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 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 It may not be published in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying or otherwise without the prior permission of VEKAM.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, Sivas, 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 / Turkey 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 Turan 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. Islamic architecture--Turkey-- Congresses. 7. Madrasahs--Turkey-- Congresses. 8. Architecture, Seljuk-- Congresses. 9. Historic buildings—Turkey-- Congresses. 10. Religious architecture—Turkey-- Congresses. 11. Çifte Minareli Medrese (Erzurum, Turkey) -- Congresses. 12. Turkey—History-- To 1453-- Congresses. 13. Sivas (Turkey)—History—13th century-- Congresses. 14. Erzurum (Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 15. Erzincan (Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 16. Kastamonu (Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 17. Beyşehir (Konya, Turkey)--History—13th century-- Congresses. 18. Turkey—Relations—Ilkhanids-- Congresses. 19. Ilkhanids—Relations— Turkey-- Congresses. 20. İlhanlılar—Türkiye—Kongreler. 21. Türkiye—Tarihi—Kongreler. 22. Türkiye—Tarihi—Orta Çağ—Kongreler. I. Yenişehirlioğlu, Filiz. II. Yalman, Suzan. III. VEKAM. IV. Title. DR479.I45 C85 2019 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 Ilkhanate: 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). Istanbul: 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 Central Asia and was impacted by Genghis Khan’s grandson the Islamic world, all the way to Europe. For Hülegü, whose forces subjugated all of Iran this reason, their reputation related to war, and, moreover, in 1258, captured Baghdad, pillaging, and bloodshed in the vast lands bringing an end to the Abbasid Caliphate 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 Islamic art 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 Islam 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 religion, 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 Western Asia, 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 Mongol Empire” (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 Isfahan. 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, Sufism, 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 116
Ilkhanid Coin, Ankara, 1336-1338. Yapı Kredi Museum Collection, Inv. No. 11685 On the Outskirts of the Ilkhanate: The Mongols’ Relationship with the Province of Kastamonu in the Second Half of the 13th Century1
BRUNO DE NICOLA Goldsmiths, University of London (UK); Austrian Academy of Sciences (AT)
Abstract Ever since the decisive victory over the Seljuqs of Rūm in 1243, the Mongols and their Persian officials had different approaches to the role that Anatolia should play in the Ilkhanate. The impact of Mongol rule and its reception among the Anatolian subjects was not homogene- ous across the Peninsula. Eastern regions of Anatolia were geographically closer to the area where the Mongol court dwelt in North-Western Iran, which arguably gave them less room for political maneuver. On the contrary, in the western parts of Anatolia, different local dynasties emerged in the second half of the 13th century, in a complex political scenario that combined Mongol overlordship, the proximity to a decadent but prestigious Byzantium and the pres- ence of Turkmen tribes to their political agenda. One of these dynasties was the Çobanoğlu of Kastamonu that ruled over North-Western Anatolia during the last few decades of the 13th century. This article aims to offer an overview of the relationship between center and periph- ery in the Ilkhanate by looking at the rule of the Çobanoğulları in Kastamonu and their politi- cal, religious and cultural development vis-à-vis the Mongols of Iran. The aim is to contrast opposing views on Mongol rule documented not only in the general narratives of the period but also to examine those works locally composed for the rulers of Kastamonu. By contract- ing local and more general sources, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the complex political relationship between local dynasties in peripheral areas of the Ilkhanate and the central court of the Mongols of Iran.
Keywords: Kastamonu, Çobanoğulları, Local sources, Periphery, Centrality
1 The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP/2007–2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No. 208476, “The Islamisation of Anatolia, c. 1100–1500.” 118
Introduction dynasties emerged in the second half of the 13th century in a complex political scenario The impact of the Mongol invasions of the that combined Mongol rule, proximity to a Middle East has been the subject of ex- decadent but prestigious Byzantium, and tensive research, especially during the last the presence of Turkmen tribes. few decades.1 Scholars have evaluated the The classic approach to the history damage and the benefits brought by the of pre-Ottoman Anatolia has often sug- Mongols to the Islamic world in different gested that political fragmentation in the fields such as the military, religion, poli- peninsula (the beylik period) began with tics, economy and culture.2 Despite this, the collapse of Mongol rule in Iran and the in the case of Anatolia, the Mongol period consequent loss of political influence over has still not been adequately studied when the territories of Rūm during the initial compared with, for example, the history decades of the 14th century (Melville, 2016, of the Mongols in Iran or China. There are pp. 309-335). This view implies a political several reasons for this. On the one hand, unity in the period preceding the political Anatolia was a frontier land far from the atomization brought by the Mongols, and center of Tabriz-based Ilkhanid power, and that this was especially due to the Seljuks consequently Anatolia occupies a marginal of Rūm. However, the idea that there was a place in the principal Ilkhanid sources. clear correlation between the end of Mongol On the other hand, Turkish historiography domination and the emergence of the beylik has traditionally overlooked the period, period needs to be revised. Not only had seeing it as a mere transition between the the political fragmentation of Anatolia be- golden age of the Seljuks of Rūm in the ini- gun earlier than the 14th century, but it was tial decades of 13th century and the rise of a nonlinear process where enmities and the Ottomans in the 14th century (Melville, alliances shifted depending on the politi- 2009).3 If Anatolia was a distant land in the cal context. The city of Kastamonu and its eyes of the Ilkhanid rulers, then the west- surrounding areas offer a good example of ern areas of the peninsula were even more these local polities existing during the 13th so. These were areas where different local century, a period when the region was ruled mostly by the local Turkmen dynasty of the Çobanoğulları (r. c. 1211-1308). 1 For an overview of research in Mongol stud- The arrival of the Turks in Anatolia in ies, see Morgan, 1985, pp. 120-125; Biran, 2013, pp. the 11th century transformed the Byzantine 1021-1033. province of Paphlagonia into a political, 2 See Lambton, 1988; the collection of articles in religious and cultural border region be- De Nicola and Melville, 2016; and, more recently, Hope, 2016. tween Islam and Christianity. Two centu- ries later, this area became the far western 3 The omission of Ottoman–Mongol relationships is also apparent in 14th- and 15th-century Ottoman frontier between the Mongols of Iran and sources (Tezcan, 2013, pp. 23-38). Byzantium, while still remaining the home ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 119 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
of a comparatively large Greek-Christian warriors in the vicinity of Kastamonu.4 population. However, under the rule of lo- According to Osman Turan and traditional cal elites, this population had mainly be- Turkish historiography, a certain general come Islamized by the time of the Mongol named Karatekin is credited with capturing invasions of the 1240s. Furthermore, in the region only a few years later, including the second half of the 13th century, the re- the neighboring cities of Sinop and Çankırı, gion embraced Islamic culture in the form and annexing it for the Danishmendid dy- of the patronage of Muslim scholars, sci- nasty in 1084-1085 (Turan, 1980, p. 85). entists and the support of Islamic institu- After this short period of Danishmendid tions (Yücel, 1991). The aim of this short control, Byzantium regained control over essay is to focus attention on the history of the region briefly following an expedi- this particular local dynasty, and discuss tion carried out by Emperor Komnenos. the changing dynamics of the relation- However, the Greek empire was unable to ship between this northwestern corner hold the area for long, and it is known that of the Anatolian peninsula and Mongol by 1143 the region was under the firm con- rule throughout the second half of the 13th trol of the expanding Seljuks of Rūm.5 century. The aim of the paper is therefore From the early days of the Turkish to offer an overview of the complex rela- invasion of western Anatolia, different tionship between center and periphery in groups of Turkmen settled in the area, the Ilkhanate by looking at the rule of the eventually forming a military elite that de Çobanoğulları in Kastamonu, as well as facto ruled over this region. However, there their political, religious and cultural de- is no direct and official reference available velopment under the Mongols. of a Turkmen chief being recognized by the Seljuk sultan until the beginning of the 13th Kastamonu Before and After the century, when the historian Ibn Bībī men- Mongol Conquest of Anatolia tions that Sultan Kayqubad I counted on the support of Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban as being During the few decades after the Battle of the ‘bey’ of the uj (region) of Kastamonu in Manzikert in 1071, there was conflict in the 1219-1220 (Ibn Bībī, 1941, pp. 57-58; 2011, region of Kastamonu between the newly arrived Turks and a Byzantine empire im- mersed in internal turmoil (Cheynet, 1980, 4 C. J. Heywood, Ḳasṭamūnī, Encyclopaedia of Islam pp. 410-438; Vryonis, 1971, pp. 85-113). The (2nd ed.). first reference to a Turkish presence in the 5 Kastamonu was made an iqta territory belonging area suggests that a group of Danishmendid to the sultan’s family. This information is inferred by Turks took control of the region as early as the reference made by Aqsarāʾī to the transfer of the 1073-1074, when the Byzantine emperor, region’s tax revenues from the sultan’s treasury to the vizier Tāj al-Dīn Mutʾazz in 1259. See Aqsarāʾī, Alexios Komnenos, was forced to flee after 1944, pp. 65-66; Korobeinikov, 2004, p. 90 (also n. being surprised by an attack of Turkmen 7). 120
p. 210; Yücel, 1991, p. 37).6 We know little important aspects of the cultural and reli- about Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban, but he appears gious life of Kastamonu in these early dec- to have been one of the chief military com- ades of the 13th century, such as the nature manders of a group of Turkmen tribes that of the interaction between the newly ap- had settled in the region during the 12th pointed Turkmen bey and the still numer- century (Yücel, 1991, pp. 35-36). Despite ous Greek-Christian-Hellenized popula- doubts being cast over the genealogical tion of the area,8 remain poorly understood. connection between Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban While the information on the reli- and the rest of the Çobanoğulları rulers, gious and cultural life in early 13th-century he is considered to be the founder of the Kastamonu is scarce, there is more con- dynastic line that ruled Kastamonu in the crete information on the military career of 13th century (Cahen, 1968, pp. 233-234). Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban during this period. Most probably established by the Seljuk Documentary evidence exists of the two sultan as a military commander charged military campaigns of diverse characteris- with controlling this border region, Ḥusām tics and outcomes involving the founder of al-Dīn Çoban managed to expand his field the Çobanoğulları dynasty and his Turkmen of influence over an area that was not lim- armies as allies of a faction of the Seljuk ited to the city and region of present-day dynasty. In both campaigns, the military Kastamonu, but which included important strength of the Kastamonu Turkmen pro- urban centers such as Ankara and Gangras vided consistent support to Kayqubad I (modern Çankırı), two cities that were before and after he was crowned in 1219- placed under the control of Kastamonu af- 1220.9 During the first campaign, military ter they revolted against Seljuk authority assistance was provided by Ḥusām al-Dīn in 1214 (Korobeinikov, 2004, pp. 92-93). Çoban to Kayqubad a decade before his Knowledge of this territorial expansion ascension to the throne. The future Seljuk notwithstanding, the scant source mate- sultan had challenged the enthronement rial of the period makes it difficult to as- of his brother and rose in arms against sess whether the ruler enjoyed full political him in 1211. He was eventually forced to control over these urban centers, or if his authority was limited to the command of the Turkmen tribes that were present in the 84). Peacock and Yildiz (pp. 1-3) provide an inter- esting comparison between the rural interpretation 7 rural areas of the Kastamonu region. Other of Anatolia by Ibn Said and the urban view given by Simon of St. Quintin. 8 We do know whether the Seljuks carried out 6 Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban must have overseen the re- razzias in the province in search of Greek slaves gion, if only unofficially, since 1211 (Cahen, 1968, p. for the Seljuk army. See C. J. Heywood, Ḳasṭamūnī, 239). Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). 7 According to the 13th century Moroccan chroni- 9 For a quick overview of his life and reign, see C. cler, Ibn Said, there were over 30,000 tribesmen Cahen, Kaykubad, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd in the region of Kastamonu (see Peacock, 2010, p. ed.). ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 121 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
find refuge at the fortress of Ankara where objective of the campaign was to reclaim the he was besieged by forces backing his el- city of Sudak, which had been incorporated der brother Kaykaus I (d. 1219) (Ibn Bībī, as an overseas protectorate by the Seljuks a 1941, pp. 56-57; 2011, p. 137). Ḥusām a-Dīn few years before, following the withdrawal Çoban and other local Turkmen rulers of the first Mongol incursion into Russian fought alongside Kayqubad, cementing an steppes and Crimea. According to Ibn Bībī, alliance that would become fundamental Ḥusām al-Dīn Çobān commanded the ex- in the establishment of Çobanoğulları rule pedition, defeated Rus resistance in the in Kastamonu. Unfortunately for both al- area, forced the city of Sudak to surrender, lies, the battle was lost, Kayqubad was im- and returned to Anatolia with members of prisoned and the Kastamonu forces had the city’s nobility as hostages, leaving be- to withdraw to their original territories in hind Anatolian soldiers in Crimea to guard northwestern Anatolia (Cahen, 1968, p. the city (Ibn Bībī, 1941, pp. 124-127; 2011, 121). It is difficult to interpret the reasons pp. 287-289). He also instituted Islam as behind Çoban’s decision to back Kayqubad the “official” religion in the city and sharia in this internal Seljuk contest, and it is not as the code of law.11 There is no available in- known if Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban had any pre- formation regarding the fate of Ḥusām al- vious commitment to Kayqubad that made Dīn Çoban and the region of Kastamonu on him support his side.10 However, it is pos- his return to Anatolia, but they both appear sible that the Turkmen ruler was playing to have kept out of political developments his first hand in the Seljuk political arena in Konya during the 1230s. in trying to expand the territories under his The Mongol invasion of Anatolia in command and gain further influence over 1243 shook the political status quo of the the politics of Anatolia. peninsula and was followed by several tu- If Çoban’s gamble did not yield an multuous years, as reflected in the histori- immediate reward, his military support for ography of Rūm. Kastamonu seems initially Kayqubad paid off some years later when to have escaped any major upsets during Kaykaus died and Kayqubad became Sultan the early years of Mongol settlement in of Rūm. After being confirmed as amir of Anatolia, or at least there are no accounts Kastamonu by the new sultan, Ḥusām al-Dīn of major events in the region in the avail- Çoban was commissioned by Kayqubad in able sources. While the date of Ḥusām al- the early 1220s to partake in the first mari- Dīn Çoban’s death is unknown, the follow- time campaign carried out by the Seljuks of ing Çobanoğulları ruler to emerge in the Rūm in Crimea (for an analysis of this cam- historical records is Alp Yürek (d. c. 1280) paign, see Peacock, 2006, pp. 133-149). The (Yücel, 1991, pp. 40-42). Despite the main
10 Ibn Bībī is not specific about Ḥusām al-Dīn’s 11 As Peacock has suggested, this did not mean con- involvement but mentions only his support for version to Islam occurred in the city (Peacock, 2006, Kayqubad (Ibn Bībī, 1941, pp. 56-57; 2011, p. 137). p. 135). 122
sources suggest that Ḥusām al-Dīn and Alp The overlapping political authority of the Yürek were father and son, some scholars pervāne, the economic usufruct of some have questioned if there was actually any Mongol officials, and the military control of family connection between the two (Cahen, the local Çobanoğulları Turkmen, seem to 1968, pp. 234-235). It could be that due to have been the methods used by the Mongols Alp Yürek assuming power at a young age to control northwestern Anatolia in the but it is worth mentioning that there was a three decades following its conquest. period when an apparently non-Çobanoğlu If the authority of the local dynasty tribal chief named Shams al-Dīn Tuvtaş of Kastamonu initiated by Ḥusām al-Dīn (Yavtash) was placed in charge of protect- Çoban became less clear in northwestern ing the castle of Kastamonu and appointed Anatolia, the narrative of the local history bey of the region until around 1256.12 If Alp of the region in the last decades of the 13th Yürek assumed control over the region of century became more established. Those Kastamonu at some point after this date, it claiming descent from Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban seems that he did not enjoy the same po- seized on a new opportunity provided by litical power as his possible father, Ḥusām the historical context of Anatolia in the ear- al-Dīn. The stricter control imposed by the ly 1280s, and developed more direct inter- Mongols of Iran over Anatolia after the es- action with the Mongols of Iran. Although tablishment of the Ilkhanate, and the new Shams al-Dīn Tuvtaş and Alp Yürek were Mongol officials sent from Tabriz to obtain politically subjugated and economically revenues from the region13, appear to have dominated by the Mongol officials deployed reduced the authority of the Çobanoğulları. in Anatolia, a new dynamic of political in- The economic benefits obtained by these teraction emerged in the 1280s. An internal Mongol representatives and the collection dispute over the succession of the Seljuk of the region’s revenues did not mean that Sultanate and the death of Abaqa Ilkhan (d. these officials exercised any direct day- 1282) in Iran offered a new opportunity to to-day political authority over the region, Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn ibn Alp Yürek to establish or that they were even living in the area.14 a different relationship between these local rulers and the Mongols.
12 Little is known about him, but he was of Cuman origin (see Korobeinikov, 2004, p. 94). 13 The evidence for the tax revenues of the Kastamonu territories passing from Tāj al-Dīn Mutʿazz (d. 676/1277) after his death to Mudjī̲ r al-Dīn Amīrshāh (d. 701/1302), as an iqṭāʾ territory, suggest cially under the control of the perv ne Muʿīn al-Dīn. economic control of the region by these Mongol of- ā After his death, this nominal authority passed to his ficials. C. J. Heywood, Ḳasṭamūnī, Encyclopaedia of son Meḥmed Beg, who supposedly administered the Islam (2nd ed.); Korobeinikov, 2004, pp. 94-96. region from his residence in Sinop until 1299, al- 14 From 1260 to his execution in 1277, the city of though he only visited Kastamonu on a few occasions Kastamonu, like other cities in the region, was offi- (Korobeinikov, 2004, p. 95). ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 123 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
Collaboration, Patronage and Revolt: Ibn Bībī, the designated heir was Mesud The Zenith and Decline of the ibn Kaykaus, but his brother Rukn al-Dīn Çobanoğulları Dynasty tried to seize the Seljuk crown by arriving at the peninsula first. However, on setting After the death of the Mongol Ilkhan Abaqa foot in Anatolia, Rukn al-Dīn was captured (d. 1282), and especially with the rise to by Muẓaffar al-Dīn ibn Alp Yürek in the power of Arghūn to the Ilkhanate throne vicinity of Kastamonu. The Çobanoğulları in 1284, the Mongols changed their ap- ruler took Rukn al-Dīn as a prisoner in proach towards Anatolia and became the city of Sinop, offered him to Mesud, more involved in the region’s develop- and then pledged alliance to him (Ibn Bībī, ment (Melville, 2009, pp. 73-81). The de- 2011, pp. 634-635). The two new allies al- ployment of Geikhatu (d. 1295), Arghūn’s legedly traveled together to Tabriz prior to brother, as governor of Anatolia is one of 1282 in order to obtain a decree from the the measures taken by the Ilkhans to bring Ilkhan Abaqa that would grant Mesud le- the region under tighter political control gitimacy to be recognized as Sultan of Rūm. (Anonymous, 1999, pp. 112-113; Aqsarāʾī, However, Abaqa died in 1282 and so Mesud 1944, pp. 145-146; Rashīd al-Dīn, 1994, and Muẓaffar al-Dīn were forced to stay in vol. 2, p. 1155). The closer involvement of the Mongol capital to obtain the approval of the Mongols, and the internal struggle be- Abaqa’s successor Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282- tween contending Seljuk sultans, would 1284). Following the strategy of divide and also affect the roles of the local rulers of rule carried out by his successors, Tegüder Kastamonu after 1280. Against this back- granted Mesud control over Diyarbakır, drop, a figure emerges in the sources as the Harput, Malatya and the vicinity of Sivas, new Turkmen commander of northwestern but kept his rival Giyath al-Dīn Kaykhusraw Anatolia. Muẓaffar al-Dīn Yavlaḳ Arslan, III (d. 1284) in charge of Konya and central son of Alp Yürek, had a fresh political vi- Anatolia (Aqsarāʾī, 1944, p. 138). However, sion that, combined with some advanta- Kaykhusraw III did not accept this division geous developments, would invigorate the of political authority and joined a revolt or- Çobanoğulları within the political strategy ganized by Kangirtay, one of Abaqa’s broth- of the Ilkhanate. ers, against Tegüder’s reign (Cahen, 1968, The first occasion for greater direct pp. 294-295). The recently appointed involvement in Ilkhanid and Anatolian Ilkhan was also facing a simultaneous up- politics came with the succession strug- rising in the east, where his nephew Arghūn gle that divided the Seljuks of Rūm after was challenging Tegüder’s authority from the former sultan, Kaykaus II, had died in Khurasan. Tegüder managed to suppress exile in Crimea in 1280-1281. The strug- the Anatolian revolt by Kangirtay by sending gle was caused by two of Kaykaus II’s sons Giyath al-Dīn Kaykhusraw III to trail and he returning to Anatolia with the intention of eventually had him executed in March 1284. claiming the Seljuk throne. According to After the revolt was suppressed, Tegüder 124
decided to grant Mesud sole authority over in 1284 between the court scholar and the the Sultanate of Rūm. Nonetheless, al- ascendant Turkmen leader, Muẓaffar al- though the Ilkhan had managed to put down Dīn, who was now an ally of the Mongols of the revolt in Anatolia, the one on the east- Iran at the western borders of the Ilkhanate ern front had a different outcome. Arghūn (Niazi, 2011, p. 110). had gathered sufficient support in the east This patronage of Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī among dissident Mongol noyans to finally by Muẓaffar al-Dīn was not an isolated case, defeat Tegüder in 1284 (Amitai, 2001, pp. and the financial support for men of letters 15-43). When Arghūn ascended the throne, became a common activity undertaken at he appointed Mesud II as the Seljuk sultan the Kastamonu court in the 1280s. This oc- and granted Muẓaffar al-Dīn ibn Alp Yürek curred during a period of economic growth control of Kastamonu and the surrounding and military expansion against Byzantium areas (Yücel, 1991, p. 43). which the region of Kastamonu appears It seems that the time that the to have experienced until 1291 (Peacock, Turkmen Muẓaffar al-Dīn spent in the 2015, pp. 377-378). During the decade opulence of the Ilkhanid capital of Tabriz, in which Muẓaffar al-Dīn ruled as the as well as the contact he certainly had with Çobanoğulları leader, other authors also members of the court, may have influenced received financial support for their liter- the local ruler of Kastamonu in starting ary activity. To date, we know of five works a consistent policy of literary patronage. written in Persian that were composed It is possible, for example, that while in in the second half of the 13th century and Tabriz, he met with the renowned scholar were dedicated to the rulers of Kastamonu. Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī (d. 1311) and agreed on However, the number of texts produced in financing the composition of a Persian- the region increases to ten if we include language treatise on astronomy known as those not specifically dedicated to a ruler, the Ikhtiyārāt-i Muẓaffarī (Niazi, 2011, pp. but produced under Çobanoğulları rule. 157-158; on the Mongols’ interest in as- These works were written by three different tronomy, see Saliba, 2006, pp. 357-368), authors after the 1280s, when, as has been that the work was composed in 1284 and is described, Çobanoğulları rule in the region specifically dedicated toẓ Mu affar al-Dīn of Kastamonu became more firmly estab- Çobanoğlu. We know that Quṭb al-Dīn nev- lished thanks to Mongol support. er visited Kastamonu despite having lived As well as financing the astronomi- in both Sivas and Malatya for some time in cal treatise of Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī, there is the 1280s. The close relationship between evidence of the dedication of another work the scholar and the Ilkhanid court caused to Muẓaffar al-Dīn, but with a different the- Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī to make several trips to matic focus from Shīrāzī’s scientific work. Tabriz while he was living in Anatolia. This The Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla fī qawāʿid al-sulṭana meant that an encounter was made possible is a rather unique text that deals with reli- at the Mongol court in Tabriz at some point gion and politics, both subjects that were ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 125 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
among the main interests of the works pa- pher, originally from northwestern Iran, tronized by the Çobanoğulları (De Nicola, who found his way to Anatolia at an early 2016, pp. 49-72). This work was composed age and settled in his youth at the court of in 1283, possibly by a certain Muḥammad the Çobanoğulları of Kastamonu (on his b. Muḥammad al-Khaṭīb and dedicated to family, see Özergin, 1970, pp. 219-229). Muẓaffar al-Dīn ibn Alp Yürek, ruler of He served under three of the Çobanoğulları Kastamonu. The only surviving copy of the rulers and left up to seven works, mostly in work was made on the 10th of Ramaẓān, AH Persian, but which also included a Persian– 990 (September 28, 1582), most probably Turkish vocabulary called Toḥfa-yi Ḥusām, in Istanbul, and is held at the Bibliothèque and a versified Arabic–Persian vocabu- 15 17 Nationale in Paris. The work includes very lary known as Naṣīb al-fityān. The most diverse material, such as stories of the pre- prominent work dedicated to a ruler of Islamic Iranian kings, stories of early Islam, Kastamonu is the Nuzhat al-kuttāb wa tuḥfat unique accounts of the Qalandar dervishes, al-aḥbāb, a work that aims to provide the the fight of the Great Seljuks against her- reader with four different types of citations esies, and a particular abridged and edited that can be used in the writing of letters to version of the Siyāsatnāmah of (Niẓām al- dignitaries, members of the court or fam- Mulk (1978)). However, the main feature ily members.18 Manuscript copies of this of the text is that it is written in the style of work also carry a dedication to Muzaffaṛ a mirror for princes, emphasizing the du- al-Dīn ibn Alp Yürek.19 The work was writ- ties of a good ruler and the role he should ten in AH Muḥarram 684/ March 1285, the play, especially vis-à-vis the ʿulamāʾ and year in which Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn returned the people that have deviated from the right from Tabriz after securing Mongol support path. In addition, as we will see below, this text provides special insights into the con- temporary events of Mongol Anatolia and a 17 Only a fragmentary copy of the Toḥfa-yi Ḥusām has survived (Khūʾi,̄ 2000, pp. 25-27). The Naṣib al- view of Ilkhanid rule. fityān was more popular in Anatolia, with different Apart from these specific works by copies still available in Turkey (see MSS Süleymaniye, Reşid Ef. 978; Lala Ismâil 644; Hasan Hüsnü 1102; Khaṭīb and Shīrāzī, the most prolific author Râşid Efendi, 11279). Other works not dedicated to connected to the Çobanoğulları was Ḥasan Çobanid rulers by Khūʾi ̄include the Rusūm al-rasāʾil bin ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Ḥusām al-Din̄ Khūʾi ̄ wa nujūm al-faz̤āʾil (composed in 690/1291), the (d. 1308),16 a scribe, poet and lexicogra- Ghunyat al-ṭālib wa munyat al-kātib (composed in Rabiʿ II 709/September 1309); and poems written in Persian and compiled under the Multamasāt (for all these works, see Khūʾi,̄ 2000). 15 MS Supplement Turc 1020. 18 T. Yaziçi, Ḥasan b. ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen, 16 In Turkish works he is generally referred as al- Encyclopedia Iranica, accessed February 23, 2017, Hoy. For an edition with all the existing works of http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hasan-b- Ḥusām al-Din̄ Khūʾi, see Khūʾi,̄ 2000; and Khūʾi,̄ abd-al-momen; Yakupoğlu and Musali, 2018, pp. 47- 1963. A new book about the life and works of Khūʾi ̄ 52. has been recently published by Yakupoğlu and Musali, 2018. 19 See the dedication in MS Fatih 5406, f. 33a. 126
for his claim to rule Kastamonu.20 Another element in understanding the patronage work of a similar style, entitled Qawāʿid of Persian works by the Çobanoğulları of al-rasāʾil wa farāʾid al-faza̤ ʾ̄il, was com- Kastamonu. However, another character- posed by Khūʾī in Rajab 684/ September istic of this literary patronage is that most 1285 (Khūʾī, 2000, p. 293; Turan, 1958, p. of the works were composed for the local 173). The author himself mentions that he rulers of Kastamonu during the 1280s and composed this work at the request of some early 1290s: the period in which Muzaffaṛ friends (dūstān), immediately after he had al-Dīn Çobanoğlu maintained fruitful rela- finished theNuzhat al-kuttāb, and that it was tionships with the Seljuks of Rūm and the dedicated to the last Çobanoğlu ruler, Amīr Mongols of Iran. Maḥmūd (d. c. 1309) (Khūʾī, 2000, p. 225).21 The period of cultural development of One of the main characteristics of Kastamonu under the Çobanoğulları dynas- all these works is that they were written in ty was upset in 1291 by rebellion in which Persian by men of Iranian origin who had several Turkmen tribes from north-west- emigrated to Anatolia during the 13th cen- ern Anatolia revolted against the Ilkhanid tury. This phenomenon was not exclusively domination under the leadership of the a characteristic of Kastamonu, but rather a Seljuk prince, Rukn al-Dīn. This was the general process that affected all of Anatolia rebellious brother of Sultan Mesud II who and, to a certain degree, contributed to the had been imprisoned by Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn shaping of the cultural development of the Çobanoğlu a decade earlier. The Mongol peninsula from the beginning of the 13th army in Rūm was mobilized by the newly century onwards. The traditional view was appointed Ilkhan Geikhatu (r. 1291-1295) that the Mongol invasions of the 1220s in to suppress the revolt.22 Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn central Asia and Khurasan were the main Çobanoğlu remained loyal to his Mongol- instigator for this migration of Iranians Seljuk commitments and confronted the into Anatolia. However, the view that this rebels before the arrival of the Mongol con- was the only reason why literate Persian- tingent. However, the Çobanoğulları ruler speaking men (and women) found their way was killed during the initial confrontations, to Anatolia is currently being challenged. either in the battlefield or as a victim of as- The debate over the real motivation behind sassination.23 Even though Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn the migrations is still ongoing, but Anatolia was undoubtedly a magnet for these lit- 22 For an analysis of the revolt, see Dimitri erati and men of science, and realization Korobeinikov (2004, pp. 87-118). of this serves as an important contextual 23 There is some disagreement in the sources on this point. While Aqsarāʾi ̄ suggests that Muẓaffar al-Dīn died in battle, Byzantine sources point to- 20 In regard to the composition, see the colophon in wards an assassination plotted by Rukn al-Dīn. See MS Fatih 5406, f. 58a; also Turan, 1958, p. 172. Aqsarāʾī, 1944, p. 171; Gregoras, 1829–55, vol. 1, p. 21 See the dedication in MS Fatih 5406, f. 60a, lines 137; Korobeinikov, 2004, pp. 99-100; Pachymeres, 4–5. 1835, p. 327. ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 127 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
appears to have been a dependable ruler, and fought with Osman Gazi (posthumous the revolts portray the fragility of the power founder of the Ottoman Empire) at the balance in the region in which Turkmen Battle of Bapheus (1302) (For more de- support could rapidly shift from one leader tails on the battle, see İnalcık, 1993, pp. to another. The actual motives for the re- 77-98). Çobanoğulları might was eventu- volt are unclear as available sources do not ally toppled not by Byzantium, nor by the provide much detail about the reasons, and Mongols or the Seljuks, but from within only claim that some Turkmen tribes of the by a Turkmen chief who assassinated Amīr area were revolting against “Mongol tyran- Maḥmūd in c. 1309, thus inaugurating ny.” However, as Korobeinikov has shown, the Candaroğulları/Jandarid dynasty in the political situation in Kastamonu was the region that ruled over north-western multifaceted. There was enmity between Anatolia from Kastamonu until the 15th the Çobanoğulları and Byzantium, the in- century, upon which they became incorpo- fluence of Mongol officials having econom- rated into the incipient Ottoman Empire ic privileges in the region, and the potential (on the Jandarid dynasty, see Yücel, 1991, tensions arising from nomadic Turkmen pp. 53-142). living alongside urban Persianized peo- ple who had migrated from Iran and cen- Some References to and Omissions tral Asia. (Korobeinikov, 2004, p. 115; De of the Mongols in Texts Composed Nicola, 2018). It could be that an intention Under the Çobanoğulları on the part of the Çobanoğulları in estab- lishing themselves more firmly as rulers The patronage activity carried out by in the region might have also contributed Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Çobanoğlu provides us with to conflict between different Turkmen fac- the rare opportunity of having an alterna- tions in the area and the increasing politi- tive source of information in addition to the cal supremacy of the Çobanoğulları. main historical chronicles on the sociopo- After a few years of military confrontation, litical history of the region of Kastamonu. the Mongols defeated the Turkmen upris- The texts composed under the rule of ing in Kastamonu in 1293. However, the the Çobanoğulları of Kastamonu must be defeat neither removed the Turkmen supe- placed in the historical context described riority from the region, nor triggered a dy- previously in this article, i.e. the Mongol nastic change in Kastamonu. In fact, Amīr domination of Anatolia, and the different Maḥmūd (d. 1308), the son of Muzaffaṛ historical and political moments in the re- al-Dīn, assumed control of the region and lationship between the rulers of Kastamonu Çobanoğulları military capability remained and the Ilkhans. It is also important to bear significant in the following years. Between in mind that none of the texts patronized the years 1295 and 1299, contingents of by the Çobanoğulları rulers were historical Turkmen, led by Çobanoğlu command- chronicles, like the better-known works ers, launched several attacks on Byzantium produced by authors such as Ibn Bībī, Karīm 128
al-Dīn Aqsarāʾi ̄(d. c. 1320s) or the anony- of the author but the text otherwise con- mous Historian of Konya (for an account tains a complete report of other significant on these sources, see Melville, 2006, pp. events in Islamic history. However, the 135-166), that aimed to narrate the politi- reasons for the omission of such impor- cal history of their patrons. Instead, these tant incidents in the history of Islam be- texts dealt with astronomy, religious pre- comes clearer when the text is read in the cepts, advice for kings, and diplomatic let- context of the composition and patronage ters. That said, some of the texts do make of the work. As mentioned above, the work passing references to historical events, or was dedicated to Muẓaffar al-Dīn ibn Alp deliberately omit certain historical facts on Yürek and composed in 1283-1284 at a time different occasions, thus providing an in- when relations between the Çobanoğulları teresting alternative insight into the history and the Mongols of the Ilkhanate were of the Ilkhanate that complements the nar- friendly and mutually beneficial. In this rative of contemporary historians. context, the failure to mention Mongol re- An example of this is that the above- sponsibility for the execution of the caliph mentioned Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla fī qawaʿ̄id al- of Islam and the destruction of Baghdad sultạ̄ na surprisingly omits a rather im- appears to be an intentional oversight by portant contemporary historical event. In the author, as doing so avoids dealing with the second chapter of the work (ff. 1b to the contradiction of preaching how to be a 27b), which covers the initial centuries of good Muslim to a ruler that is subject to the Islamic history up to the fall of Baghdad in destroyers of the Abbasid dynasty. In other 1258, no reference is made to the Mongols’ words, by simply omitting these events, the sacking of the city, or to the execution of power relations between the Mongols and the last Abbasid caliph ordered that same the Çobanoğulları become less problemat- year by Hülegü.24 One would think that ic in the eyes of an audience in Kastamonu the fall of the capital of Sunni Islam and that was being rapidly Islamized and was at the execution of its highest political and the front line of military conflict with the spiritual representative would be a rel- infidel Byzantium. evant historical event to include in a text The pro-Mongol flavor of this work that is dedicated to a local ruler of the area, is further exemplified in other parts of the and whose main sworn aim is to guide the text. Despite the fact that at the time of its Turkmen rulers of Kastamonu to the right composition the Mongols of Iran were still Islamic path. It is highly unlikely that these a pagan dynasty and its rulers were closer events were omitted by accident, since not to Buddhism than Islam, the author of only did they occur during the lifetime the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla is not afraid to glorify Mongol rule when it suits the narrative of the work. In another section, there is a refer- 24 MS Supplement Turc 1120, ff. 26b–27a; see also ence to a casual encounter between Hülegü, De Nicola, 2016, p. 56. founder of the Ilkhanate, and a group of ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 129 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
mendicant dervishes, the Qalandars.25 ecdote by saying that if it were not for the While the story of the encounter between Mongols, the Qalandars and their heretical the Mongol ruler and the dervishes seems ideas would have spread even further into to have been widespread in the Ilkhanid Anatolia. lands, it is used in this case by the author of While the historical context might this text as an opportunity to place the still- explain some omissions and references to pagan Mongols as the rightful overlords the Mongols in the text, the reasons behind that were fighting the Qalandars and their some other examples are less straightfor- errant beliefs. Highlighting the heretical ward. For example, there is a major section views of these dervishes and the danger in the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla which is dedicated they represented for Muslims in Anatolia to describing the long-lasting persecution in the 13th century is one of the main topics at the castle of Alamut by the Great Seljuk covered in the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla (De Nicola, sultans of the Ismaili Shia movement. 2016, pp. 49-72; Turan, 2010, pp. 531- However, there is no reference to the cam- 564). The text presented them as perverted paigns performed by Hülegü against the people who deviated from the true path of Ismailis, or the final destruction of the cas- Islam, and their conquest by the current tle by the Mongols. It is not clear why the rulers of Anatolia is therefore supported. author did not take the opportunity to glo- Among the examples used to justify the rify the Mongols for this act, as it seems that persecution of these heretics, the Mongol mentioning this event would have served to ruler is described as encountering these enhance the figure of his patron’s Mongol dervishes during one of his campaigns in ally. While it is again tempting to suggest the Middle East in the company of his ad- that the author had no knowledge of these visor Naṣīr al-Dīn Tusī (d. 1274). Surprised events, this seems unlikely considering by their shaved faces, their lack of shoes the information that is included on other and their strange outfits, the Mongol ruler events relating to both the Mongols and the turned to his advisor and asked what to do Ismailis. One interpretation for this omis- with these people. The famous scholar ad- sion is that it is evidence that the destruc- vised the ruler to kill them for heresy and tion of Alamut did not lead to as complete a so the Mongol lord ordered their immedi- destruction of Ismailism as some of the lat- ate execution (Karamustafa, 2006, p. 53).26 er Mongol sources suggest (Daftary, 2005, The author of the work concludes the an- p. 82; Lane, 2003, p. 193). Another inter- pretation for the omission lies in the inner coherence of the text and the message that 25 MS Supplement Turc 1120, f. 53b. See the author of the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla is trying Karamustafa for more details of the Qalandar der- vishes, 2006; Ocak, 1992. to convey to his patron. This interpretation suggests that if, after describing what he 26 See Pfeiffer, 2006, pp. 383-384, for more details on the interaction between Mongols and Qalandars at sees as the relentless struggle of the Seljuk the time of Aḥmad Tegüder (d. 1284). dynasty as the righteous Muslims against 130
the heretical Ismailis, the story ends by deal mainly with his samples of diplomatic concluding that it is only a pagan Mongol letters and quotations on how to address that is capable of destroying Alamut, the rulers and the official ranks used in the whole narrative of a righteous Islam over- court, he never mentions the Mongols or coming heresy would be compromised. the Ilkhanate. The Rasūm al-risāʾil, for ex- Therefore, this interpretation suggests, by ample, lists examples of written addresses ignoring the destruction of Alamut, the au- (khiṭāb) and accounts (taqrīr) to be used thor of the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla avoids making a for diplomatic correspondence, and yet he link between the Mongols and the Seljuks, omits all Mongol official titles present in and thus leaves the battle against heresy to the Ilkhanate, such as khan, daraghuchi or be continued by his patron. noyan, and instead only lists titles belong- The narrative favorable to the Mongols ing to the Islamic-Persian tradition such as found in the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla is not shared sultan, malik and vizier (Khūʾi,̄ 2000, pp. by other authors who composed works for 346-373). Although his patrons were sub- the Çobanoğlu. It is perhaps not surpris- jects of the Mongols of Iran, it seems from ing that there are no references to the the work that the Ilkhanate had nothing Mongols in Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī’s Ikhtīyārāt-i to do with the government of 13th-century Muẓaffarī since the work is concerned with Kastamonu. Unlike the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla, astronomy rather than politics. There is none of Khūʾi’s̄ works recalls any historical also the likelihood that Shīrāzī’s composi- event in which the Mongols had directly or tion of the Ikhtīyārāt for Muẓaffar al-Dīn ibn indirectly taken part, and it is as if the west- Alp Yürek was motivated largely by personal ern parts of Anatolia had nothing to do with economic profit, rather than as an attempt the Mongols of Iran. to gain political favor from what might have In the same way as the author of the appeared to be a minor local ruler from Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla, Khu ̄ʾi ̄ dedicated some of the periphery in the eyes of a scholar well his works to Çobanoğulları rulers in a pe- connected to the Ilkhanid court (Niazi, riod of alliance between the local rulers 2011, pp. 106-114).27 Similarly, the prolific of Kastamonu and the Mongols. However, Ḥusām al-Dīn Khuʾ̄i ̄does not mention the there are differences in how the authors Mongols either in any of his multiple works address Mongol role in the Middle East. It dedicated to the Çobanoğulları rulers. It could be that the different origins of the is surprising that although Khuʾ̄i’s̄ works authors might have something to do with this different approach. However, we un- fortunately know nothing about the spe- 27 Niazi also suggests that the reading of Ibn Bībī, in which control over cities such as Sivas and Malatya cific origins of the author of the Fusṭāṭ al- was given to Mesud II, might be claiming that these ʿadāla, and so cannot effectively compare two cities were actually granted to Muẓaffar al-Dīn him with Ḥusām al-Dīn Khu ̄ʾi,̄ but it seems Çobanoğlu (see Niazi, 2014, p. 81). For Ibn Bībī’s mention of the allocation of the cities, see Ibn Bībī, clear that both shared a common Iranian 2011, p. 635. origin (De Nicola, 2016, p. 65). In terms ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 131 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
of the biographical information provid- merit of Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Yāvlāq Arslān. In ed in the prefaces to his works, it seems other words, while in the Nuzhat al-kuttāb, that Khu ̄ʾi’s̄ family may have been forced the emphasis is placed on his Islamic cre- to leave his original homeland after the dentials, the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla always depicts first Mongol invasion of Iran in the 1220s Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Yāvlāq Arslān as a ruler (on the family connections of Khūʾī, see under the authority of the Seljuk sultan Özergin, 1970, pp. 219-229). The memory Mesud, who, as we saw above, was appoint- of the forced exile of his family might have ed by the Mongol Ilkhan Arghūn. In doing caused some personal antipathy towards so, Khūʾi ̄omits the fundamental role that the Mongols, although this could not be the Mongol Ilkhans had in placing Muzaffaṛ openly expressed in his writings while his al-Dīn Yāvlāq Arslān in power and in con- patrons from Kastamonu were allied to the solidating the Çobanoğulları dynasty in Mongols in the 1280s. Kastamonu. Although antipathy for the Mongols A similar appeal to Islamic merits is not immediately evident in Khūʾi’s̄ is used by Khūʾi ̄in a fatḥnāmah (letter of works, his political worldview can be in- victory) that was included as an exemplary ferred from the texts that have survived. letter in his Qawāʿid al-rasāʾil wa farāʾid For example, in his Nuzhat al-kuttāb, the al-faz̤āʾil (Khūʾi,̄ 2000, pp. 282-285). The formula Khūʾi ̄ used to dedicate the work letter provides a unique description of the to Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Yāvlāq Arslān appeals capture by Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn of “two castles strongly to the “Islamic merits” of the rul- of Gideros” from the Byzantines in Rajab 28 29 er. On the contrary, the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla, 683/September 1284. As with the Nuzhat which is dedicated to the same ruler and al-kuttāb dedication mentioned above, composed only one year apart from Khūʾi’s̄ Khūʾi ̄highlights the Islamic merits of his work, places the emphasis on the genealog- patron, Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn. The Çobanoğulları ical pedigree of the ruler and suggests that ruler is described as a victorious Muslim his legitimacy rests on the ruling tradition general who defeated the Christians with of his family, rather than on the specific the assistance of his Turkmen fighters, who were motivated not by their thirst for blood or booty, but rather by jihad in the 28 Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Yāvlāq Arslān is described as expansion of the Muslim faith in Anatolia. “protector of the frontier and borders, helper of the warriors of faith, cave of the border army, tri- As Andrew Peacock says in his analysis of umphant of the state and religion, succorer of Islam this letter, these Turkmen “were noted for and Muslims, aid of the Eternal, lion of the kingdom, their ferocity and were inflamed by desire protector of kings and sultans, supreme royal sipahlār of the high lands” (ḥāmī al-s̤ughūr al-aknāf, nuṣrat al-mujāhidīn, kihf al-marābiṭīn, muz̤affar al-dawlat wa al-dīn, maghīs̲ al-Islām wa al-musalmīn, ʿaẓd al- 29 The castles were located in the bay of Gideros ḥaẓrat, lais̲ al-mamlakat, z̤ahīr al-mulūk wa al-salaṭīn, around 150 km north-west of Kastamonu on the muʿz̤am humāyūn sipahdār-i diyār-i auj); see Khūʾi,̄ Black Sea coast (Khūʾi,̄ 2000, p. 282; Peacock, 2015, 2000, p. 158; also MS Fatih 5406, f. 33a. pp. 375-391). 132
to fight ‘the enemies of religion’” (Peacock, right that was able to reign over Kastamonu 2015, p. 378). This difference in depiction by the sole merit of its rulers and their of the Mongols from the glorified tone of commitment to rightful Islamic principles. the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla, to the indifference of Khūʾi,̄ might also suggest an inner political Conclusions transformation in the Çobanoğlu under- standing of kingship during the decade of The close relationship with the Seljuks of the 1280s. Khūʾi ̄died during the first dec- Rūm, developed by Ḥusām al-Dīn Çoban, ades of the 14th century and so lived through favored the establishment of his Turkmen the glory days of Çobanoğulları rule, from faction above others in the northwestern the Mongol support in 1284 to the anti- frontier of the sultanate in the initial dec- Mongol revolt of Kastamonu and its sup- ades of the 13th century. Following the erup- pression in 1293. The political upheavals tion of the Mongols into the Middle East, of his patrons, however, did not prevent Ḥusām al-Dīn’s descendants went through him from continuing to write, and appar- different stages of conflict, rebellion and ently he composed another work in 1309 of submission to the invaders. The return of chancellery literature (inshāʾ): Ghunyat al- the Seljuk prince, Mesud, to Anatolia, as well ṭālib wa munyat al-kātib, which was based as the opposition of his brother, provided on one of his previous works (Khūʾi,̄ 1963, Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Çobanoğlu with the oppor- pp. 1-16).30 The fact that Khūʾi ̄continued tunity of becoming a political actor in the re- writing beyond the revolt may suggest that gion’s development. Capturing Rukn al-Dīn he belonged to a section of the Kastamonu not only increased Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn Mesud’s court that had sympathies for an anti-Mon- confidence, but also opened up the pos- gol movement in the region, even before sibility of obtaining Mongol support as the the rebel uprising of 1291. However, while ruler of Kastamonu. The deal between the the Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla was composed in 1283- Çobanoğulları and the Mongols appears to 1284, at a time when Muzaffaṛ al-Dīn alleg- have been mutually beneficial for a decade. edly came back from Tabriz with a mandate On the one hand, it allowed the Mongols to from Arghūn and the support of Mesud II, have closer control over the peripheral terri- this work accordingly reflects the political tories of the western borders of the Ilkhanate, status of the Çobanoğulları as clear sub- while on the other, it granted enough politi- jects of the Seljuks and the Mongols. On the cal support to the Çobanoğulları for them other hand, Khūʾi’s̄ works show a different to become a Turkmen military power in the view, one in which the pagan Mongols are region. It also allowed them to expand their not mentioned directly, but which depicts territories at the expense of Byzantium, and the Çobanoğulları as a dynasty in its own to explore courtly activities that were un- precedented in the region, such as the pa- 30 For more details on the date of composition, see tronage of scientific, religious and political MS Fatih 5406, f. 98b; Khūʾi,̄ 2000, p. 342. works from renowned scholars of the time. ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE ILKHANATE: THE MONGOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH 133 THE PROVINCE OF KASTAMONU IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 13TH CENTURY1
The texts left by the Çobanoğulları dynasty represent evidence of an attempt to not only to consolidate this local dynasty in the area, but also to provide this semi- nomadic Turkmen tribe with the tools for the formation of a local authority under Ilkhanid suzerainty. Together, these works form an interesting corpus of advice for kings on the rules of government and dip- lomatic practices that appear to be tailored to an incipient ruling dynasty trying to es- tablish itself at the far corner of an empire. Furthermore, this type of work denotes a concern with the construction of a political apparatus, an idea of kingship, and a preoc- cupation with religious orthodoxy. Finally, references to, as well as omissions of, the Mongols in these works reflect different perceptions of Mongol domination, thus attesting the diverse and unstable political balance that existed in the involvement of different layers of political authority, from Mongol officials to local rulers, in govern- ing border areas on the outskirts of the Mongol Empire. 134
References De Nicola, B. and C. Melville (Eds.). Karamustafa, A. (2006). God’s unruly (2016). The Mongols’ Middle East: friends. Oxford: OneWorld. Continuity and transformation in Amitai, R. (2001). The conversion Khuʾi, Ḥusām al-Dīn (1963). Gunyetu’l- Ilkhanid Iran. Leiden: Brill. of Tegüder Ilkhan to Islam. katib ve munyetu’ṭ-ṭalib: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and De Nicola, B. (2018). Letters from Rusūmu’r-resāʾil ve nucūmu’l- Islam, 25, 15-43. Mongol Anatolia: Professional, faẓāʾil (A. Sadık Erzi, Ed.). Ankara: political and intellectual con- Turk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Anonymous (1999). Tārīkh-i āl-i Saljūq nections among members of a dar Ānā ūlī (N. Jalālī, Ed.). Tehran: Khuʾi, Ḥusām al-Dīn (2000). Majmūʿah- ṭ Persianised elite. Iran: Journal Daftar-i Nashr-i Mīrās-i Maktūb, ʼi as̲ar-i Ḥisam al-Din Khuyi (S. ̲ of the British Institute of Persian Āyinah-i Mīrās. ʿAbbas’zadah, Ed.). Tehran: Miras̲-i Studies, 56(1), 77-90. Maktub. Aqsa i Karim al-Din (1944). rāʾ , Gregoras, Nicephorus (1829-1855). Mus marat al-akhb r va Korobeinikov, D. (2004). The revolt ā ā Byzantina historia: Graece et mus yarat al-akhy r (O. Turan, in Kastamonu, 1291–1293. ā ā Latine (L. Schopen and I. Bekker, Ed.). Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Byzantinische Forschungen, 28, Eds.) (3 vols.). Cambridge: Basımevi. 87–118. Cambridge University Press. Biran, M. (2013). The Mongol Empire: Lambton, A. K. S. (1988). Continuity Heywood, C. J. (2012). Ḳasṭamūnī. In The state of the research. History and change in medieval Persia: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Compass, 11(11), 1021-1033. Aspects of administrative, eco- Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. nomic, and social history, 11th–14th Cahen, C. (1968). Pre-Ottoman Turkey: Heinrichs (Eds.). Encyclopaedia century. Albany, NY: Bibliotheca A general survey of the material of Islam (2nd ed.). http://dx.doi. Persica. and spiritual culture and history, c. org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_ 1071–1330. New York: Taplinger. SIM_4008. Lane, G. (2003). Early Mongol rule in thirteenth-century Iran: A Persian Cahen, Cl. (2012). Kaykubad. In P. Hillenbrand, C. (2007). Turkish myth renaissance. London: Routledge. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. and Muslim symbol: The Battle of Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Manzikert. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Melville, C. (2006). The early Persian Heinrichs (Eds.). Encyclopaedia University Press. historiography of Anatolia. In J. of Islam (2nd ed.).
Niazi, K. (2011). A comparative study of Surveying the Turkish western Vryonis, Speros, Jr. (1971). The decline of Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī’s texts and Black Sea region (pp. 375-391). medieval Hellenism in Asia minor models on the configuration of Berlin: De Gruyter. and the process of Islamization the heavens. PhD dissertation, Peacock, A. C. S. and S. N. Yildiz (2013). from the eleventh through the Columbia University. Introduction. In A. C. S. Peacock fifteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Niazi, K. (2014). Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī and and S. N. Yildiz (Eds.). The Seljuks the configuration of the heavens: of Anatolia: Court and society Yakupoğlu, C. and N. Musali (2018). A comparison of texts and models. in the medieval Middle East (pp. Selçuklu inşa sanatı. Ankara: Türk New York: Springer. 1-22). London: I. B. Tauris. Tarih Kurumu.
Khaṭīb, Muḥammad al- [attributed]. Pfeiffer, J. (2006). Reflections on a “dou- Yaziçi, T. Ḥasan b. ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen. Fusṭāṭ al-ʿadāla fī qawaʿid al- ble rapprochement”: Conversion Encyclopedia Iranica. Accessed sulṭāna. Manuscript Supplement to Islam among the Mongol elite February 23, 2017, http://www. Turc 1120. Paris: Bibliothèque during the early Ilkhanate. In L. iranicaonline.org/articles/hasan- Nationale. Komaroff (Ed.). Beyond the legacy b-abd-al-momen. of Genghis Khan (pp. 369-389). Niẓam al-Mulk (1978). The book of gov- Yücel, Y. (1991). Anadolu beylikleri Boston: Brill. ernment: Or, rules for kings: The hakkında araştırmalar (Vol. siyar al-muluk or siyasat-nama of Rashid al-Din, Faḍl Allāh (1994). Jamiʿ 1). Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Nizam al-Mulk (H. Drake, Trans.). al-tavarikh (M. Musavi and M. Basımevi. London: Routledge. Rawshan, Eds.) (4 vols.). Tehran: Nashr-i Alburz. Ocak, A. Y. (1992). Osmanlı İmparatorlugu’nda marjinal Sufilik: Saliba, G. (2006). Horoscopes and Kalenderiler: XIV–XVII. yuzyıllar. planetary theory: Ilkhanid Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu patronage of astronomers. In L. Basımevi. Komaroff (Ed.). Beyond the legacy of Genghis Khan (pp. 357-368). Özergin, K. (1970). Selçuklu sanatçısı Leiden: Brill. nakkaş Abdülmüʾmin el-Hoyî hakkında. Belleten, 34(134), 219- Tezcan, B. (2013). The memory of the 229. Mongols in early Ottoman histo- riography. In H. Erdem Çıpa and Pachymeres, Georgius (1835). Georgii E. Fetvacı (Eds.). Writing history Pachymeris de Michaele et at the Ottoman court: Editing Andronico Palaeologis libri tre- the past, fashioning the future decim (I. Bekker, Ed. and Trans.). (pp. 23-38). Indianapolis: Indiana Bonnae: Weber. University Press. Peacock, A. C. S. (2006). The Saljūq Turan, O. (1958). Turkiye Selcuklular campaign against the Crimea ı and the expansionist policy of hakkında resmî vesikalar: Metin, tercume ve arastırmalar. Ankara: the early reign of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Turk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Kayqubād. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 16(2), 133-149. Turan, O. (1980). Selçuklular ve İslamiyet. Istanbul: Nakıșlar Yayınevi. Peacock, A. C. S. (2010). Early Seljuq his- tory: A new interpretation. London: Turan, O. (2010). Selçuk Türkiyesi din Routledge. tarihine dair bir kaynak: Fusṭāṭ Peacock, A. C. S. (2015). Cide and its al-ʿadale fī ḳavāʿid is-sulṭana. In region from Seljuk to Ottoman F. Koprulu and O. Turan (eds.), 60. times. In B. S. Düring and C. dogum yılı munasebetiyle: Fuad Glatz (Eds.). Kinetic landscapes: Koprulu armaganı (pp. 531-564). The Cide archaeological project: Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu. 136
Ilkhanid Coin, Ankara, 1338-1351. Yapı Kredi Museum Collection, Inv. No. 11770