Seljuk studies

Corcorec'i's] translation of Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the fourth book of Peter Lom bard's Sentences was copied there (M560).77 Armenian ecclesiastics with Latin cited also by XAC'IKYAN 1973 p. 63. On the filioque controversy in Armenia, see Appendix A.

divination (diu¯el). If the person is a noble (azat) 4 he is to be fined 200 drams; if he is a peasant (˙inakan), he is to be whipped 15 times twice and fined 100 drams; if he is destitute, he must spend three years in repentance. If the offender is a bishop or a priest, and there are two or three witnesses, he is to be defrocked. If he is a bishop, he is to be fined 1000 drams; if a priest, 500 drams. The sum is to be distributed among the needy of the church. If someone from the religious orders or who is a solitary frequents oracles, he is to be thrown out of the orders and bear the same punishments, fines, and penitence as a lay person; likewise also the son of a priest. The tenth canon, addressed to "they who merely divine but do not practice sorcery" (or≤ lok diu¯en ç oc kaxarden) 5 , suggests that divining (diu¯el) was considered less egregious than practicing sorcery (kaxardel). A man or woman found in such an activity is to be whipped 15 times twice, burned, slandered, and must work in a leper colony. If the culprit is a noble who does not wish to labor in a leper colony, he must give 500 drams to a leper colony and remain two years in penitence. From the list of punishments to be meted out, it is clear that church officials suspected all levels of society to be engaged in magical practices. The canons outline prescriptions for the castigation of nobles and peasants, clergy and lay, men and women. The fines and physical punishments demonstrate that men and women were to be treated equally. One's social status was also taken into account-wealthier persons paid heavier fines, members of the clergy suffering the highest financial punishments-and the monies accrued from fines helped finance ecclesiastical institutions. In general, the canons do not explain the nature of the activities, although the title of the tenth canon implies that practicing sorcery (kaxardel) was more contemptible than divining (diu¯el). Such condemnations of magic continue into the Middle Ages 6. Yovhannes Mayragomec¨i's "Letter concerning conjurers' spells and impious makers of talismans" (˘ou¬¯ vasn hramayiw diu¯akanaw ç anorèn you®¯o¬aw), composed in the seventh-century 7 , presents the most encompassing list of Armenian magical practices; but it does not 172 S. LA PORTA 4 These incorporated the lowest stratum of the Iranian and Armenian nobility, cf. P¨AWSTOS 1989, p.512. 5 The difference between divining in this instance and above is not elucidated. 6 I provide text and translation of relevant passages from the following works below. 7 The letter is attributed to Yovhannes Mandakuni (c. 420-490) but is more likely the work of Yovhannes Mayragomec¨i (575-640), TER-MKRTC¨EAN 1913, GARITTE 1952, p.348. At the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century, Vardan Aygekc¨i also included a polemic against sorcery and demonology in his Counsels (Xrat≤) 10. Although brief, the text does mention specific acts of witchcraft and condemns people who visit places of sorcery. At the close of the fourteenth-century, Grigor Tat¨ewac¨i (1344-1409) completed his monumental Book of Questions (Gir≤ Harwmanw), the first handbook of systematic theology for the Armenian Church. In his commentary to the book of Numbers, the author devotes two questions to the definition of certain magical practices (vol. VI, sect. 64) 11. Tat¨ewac¨i attempts to distinguish between "the 'diviner,' and the 'augur,' the 'sorcerer,' etc." (diu¯n, ç hmayn, kaxardn, ç ayln). He uses Dt. 18:10-11 as the framework for his explanation: "There shall GRIGOR TAT{EWAC{I'S DEFINITIONS OF THE MAGICAL ARTS 173 8 DAWIT¨GANJAKEC¨I 1961. 9 See especially, MXIT¨AR GOS 2000, p.145, 195. This suggests, not unexpectedly, that sorcery (kaxardou¯iun) was associated with women in the twelfth century as Mxit¨ar does not indicate that a woman could divorce a man if he practiced sorcery. Contrary to this, Gos admits that either women or men may be possessed by a demon [e.g., MXIT¨AR GOS 2000, chs. 7and 8] and cousels that a women may leave a man if he possesses a penchant for sodomy, bestiality, or sexually consorting with Muslims [MXIT¨AR GOS 2000, ch. 12]. Again, in the story about Georg Skewrac¨i (c. 1246-1301) cited below, the saint comes into contant with a woman who performs magical practices. 10 VARDAN AYGEKC¨I 1956. The text has been translated below. 11 GRIGOR TAT¨EWAC¨I 1993, p.388-389. The section itself discusses the figure of Balaam, Arm. Ba¬aam (Num 22-25), whom Tat¨ewac¨i's describes as a sorcerer (kaxard) and a magus (mog) because he was accustomed to speaking with demons.

Thanks to the reestablishment of the Armenian monarchy in the preceding century and the concomitant improvement in economic conditions, there was a profusion of monastic construction all over the Armenian lands throughout the tenth century, as Step{anos Aso¥ik, an eyewitness of these developments, reports at length in his history. 1 Patronage of the arts had always been an important aristocratic prerogative and church building in particular afforded a marvellous display of power, piety and enduring, if not quite immortal fame. Gagik Arcruni's extensive program of public works extolled by the continuator of his kinsman historian T{ovma were obviously intended to fulfil a predetermined political agenda. 2 Culminating in the magnificently ostentatious palace church at A¥t{amar (915-921), 3 they proclaimed Vaspurakan's independence of Bagratid authority. Indeed, not content with this, the ambitious ruler strove to impose his suzerainty over King Abas and the center in the 930's. 4 Monasteries proved an even more eloquent statement of the same ideals. 5 Of these the foundation at Narek was one of the first, emerging in 935, to be followed two decades later by its more famous counterparts Sanahin 6 and Ha¥pat 7 in Lori, to mention only the best known. Consequently, the monastery becomes a close contemporary of its most illustrious pupil Grigor whose life became inextricably bound

ΛΘ' (39ο) Πανελλήνιο Ιστορικό Συνέδριο της Ελληνικής Ιστορικής Εταιρείας (Ε.Ι.Ε.), Θεσσαλονίκη, 23-25 Μαΐου 2018, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Φιλοσοφική Σχολή, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Τομέας Αρχαίας, Ρωμαϊκής και Μεσαιωνικής Ιστορίας, Θεσσαλονίκη, Ελλάδα. http://histsociety.web.auth.gr
Keykubadiye Palace in Kayseri: Historical Testimonies & Archaeological Data. Contribution to the Study of Seljuk Culture

SUMMARY
Mustafayev Sh.M. From the Seljuks to the Ottomans. Ethno-political processes in the Turkic milieu of Asia Minor in the 11-15 centuries.

The monograph analyzes the complex ethno-political processes in Asia Minor on a broad chronological background since the time of the conquest of the region by the Oghuz-Turkmen tribes in the 11 century up to the final establishment of the Ottoman political hegemony at the end of the 15 century. It attempts to trace the stages of the ethnic history of the Turkish people in the Middle Ages, and to establish the connection between its ethnic integration and political changes in Anatolia. The book examines the formation of the Turkic ethnic milieu in Anatolia in the Seljuk period, its subsequent evolution following the collapse of the Seljuk Sultanate in Asia Minor under impingements of the Mongols, the fragmentation of political power in Anatolia and the establishment of a number of principalities, as well as the fierce struggle for leadership in the region between the new entities, and the gradual rise of the Ottoman State. It also assesses the impact of historical events on the dynamics of the Turkic ethnic consciousness and identity.
The book introduces a number of milestones in the evolution of Turkic ethnic milieu of Asia Minor. Seljuk conquest of the Middle East in the 11 century paved the way for the gradual formation of a Turkic ethnic milieu in a large geographical area from the Caspian coast in the east to the Aegean Sea coast in the west. In the second half of the 12 – early 13 centuries there was relative political integrity of this area, when a large part of Anatolia was united under the Seljuk Sultanate in Asia Minor. This fragile stability was breached in result of Mongol conquest in the mid-13 century. However, the political domination of the Mongols in Asia Minor lasted until the early 14 century. Last Seljuk sultans, vassals of Ilkhanid court in Azerbaijan, lost their power over Anatolia, as well as the legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects, particularly bellicose Turkmen tribes who settled in “uj” zone or the border with Byzantium. The Ilkhanid control over Asia Minor also gradually weakened, which opened the way for the appearance of new power centers on the scene. Thus the era of political fragmentation in Turkey’s medieval history began.
By the beginning of the 14 century the whole territory of Anatolia disintegrated into smaller state formations – principalities. New Turkic emirates were competing with each other for the military and political leadership and mission of the “gatherer” of the Anatolian lands or fragments of the Seljuk Sultanate. At the same time, in the public mind of Turkic Anatolia it was a replacement of cultural ideals of Seljuk era, inspired by the influence of Persian literature and art, by other values caused by new political realities. This was manifested in the growth of interest of political elites in the Anatolian emirates to the national language, the birth and rapid development of Turkish literature in Asia Minor, the start of translation activity in the courts of the rulers, the growth of the number of manuscripts in Turkish, etc.
Two main political centers or poles, which can be roughly described as “Western” and “Eastern”, gradually stood out in the course of the confrontation within the Turkic milieu in Asia Minor. The Western pole has always been associated with the Ottoman Empire, while the Eastern pole, which was opposing the Ottomans, was represented by traditional Turkic principalities in Asia Minor (Karaman principality, State of Kadi Burhan ad-Din Ahmed, Aqqoyunlu State) successively replacing each other. The question of which of them would be able to take on the mission of “heir” of the Seljuk Sultanate and accomplish the task of unification of Asia Minor under its own rule had crucial significance for the whole history of the Turkic Anatolia. In other words, there was a question about the guiding direction line of new centralization of Asia Minor – from west to east or vice versa? Thus, the struggle between the two poles determined all further historical evolution of the Turkic milieu of Asia Minor. The final victory of the Western or the Ottoman pole promoted further political consolidation and integration of the Turkic ethnic and cultural milieu of Asia Minor around the Ottoman Empire.


В книге на широком хронологическом фоне анализируются сложные этнополитические процессы в Малой Азии со времени завоевания региона в XI столетии огузо-туркменскими племенами и до окончательного установления османской политической гегемонии в конце XV в. На основе обширного круга источников делается попытка проследить различные этапы этнической истории турецкого народа, установить органическую связь процессов этнической интеграции с политическими изменениями в Анатолии. Выявляются особенности формирования в Анатолии тюркской этнической среды в сельджукский период, ее последующей эволюции после распада централизованного Сельджукского государства Малой Азии под ударами монголов, дробления политической власти в Анатолии и образования ряда эмиратов (бейликов); исследуются отношения и ожесточенная борьба за лидерство в регионе между этими государственными образованиями и постепенное возвышение Османского государства, оценивается влияние исторических событий на динамику развития тюркского этнического сознания и идентичности.

Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/std/issue/31704/326689
--- This article aims to draw attention to the problem related with the location of Gevher Nesibe’ Dār al-shifā, built in 1205-6 as a part of Çifte Medrese at Kayseri. There is a controversy among scholars about its location in Çifte Medrese. First of all, the reasons behind the opinions about the location are analyzed and evaluated.

Most of the publications about Gevher Nesibe’ Dār al-shifā have been accepted that it was located in the western side of Çifte Medrese without question. Most of them examined the dar’al-shifas as a madrasa and the differences in architectural features and functions between madrasas and dar’al-shifas are not properly investigated. It is also assumed that Çifte Medrese has only one patron, whereas, the roles of Gevher Nesibe and Sultan Gıyaseddin I. Keyhusraw in the building process and architectural formation of Çifte Medrese are not precisely considered. Furthermore, unsuitable placement of the building inscription on the portal of the western side of Çifte Medrese is totally ignored.

As a result of the analyses and assessment in this article, the following facts are found: It has been revealed that building inscription is placed incompatibly and has disproportionate dimensions for the portal in the western side of Çifte Medrese. The eastern and western parts of Çifte Medrese vary in dimensions and numbers of spaces. The spaces of the eastern part of Çifte Medrese are suitable for a dar’al-shifa because of its bigger spaces. It has been determined that, from the architectural aspects, Çifte Medrese’ western side must be Gıyasiye for its monumentality and complexity. There are spaces that open to entrance iwan only at the eastern side of Çifte Medrese and they had functioned for the patients of dar’al-shifa.

Finally, it has been concluded that Gevher Nesibe’ Dār al-shifā could be originally located on the eastern side when the Gıyasiye is on the western side of Çifte Medrese.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Özet:
Bu çalışma, 13. yüzyılın başlarında 1205-6 yıllarında Kayseri'de inşa edilen ve Çifte Medrese bünyesinde yer alan Gevher Nesibe Darüşşifası'nın konumuyla ilgili soruna dikkat çekmek amacını taşımaktadır. Gevher Nesibe Darüşşifası'nın, Çifte Medrese'nin hangi kanadında yer aldığı konusunda, çeşitli tarihlere ait yayınlarda farklı görüşler bulunmaktadır. Öncelikle bu farklı görüşlerin dayanaklarının tespiti, analizi ve değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Birçok yayında Gevher Nesibe Darüşşifası'nın Çifte Medrese'nin batı kanadında yer aldığı sorgulamaksızın kabul edilmiştir. Darüşşifa (hastane) ve tıp medresesinden oluştuğu kabul edilen Çifte Medrese'nin " hangi kanadı darüşşifa, hangi kanadı medresedir? " sorusu yeterince detaylı tartışılmamıştır. Darüşşifalar incelenirken plan şeması olarak medreseler arasında değerlendirilmiş ve bu nedenle darüşşifa ile medrese arasında işlevden kaynaklanabilecek farklılıkların değerlendirilmesi yeterince yapılamamıştır. Ayrıca, bazı yayınlarda Çifte Medrese'nin tek bir banisi olduğu düşüncesi ön plana çıkmış, birbirine bitişik Gıyasiye ve Şifaiye olarak adlandırılan iki yapının mimari şekillenişi tam olarak anlaşılamamıştır. Çifte Medrese'nin inşası sürecinde Gevher Nesibe ve Sultan I. Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev'in oynadıkları tarihi rolün ne olabileceği dikkatlerden kaçmıştır. Bununla birlikte Çifte Medrese'nin batı kanadındaki özgün taçkapı üzerinde uyumsuz konumda duran kitabe yeterince sorgulanmamıştır. Bu çalışma sonucunda Çifte Medrese'nin doğu kanadının Darüşşifa veya Şifaiye, batı kanadının ise Gıyasiye Medresesi olduğu ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu sonuca, Çifte Medrese'nin batı kanadındaki taçkapının üzerindeki inşa kitabesinin bu taçkapıya ait olmamasına ve inşa kitabesinin günümüze ulaşamayan Çifte Medrese'nin doğu kanadındaki özgün taçkapıya ait olması olasılığına, Gevher Nesibe'nin türbesinin konumuna, Çifte Medrese'nin doğu ve batı kanatlarındaki mekânların genişlik ve sayılarının farklılığına, her iki yapıdan hangisinin mimari özellikleri açısından bir sultan yapısı olan Gıyasiye olarak adlandırılmaya uygun olduğuna ve doğu kanattaki yapının giriş eyvanına açılan mekânların varlığına ve işlevselliklerine yönelik analizlerle ulaşılmıştır.

ΛΗ' (38ο) Πανελλήνιο Ιστορικό Συνέδριο της Ελληνικής Ιστορικής Εταιρείας (Ε.Ι.Ε.), Θεσσαλονίκη, 25-27 Μαΐου 2017, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Φιλοσοφική Σχολή, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Τομέας Αρχαίας, Ρωμαϊκής και Μεσαιωνικής Ιστορίας, Θεσσαλονίκη, Ελλάδα. http://histsociety.web.auth.gr
Τhe Donor Portrait in the Church of Hagios Nikolaos Magaliou in Kastoria (1504/5). ΑΚΤΑCΗC, ΥΙΩC ΑΛΕΞH: Prosopographic Observations

for his valuable comments and my student, Mr. Shai Shir, for his tremendous assistance. All translations of Armenian texts are my own, except for the translation of Vardan Arewelc{i's Historical Compilation where I have followed the translation of Robert Thomson. The following abbreviations have been employed for primary sources referred to consistently throughout this article: HEC = Histories and Eulogies of the Crowned [= KC II:1-114]. KC II = KARTLIS CXOVREBA 1959. As Brosset's edition and translation may be more readily available, I provide references to Brosset's edition and translation as well, BROSSET, 1849-50. Reference is to the page numbers that Brosset includes in the outer margin of both the Georgian text and the French translation. SO = STEP{ANOS ORBELEAN 1861. French translation may be found in BROSSET 1864-6. In my citation of SO, I give reference to the Armenian text first, followed by reference to Brosset's translation in closed brackets. VA = VARDAN AREWELC{I 1991; English translation, THOMSON 1989. In my citations of Vardan's text, I first provide the reference to the Armenian text followed in brackets by the reference to Thomson's translation. A further note on the rendering of Armenian and Georgian names: for members of the Orbelean family, I have followed the most commonly used Armenian version of the names; for members of the Georgian royal family, I have followed the Georgian form as KC II. Place names pose a particular challenge but I have tried to consistently provide the Georgian rendering of Georgian locations and the Armenian rendering of Armenian locations; in some instances I have found it appropriate to give both renderings. The exception to this rule occurs within citations of primary and secondary sources where I have followed the form found in the source. The system of transliteration used for Georgian is that of the Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes; for Armenian, that of the Revue des études arméniennes. 10 VA, 130 [207]. 11 The colophon was first published in ALISAN 1901, 382, as well as in SARGISEAN 1924, 1267-8. It was subsequently included in the collection of colophons compiled by YOVSEP{EAN 1951, 407-10; as well as in that of MAT{EVOSYAN 1988, 206-8. MOVSESIAN 1927, 250, cited the colophon in his history of the Kiwrikian kings of Lori, subsequently translated from Armenian into French by F. Macler. The colophon was known to MANANDYAN 1952, 116, and MARGARYAN 1975, 51. Manandyan and Margaryan cite it as evidence of the intermarriage between the Orbelean and Bagratuni families, see below, n. 37. 12 YOVSEP{EAN 1969,3, referred to this colophon in his discussion of the revolt of 1177. He also later published it within his collection of Armenian colophons, YOVSEP{EAN 1951, 469-74. Although Yovsep{ean was aware of the colophon he did not provide a detailed analysis of its contents nor did he present its full value for the events surrounding the rebellion. Admittedly, the revolt did not constitute the focus of his study. The colophon was published again and studied by H. V. HAKOBYAN 1952, 118-20; and most recently by MAT{EVOSYAN 1988, 222-5. On the dating of the colophon, I follow Hakobyan's analysis of the text, see below, n. 50. To date, there has been no English translation of the colophon. 13 On the phrase, 'effect the return', cf. Thomson's note to his translation of VA, THOMSON 1989, 207, n. 7.

While surveying the iron slags of the Develi-Yahyalı (Kayseri) area, one slag site, Hacılar Tepesi Mevkii, near Yahyalı, was found to be distinctly different from any other slag site encountered in our previous investigations. This particular site is notable due to the presence of abundant fired clay fragments; these fragments are considered to be the remains of tuyeres used during the smelting of iron at this site. Generally, in our survey of central Anatolian slags, slag sites were observed to be devoid of any materials other than slag fragments. This site also proved to be unique with respect to both age and composition. Charcoal fragments found embedded in these slags yielded an age of 1035 yrs BP, with an expected standard deviation of 57 yrs. A graph of 14 C age versus calibrated calendar age gives an expected calendar age of 1000 CE; this is considerably earlier than the other slags of the Develi-Yahyalı area, which gave a calendar age of 1470, or the iron slags of Yapraklı (Çankırı), which gave a calendar age of 1412. The younger slags would correspond to early Ottoman times, while the Hacılar Tepesi slags would roughly correspond to the fall of Kayseri to Seljuk commander Afşin and his warriors. Individual pieces of slag have the appearance of scoriaceous lava and are 8-10 cm in diameter. The slags, in roughly 'hand' size pieces, generally have the texture of a compact ceramic, typically with abundant vesicles. While some pieces are glass and some pieces have ropey surfaces, none of the pieces show any flow banding. Compositionally, these iron slags are sufficiently rich in both potash and barium that both kalsilite and celsian are present as crystalline phases. Examination of these slags also reveals the presence of modal kirschsteinite, fayalite, wüstite, hercynite, metallic iron, leucite and an unusual ferroglass. The interstitial glasses in the studied samples fall into two groups: those with high and those with low silica. If normative kalsilite and celsian are subtracted, the high-silica glasses are normative in hercynite-mullite-quartz while the low-silica glasses are normative in anorthite-fayalite/kirschsteinite-quartz or anorthite-fayalite/kirschsteinitewüstite. The low silica interstitial glasses straddle the anorthite-fayalite join such that some are normative in quartz and others are normative in wüstite. The interstitial glasses probably formed at ~1100°C. We do not yet understand the source of the barium in the slags, the unusually high potash content, or the nature of the ferroglass phase.

چکیده
مسجد جامع گلپایگان از جمله بناهای به جا مانده از دوره سلجوقیان است که دارای تزیینات آجرکاری بسیاری زیبایی است. محراب این بنا از نمونه‌های قابل توجه تزیینات آجرکاری این دوره است که دارای ظرایف قابل توجهی به لحاظ تکنیک‌های اجرایی با آجر است. این محراب در طول زمان دستخوش تغییرات و مرمت‌هایی شده است. از جمله اینکه قسمت وسط این محراب با گچ پوشیده شده که در میان این قسمت محراب سنگی کوچکی به آن الحاق شده که دارای تزیینات و کتیبه‌هایی متفاوت از محراب آجرکاری اصلی بوده است.
محراب سنگی کوچک دارای دو حاشیه یکی شامل کتیبه و دومی نقوش تزیینی اسلیمی و سراسلیمی‌های ساده است؛ دیگر بخش‌های آن مانند طاقنما، لچکی‌های بزرگ و کوچک نیز شامل تزیینات گیاهی بوده و تا آنجا که امکان داشته از بندهای اسلیمی پر شده‌اند. در قسمت مرکزی محراب کلمه جلاله «الله» به خط کوفی جای گرفته است؛ از حروف این کلمه اسلیمی‌هایی خارج شده که در ترکیب با یکدیگر در بالای خود سراسلیمی ساخته‌اند. خط حاشیه اول محراب که در برگیرنده سورۀ توحید است به قواعد خط ثلث نزدیکتر است. تعداد کلماتِ به کار رفته در کتیبه نسبت به طول آن کم بوده و کلمات بدون فشردگی در کنار هم قرار گرفته‌‌اند به همین علت طراح فرصت داشته تا تزییناتی شامل چرخش ساده بندهای اسلیمی را در میان کلمات طراحی کند؛ وجود تزیینات گیاهی باعث شده تا کرسی کلمات در طول مسیر دچار تغییر شوند. همچنین ضخامت حروف در این کلمات یکنواخت حجاری نشده است و دارای قوت و ضعف مختلفی هستند که این مسئله باعث شده خط به صورت یکنواخت به نظر نیاید. باید گفت صورت تفکیک شدۀ خطوط کتیبه محرابچه چندان منسجم نیستند، اما همین خطوط در میان تزیینات با دقت و ظرافت خاصی چیدمان شده‌اند که آنها را چشم‌نواز جلوه می‌دهد.
واژگان کلیدی: دوره سلجوقی، حجاری، خط ثلث و کوفی، نقش‌نگاره، محراب، مسجد جامع گلپایگان.""