”, 437–8. Systematic study of other monuments in Anatolia in this regard has not

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 been completed, but overall it appears that the mausolea are treated as secondary entities in larger complexes. 31Albert Gabriel, Les monuments turcs d’Anatolie, volumes I–II (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1931), I: 39–50 for a detailed description of the monument and Gabriel’s suggested sequence of construction; Mahmut Akok, “Kayseri’de Hunad Mimari Külliyesinin rölövesi”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 16/1 (1967): 5-44, at 6–7. 32Haluk Karamag˘aralı, “Kayseri’deki Hunat Camisinin restitüsyonu ve Hunat Manzumesinin kronolojisi hakkında bazı mülahazalar”, Ankara Üniversitesi Ilahiyaṫ Fakültesi Dergisi 21 (1976): 199–245, at 207–13. Further discussion in Suzan Yalman, “Architecture and Marriages across Frontiers: The Case of Mahperi Khatun”, unpublished paper presented at the Society of Architectural Historians Annual Conference, Austin, TX, 11 April 2014. 33Osman Turan, Selçuklular zamanında Türkiye: Siyasî tarih Alp Arslan’dan Osman Gazi’ye, 1071–1318, 8th edition (Istanbul: Ötüken, 2004), pp. 423 and 468; Nejat Kaymaz, Anadolu Selçuklu Sultanlarından II. Giyâsü’d-dîn Keyhüsrev ve devri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2009), p. 25. 34“God: there is no God but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful. Neither slumber nor sleep over- takes Him. All that is in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His leave? He knows what is before them and behind them, but they do not compre- hend any of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; it does not weary Him to preserve them both. He is the Most High, the Tremendous” (Q II: 255). Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 235 Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 5. Enclosure of mausoleum, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph. 236 Patricia Blessing

FIGURE 6. Fragments of tombstones in the mausoleum courtyard and base of mausoleum, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph.

a few badly decayed fragments survive, forming a little graveyard in the vicinity of the main tomb, and protected by its enclosure (see Figures 3 and 6). On the northern side, access to the mausoleum is possible from a side chamber of the adjacent madrasa. The mausoleum of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex is built of the same dark grey stone as the mosque and madrasa, but its base consists of rows of muqarnas in white marble (Figure 6). Inside the mausoleum, three stone cenotaphs mark burials.36 A mihrab (prayer niche) in the interior wall of the mausoleum marks the qibla, that is, ˙ ¯ the direction of Mecca to guide the orientation of Muslim prayer. The lower level of the mausoleum, the burial chamber or crypt where the bodies of the deceased would have been either buried in the ground or, in parallel to other examples from medieval Anatolia, placed on the floor in wooden coffins, is entirely closed off. This also opens Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 the broader question, not further discussed in the limited space of this article, of the adherence to Islamic burial customs in medieval Anatolia. According to Islamic law, burial should have taken place in the ground, with the body simply wrapped in a shroud.37 In medieval Anatolia, however, numerous examples are known in which

35In plan, the madrasa finds many close parallels in thirteenth-century Anatolia with its open courtyard, arcades leading towards a large ı¯wa¯n in the east-west axis. For a survey, see: Aptullah Kuran, Anadolu medreseleri (Ankara: Middle East Technical University, 1969). 36Önkal, Anadolu Selçuklu türbeleri, fig. 44. Cenotaphs are largely understudied within Islamic art history, and are often taken for granted as part of mausolea. It is, however, crucial to note that unlike sarcophagi, cenotaphs do not contain bodies. Rather, burials took place in the crypt below: F. Barry Flood, “Presen- tation, (Re)animation and the Enchantments of Technology”, Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 61-2 (2012): 229-36, at 229; Sheila S. Blair, “Cenotaph”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, ed. Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of- islam-3/cenotaph-COM_24386, accessed 3 May 2015. 37Campo, “Burial”. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 237

the bodies in their wooden coffins placed in the chamber simply dried out, turning into mummies naturally.38 The inscription on Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s cenotaph is undated, yet clearly presents her position as a royal woman and former queen mother:

This is the tomb of the lady, the veiled lady, the fortunate, the martyr, the ascetic, the servant, the devote, the striver, the promoter of faith, the chaste, the just princess, the queen of the women in the world, the virtuous, the clean, Mary of her age and Khad¯ıja of her time, the mistress at the expense of thousands [of riches], purity of the world and of religion, Ma¯hbar¯ı Sulta¯nKha¯tu¯n, the mother of the late sultan Ghiya¯th al-Dunya¯ ˙ wa-l-D¯ın Kaykhusraw son of Kayquba¯d, may God have mercy upon them all, Amen.39

The epigraphic programme thus establishes Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s identity as a royal patron, and presents the complex as a place of pious commemoration. Since the inscription on the cenotaph refers to “the late sultan Ghiya¯th al-D¯ın Kaykhusraw”, it is clear that the inscription was carved after 644/1246, the year Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s son died. It does not, however, give a date for Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s burial; the date of her death is unknown, and the latest written record of Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tsu¯n being alive refers to the year 652/1254.40 The second high-ranking woman who was buried in the mausoleum, Salju¯q¯ı Kha¯tu¯n, was laid to rest in 683/1284; the inscription on her cenotaph indicates that she was a daughter of Ghiya¯th al-D¯ın Kaykhusraw and hence Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s granddaughter.41 The date on this inscription suggests that the burial of Salju¯q¯ı Kha¯tu¯n was added several decades after her grandmother’s death. In the inscription on her cenotaph, Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s role as a queen-mother and as a patron is strongly emphasised. The title Safwat al-Dunya wa-l-Dın (purity of the ˙ ¯ ¯ world and of religion), used in all three inscriptions, may point to Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s initial role as a non-royal wife of the sultan.42 She is designated as the Mary of her age

38Hakkı Önkal, “Türk türbe mimarisinde cenazelik katının gelişmesi”, Türk Kültürü 307 (1988): 732–38; Ibrahiṁ Hakkı Konyalı “Türklerde mumya ve mumyacılık”, Tarih Konuşuyor3/15 (April, 1965): 1196–9, 1257; Faruk Sümer, “The Seljuk Turbehs and the Tradition of Embalming”,inAtti del secondo congresso

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 internazionale di arte turco, Venice, 26–29 September 1963 (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Semi- nario di Turcologia, 1965), pp. 245–8. 39“(1) hadha qabr al-sitt al-sayyida al-satıra al-saʿıda al-shahıda al-zahida al-ʿabida al-murabita al-mujahida ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ al-masuna al-sahiba al-ʿadila (2) al-malikat al-nisaʾ [sic!] fı l-ʿalam al-ʿafıfa al-nazıfa Maryam awaniha wa- ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Khadıjat zamaniha sahibat al-maʿrufa al-mutasaddiqa bi-l-mal ulufsafwat al-dunya (3) wa-l-dınMahbarı ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Khatunwalidat al-sultan al-marhum Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın Kaykhusraw b. Kayqubad rahimahum ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ Allah ajmaʿınamin”: Halil Edhem, Kayseriye Şehri, 67, and RCEA, No. 4259. ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ˙ 40Na¯sir al-D¯ınHusayn ibn Muhammad ibn B¯ıb¯ı, al-Ava¯mir l-ʾala¯ʾiyye fı¯l-umu¯ri l-ʿala¯ʾiyye, ed. Adnan Sadık ˙ ˙ ˙ Erzi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956), p. 536. 41“In the name of God the Merciful the Compassionate. The owner of this tomb is Salju¯q¯ı Kha¯tu¯n, the daughter of the martyr sultan Kaykhusraw b. Kayquba¯d in Muharram of the year 683/ March–April ˙ 1284”: Halil Edhem, Kayseriye Şehri, 69, and RCEA, No. 4840. ˙ ˙ 42Ismail̇ Hakkı Uzunçarşlıı, Osmanlı devleti teşkilâtına medhal, third edition (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1984), p. 61; Ahmet Akşit,“Melike-i Adiliye kümbetinde Selçuklu devri saltanat mücadelesine dair izler”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araşrmalartı ı Dergisi 11 (2002): 239–45; Scott Redford, “Paper, Stone, Scissors: ʿAla¯ʾ al-D¯ın Kayquba¯d, ʿIsmat al-Dunya¯ wa ’l-D¯ın and the Writing of Seljuk History”, ˙ in The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, ed. Andrew C.S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (London: I.B. Tauris, 2013), pp. 151-70, at p. 155. 238 Patricia Blessing

(Maryam awa¯niha¯) and Khad¯ıja of her time (Khadı¯ja zama¯niha¯), connecting her to models of female devotion with the mother of ʿI¯sa¯ (Jesus) and the Prophet Muham- ˙ mad’s first wife. The question remains of whether the title Maryam awa¯niha¯,tomy knowledge unique in medieval Anatolia, is indeed related to Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s Christian past, since Maryam is also mentioned in the Qurʾa¯n. The temporal aspect included in these references is an important part of the monument’s commemorative function. They were part of a framework for the burial that ensured the preservation of Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s memory across time. The endowment of the complex, responsible for its upkeep, providing charity, and ensuring the perpe- tual continuation of the monument and hence its patron’s memory, would only have added to this aspect of the monument. The waqfiyya has unfortunately not been preserved, and hence no further information is available on this element of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex. In the second case study, the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex in Konya, the mausoleum is ˙ ˙ ˙ located similarly close to the mosque, even adjacent to the qibla wall. The following analysis of the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex will further elucidate the spatial and religious ˙ ˙ ˙ concepts used in the construction of multi-functional funerary monuments in seventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia.

The Sahib ʿAta Complex in Konya ˙ ¯ ˙ ˙¯ The Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex in Konya consists of a series of buildings that were con- ˙ ˙ ˙ structed over time, in close proximity to each other near the Larende Gate on the road to Karaman. Construction began with the mosque in 656/1258, as noted in the foundation inscription placed above its portal.43 It is unclear whether the complex’s large scale and multifunctional uses were planned from the beginning. The portal (Figure 7), initially crowned with a pair of minarets (only one of which survives), was mostly built of brick, with a few elements in marble. Most notable are the two late antique sarcophagi that form the base of the portal, and its interlaced marble carvings. Apart from the prayer niche within the mosque, the portal is the only original part of the mosque to have survived a fire in the nineteenth century.44 Above a muqarnas hood, also carved in stone, the foundation inscription presents the founder.45 Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 This simple inscription does not do justice to the power to which Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr ˙ ˙ ˙ al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı was about to rise in 656/1258, when the mosque was built. In the context of Anatolia after the Mongol conquest, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı was one of ˙ ˙ ˙ several officials of the Salju¯q court who managed to align themselves with the new overlords, and effectively rule Anatolia by negotiating with the Mongols, on the one hand, and maintaining appearances for a largely powerless Salju¯q sultan, on

43RCEA, No. 4429. 44Michael Meinecke, Fayencedekorationen seldschukischer Sakralbauten in Kleinasien, volumes I–II (Tübin- gen: Wasmuth, 1976), II: 306. 45“The construction of this blessed mosque was ordered during the days of the rule of the sultan, the shadow of God on earth, the ruler of the necks of the people, the lord of the sultans of the Arabs and Per- sians, ʿIzz al-Dunya¯ wa-l-D¯ın father of conquest Kayka¯wu¯s son Kaykhusraw – may God extend his rule – by the weak servant who needs the grace of God, ʿAl¯ı ibn al-Husayn, son of the pilgrim Abu¯ Bakr, may God ˙ forgive him and his parents, in the year 656/1258”: RCEA, No. 4429. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 239

FIGURE 7. Portal of mosque with dome of kha¯nqa¯h visible at the back, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯Complex, ˙ ˙ ˙ Konya, photograph taken around 1885; John Haynes Archive, Courtesy of Fine Arts Library, Harvard University.

the other hand. This political shift entailed profound changes in patronage; Sa¯hib ˙ ˙ ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’s intervention in Konya is symptomatic of this transformation. ˙ At the time of the Mongol conquest of Anatolia, one-and-a-half centuries had passed since the initial Muslim conquest of the region began under the command of the Great Salju¯q sultan Alp Arsla¯n (r. 455/1063–465/1073). When Alp Arsla¯n’s forces began to push into Anatolia, the Byzantine emperors had been struggling to hold on to the eastern parts of the region for a century.46 With the defeat of Byzan- tine Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes (r. 1068–1071) at Manzikert, Anatolia opened up to further advances by the Salju¯qs and their affiliates.47 A century later, Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180) had to abandon central and eastern Anatolia following his defeat at the battle of Myriokephalon in 571/1176.

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 Over the following decades, military leaders who had initially come to the region with the Great Salju¯q armies progressively established their own proto-states in parts of central and eastern Anatolia.48 Once the Salju¯qs had removed most of their rivals, and investments could be made in relative security, patronage was expanded: a dense network of caravanserais along trade routes was established, and mosques and madrasas were either rebuilt or newly founded. Over the first quarter of the thirteenth century, a style connected to Salju¯q patronage slowly emerged, even though imperial architecture was never fully realised. Nevertheless, the rule of ʿAla¯ al-D¯ın Kayquba¯d (r. 616/1219–635/1237) – Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s spouse – is generally

46The standard historical survey of the period in English remains Claude Cahen, The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Ru¯m: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, trans. P.M. Holt (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001). 47Andrew C.S. Peacock, Early Salju¯q History: A New Interpretation (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), p. 5. 48Ibid., 4 and 72–98. 240 Patricia Blessing

considered the apogee of Salju¯q rule in Anatolia, particularly with regard to the con- solidation of Konya as a capital under the sultan’s patronage.49 The Mongol conquest of Anatolia in 641/1243, followed by the progressive integration of Anatolia into the Mongol realm, broke off this development of a Salju¯q royal style. At this point, the dynamics of rule and patronage changed in favour of the notables of the court, including Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı. ˙ ˙ ˙ Royal patronage disappeared, and the tendency towards a unified, Salju¯q style did not take further shape.50 Patronage was transferred to the notables of the court, while the sultans disappeared from the domain of public architecture, in keeping with their loss of authority, except that they continued to be named in foundation inscriptions. The arrangement between Salju¯q elites and Mongol overlords involved power games among various officials and the pretender of their choice to the Salju¯q throne. The Salju¯q sultanate was largely symbolic at this point, and the Mongol rulers in Iran were the overlords to be pacified with tributes and gifts. Along with Muʿ¯ın al-D¯ın Sulayma¯n perva¯ne,Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı was the main actor ˙ ˙ ˙ behind the scenes in the period after the death of Jala¯l al-D¯ın Qara¯ta¯y (d. 652/ ˙ 1254), formerly the most powerful official to maintain his influence beyond the Mongol conquest.51 Both Muʿ¯ın al-D¯ın Sulayma¯n perva¯ne and Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr ˙ ˙ ˙ al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı remained in power for years. The inscription on the portal of the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Mosque clearly mentions the name ˙ ˙ ˙ of ʿIzz al-D¯ın Kayka¯wu¯s II, on whose behalf Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı negotiated ˙ ˙ ˙ at the time of construction. Muʿ¯ın al-D¯ın Sulayma¯n perva¯ne occupied the same role for Rukn al-D¯ın Qilij Arsla¯n IV (r. 652/1248–663/1265), the second pretender to the Salju¯q sultanate.52 After Muʿ¯ın al-D¯ın Sulayma¯n perva¯ne persuaded Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı to support Rukn al-D¯ın Qilij Arsla¯nIV,ʿIzz al-D¯ın Kayka¯wu¯sII fled to Constantinople in 661/1262.53 Following the death of Rukn al-D¯ın Qilij Arsla¯n IV, Muʿ¯ın al-D¯ın Sulayma¯n perva¯ne became regent for sultan Ghiya¯th al- D¯ın Kaykhusraw III (r. 666/1266–682/1283).54 The next crisis soon followed: in 677/1277 Mamlu¯k armies led by sultan Baybars I (r. 658/1260–677/1277) took hold over Anatolia as part of the conflict between this dynasty and the Mongol rulers of Iran and Anatolia (the I¯l-Kha¯nids). Even though the Mamlu¯ks had to retreat after six months due to difficulties in provisioning their soldiers, the invasion had profound effects on Mongol rule in Anatolia. Muʿ¯ın al-D¯ın Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 Sulayma¯n perva¯ne, suspected of collaborating with the Mamlu¯ks, was executed on the order of the I¯l-Kha¯nid ruler, and direct rule was imposed with the appointment of governors from Iran. Nevertheless, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı remained in ˙ ˙ ˙

49Scott Redford, “The Alaeddin Mosque in Konya Reconsidered”, Artibus Asiae 51/1-2 (1991): 54–74; Suzan Yalman, “ʿAla al-Din Kayqubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan as Cosmic Ruler”, Muqarnas 29 (2012): 151–86; Suzan Yalman, “Building the Sultanate of Rum: Religion, Urbanism and Mysticism in the Architectural Patronage of ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad (r. 1220–1237)”, PhD Thesis, Harvard Univer- sity, 2011. 50Blessing, Rebuilding Anatolia, 13, 21–5. 51On Jala¯l al-D¯ın Qara¯ta¯y, see the detailed study in Osman Turan, “Selçuklu devri vakfiyeleri. III: Celâ- ˙ leddîn Karatay vakıfları ve vakfiyeleri”, Belleten 12 (1948): 17–170. 52Cahen, Formation of Turkey, 190–1. 53Ibid., 191; For a detailed study of ʿIzz al-D¯ın Kayka¯wu¯sII’s exile in Constantinople, see Rustam Shu- korov, “Sultan ʿIzz al-Din Kaykavus v Vyzantii (1262-1264/1265 gg.)”, Vyzantijskij Vremennik (Byzantina Xronika) 71/96 (2012): 7–26. 54Cahen, Formation of Turkey, 195. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 241

power for close to a decade, until his death in 684/1285.55 After the execution of his rival, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı continued to flourish, as the numerous monu- ˙ ˙ ˙ ments he commissioned clearly show.56 Despite its architectural splendour, Sa¯hib ˙ ˙ ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’s funerary complex maintains a pretence of humility in its ˙ inscriptions, perhaps in keeping with the pious idea behind the burial. At the entrance of the kha¯nqa¯h, a pointed arch with engaged corner colonettes forms the recess for the doorway. The foundation inscription is carved onto the tri- lobite panel above the doorway’s segmental arch. Though the portal of this building is less elaborately decorated than its interior, it serves to draw the visitor towards the central space. The inscription on Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’s kha¯nqa¯h (Figure 8) ˙ ˙ ˙ clearly points to the presence of Sufis, who would have prayed for the founder as part of their religious practice:

The reckoning of God. [It] built and constructed this blessed kha¯nqa¯h as an abode of the pious servants of God, and as a living place for the god-fearing companions of the bench during the days of the rule of the great sultan, the shadow of God on earth, Ghiya¯th al-Dunya¯ wa-l-D¯ın, the Father of Con- quest, Kaykhusraw son of Qilij Arsla¯n, the proof of the prince of believers, may God prolong his reign and extend his rule, the weak slave who begs of the grace of his kind Lord, ʿAl¯ı son of al-Husayn son of the pilgrim Abu¯ ˙ Bakr, may God accept [this] from him, during the months of the year 678/1279. 57

In the context of Konya, the members of this otherwise unknown Sufi group were perhaps conceived as a supplement or even competition to the followers of Jala¯l al-D¯ınRu¯m¯ı (d. 672/1273) who were present in a nearby shrine.58 The group mentioned in the foundation inscription of Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’s kha¯nqa¯h would ˙ ˙ ˙ likely have received food and perhaps even a stipend from the charitable endowment that was established to finance the funerary complex. This presence would have been in direct connection to the mausoleum for the founder and his family that was attached to the south side of the mosque.59 A direct structural connection was established between the mosque, mausoleum and kha¯nqa¯h, in which the first two sections Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

55Cahen, Formation of Turkey, 195, 205–6; Reuven Amitai, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260–81 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 168–77. 56M. Ferit (Ug˘ur) and M. Mesut (Koman), Selçuk veziri Sahip Ata ve og˘ullarının hayat ve eserleri (Istanbul: Türkiye Matbaası, 1934). 57“(1) hasab allah (2) bana wa-anshaʾ hadhihi l-khanqah (3) al-mubaraka manzilan li-ʿubbad allah (4) al- ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ salihın wa-maskanan li-ashab al-saffa al-muttaqınfı ayyam dawlat (5) al-sultan al-muʿazzam zill allahfı l- ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙˙ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ʿalam Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-DınAbı (6) l-Fath Kaykhusraw bin Qilij Arslan burhanamır al-muʾminı n khal- ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ lada allah (7) mulkahu wa-ʾabbada dawlatahu l-ʿabd al-daʿıf al-rajı rahmat rabbihi (8) al-latıf ʿAlı b. al-Husayn ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ˙¯ ¯ ˙ b. al-Hajj Abı Bakr (9) taqabbala allah minhu fı shuhur sanat thaman wa-sabaʿın wa-sittamıʾa”: RCEA, No. ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 4770. 58Şahabettîn Uzluk,Mevlânanın türbesi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1946); Meinecke, Fayencedekoratio- nen, II: 340–52. 59“This is the tomb of the lady, the innocent queen, Kha¯tu¯n, daughter of the great lord ʿAl¯ı b. al-Husayn, ˙ may God illuminate her tomb, in Shaʿba¯n 671/ March 1273”, RCEA, No. 4664. Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique, no. 32856 suggests that the date given in RCEA is wrong, instead proposing the date 691/ 1291-92. For the fragmentary texts on two other cenotaphs, see RCEA, Nos. 4887 and 4719. 242 Patricia Blessing Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 8. Portal of kha¯nqa¯h,Sa¯hib ʿAta¯Complex, Konya; author’s photograph. ˙ ˙ ˙ Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 243 Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 9. Interior of kha¯nqa¯h, with the door leading to the mausoleum visible at left, Sa¯hib ˙ ˙ ʿAta¯Complex, Konya; author’s photograph. ˙ 244 Patricia Blessing Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 10. Interior view of mausoleum, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯Complex, Konya; author’s photograph. ˙ ˙ ˙ Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 245

FIGURE 11. Restoration inscription in mausoleum, Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, Konya; author’s ˙ ˙ ˙ photograph.

of the building shared a wall, but where the main way of access to the burial led through the kha¯nqa¯h.60 The portal of the kha¯nqa¯h stands at a ninety-degree angle to that of the mosque. The mausoleum connects the two structures, but is not visible from the outside. The courtyard of the kha¯nqa¯h is covered by a large dome built of brick, decorated with tile mosaic around its base (Figure 9). From the north-eastern corner of the kha¯nqa¯h,a corridor leads to the mausoleum. At the end of the corridor, a door led into the prayer hall of the mosque, potentially providing access at times when it remained open. The mausoleum itself is richly decorated with tile mosaic, which covers large sections of walls and cenotaphs (Figure 10), and glazed tiles set into brick using banna¯ʾı¯

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 technique in the corridor. Within the mausoleum, a restoration inscription at the side of the large entry arch (Figure 11) is dated 682/1283, suggesting that the funerary structure was added before that date. The exact date of construction of the mausoleum is unclear, but its position between the mosque and kha¯nqa¯h suggests that it was added at the latest together with the latter building, in 678/1279. The restoration inscription states:

His word, his glory, [God] the All-high. Can the man who pursues God’s good pleasure be like the man who has brought God’s wrath upon himself and whose home will be Hell-a foul destination? They are in a different class in God’s eyes; God sees exactly what they do [Q III: 162–3]. And if anyone leaves home as a migrant towards God and His messenger, and is

60RCEA, No. 4779; Yılmaz Önge, “Konya Sahib Ata Hankâhı”,inSuut Kemal Yetkin’e Armag˘an (Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 1984), pp. 281–2. 246 Patricia Blessing

then overtaken by death, his reward from God is sure. God is most forgiving and most merciful [Q IV: 100]. The Prophet, may peace be upon him, said: The souls of the martyrs are green birds who eat from the fruit of heaven, and the Prophet, may peace be upon him, said: God glorifies and exalts those who follow in His path and only strive in His way, and have belief in my prophets and trust in God’s prophets, and grants them by His will access to paradise. This blessed building was renewed during the month of Muharram, the opener, in the year 682/ April 1283.61 ˙

The inscription is a combination of Had¯ıth and Qurʾa¯n, with the addition of his- ˙ torical content. The restoration was completed only a few years before the patron’s death. Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı perhaps commissioned these changes to the ˙ ˙ ˙ funerary structure in anticipation of his death, as he had likely reached a relatively advanced age at that point.62 One of the central features of the complex is its emphasis on the small mausoleum, toward which the foundation is directed, and on the richly decorated cenotaphs. The decoration in the tomb chamber, with its numerous inscriptions and multi-coloured tile panels, enhances the importance of this small space. Though the section containing the burials of the founder and his relatives is much smaller than the domed courtyard of the adjacent kha¯nqa¯h, it is decorated much more exten- sively, with tiles on all of its walls and on the cenotaphs. The emphasis in the colour scheme on turquoise and blue (in addition to small elements in black and white) perhaps suggests an allusion to paradise – an obser- vation corroborated by the mention of paradise in the restoration inscription.63 The presence of a fountain on the portal of the mosque, in addition to its charitable function of providing water for residents of nearby streets, may also point to this paradisiacal reference.64 The Qurʾa¯nic inscriptions that adorn the frames around the fountain, all referring to water and springs, only reinforce this impression.65 The addition of the kha¯nqa¯h to a family tomb seems to have been both a spiritual and a political move on the part of Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı. Perhaps, the patron ˙ ˙ ˙ may even have intended a parallel to the dynastic mausoleum of the Salju¯q sultans at the Alaeddin Mosque in Konya. In fact, family mausolea were not common in medieval Anatolia; that of Jala¯l al-D¯ınRu¯m¯ı is the third extant example in Konya. There, Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

61“Qawluhu subhanuhu taʿala [followed by Q III: 163–4 and IV: 101]. Qala l-nabı ʿalayhi l-salam arwah al- ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯˙ shuhadaʾ tayr khadar yaʾkulu min thamar al-janna wa-qala l-nabı ʿalayhi l-salam tadammana allah ʿazza wa- ¯ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ jalla li-man kharaja fı sabılihi la yakhrujuhu illa jihada fı sabılihi wa-ıman wa-tasdıq bi-rusulı ʿala mardahi an ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ adkhalahu l-janna sadaqa rusula allah jaddada hadhihi l-ʿimara al-mubaraka fı shahr miftah al-muharram ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ˙ sanat ithnayn wa-thama¯nı¯n wa-sittamı¯ʾat al-hijra”: RCEA, No. 4826; Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique, no. 33174. 62 Ferit (Ug˘ur) and Mesut (Koman), Selçuk veziri Sahip Ata,26–7. 63On the association between water and paradise, see Carole Hillenbrand, “Gardens beneath Which Rivers Flow: The Significance of Water in Classical Islamic Culture”,inRivers of Paradise: Water in Islamic Art and Culture, ed. Sheila Blair and Jonathan Bloom (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 27–58. 64L. Gardet, Relevant Qurʾa¯n passages are discussed in “Djanna”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/ encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/djanna-COM_0183, accessed 14 March 2014. 65Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique, no. 31374. The passages in question are: Q XXV: 48–51; LXXVIII: 14– 16; XXXIX: 21–2; LXXVI: 5–6, 10, 17. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 247

one may perhaps speak of a Sufi dynasty. Indeed, the combination of a dynastic mausoleum with a mosque, even though the architecture of the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ mauso- ˙ ˙ ˙ leum differs quite strongly from the tomb of the Salju¯q sultans, may be a reference to the burial of the now powerless rulers, and a show of Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’s ˙ ˙ ˙ financial means, sufficient to establish something similar for his own family. The founder’s cenotaph, covered with tiles and inscriptions, evokes Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’s memory, and mentions the exact date of his death:

The great lord, Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı b. al-Husayn, may God illuminate his ˙ place of rest, passed from the abode of destruction to the abode of eternity on the first of Shawwa¯l 683/ 30 November 1285.66

Together with the graves of his relatives, the burial of the founder is here presented in a central space that is as close as could be allowed to the mosque – where the burial would have been forbidden.67 On the founder’s cenotaph, and also on the cenotaph of Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Fakhr al-D¯ın ʿAl¯ı’sdaughter,theThrone ˙ ˙ ˙ Verse (Q II: 255) is inscribed. Clearly, this passage was common in a funerary context in seventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia, and could be used on burials of men and women alike, as the monumental inscription bands on the mausolea of Jawhar Nas¯ıba (built in 602/1205) and Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯ n in Kayseri further confirm. The expansive tile decoration of the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Mausoleum, even in its current, ˙ ˙ ˙ heavily restored state, clearly marks the commemorative focus of the monument and forms the culmination of a trajectory that leads from the simple entrance portal to the sparsely decorated kha¯nqa¯h and finally to the tomb chamber. A number of the cenotaphs bear inscriptions naming the persons buried in the crypt below. Thus, while the monument’s exterior is relatively plain and displays little text, the interior reveals itself to be a colourful monument to the founder’s memory. While the mausoleum may not have been accessible to everyone, it certainly would have made an impression on those able to visit it. Moreover, the connections between the mosque and the mausoleum, a small window inserted into the qibla wall and a door that may have remained closed, made the founder’s tomb present to those praying on the other side, and ensured that prayers spoken for the founder Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 reached their target. Similarly, the religious practice of Sufis in the kha¯nqa¯h further supported the memory of the patron and his family through prayer. Perhaps, the presence of spaces infused with prayer on both sides of the mausoleum created a paradisiacal place in the tomb chamber, accessible through one of these sacred spaces, namely the kha¯nqa¯h. The colour and splendour of the tiles serves to visually enhance the mausoleum of the building, and to emphasise its central place in preserving the patron’s memory.

66“(1) intaqala min dar al-fanaʾ ila dar al-baqaʾ al-sahib al-muʿazzam (2) Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı b. al-Husayn ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ˙ nawwara alla¯h mathwa¯hu (3) fı¯ awwal min shawwa¯l sanat arbaʿ wa-thama¯nı¯n wa-sittamı¯ ʾa: RCEA, No. 4863; Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique, no. 3563, 2b. 67On the prohibition of burial in mosques, see Leisten, Architektur für Tote,15–23. No such restriction exists for madrasas and kha¯nqa¯hs, perhaps explaining the primary way of access to the mausoleum in both cases studied here. 248 Patricia Blessing

FIGURE 12. View of Alaeddin Mosque in Konya, with mausoleum showing above the wall enclosing the courtyard, photograph taken in 1895 (Friedrich Sarre, Denkmäler persischer Baukunst: geschichtliche Untersuchung und Aufnahme muhammedanischer Backsteinbau- ten in Vorderasien und Persien (Berlin: E. Wasmuth, 1910), text volume: figure 168).

Comparative examples in medieval Anatolia

The composition of the mausolea in the two funerary complexes differs in one central element: while, in the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, the mausoleum is not visible ˙ ˙ ˙ from the outside, the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Mausoleum repeats the form of a free seventh/standing funerary structure. The mausoleum is an octagonal tower built of stone, covered with a conical roof.68 Most such mausolea are freestanding, and their shape has been linked, somewhat problematically in terms of formalist connec-

Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 tions and ethno-national approaches to art history, to the felt tents of Turkic nomads in Central Asia, from where the ancestors of the Salju¯qs hailed.69 The Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex is one of the few cases in which this type of mausoleum is used as an integral part of an architectural ensemble, yet clearly recognisable in its overall form, distinct from the building fabric. As the following examples show, this way of integrating a mausoleum into a larger, multi-functional ensemble, without partially absorbing its shape into the wider fabric of the monument, is rare in thirteenth-century Anatolia. Two freestanding mausolea stand in the courtyard of the Alaeddin Mosque in Konya, in its current state reconstructed in 615/1219–618/

68The structure is studied in detail in Bates, “The Anatolian Mausoleum”, 141–5; Önkal, Anadolu Sel- çuklu türbeleri, 120–6. 69Guitty Azarpay, “The Islamic Tomb Tower: A Note on its Genesis”,inEssays in Islamic Art in Honor of Katharina Otto-Dorn, ed. Abbas Daneshvari (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1981), pp. 9–12. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 249

1221 (Figure 12).70 The mausoleum without a roof was not completed and was never used for burial. In the other mausoleum, built in the 1190s, several Salju¯q sultans were buried, although the bodies were lost in the 1920s and only the tiled cenotaphs remain on the upper level of the mausoleum.71 Just as in the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex, the roof of this mausoleum is visible above the enclosure of the mosque. This visibility is even more strongly accentuated through the building’s location on the citadel hill at the centre of historical Konya. The two mausolea are not, however, structurally connected to the mosque. Rather, they are freestanding structures that were built in the courtyard. Hence, they are visible and potentially accessible to anyone who visits the mosque. Originally, a portal (now closed off) led into the courtyard of the mosque from the exterior and provided a direct path towards the prayer hall that passed by the mausolea. In addition to these freestanding mausolea within a larger mosque compound, several examples exist in which the funerary structures are structurally connected to other buildings, often a mosque or madrasa. In these cases, usually only a dome rises above the roofline of the main structure. The Çifte Medrese in Kayseri, also known as the complex of Jawhar Nas¯ıba and Ghiya¯th al-D¯ın Kayka¯wu¯s I (r. 588/1192–593/1196 and 601/1202–608/1211), is the earliest extant example in Anatolia. Built in 602/1205, it contained a hospital and a medical school, in addition to the mausoleum of Jawhar Nas¯ıba, the Salju¯q princess whose estate funded the structure.72 In the Şifaiye Medrese in Sivas, built in 614/1216-17, the burial of Salju¯q sultan ʿIzz al-D¯ın Kayka¯wu¯s is crowned by a dome built of brick. It rises above the stone structure of the large medical madrasa that houses the mausoleum (Figure 13).73 In Amasya, an anonymous mausoleum is enclosed within the Gök Medrese Mosque, and crowned by an octagonal brick dome with tile decoration (Figure 14). This undated building may have been built in the 1230s.74 A striking contrast emerges between the mausoleum built into the larger structure, and the freestanding Torumta¯y Mausoleum ˙ ˙ (built in 679/1280-1) that is located just across from the entrance, and points to a different trend in funerary architecture.75 In these buildings, the presence of the mausoleum is hinted at from the outside with a dome that reminds the viewer of a full-fledged, freestanding mausoleum, yet the structure has all the benefits – endowment, attendants, frequent visitors offering prayers – that the inclusion in a larger complex brings. Returning to the two case studies presented earlier, Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 several points can be offered in conclusion.

70Ibrahiṁ Hakkı Konyalı, Abideleri ve kitabeleri ile Konya tarihi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1964), pp. 576–86. On the mosque, see Redford, “Alaeddin Mosque”. 71The bodies would have been preserved in the crypt. On the mausoleum and the fate of the sultans’ bodies, see M. Zeki Oral, “Konya’da Alâ üd-Din Camii ve türbeleri tarihi”, Ankara Üniversitesi Ilâhiyaṫ Fakültesi Dergisi 5/1–4 (1956): 144–64; Konyalı, Konya tarihi, 580–5; Konyalı “Türklerde mumya ve mumyacılık”. 72Kuran, Anadolu medreseleri,65–7. 73The extant building is only half of a larger complex that contained a hospital, madrasa and mausoleum: Metin Sözen, Anadolu medreseleri: Selçuklu ve Beylikler devri volumes 1-II (Istanbul: Istanbul̇ Teknik Üni- versitesi – Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü, 1970), I: 90–101. 74Ethel Sarah Wolper, Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), pp. 60–1. 75Ibid., 62. 250 Patricia Blessing

FIGURE 13. Mausoleum of Şifaiye Medrese, Sivas, during restoration in 2010; author’s photograph. Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016

FIGURE 14. Dome of mausoleum, Gök Medrese Mosque, Amasya; author’s photograph. Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 251

Case studies: comparison and conclusion

In the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex, full structural integration of the mausoleum into the larger complex is eschewed, yet the idea of maintaining the visual aspect of a freestanding structure remains. In this, it is a unique example at the juncture between the two general types described above: freestanding mausolea and integrated ones with distinct domes. As noted before, the mausoleum is not fully visible from the outside of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex. Rather, the conical roof of the mausoleum emerges behind a wall between the portals the madrasa and mosque. Four small slits in this wall allow passers-by to see the mausoleum – but only when standing directly in front of them. Thus, only a viewer who is aware of the presence of the mausoleum might proceed to purposefully gaze through the slits and, so perhaps as the founder hoped, direct a prayer for the eternal rest of the patron. The enclosure provides a protected space for the mausoleum, an area that is exclusively reserved for the burial of the monument’s patron. The small, garden-like space surrounding the mausoleum of the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex may perhaps be seen as a reflection of paradise, in the hope that the deceased would finally reach that heavenly garden, rather than just an earthly one.76 The concept of the barzakh, a liminal space between heaven and hell, between life and death is important in Islamic thought. The grave is not just a place for the dead body, but also one where the spirit of the deceased will dwell until the Day of Resurrection (yawm al-qiya¯ma).77 Hence, attempts to diminish the torments of the grave (ʿadha¯b al-qabr) were essential parts of funerary practice.78 This included both the prayers said at the funeral and those that would later be offered near the tomb.79 An enclosed space in proximity to a mosque was a means to circumvent the restriction against burials within the mosque proper, while offering the consolations of prayers. In the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex, the funerary structure is technically separate from the mosque because there is no direct access. Hence, there is no risk of the burial polluting the prayer space. Similarly, in the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, a small window inserted into the qibla wall ˙ ˙ ˙ of the mosque forms an opening between the prayer hall and the founder’s mausoleum. While access to the mosque was probably possible through the corridor connecting mosque and kha¯nqa¯h, the primary way of entrance led through the latter structure. The visual connection offered by the window provided an additional pres- Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 ence of the founder’s burial in the eyes of those praying on the other side, and ensured that prayers spoken for the founder could be heard in the burial space. The comparison between the two cases studies in this article, the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex in Kayseri and the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex in Konya, shows certain common ˙ ˙ ˙ traits in the way these funerary monuments were constructed. In both cases, the

76Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave, 199; Jane Idleman Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Under- standing of Death and Resurrection (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981), pp. 31–62. 77“The barzakh is a barrier between hell and paradise or else the grave which lies between this life and the next,” B. Carra de Vaux, “Barzak̲̲h,in” Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bian- quis, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/barzakh-SIM_1249, accessed 12 February 2014. 78A.J. Wensinck and A.S. Tritton, “ʿAd̲¯hab al-Kabr,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. ˙ P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam- 2/adhab-al-kabr-SIM_0301, accessed 4 May 2015. 79Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave, 160–4. 252 Patricia Blessing

mausoleum is surrounded by, or encased within, buildings with other functions that serve as a shell for the central funerary part of the monument. In the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex, this impression is even more strongly accentuated by the restricted access to the inside of the mausoleum, and by the limited sightlines that are offered to the visitor of other parts of the monument. In the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, the mausoleum is more easily accessible from both ˙ ˙ ˙ mosque and kha¯nqa¯h, while, at the same time, its visibility from the outside is more limited. There, its presence is not announced, either in inscriptions or in the sight of a conical roof or dome, as in the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex. Thus, in both cases, we are faced with a funerary monument that is central to the larger complex, and hidden from view. This should perhaps not be interpreted as a sign of humility on the part of the patrons: no expense was spared in the construction, be it in the extensive tile decoration in the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex or in the marble ˙ ˙ ˙ dado of Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n’s mausoleum. The enclosed space provided a safe abode for the dead, a space that was designed to diminish the torments of the grave, des- tined to last until the end of days, when paradise could finally be accessed. The presence of a prayer space and the restricted access to the funerary structure would only have enhanced this aspect. While gender certainly was a factor in the inscriptions, particularly on the patrons’ cenotaphs, it appears to have been less of an issue in the construction overall. Even though access to the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n mausoleum is restricted in several ways, it is tempting to suggest that the burial of a female patron would have been more closely protected but no other examples that would support this interpretation have been preserved. In the mausoleum of the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, for instance, at least one ˙ ˙ ˙ female member of the patron ’s family was buried, and yet access to the mausoleum is less difficult than in the Ma¯hper¯ı Kha¯tu¯n Complex. In both funerary complexes, inscriptions are important parts of the overall decoration of the architecture, adding layers of meaning included in the historical and Qur’anic texts. The foundation and funerary inscriptions in both monuments carefully trace the patrons’ lives and careers, but also record the changes in rule: in the Sa¯hib ʿAta¯ Complex, two sultans are mentioned while, in the Ma¯hper¯ı ˙ ˙ ˙ Kha¯tu¯n Complex, the patron’s son is the ruler in the foundation inscriptions of the mosque, but mentioned as deceased on his mother’s cenotaph. The recording of this dynastic memory (and hence the historical events that both patrons were Downloaded by [171.67.216.22] at 07:00 06 January 2016 part of) may have played a role in the larger commemorative purpose of the buildings. In both cases, the patrons’ burials are enshrined in the centre of a larger complex that would ensure the survival of the mausoleum, as well as the patrons’ reputation as pious Muslims who dispensed charity through the endowments attached to the monuments.