Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:10:42.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum and the Gök Medrese at Sivas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. M. Rogers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Architecture of the Seljuk Turks, as well as proving to be their most lasting contribution to history, is also a contribution to the great architecture of world, both from the point of view of technical accomplishment and in its marvellously imaginative use of decoration. Thanks to the pioneering work of Halil Edhem and Max Van Berchem in Part III of their Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum (Cairo, 1910–17) [CIA.] and of their many successors our knowledge of the extant, and destroyed, monuments has been increased to the extent that a series of secondary studies, on relations between various groups of monuments in default of more precise details of the relationships between craftsmen and their patrons or employers, or, more ambitiously, general attempts to explain the high place which architecture so obviously held in the Seljuks' estimation, becomes necessary. Moreover, although the individuality of their contribution is comparatively well-known by this time, even in Western Europe, it is still obscure how the manifold influences which the Seljuks in their progress westwards through Persia and the Caucasus underwent were transmuted in Turkey into a style of such originality, strength and charm.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 15 , December 1965 , pp. 63 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gabriel, : Monuments Turcs d'Anatolie, Vol. II, pp. 151–2Google Scholar [MTA.].

2 There is, in fact, a third monument belonging to this group—the Hatuniye Medrese at Karaman, endowed by the lady, Sultan Hatun, and dated by an inscription above the spandrels of the door arch to 1381–3 (783H) (Aslanapa, , Diez, and Koman, : Karaman Devri San'atı: Istanbul, 1950: pp. 55–66Google Scholar). Here, although the plan of the whole is 2- and not 4- ivan in form, the decoration of the door-frame (op. cit. Figs. 85, 86, which is printed upside down, and 87) and the motifs used show us that it was a tolerably faithful copy of the Gök Medrese at Sivas. However, interesting as it is that a copy of such late date should exist, its late date means that it cannot contribute much to our knowledge of Seljuk architecture.

3 The Two Minaret Medrese at Erzurum: Ankara Üniversitesi Yıllıgı IV, 1954Google Scholar.

4 For some account of these églises à cloisons see : L'église cloisonnée en Orient et en Occident (Paris, 1941)Google Scholar; also Chubinashvili, : Arkhitektura Kakhetii (Tbilisi, 1959) Vol. 1, pp. 141–200Google Scholar.

5 Sarre, F.: Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst (Berlin, 1901–1910)Google Scholar Section IV: “Die Seldjukischen Baudenkmäler von Konya,” pp. 120–137.

6 Similar considerations apply in the case of the Çifte Minare Medrese in Sivas (1271, founded by the Vizir Juwainî). Its decoration has been “completed”, but some 7 feet above the base there is a remarkable transition all across the porch from one pattern and style of carving to a totally different one. There seems nothing to explain the change of plan which, of course, may have occurred before the blocks had been placed in position.

7 For a fluted minaret with an inscription, though of a much simpler character, compare the isolated shaft at , Dzhar kurgan, 1108–9, well published as plate 3 of Historical Monuments of Islam in the U.S.S.R.: TashkentGoogle Scholar; n.d.

8 Also see Appendix (p. 83) and Ritter's, assertion, Erdkunde: West Asien: Part 10, Book 3: Berlin, 1843: pp. 765 sq.Google Scholar

9 Gabriel, : MTA., Vol. 2, p. 161Google Scholar.

10 van Berchem, and Edhem, : CIA., part 3; p. 18Google Scholar.

11 CIA., part 3: p. 23.

12 cf. Hill, and Grabar, : Islamic Architecture and its Decoration (London, 1965), Pl. 330Google Scholar.

13 Beygu, A. S.: Erzurum Târihi, Anıtları, Kitabeleri: Istanbul, 1936: p. 118Google Scholar.

14 Another, much later, case of the combination of recessed and ceramic decoration is the İl Khânid Yakutiye Medrese at Erzurum where the minaret is an impressive affair of turquoise bands and recessed lozenges, but other cases do not appear to have survived.

15 An analogue of this occurs in a fragment of ceramic revetment which, also, seems to have been the outer frame of a mihrab, preserved in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Catalogue number: 342–1906). The general effect is rather more elaborate but there is great similarity in detail. It is described as coming from the (undated) Mosque of Bey Hekim in Konya. Another fragment (345–1906) described as from this mosque, but more probably of other provenance, has a stylised inscription pattern, similar to the “maze” motif on the back wall of the Gök Medrese side ivans, Pl. Vb. In both cases the decoration is in black inlaid into a turquoise ground.

16 Sarre: Denkmäler persischer Baukunst: loc. cit.

17 See Otto-Dorn, K.: Türkische Keramik: Ankara, 1957Google Scholar.

18 Erdmann, : Neue Arbeiten zur türkischen Keramik: Ars Orientalis V, 1963: p. 193Google Scholar.

19 Erdmann, : Das Anatolische Karavansaray des 13ten Jahrhunderts: Istanbuler Forschungen, Band 21: Vol. 1, Figs. 138–140, 157–8Google Scholar.

20 History of Azerbaydzhanî Architecture (in Russian): Huseynov, Salamzade and Bretanitsky: Moscow, 1963: p. 92Google Scholar.

21 ibid., p. 129.

22 ibid., p. 165.

23 In the drawings the profiles Fig. 1 are taken so as to show the full diameter of the tori.

24 Mélanges d'archéologie anatolienne: Beirouth, 1929; p. 82Google Scholar.

25 As Löyteved, , Konya, Inschriften der seldjukischen Bauten, Berlin, 1907Google Scholar, remarks, the foundation date of the İnce Minare is not known; but it must be earlier than the parody of it which appears as the decoration of a blind window on the right-hand side of the porch of the Çifte Minare Medrese in Sivas, Pl. XIa.

26 I point out, without being able to suggest the relevance of the observation, that this ornament appears commonly as a heading for 17th century Ottoman documents from the Imperial chancelleries. More pertinently perhaps, Cahen's, article La Ṭuğrā Setdjoukide (Journal Asiatique, 1943–1945 P. 167)Google Scholar remarks that the use of a bow as a symbol of ownership has been associated with the Seljuk Turks by mediaeval Muslim writers and that it is said to have appeared on all Seljuk chancellery documents. But even were it the case that this oddly three-dimensional object were an interpretation of the Turkic ṭuğrā it would be difficult to explain why it appears only in Erzurum and Sivas.

27 The Hospital of Keykâvus in Sivas, 1217–18 (Gabriel, : MTA., Vol. 2: Pl. XXXV)Google Scholar has as the entire decoration of the front of its porch a network enclosing small pentagons, of a uniform depth of 1 cm.; but perhaps this uniformity is connected with the fact that the profile of its façade is extraordinarily shallow.

28 Aslanapa, , Diez, and Koman, : Karaman Devri San'atı: Istanbul, 1950Google Scholar: Fig. 87.

29 van Berchem, and Edhem, Halil: Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum: Part 3, p. 21Google Scholar.

30 Selçuk Veziri Sahip Ata ile Oğullarının Hayat ve Eserleri: publication No. 4 of the Kony a Halkevi: Istanbul, 1934: p. 120Google Scholar.

31 Attempts have been made on the basis of the name Kâlûyân to assimilate it to the Armenian patronymic, Kâlûk-iân, and on the basis of this to say that Erzurum and a fortiori Sivas can be classed as Armenian monuments. There certainly were Armenian craftsmen in Rûm in Seljuk times and it might even be thought that Kâlûyân is Kâlûk-iân. But the fact that we have e.g. evidence of Iranian-born craftsmen, does not mean that claims that their work is a Persian importation are justified. Indeed, the development of Seljuk style as exemplified in the Çifte Minare and the Gök Medrese represents a movement away from Armenian principles, namely, the whole aesthetic conception of the façade as a unit of decoration, quite apart from the fact that the motifs employed bear at best minor similarities to those employed in Caucasian architecture. But even here the treatment is different: the Seljuk conception of decoration as a series of frames is, if not original, a product of East Persian views. A consideration of the Saltukid monuments in Erzurum, the Great Mosque (1179) and the three tombs known as the Üç. Kümbetler suffices to show the difference in viewpoint.

32 Ibrâhim Hakkı, Konyalı: Akşehir: Istanbul, 1945.Google Scholar

33 Journal Asiatique, 1852: “Extrait du journal d'un voyage de Paris à Erzeroum”: pp. 365–380.

34 La Russie dans l'Asie Mineure: Paris, 1840Google Scholar.

35 Uschakoff, : Geschichte der Feldzüge in der asiatischen Türkei während der Jahre, 1828–9: trans. Laemmlein, A. C., Leipzig, 1838Google Scholar.

36 Erdkunde: WestAsien: Part 10/Book 3, Berlin, 1843: p. 763Google Scholar.

37 Lynch, (Armenia, Vol. 2: pp. 210–11)Google Scholar remarks, for example, that the cause of the destruction of the walls was the earthquake of 1843, not the Russian occupation; Hamilton who was there in 1836 notes the walls as in good condition.

38 Koch, K. (ed.): Die kaukasischen Länder in Reiseschilderungen von Curzon, K. Koch, et at.: Leipzig, 1855: pp. 136–7Google Scholar.

39 Erdkunde: Westasien: Part 10/Book 3: Berlin, 1843: pp. 765 sq.Google Scholar

40 Journal Asiatique, 1852: pp. 377–8Google Scholar.

41 Erzurum Târihi, Anıtları, Kitabeleri: Istanbul, 1936: p. 124 sq.Google Scholar

42 Barthold, : Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion: p. 456Google Scholar Russian, p. 423 English text; Ibn al-Athir XII, 259; Juwainî's, History of the World Conqueror, edited and translated Boyle, : Manchester, 1958: Vol. 2, p. 460Google Scholar.

43 Güzalyan, L. T. in Krachkovsky, and Krachkovskaya, : Essays in honour of N.J. Marr: Moscow-Leningrad, 1935; pp. 629–641Google Scholar.

44 Survey of Persian Art, p. 1775–1776.

45 JRAS., 1942: p. 180Google Scholar.

46 Selçuk Veziri Sahib Ata ile oğullarının Hayat ve Eserleri: Istanbul, 1934Google Scholar.