I am grateful to Dr. Geoffrey Lewis, Professor V. L. Menage and the late S. M. Stern for their helpful comments upon earlier drafts of this article.

¹ (Geneva 1956). For abbreviations used in this article see p. 103.

² For mediaeval Europe see Harvey, J., The Mediaeval Architect (London 1972)Google Scholar; Mortet, V. and Deschamps, P., Recueil de textes relatifs à l'histoire de l'architecture et à la condition des architectes en France au moyen âge I–II (Paris 1911–1929)Google Scholar. For Byzantium see Downey, G., “Byzantine architects, their training and methods” Byzantion XVIII (1948), 99–118Google Scholar.

³ 'Abd al-Wahhāb, Ḥasan, “Tawqī‘āt al-ṣunnā‘ ‘alā āthār Miṣr”, BIE XXVI (1955), 533–8Google Scholar.

⁴ “Gli architetti imperiali (hassa mimarlari) nell'impero ottomano”, Atti del secondo congresso internazionale di arte turca (Naples 1965), 259–63Google Scholar, drawing almost entirely on archival material. They appear to have been an Ottoman invention, and it is highly significant that Uzunçarşılı, I. H. in his Osmanlı devleti teşkilatına medhal (reprinted Ankara 1970), 344Google Scholar, writes only of the Mamlūk shādd al-‘amā’ir al-sulṭāniyya, suggesting no Seljuk equivalent.

⁵ For Mamlūk Syria and Egypt the sources are more explicit but, with the exception of a short glossary in Sauvaget's translation of Ibn al-Shiḥna's history of Aleppo (Les perles choisies (Beirut 1933), 209–14Google Scholar), the Mamlūk historians' use of architectural terminology remains to be analysed.

⁶ Foundation inscription CIA Asie Mineure, 22, No. 13:

Amara bi-inshāa' hāadhihi'l-madrasa al-mubāaraka taqarruban ilā'llāh ta‘ālāal-ṣaḥib al-a‘ẓam al-dastūr al-mu‘aẓẓam mawlā mawāali al-‘ar[ab wa’l-‘-'ajam …] rusūm (?) al-karam qiwām al-dawla al-qāhira wa niẓām al-milla al-zāhira Abu’l-Khayrāt wa’l-Ṭā‘āt wa’l-Ḥasanāt Fakhr al-Dawla wa’l-Dīn ‘Aī b. al-Ḥusayn aḥsana Allāah ‘āqibatah fī 670 (in words)

Has ordered the construction of this blessed madrasa to gain God's favour, the grand vizier, the exalted minister, the lord of the lords of the Arabs and the Persians [sc. the non-Arabs”, the “…] of nobility, the support of the victorious state, the regulator of the flourishing people, Abu’l-Khayrāt wa’l-Ṭā‘āt wa’l-Ḥasanāt Fakhr al-Dawla wa’l-Dīn ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn, may God grant him a good end …

Waqfiyya. Riḍwān Nāfidh/Nāfız and Ismā‘īl Ḥaqqī [Uzunçarşılı] Sīwās Shehri (Istanbul 1928), 124:Google Scholar

(a) Royal titulature

Mawlānā al-Sulṭan al-a‘ẓam ẓill Allāh fi’l-‘ālam malik mulūk al-‘arab wa’l-‘ajam Sulṭān arḍ Allāh waḥāfiẓ bilād Allāh nāṣir ‘ibād Allāh maqarr awliyā’ Allāh Ghiyāth al-Dunyā wa’l-Dīn rukn al-Islām wa’l-muslimīn qāmi‘ al-khawārij wa’l-mutamarridīn qātil al-kafara wa’l-mushrikīn qāhir al-zanādiqa wa’l-mulḥhidīn a‘dal al-mulūk wa’l-salātīn Abu’l-Fatḥ Kaykhusraw b. al-Sulṭāan al-sa‘īd Rukn al-Dīn Qilij Arslāan b. al-Sulṭān al-sa‘īd Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kaykhusraw b. al-Sulṭān al-maghfūr ‘Alā’ al-Dīn Kayqubād burhān amīr al-mu’minīn …

His Majesty, the greatest Sultan, the shadow of God on earth, King of Kings of the Arabs and the Persians [sc. the non-Arabs], Sultan of God's earth and protector of the lands of God, the support of God's creatures and the refuge of God's friends, Ghiyāth al-Dunyā wa’l-Dīn, the prop of Islam and [all] Muslims, the suppressor of the rebellious and the insubordinate, the extirpator of the unbelievers and the polytheists, the conqueror of heretics and atheists, most just of kings and Sultans, Abu’l-Fatḥ Kaykhusraw the glorious testimony of the Caliph …

(b) Titulature of Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī

Al-ṣāḥib al-a‘ẓam wa’l-dastūr al-mu‘aẓẓam Āṣaf al-zamān ṣalāḥ al-‘ālam mudīr/mudabbir al-dunyā muẓhir al-‘adl wa’l-inṣāf kahf al-sharī‘a muḥyī al-sunna malja’ al-ḍu‘afā’ wa’l-masākīn malādh almu’minīn niẓām al-mulk qiwām al-mamālik malik mulūk al-umarā’ wa’l-wuzarā’ sharqan wa gharban ba‘īdan wa qarīban [? read bu‘dan wa qurban?] Fakhr al-Dawla wa’l-Ḥaqq wa’l-Dīn yamīn al-mulūuk wa’l-salāṭīn ’bā (?) al-ma‘ālī wa’l-mafākhir wa’l-maḥāsin ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḥajj Abī Bakr al-Qūnawī (sic) adāma Allāh ayyāmah wa iqbālah …

The grand vizier, the exalted minister, the Asaph [sc. the wisest counsellor] of his age, the rectitude of [this] world, the director/disposer of the world, the creator of justice and equity, the refuge of the Law, the reviver of Orthodoxy, the asylum of the weak and the destitute, the shelter of Believers, the regulator of the kingdom, the support of [all] countries, king of kings of emirs and viziers, East and West, near and far, Fakhr al-Dawla wa’l-Ḥaqq wa’l-Dīn, the right hand of Sultans, the … great, glorious and fine deeds, ‘Alī …

⁷ Ibn Bībī: Aya Sofya 731:

ṣāḥib-i a‘ẓam dastūr-i mu‘aẓẓam malik al-wuzarā’ fi’l-‘ālam mudabbir-i [Yunān] katkhudā-yi jahān kahf al-salṭana al-mu‘aẓẓama dhahr al-mamlaka al-mukarrama malādh al-maẓlūmīn ma‘ādh al-malḥūfīn […] al-ḍu‘afā’ wa’l-masākīn Fakhr al-Dawla wa’l-Milla wa’l-Ḥaqq wa’l-Dīn ‘awn al-Islām wa’l-muslimīn qiwām al-mulk niẓām al-ma‘ālī sharaf al-ayyām wa’l-layāli mu‘īn al-mulūk yamīn al-salāṭīn Abu’l-Khayrāt wa’l-Ḥasanāt manba‘ al-mubarrāt wa’l-makramāt ‘Alī b. al-Ḥussyn adāma Allāh iqbālah …

The grand vizier, the exalted minister, king of the viziers of the world, the disposer of [all] Greece (!), the Lord of the world, the refuge of the exalted Sultanate, the support of the ennobled country, the recourse of the oppressed, the provider of succour to those in dire need, […] of the weak and the destitute, Fakhr al-Dawla wa’l-Milla wa’l-Ḥaqq wa’l-Dīn, the support of Islam and Muslims, the prop of the kingdom, the organizer of great feats, he who honours the days and the nights, the aid of kings, the right hand of Sultans, Abu’l-Khayrāt wa’l-Ḥasanāt, the source of good and noble works, ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn, may God prolong his good fortune. As is evident from this text, Seljuk Chancery documents evidently contained large blocks of Arabic, particularly Royal or ministerial titles, within the Persian text.

⁸ Cited CIA Égypte I, 553Google Scholar. A clerk (kātib) ordered by a vizier to draw up an inscription for a tower built by an emir submitted him a text, recognizably in the form of a foundation inscription, in which the vizier wrongly claimed to detect a grammatical solecism.

⁹ RCEA 4044 with references. Mubārak is a characteristic epithet for pious foundations of all sorts.

¹⁰ CIA Égypte I, 340–1Google Scholar.

¹¹ Translated by Sauvaget, J., “Les trésors d'or” de Sibṭ ibn al-‘Ajamī. Matériaux pour servir à l'histoire de la ville d'Alep II (Beirut 1950), 41Google Scholar.

¹² Layla ‘Alī Ibrāhīm has argued (“The great ḫānqāh of the Emir Qawṣūn” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo XXX (1974), 52–3Google Scholar) that in Mamlūk Egypt and Syria mimmā ‘umila bi-rasm … (roughly “Ordered by Royal decree …”) is particularly used in inscriptions for decorative elements made in the Court workshops or by Court craftsmen as Royal gifts to private foundations. The expression occurs on the walls of Diyarbekir, on two of the towers, LII and LVI(Voyages, 313–4, Nos. 47–8), in contexts which indicate major works; but it is not recorded from Seljuk Anatolia and its precise force at Diyarbekir has yet to be established.

¹³ CIA Alep I, 32Google Scholar. Herzfeld, without explanation, uses the 1st form, amara, for presumed Royal foundations, but the 2nd form, which is particularly associated with causation, ummira, ‘ummira, etc., for the passives. However, even the 1st form of ‘amara has the additional sense of “cause to bring into good repair”, and the syntax of inscriptions with ummira, etc., is no easier to construe. The wording of the restoration inscription of the Iplikçi Mosque at Konya dated Rajab 733/1333 (RCEA 5638, after R. Mantran) suggests, on the other hand, that the active, ‘ammara, may exceptionally occur:

“ammara wa jaddada wa wassa“a hādhā’l-masjid al-‘abd al-ḍa‘īf al-muḥtāj ilā raḥmat Allāh ta‘ālā Zayn al-Ḥajj wa’l-Ḥaramayn al-ḥājj Abū Bakr b. Mas‘ūd al-ma‘rūf bi-Kishjī …

Has caused this masjid to be restored/re-endowed, rebuilt and enlarged the weak slave who hopes in God's mercy Zayn al-Ḥajj wa’l-Ḥaramayn … (The 14th-century qibla wall overlies a 13th-century miḥrāb). ‘Ammara is little different in sense from ‘amara, but jaddada and wassa‘a are clear and symmetry therefore suggests the former.

¹⁴ The inscription on the main entrance of the Sultan Han near Aksaray (RCEA 4008), one of the few clear exceptions, reads:

Amara bi-‘imārat hādhā’l-khān al-mubārak al-sulṭan al-a‘ẓam shāhanshāh al-mu‘aẓẓam sayyid salāṭīn al-‘arab wa’l-‘ajam ‘Alā’ al-Dunyā wa’l-Dīn Abu’l-Fatḥ Kayqubād b. Kaykhusraw qasīm amīr al-mu’minīn fī 626 (in words)/1229

Has ordered the construction of this blessed khān the grand Sultan, the exalted King of Kings, lord of the Sultans of the Arabs and the Persians [sc. the non-Arabs] ‘Alā’ al-Dīn Kayqubād … [see note 37 below]. There appears to be no distinct Royal titulature for Seljuk Royal foundations. It is, therefore, dangerous to argue from a defective inscription with Royal titulature to a Royal foundation.

¹⁵ Bees, N. A./Vees, , Die Inschriftenaufzeichnung des Kodex Sinaiticus Graecus 508 (976)Google Scholarund die Maria-Spiläotissa-Kirche bei Sille (Lykaonien) ( = Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie I) (Berlin 1922), 54Google Scholar, with a corrected text.

The following is a rough translation:

In the month of November on the first day of the week [?the first Sunday of the month?] the citadel/fortress of Sinope was taken by the great Sultan ‘Izz al-Dīn Kaykā’ūs; and I, the slave of the great Sultan, Badr al-Dīn Abū Bakr, this tower and curtain wall; it was begun in April and finished on 1st September 6724/1215.

I am indebted to Mr. N. G. Wilson for his observation that the paratactic style is characteristic of 12th–13th-century Byzantine scribal practice and is not simply to be ascribed to the decline of Greek in Anatolia.

¹⁶ Edhem, H., “Anaṭūlī’da islāmī kitābeler I. Bekshehri, Ūlūbūrlū, ‘Alā’iyya”, TOEM Year 5, No. 27 (Istanbul 1330/1331), 149Google Scholar. He gives no indication that it was recorded as defective.

¹⁷ Also known as the Siyar al-Mulūk. Mukhtaṣar 94, Duda 101. Cited after Lambton, A. K. S., Landlord and Peasant in Persia (Oxford 1953/1969) xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Tibawi, A. L., “Origin and character of al-madrasah”, BSOAS XXV (1962), 234Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Kuran, A., Anadolu Medreseleri (Ankara 1969) I, 80Google Scholar.

²⁰ CIA Jerusalem “Ville”, 64, note 2; CIA Egypte I, 98–9Google Scholar. This crucial ambiguity is not confined to Arabic. An Armenian inscription in the name of one of the Mkhargrdzelis in the castle of Kayan (near Lake Sevan) which records the construction of the castle and a church within it must refer to a restoration of the fortress. See Orbeli, I. A., “Ḥasan Jalāl knaz' khachensky” in Izbranniye Trudy (Erevan 1963), 167Google Scholar, note 81.

²¹ RCEA 4764; Karavansaray 89, No. 25; Oral, M.Z., “Aksaray'ın tarihî önemi ve vakıfları,” V D V (1962), 225, No. 1Google Scholar.

²² This point was brought to my attention by Professor A. L. Woodruff.

²³ Rogers, J. M., “The date of the Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum,” Kunst des Orients VIII/1–2 (1974), 92–7Google Scholar; 117–9.

²⁴ Çelebi, Evliya (Narrative of Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa in the seventeenth century by Evliyá Efendí, translated by von Hammer, J. (London 1834), II, 112Google Scholar) states that the Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum, which was in ruins when he visited the town, had never been endowed. However, a manuscript of al-Marginānī's Hidāya appears to have been copied there in 730/1330, which presupposes that the madrasa had been functioning, hence endowed, for some time previously. See J. M. Rogers, art. cit., 80.

²⁵ Khiṭaṭ (Būlāq 1853) II, 382Google Scholar; Sulūk edited Ziyāda, M. (Cairo 1956), 1, 951Google Scholar; MAE II, 238–9Google Scholar; CIA Egypte I, 152–3Google Scholar.

²⁶ Herzfeld, E., “Damascus. Studies in architecture,” Ars Islamica XIII–XIV (1948), 120–1Google Scholar, with references.

²⁷ Apud Von Oppenheim, M., Inschriften aus Syrien, Mesopotamien und Kleinasien gesammelt im Jahre 1899Google Scholar. Arabische Inschriften bearbeitet von M. Van Berchem ( = Beiträge zur Assyriologie VII/1–2) (Leipzig 1913), 143–4Google Scholar; Van Berchem, M. and Fatio, E., Voyage en Syrie (Cairo 1913–1914) I, 220 and note 3Google Scholar.

²⁸ Herzfeld, (CIA Alep I, 259Google Scholar) remarks that all the marble employed here is of antique origin, with very little recarving. See also ibid. I, 329 and Plates CVIII–CIX.

²⁹ ‘Abd al-Qādir Ḥamdīzāde/Erdoǧan, “‘Alā’ al-Dīn jāmi‘-i sharīf, Qaraṭā’ī madrasasi,” TOEM Year 6, No. 33 (Istanbul 1331/1333), 532–3Google Scholar; RCEA 4333. Konyalı, I. H., Abideleri ve kitabeleri ile Konya tarihi (Konya 1964), 850Google Scholar, states that no previous writer has correctly read the inscription. But his version is similar.

³⁰ See the eulogies in Āqsarā’ī MS 87: Turan text 36–7; Ibn Bībī Aya Sofya 595 ff.: Mukhtaṣar 269 ff.: Duda 257; Bar Hebraeus 413.

³¹ Turan, O., “Selçuk devri vakfiyeleri. III. Celâleddin Karatay vakıflar ve vakflyeleri”, Belleten XII (1948), 86 ff.Google Scholar, though the waqfiyya gives no hint of a refoundation; for the Antalya foundations ibid, lines 22–33 of the waqfiyya. The inscription of the latter (see P. Wittek apud Riefstahl, R. M., Turkish architecture in South West Anatolia (Cambridge, Mass. 1931), 88, No. 1Google Scholar) contains a eulogy of ‘Izz al-Dīn Kaykā’ūs II and no mention of Qaraṭay at all.

³² The architectural history of the Karatay Han is also suggestive (cf. Karavansaray 117 ff., No. 32). The building, which is on a palatial scale, bears two inscriptions, both lacking Qaraṭay's name. That on the porch of the hall gives the name and titles of Kayqubād I (died 1236) and has been given a terminus ad quem (Karavansaray 124) of 1230 on the basis of its stylistic affinities with the Aǧzıkara Han; that on the main entrance gives the name and titles of Kaykhusraw II and is precisely dated 638/1240. It is not uncommon for the courtyards of Anatolian caravansarays to be added up to five years after the covered area. However, the probable interval of almost a decade between the two suggests two distinct building periods, of which only the latter (638/1240) was Qaraṭay's work. Although, according to Turan (art. cit., 84 ff.) the waqf was established in 643/1245 the waqfiyya in Qaraṭay's name is dated 645/1247, which would make a total of nearly seventeen years from start to finish: this would be inexplicable had he been involved from the start. Most probably, therefore, he took over and completed a building, perhaps a foundation of Kayqubād I's, which had been left unfinished and unendowed at his death in 1236.

³³ Gordlevsky, V. A., Gosudarstvo Sel'dzhukidov Maloi Azii (Moscow 1939), 74Google Scholar. A photograph of this inscription published by Önge, Y., “Eski yapıların inş;a ve onarım kitabeleri hakkında,” Önasya VII. 7 (1972), Nos. 77–8Google Scholar, no pagination, allegedly bearing the signature of the craftsman KLWK b. ‘Abd Allāh, is illegible but for tārīkh sanat 666/1267–8 (in words).

³⁴ Kuran, A., Anadolu Medreseleri I, 80Google Scholar. The date 1216 is based upon Huart's own correction of his original reading of 618/1221–2 (Epigraphie arabe d'Asie Mineure II (Paris 1895), 133, No. 13Google Scholar) to 613/1216–17, to accord with the name and titles of Kaykā’ūs I, who died in 616/1219–20. However, the Sultan cannot be Kaykā’ūs I, who, after the conquest of Sinope in 612/1215–16, invariably included al-sulṭān al-ghālib among his titles. The Sultan was therefore Kaykā'ūs II (circa 1246–62): hence the correction in RCEA to 648/1250. The madrasa was not founded by an emir, al-Ḥusayn, with the rank of amīr-i dād, but by his son, the vizier Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī.

Al-sulṭān al-ghālib is also relevant to a Qur’ān stand (raḥla) in the Türk ve Islâm Müzesi in Istanbul (Inventory No. 247) bearing the name and titles of a Kaykā’ūs and ascribed (RCEA 3837) to Kaykā’ūs I. But as Çulpan, C. (Rahleler (Istanbul 1968), 1–4Google Scholar, No. 1) has remarked, this lacks the characteristic titulature and must therefore date from the reign of Kaykā’ūs II.

³⁵ A. Kuran, op. cit., 95–6.

³⁶ Huart's, conjecture (Epigraphie arabe d'Asie Mineure separatum, 30–1Google Scholar, No. 14) that a khānqāh at Ishaklı founded in 647/1249 was an unacknowledged refoundation by Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī, is based on the unjustified reading, ‘ammara, which he then translated as “rebuilt” (contrast RCEA 4312 ‘umira). It should be regarded as a normal foundation inscription and read ‘amara.

³⁷ For the two Sultan Hans founded by Kayqubād, I see Karavansaray, 89 ff., 96 ff.Google Scholar, Nos. 25–6. It has recently been asserted by Aslanapa, O. (Turkish Art and Architecture (London 1971), 147 ff.Google Scholar) that the Sultans of Seljuk Anatolia were pre-eminent in the construction of caravansarays and that any caravansaray with a plan resembling that of the Sultan Hans is, in default of an inscription to the contrary, a Royal foundation. However, even this criterion gives him no more than eight—the Alay Han, the Evdir Han, the two Sultan Hans the Alara Han, the Incir Han, the Kırkgöz Han and the Eǧridir Han.

The Han, Evdir (Karavansaray, 178, No. 55Google Scholar) has an inscription over the main entrance (RCEA 3838 after Riefstahl):

al-Sulṭan al-ghālib ‘Izz al-Dunyā, wa’l-Dīn sulṭān al-‘alī ‘ulyat al-dawla [muḥyī] al-‘adl [fi’l-] ‘ālamīn … Abu’l-Fatḥ Kaykā’ūs b. Kaykhusraw burhān amīr al-mu’minīn … 6 [1] 1

which points unambiguously to Kaykā’ūs I (1210–19). The Han, Alara (Karavansaray, 186, No. 58Google Scholar) is evidently a foundation of Kayqubād I (627 or 629/1229–30 or 1231–2). And the Han, IncirKaravansaray, 110, No. 29Google Scholar; RCEA 4162 after Deny) is most probably a foundation of Kaykhusraw II, dated 636/1239.

All the rest are dubious. The Alay Han and the Eǧridir Han bear no inscriptions. Aslanapa attributes the former to Qilij Arslān II (1156–92) by conflating undated mentions of two separate buildings in passages of Āqsarā’ī (MS 90–1: Turan text 41–2), the Ribāṭ-i ‘Alā’ī and a ribāṭ of Arslān, Qilij (also see Karavansaray, 83Google Scholar); the second is classified as a Royal foundation merely on the basis of its dimensions and similarities in plan to the Sultan Hans. The Han, Kırkgöz (Karavansaray, 110, No. 56Google Scholar; RCEA 4263 after Riefstahl) is definitely not, for its inscription contains fī ayyām dawlat … and mentions another person, name illegible, besides Kaykhusraw II (1236–46), whose name and titles appear.

Aslanapa's total of unambiguously Royal caravansarays is thus reduced from eight to five. The two Sultan Hans are the grandest of all Anatolian caravansarays, but the total of Royal foundations is so small that the pre-eminence of the Seljuk Sultans in this sphere may be dismissed.

³⁸ Behçet, Mehmed, “Sinop kitabeleri” I TTEM (1929), 34–45Google Scholar; II TTEM (1930), 44–8; III TTEM (1931), 57–63Google Scholar; Ülküktaşır, M. Ş., “Sinop’ta selcukî zamanına ait tarihi eserler” TT V (1949), 112–51Google Scholar; Rice, D. S. and Lloyd, Seton, Alanya (London 1958), 50, 54Google Scholar; RCEA 3957; and, for the inscriptions of Kaykhusraw II from the sea walls of Antalya, near the Tophane, Riefstahl, R. M., Turkish Architecture in South West Anatolia (Cambridge, Mass. 1931), 80, No. 2Google Scholar.

³⁹ Mukhtaṣar 105: Duda translation 111. The rest of the walls were parcelled out among Kayqubād's provincial governors.

⁴⁰ The inscription is not a craftsman's “signature” but one of the series of plaques erected on the walls evidently by the provincial emirs who participated. The name, Kālūyān, which is accompanied by an emirial title, is evidently the Greek Καλοιαννης and has no obvious connexion with the KLWKWAN b. SNBAD which occurs on the walls of Antalya (see below p. 93). The Gök Medrese at Sivas (670/1271–2) also bears the name Kālūyān, al-Qunawī, but this is not an emir's name but a master craftsman (ustādh)'s “signature”. M. Önder illegitimately conflates the Antalya and the Sivas names, ignores the Konya inscription and groundlessly suggests a connexion with the Konya ustādh, KLWK/?Kalūk b. ‘Abd Allāh. See his Mevlânâ Şehri Konya (Konya 1962), 87–9Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Cf. Inalcık, H., The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age 1300–1600 (London 1973), 147Google Scholar.

⁴² Inventory No. 14538. Wiet, G., Inscriptions historiques sur pierre (Cairo 1971), 88Google Scholar. Amara bi-tashīl hādhā’l-ṭarīq … ‘alā, yad … Fīrūz … am [īr] khāzi [nd] ār al-Malikī al-Ẓāhirī. For a similar inscription recording Jaqmaq's activities cf. Wiet, G., BIE XXI, 79–88Google Scholar.

⁴³ Nujūm VI, 345–8Google Scholar. Translated Popper, W., History of Egypt 1382–1469 A.D. (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1957), 30–3Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ The inscription of Jarkas al-Khalīlī (791/1389) on a tower of the lower walls of the Citadel of Cairo, (CIA Egypte I, 89–90, No. 53Google Scholar) amara bi-inshā,’ hādhā'l-[ṣ]ūr al-mubārak, which was part of the fortifications ordered by Barqūq as a last desperate measure against the civil war which was shortly to ravage the Mamlūk state, could not be further from the ideal of jihād.

⁴⁵ Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh edited ‘Oghly, Abd al-Karīm ‘Alī-Zāde, and translated Arends, A. K., Sbornik Letopisei (Baku 1957) text 413–14Google Scholar: translation 234.

⁴⁶ Ibn al-Shiḥna translated J. Sauvaget, op. cit., 21–50.

⁴⁷ al-‘Asqalınī, Ibn Ḥajar,Al-Durar al-Kāmina (Hyderabad 1349/1930–1931) IV, 437Google Scholar; Mayer, L. A., Islamic Architects and their Works (Geneva 1956), 18, note 2Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Bībī, Ibn, Mukhtaṣar 105Google Scholar: Duda 111.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 145: Duda 148. The corresponding passage in Aya Sofya, 353, is no more informative. Despite the appointment of Sa‘d al-Dīn to supervise the construction, mi‘mār may not mean “Court Architect” at all. Under the Khwārizmshāhs (cf. Horst, H., Die Staatsverwaltung der Großselǧūqen und Ḫorazmšāhs 1038–1231 (Wiesbaden 1964) 59Google Scholar) the mi‘mār was Minister of Development (Kultivierungskomissar) in charge of the well-being of the towns (zirā‘ät and ‘imārät were a conventional Persian antithesis) with direct responsibility to the dīwān al-a‘lā’. This position clearly derived from the sense of ‘amara “to [cause to] flourish”, and the possibility of an Anatolian Seljuk equivalent cannot be excluded. However, for the purposes of the present article it will be assumed that the mi‘mār had primarily architectural responsibilities.

⁵⁰ Tamerlane, for example, twice decided during the construction of buildings he had ordered—the entrance īwān-porches of the palace of Āqsaray at Shahr-i Sabz and the Bībī Khānum mosque at Samarkand—that the front elevation was not impressive enough, so must be torn down and rebuilt higher. And if Evliya Çelebi is to be believed (op. cit., note 24 above) I, 68, Meḥmed II not only severely rebuked his mi‘mār bāshi (Chief Architect) for having built his own mosque, Fâtiḥ, lower than Aya Sofya, but rejected his explanation that it was to make the building more resistant to earth tremors, and had his hands chopped off. In the ensuing lawsuit the mi‘mār bāshi obtained a pension upon Meḥmed's private purse; but Mehmed obtained a fatwā that it had been legal in the circumstances to chop off his hands. Doubtless pour encourager les autres.

If we judge from the inscriptions, a plausible case of a founder-architect with an active interest in the building might be Ḥājjī ‘Iwāḍ b. Ākhī Bāyazīd, first Subashı of Bursa and later a vizier of Meḥmed I, who took charge of the construction of the Yeşil Cami at Bursa (818–27/1414–24). An inscription on the miḥrāb of the mosque, cited by Uzunçarşılı, I. H., “Hacı Ivaz Paşa’ya dair” (Tarih Dergisi X/14 (Istanbul 1959), 36Google Scholar, note 30) reads:

rasama al-Sulṭān al-maghfūr Muḥammad b. Bāyazīd … bi-ishārat al-wazīd (read wazīr) ṣāḥib al-dabīr Ḥājjī ‘Iwāḍ b. Ākhī Bāyazīd

He evidently brought the tile-workers from Tabrīz who left their “signatures” in the interior of the Yeşil Cami, and the foundation inscription of the mosque describes him as rāqimuhu wa nāẓimuhu wa muqannin qawānīnihi, all expressions which would properly apply to an architect. However, they are ambiguous: he might also merely have said how large the mosque was to be, determined roughly what it was to look like and decided upon its constitution. It is not, therefore, relevant to cite his other works—inter alia, a mosque and madrasa at Tokat (810/1407), an aqueduct for the city of Edirne and the restoration of a bridge at Ulubad (Uzunçarşılı art. cit., 36, notes 32–3; 42 ff.), which do not bear comparable inscriptions. That he was, moreover, a considerable builder makes the weaker interpretation more probable.

⁵¹ Rice and Lloyd (Alanya, op. cit., 55, No. 3) observe that the disposition of the diacritical points leaves the reading al-Kattānī beyond question.

⁵² Gabriel, A., Châteaux Turcs du Bosphore (Paris 1943), 60–9Google Scholar.

⁵³ Downey, art. cit., note 2 of the present article.

⁵⁴ CIA Egypte I, 742–3Google Scholar, citing Maqrīzī, Sulūk (= Quatremère, E., Histoire des sultans mamlouks de l'Egypte (Paris 1837–1843) I¹, 112Google Scholar) and other sources. The shādd al-‘amā’ir was an emir, granted the title, al-janāb al-‘ālī, which appears in the inscription of a mausoleum attached to the so-called mosque of Sīdī Ibrāhīm al-Anṣārī in Cairo, (CIA Egypte I, No. 538Google Scholar) dated 771/1370:

amara bi-inshā‘ hādhā’l-masjid al-mubārak al-janāb al-‘ālī [Āqsunqur] … wa shādd al-‘amā’ir al-sulṭaniyya

⁵⁵ Gaudefroy-Demombynes, M., La Syrie à l'époque des mamelouks d'après les auteurs arabes (Paris 1923), 168 and note 1Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ For the special interest al-Nāṣir Muḥammad took in his emirs” private foundations see Layla ‘Alī Ibrāhīm, art. cit., note 12 above, 54–5 and notes 82–8, with full references.

⁵⁷ CIA Égypte I, 298–304Google Scholar, Nos. 192–3, 196.

⁵⁸ “Le droit terrien sous les seldjoukides de Turquie,” Revue des Études Islamiques (1948), 24–49Google Scholar and especially 31–39.

⁵⁹ Not a single town, as is generally supposed, but a district comprising the two towns and their dependencies. See Beldiceanu-Steinherr, I. and Beldiceanu, N., “Deux villes de l'Anatolie préottomane, Develi et Qarāḥiṣār, d'après des documents inédits,” Revue des Études Islamiques XXXIX (1971), 337–86Google Scholar. The province was first surveyed by the Ottomans in 1474–6, shortly after its annexation by Meḥmed II in 1473. The survey took full account of pre-existing forms of land-tenure and is thus important evidence for Seljuk practice.

⁶⁰ Ménage, V. L., “Some notes on the devshirme,” BSOAS XXIX (1965), 72Google Scholar. I am indebted to the author for this reference. For practice in Mamlūk Egypt see Cahen, C., “Réflexions sur le waqf ancien,” Studio, Islamica XIV (1961), 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rabie, H., The financial system of Egypt A.H. 564–741/A.D. 1169–1341 (Oxford-London 1972), 129Google Scholar and references in the footnotes to that page.

⁶¹ Pre-Ottaman Turkey (London 1968), 329Google Scholar; Aya Sofya, 642. The Sultan issued manshūrs and mithāls conforming the grants:

wa-bishtar-i mamālik-i Rūm-rā amlāk-i khāṣṣ wa ‘ām kardānid wa dar ān bāb bi-harkas khuṭūṭ-i sharī‘ī wa manāshīr-i sulṭānī wa amthila-yi dīwānī masṭūr wa mabdhūl farmūd …

⁶² Foundation inscriptions were so conventional that Qilij Arslān's distribution of mulk made no apparent difference to their formulation. With the exception of the later inscriptions of magnates like the Pervāne Mu‘īn al-Dīn Sulaymān and Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī, the Sultan's titulature remained pre-eminent right up to the collapse of the dynasty.

An interesting aspect of this conventionalism is the persistence in Seljuk Royal titulature of formulae indicating some relationship to the ‘Abbāsid Caliphate, in particular, burhān amīr al-mu’minīn (the glorious testimony of the Caliph) long after the death of the last ‘Abbāsid Caliph in Baghdad in 1258. It is included in the titulature of Qilij Arslān IV on the ruined minaret of the ‘Alā’ al-Dīn Mosque at Eskişehir (RCEA 4596: the date given here, 666/1268, must be a mis-reading since Qilij Arslān died in 663/1264), and subsequent occurrences show that this was no oversight. The so-called Mosque of Sultan Muḥammad at Merzifon (663/1264), actually founded by the Pervāne Mu‘īn al-Dīn Sulaymān (RCEA 4541), bears an inscription containing it, and it occurs in the reign of Kaykhusraw III (663–81/1264–82) in the Iskilip MS of the waqfiyya of the mosque of Nūr al-Dīn b. Jājā at Kırşehir (see Temir, A., Kırşehir emiri Coca Oǧlu Nûr-el-Dîn’in 1272 tarihli arapça-moǧolca vakfiyesi (Ankara 1959), 19, line 29)Google Scholar, together with prayers for the Caliph and his family, though the foundation inscription above the entrance, which is otherwise identical, omits it (Kunter, I. B., “Kitabelerimiz” VD II (1942), 432Google Scholar). In the same year it appears in the foundation inscription of the madrasa of Muẓaffar Burūjirdī/the Bürüciye Medrese at Sivas (CIA Asie Mineure 28, No. 18) and, even later, in the foundation inscription of the khānqāh of Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī at Konya (678/1279) (RCEA 4779). This does not imply the recognition of the puppet Caliphate established in Mamlūk Egypt by Baybars (659/1261), and after his incursion into Anatolia which culminated in his victory at Elbistan over the Mongols (676/1277) any public allusion to Mamlūk pretensions would have been a deliberate provocation. It must be a solution to the necessity, still recognized by the ‘ulamā’, of justifying the Sultanate, in principle granted by the Caliph ad hominem, by some allusion to an ‘Abbāsid, even if defunct.

⁶³ In Mamlūk Egypt the distinction tended to disappear altogether in the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (1295–1341). Of three successive inscriptions from the Great Mosque at Gaza the first, dated 697/1298, in the reign of al-Malik al-Manṣūr Lājīn (RCEA 5047) describes the part played by the emir supervising the works as bi-naẓarat (sic) al-‘abd al-faqīr ilā rabbih al-rājī ‘afwah Sunqur al-Silāḥdār al-‘Alā’ī al-Manṣūrī… The second, dated 718/1318, gives the name and titles of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad followed by: al-‘abd al-faqīr ilā’llāh Sanjar al-Jāwilī al-Nāşirī nā’ib al-salṭana al-mu‘aẓẓama al-sāḥiliyya wa‘l-jabaliyya (that is, Palestine). The Sultan's titulature is followed by khallada Allāh sulṭānah, while Sanjar has ghafara Allāh lah. There is otherwise little difference hi their relative importance, possibly because as nā’ib al-salṭana (Viceroy) Sanjar was deemed to partake of the Royal power. The third inscription, from the ziyāda of the mosque, datable to the 720s/1320s (RCEA 5587), virtually eliminates the Sultan in favour of the founder, Sayf al-Dīn Tañkiz, who at that time was nā’ib al-Shām (Viceroy of Syria and Palestine):

amara bi-inshā’ hādhihi’l-ziyāda al-mubāraka bi’1-jāmi‘ al-ma‘mūr bi-dhikr Allāh … [abbreviated Royal titulature] … mawlānā malik al-umarā’ Tañkiz kāfil al-mamālik al-sharīfa bi’1-Shām al-maḥrūs[a] ‘azza Allāh anṣārah …

In Ïl-Khānid Iran, with the exception of an inscription on the miḥrāb of Öljeytü in the Great Mosque of Iṣfahān, dated 710/1310 (RCEA 5279), and the foundation inscription of the Great Mosque at Varāmīn (722/1322) (RCEA 5478), the distinction of kind between the style and titles of rulers and founders is virtually non-existent.

⁶⁴ Despite Vryonis, S., “Seljuk gulams and Ottoman devshirmes,” Der Islam XLI (1965), 224–52Google Scholar, with the striking exception of Qaraṭay the Seljuk sources rarely state that emirs had been ghulāms; nothing is said of manumission; and the term ghulām (cf. “Ghulām” EI ²) does not entail legal slavery.

⁶⁵ Compare an inscription from the walls of Diyarbekir (568/1162) in the name of an emir, Abu’l-Qāsim ‘Alī b. Nisān (Voyages, 320, No. 4) where the expressed motive is duty, and the hope of a divine reward. A further occurrence of bi-māl … is in the foundation inscription of the khānqāh of Pīr Ḥusayn on the Pirsagat Chay in Soviet Azerbaydzhan. Krachkovskaya, V. A. (Izraztsy mavzoleya Pir-Khusayna (Tbilisi 1946) 99)Google Scholar comments on the poor Arabic:

[amara] hadh (sic) al-‘imāra bi-aḥd al-malik al-‘ālim al-‘ādil al-mu’ayyad al-muẓaffar ‘Alā’ al-Dunya wa’l-Dīn malik al-Islām wa’1-muslimīn tāj al-mulūk wa’1-salāṭīn Warazjam Afrīdhūn Abu’l-Muẓaffar Farīburz b. Garthasb b. Farkhād [sic? read Farhād?] b. Manūchihr naṣīr amīr al-mu’minīn ‘azza Allāh anṣārah bi-māl al-ṣadr al-kabīr al-mufaḍḍal al-muḥassib iftikhār Khurāsān Sharaf [?] al-Dawla wa’l-Dīn Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Bawādī al-ma‘rūf bi-[…] fī tārīkh Rajab sanat 641 (in words). Neither founder nor ruler can be identified in the historical sources.

⁶⁶ Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Aflākī, Manāqib al-‘Ārifīn, translated by Huart, C. as Les saints des derviches tourneurs (Paris 1918–1922) II, 267Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ The only recorded 13th-century Christian foundation, the Hekim Han near Malatya (Karavansaray, 65, No. 18) bears an inscription describing the founder as al-‘abd al-ḍa‘īf… al-shammās al-ḥakīm al-Malaṭī (the arch-deacon, the doctor). He was certainly no slave, and the expression was therefore used for dhimmī, as well as Muslim, notables.

⁶⁸ Ülkütaşır, art. cit., note 38 above (120, (b)) reads Naqīṭa as Nakīda/Niǧde, an improbable spelling which is nevertheless just acceptable. M. Behçet, art. cit. (ibid.) II, 46, No. 10, reads Tuqīt, hence Tokat, which is more usually spelled Ḥūqād/Ḥūqāt.

⁶⁹ Ülkütaşır, art. cit., 130, (m); 123, (d).

⁷⁰ A representative list of foundation inscriptions from mausolea showing the contrast between glorious Sultan and miserable subject would include: the Akşebe Sultan Türbe at Antalya 1231 (RCEA 4029); the mausoleum of Abu’l-Qāsim ‘Alī al-Ṭūsī at Tokat 1234 (RCEA 4069); the Melik Gâzi Türbe at Niksar 1234 (RCEA 4070); the Turumtay Türbe at Amasya 1278–9 (RCEA 4767). The tomb of Māhperī Khātūn, the widow of Kayqubād I, in the foundation she endowed at Kayseri (cenotaph dated 1246 (RCEA 4259)) and the Çifte Kümbed at Kayseri, the tomb of ‘Iṣmat al-Dīn, a daughter of the Ayyūbid ruler, al-Malik al-‘Ādil (RCEA 4273), have eulogies only of their founders. But Herzfeld (CIA Alep II, 289Google Scholar) cites the inscription on the tomb of a widow of Saladin dated 621/1223–5, which devotes the whole eulogy to him and leaves none for herself.

⁷¹ The earliest occurrence known to me of the contrast between glorious ruler and miserable subject is an inscription in the Great Mosque at Diyarbekir dated 1124–5 (Voyages, 328, No. 84) which has ‘ala yaday al-faqīr ila raḥmat Allāh … b. Abu’1-Fatḥ (sic) b. ‘Abd al-Waḥīd Muḥammad. But this occurrence is insufficient to account for 13th-century Anatolian practice.

⁷² ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ‘Aṭā’ Malik Juwaynī, Tārīkh-i Jahān Gushā, translated by Boyle, J. A. as The History of the World-Conqueror (Manchester 1958), 108–9Google Scholar (pages 84–5 of Qazwīnī's edition); Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘al-Tawārīkh, translated by Boyle, J. A. as Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb. The Successors of Genghis Khan (New York-London 1971), 168–71Google Scholar. Its site is now unknown. Ibn, Baṭṭūṭa (Voyages edited Defrémery, and Sanguinetti, (Paris 1854) III, 278Google Scholar; translated Gibb, H. A. R. as The Travels of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa III (Cambridge 1971), 554Google Scholar) stayed at a zāwiya (sic) attached to the mausoleum of Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī, which gives a terminus of circa 1334 for the existence of some monumental construction associated with it. This, however, may have been the khānqāh, the important waqfiyya of which (dated 726/1326) has been published and translated by Chekhovich, O. D., Bukharskiye Dokumenty XIV v. (Tashkent 1965)Google Scholar. The relationship of the mausoleum, the khānqāh and Ibn Baṭṭūṭa's zāwiya to the Madrasa-yi Khānī cannot be demonstrated.

⁷³ An interesting passage, undated, but presumably before 638/1240, when the second dating inscription was erected, in Āqsarā’ī (MS 87: Turan text 37) relates to the construction of the Karatay Han. When Qaraṭay was brought the account books for the works it emerged that more had been spent [than the estimates provided for]. Rather, however, than bring the mu‘tamadān and the ustādhān into debt by having them make up the deficit, he burned the books. (See also Turan, O. “Selçuk devri vakfiyeleri. III. Celâleddin Karatay vakıflar ve vakfiyeleri” Belleten XII (1948), 85 ffGoogle Scholar. and lines 155–85 of the waqfiyya.) This demonstrates not only that the work was contracted out but also that the master craftsmen were required to furnish their own estimates of the material costs of the building, with the understanding that they would make up any deficit. Why they also should have been held responsible is not entirely clear: perhaps they had demanded materials (probably the marble used on the main entrance) which they had not specified in advance.

⁷⁴ Rogers, J. M., “Seljuk architectural decoration at Sivas” in The Art of Iran and Anatolia from the 11th to the 13th Century A.D. (= Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia No. 4), edited Watson, W. (Percival David Foundation, University of London 1974–1975), 13–27Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Sadèque, F., Baybars I of Egypt (Oxford-Karachi 1956), text 29Google Scholar: translation 115; MAE II, 85Google Scholar, citing Maqrīzī, Sulūk, edited Ziyāda, M. (Cairo 1956) I, 445–46Google Scholar; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ (Būlāq 1853) II, 184Google Scholar. For a comparable case see Wiet, G., “Notes d'épigraphie syro-musulmane III Inscriptions de la citadelle de Damas,” Syria VII (1926), 51Google Scholar, when al-Malik al-‘Ādil ordered the rebuilding of the walls of Damascus in 604/1207 and assigned a tower to each member of his family.

⁷⁶ For the refortification see Minorsky, V., Studies in Caucasian History (London 1953), 103Google Scholar. For the inscriptions, Orbeli, I. A., “O dvukh terminakh v nadpisyakh Ani” in Izbranniye Trudy (Erevan 1963), 477–81Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ I. A. Orbeli, “Armyanskiye nadpisi na kamnye,” ibid., 470–1, cites two Armenian inscriptions from the walls of Kara which explicitly refer to construction at public expense; their tenor is as follows:

(a) Summer 683 Armenian/1234. In the reign of Rusudan and under the atābaklik of Ivāne [Mkhargrdzeli, but who apparently died in 1227 or 1229—cf. Brosset, M. F., Ḳarṭlis I (St. Petersburg 1849), 499–500]Google Scholar we, the Christians of Kars, built these towers at our own expense;

(b) Summer 683 Armenian/1234. By the grace of God and the favour of our Empress [literally, Emperor] Rusudan, we, the Christians of Kars, great and small, built these towers in our memory and that of our [Royal] mistress.

⁷⁸ Rashīd al-Dīn Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh ‘Alīzāde/Arends (see note 45 above) text 413: translation 234.

⁷⁹ Bībī, Ibn, Mukhtaṣar 105Google Scholar: Duda 111; Bombaci, A., “Die Mauerinschriften von Konya” in Forschungen zur Kunst Asiens. In Memoriam Kurt Erdmann, edited Aslanapa, O. and Naumann, R. (Istanbul 1969), 67–73Google Scholar. On the completion of the walls Kayqubād inspected them and ordered inscriptions to be erected on the walls, towers and gates, so that they should be a lasting memorial. Ibn Bībī's account does not preclude the erection of memorial inscriptions by commoners; however, he implies that Kayqubād considered the walls a memorial to himself.

⁸⁰ Tevḥīd, A., “Anṭālya sūrlari kitābeleri,” TOEM No. 86 (= New Series No. 9) (Istanbul 1341/1922–1923), 165–76Google Scholar, especially 172–24, No.'s 4–5; 175–6, No. 14. The names give little indication of race or origin: KLWKWAN has been claimed as Armenian, though it could conceivably be a corruption of the Greek Καλοιαννης. But there is no way to tell.

⁸¹ Cf. a foundation inscription from Sidon, possibly composed in Cairo, datable 491–5/1097–1101 (Musée du Louvre, Inventory No. 8152) in the name of al-Afḍal, the vizier of the Fāṭimid Caliph, al-Musta‘lī. (G. Wiet, CIA Egypte, supplement 135, note 2): ‘alā yad mamlūkihi al-amīr […] Sa‘d al-Dawla. Mamlukihi cannot be taken literally: al-Musta‘lī was a mere puppet in al-Afḍal's hands.

⁸² Ülkütaşır, art. cit., has b. Qaymāz, but this ignores M. Behçet's correction in “Sinop kitabeleri II,” art. cit. (note 38 above), 43. ‘Alā yad here replaces al-‘abd al-da‘īf, which qualifies his fellow emirs, possibly because al-amīr al-isfahsalār al-kabīr (General) was a rank which gave him high status in Seljuk society, and not an appointment (sc. Commander-in-Chief) held by emirs in succession. In the appendix to the waqfiyya of Qaraṭay (Turan, art. cit., 136) two of the witnesses, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad and Tāj al-Dīn Sinjūrī, bear it. See also a fermān (Turan, O., Türkiye Selçukluları hakkında resmî vesikalar (Ankara 1958), 18–20: 32–3Google Scholar of Persian text) appointing a certain Kamāl al-Dīn, who is already amīr-i sipahsalār, tarjumān; and Cahen, C., Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London 1968), 228Google Scholar.

⁸³ Karavansaray, 197, No. 76; ‘alā yaday al-‘abd Abi’l-Qāsim b. ‘Abd Allāh (?).

⁸⁴ See note 21 above. The emir responsible, Sirāj al-Dīn Aḥhmad, is described as mutawallī (superintendent) (see pages 98–9 below).

⁸⁵ Op. cit., 24. Wiet (CIA Egypte Supplément 46 note) understates the case in saying that ‘alā yad does not always refer to an architect or craftsman. In Syria and Egypt there is no clear case where it ever does and many clear cases where it does not. Thus, Jarkas al-Khalīlī (see note 44 above), who also superintended the construction of the madrasa-khānqāh of Barqūq in 788/1386, uses fī mubāsharat for the latter but ‘alā yad for the former (CIA Egypte I, 89–90, No. 53Google Scholar). Outside Egypt, Syria and Anatolia conclusive proof of the difference is given by a Shaddādid inscription on a door at Gelati (now in the National Museum, Tbilisi), said to have been brought from Darband: Basmala. Amara bi-ittikhādh [has ordered to be brought into use] hādh[ā]’l-bāb mawlāna al-amīr al-sayyid al-ajall Shawūr b. al-Faḍl adāma Allāh sulṭānah ‘alā yaday al-imām Abi’l-Faraj Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh adāma Allāh tawfīqah ‘amal Ibr[āhīm] b. ‘Uthmān b. ‘Ankwayh al-ḥaddād sanat 455/1063 (in words). Cf. Fraehn, C. M., “Erklärung der arabischen Inschrift des eisernen Thorflügels zu Gelathi in Imerethi,” Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg 6th series III (St. Petersburg 1836), 538Google Scholar; RCEA 2669 with references.

⁸⁶ Voyages, 313 No.'s 48, 47. Towers LII, LVI.

⁸⁷ Ibid.Ibid., 315 No. 51. The Harput Gate.

⁸⁸ Ibid.Ibid., 315. Tower LXIII.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 315, Nos. 52–3. Citadel. See also note 98 below.

⁹⁰ Ibid., Tower V.

⁹¹ Ibid., 317–8, Nos. 57–8. Towers XXX and LX.

⁹² Ibid., 318, No. 59.

⁹³ Ibid., 327, No. 82.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 319, No. 61.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 327, No. 83. Van Berchem apud Strzygowski, J., Amida (Heidelberg 1910), 59–60Google Scholar, assumes that an even later inscription (518/1124–5) (cf. Voyages, 328, No. 84): wa jarā dhālik ‘alā yaday al-faqīr ilā raḥmat Allāh [… b.] Abu’1-Fatḥ (sic) b. ‘Abd al-Waḥīd b. Muḥammad, is of a descendant of the 11th-century qāḍī, ‘Abd al-Waḥīd. However, the names of the latter's other sons occur in inscriptions dated so much earlier—460/1067, 465/1072 and 476/1083—that this must be highly improbable.

⁹⁶ Voyages, 328, No. 85. The inscription has been displaced.

⁹⁷ Akok, M. and Özgüç, T., “Develi âbideleri,” Belleten XIX (1955), 377–84Google Scholar. The name, Siwāstā, is conjectural, but bint is clear.

⁹⁸ Voyages, 315, No. 52. The text given here is somewhat curtailed. Sibṭ ibn al-‘Ajamī’s Kunūz al-Dhahab (ed. cit., 132) shows how the system worked at Aleppo in the case of the Māristān al-Nūrī. Ibn al-‘Adīm stated that the hospital was originally founded for Ibn Buṭlān, the famous physician, in 440/1048–9. On the porch Sibṭ ibn al-‘Ajamī read a restoration inscription of Nūr al-Dīn (1146–74) ‘alā yad Ibn Abi’l-Sa‘ālīk (compare RCEA 3312). The women's ward bore a restoration inscription, presumably in similar terms, of the Ayyūbid ruler of Aleppo, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf (655/1257) ‘alā yad Abi’l-Ma‘ālī Muḥammad … Ibn al-‘Ajamī.—The Banū. ‘Ajamī provided virtually all the qāḍīs of Aleppo at this time.—The hospital was restored again under the Mamlūk Sultan, al-Malik al-Ashraf Sha‘bān (1363–77), and the window by the entrance of its [principal] īwān also bore an inscription dated 840/1436–7. With the probable exception of the restoration by Nūr al-Dīn, which probably included total rebuilding as well as re-endowment, the other restorations must all have been ordered indirectly (through the nā’ib of Aleppo, though in the Sultan's name), and it then fell to qāḍīs like Abu’l-Ma‘ālī Muḥammad to supervise the work.

⁹⁹ Van Berchem, (CIA Egypte I, 84–5Google Scholar) argues that these expressions indicate the direct supervision of the nāẓir al-‘imāra. Thus, a decree dated 791/1389 of Sultan Ḥājjī at the porch of the Hospital of Qalā’ūn in Cairo (CIA Egypte I, 134Google Scholar) states that the re-endowment was effected fī naẓar al-maqarr al-sayfī Qāntemür, who was Sword-bearer, and an emir whose position precluded him from taking an executive role, which must have been left to unspecified officials. Sultan Ḥājjī was still too young to rule in his own right, and the re-endowment, which was a deliberate affront to Barqūq, who had been forced to flee Cairo, was certainly the result of a decision by the emirs who supported Ḥājjī and ruled in his name. Qāntemür may therefore actually have taken the decision qua nāẓir al-‘imāra.

There is, however, another possibility. The choice of Qantemür suggests that he had made himself nāẓir (Visitor) of the hospital of Qalā‘ūn, which was usually a Royal appointment. As is clear from Ibn Taghrībirdī's account of al-Mu'ayyad's ill-fated dam (see note 43 above) the nāẓir of a Royal foundation might be required to provide men or materials from the foundation for Royal works. Niẓāra involved both executive and financial authority, and in Mamlūk Egypt at least, therefore, fī naẓar may be appropriate to decrees emitted by the nāẓirs of waqfs, appointment to which was in the Sultan's gift. Van Berchem's suggestion is thus too limited.

¹⁰⁰ Op. cit., 102 and references.

¹⁰¹ The importance of the muhandisīn is illustrated by the Ṭūlūnī family in Cairo which from the late 14th century to the Ottoman conquest had a virtual monopoly of the position (generally known as mu‘allim al-mu‘allimīn/mu‘allim al-mi‘māriyya). Aḥmad b. Aḥmad al-Ṭūlūnī (Mayer, , Architects, 41Google Scholar), often confused with his father, Shihāb/Shams al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Ṭūlūnī (Mayer, ibid., 46; Sakhāwī, , Ḍaw’ II, 149Google Scholar), also a mu‘allim, was Barqūq's mu‘allim al-mu ‘allimīn and built his madrasa-khānqāh in Cairo (788/1386). He was first made a khāṣṣakī and then promoted to Emir of Ten: Barquq married his daughter in 794/1391–2. He was sent more than once to supervise repairs to the Ḥaram at Mecca and died in the Ḥijāz (802/1399) while superintending the construction of staging posts (manāhil) on the Ḥajj route. Two of his sons also became mu‘allim al-mu‘allimīn, as did his grandson, Ḥasan b. Ḥusayn al-Ṭūlūnī, (Mayer, ibid., 65–6 with references). The latter's maternal grandfather was the Qāḍī Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Qayṣarī he himself was educated as an ‘ālim and was a pupil of the historian, al-Sakhāwī. He became a favourite of Sultan Īnāl, under whom his appointment as mu‘allim al-mu‘allimīn is first recorded (857/1453), a position which he held, with intervals, till 908/1502–3. In his later years he was succeeded by his son, Shihāb al-Dīn, whose name appears in the lists of Cairene notables temporarily deported to Istanbul in 923/1517. Their connexions with Royalty and the most distinguished ‘ulamā’, which were evidently prerequisites for their position, eminently fitted them for the task of administrating a large staff of architects, surveyors and builders, though they may not have been surveyors (muhandisīn) themselves. The claim that Aḥmad b. Aḥmad al-Ṭūlūnī and his son ilayhima taqaddumat al-ḥajjārīn wa’l-bannā’īn, therefore, does not imply that either practised the craft of mason or builder: they were far too distinguished. But as mu‘allim al-mu‘allimīn they might well have controlled the crafts and possibly headed their guilds as well. Most remarkably, however, virtually nothing of them is known from the extant monuments. They left no records of their works in inscriptions.

The term muhandis is not recorded in Anatolian Seljuk epigraphy and only occurs once on the walls of Diyarbekir, (Voyages, 311, No. 40)Google Scholar. He probably shared the expenses with the governor, Yaḥyā b. Isḥāq al-Jarjarā’ī (wa jarat al-nafaqa ‘alayhi), and must, therefore, have been a high-ranking official with overall responsibility (Mayer, , Architects, 43Google Scholar), though the inscription is too early (297/909) for one to assume that practice was already standardized. The literal sense of muhandis is “having theoretical mechanics” (cf. “Handasa”, EI ²), and is close to Procopius' ideal of the ideal architect μηχανικός in his De Aedificiis (Downey, G., “Byzantine architects, their training and methods,” Byzantion XVIII (1948), 100Google Scholar). Since for the most part Islamic builders were not highly esteemed and relatively rarely “signed” their work the muhandisīn with their theoretical training naturally moved up into the higher administrative classes.

¹⁰² M. Behçet, art. cit. II, 45.

¹⁰³ Ülkütaşır, art. cit., 122 (ç) has min nuṣrat, which makes no sense in this context.

¹⁰⁴ M. Behçet, loc. cit., al-Kitābī; Ülküktaşır, loc. cit., Katancı. But see note 51 above.

¹⁰⁵ Karavansaray, 73, No. 20. The full inscription, read by A. Dietrich, is: amara bi-‘imārat hādhihi’l-(sic)khān al-mabrūra (sic) fī ayyām dawlat al-sulṭān al-a‘ẓam shāhanshāh al-mu‘aẓẓam I‘tibār al-Dunyā wa’l-Dīn Abū (sic)’l-Fatḥ Kaykhusraw al-isfahsalār al-mu‘aẓẓam malik mulūk al-umarā’ wa’l-wuzarā’ amīn al-dawla wa’l-dīn ‘awn al-Islām wa’l-muslimīn Pervāne-yi a‘ẓam Sulaymān b. ‘Alī ‘allā Allāh sha’nah naẓara aqall al-‘ābidīn Gawharbāsh/Gawhartāsh b. ‘Abd Allāh fī Dhi’l-Ḥijja sanat 664 (in words, but with arba‘ūn for arba‘īn). Erdmann's view (Karavansaray, 74) that the inscription marks the beginning of building works, which is in conformity with standard practice, runs into the difficulty that the date, September 1266, coincides with the beginning of the autumn rains in Paphlagonia. The date must therefore relate to the order.

¹⁰⁶ Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Ibn Ṣaṣra’ Al-Durra al-Muḍi’a fi’l-Dawla al-Ẓahiriyya, edited and translated Brinner, W. M., A Chronicle of Damascus 1389–1397 (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1963)Google Scholar, text 172a: translation 226.

¹⁰⁷ M. Behçet, art. cit. II, 48; Ülkütaşır, art. cit., 127 (j).

¹⁰⁸ See note 26 above.

¹⁰⁹ Voyages, 341–2, No. 118, has bi-tawallī al-faqīr for al-‘abd al-faqīr, but bi-tawallī fits better later in the inscription. Although the primary sense of himma is moral support, the context suggests that Sābiq al-Dīn was assistant mutawallī.

¹¹⁰ Ibn Bībī: Aya Sofya, 254. Omitted in Mukhtaṣar.

¹¹¹ Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, ‘Alīzāde/Arends text 410: translation 232.

¹¹² Mayer, Architects, 84, has mi‘mār. For the correct reading see Gyuzalyan, L. T., “Neizdanniye nadpisi Bayburtskoi tsitadeli,” Vizantiisky Vremennik VIII (1956), 306–30Google Scholar, the fullest commentary on the inscriptions yet published. Also cf. Van Berchem, M., “Arabische Inschriften aus Armenien und Diyarbakr” in Lehmann-Haupt, C. H., Materialien zur älteren Geschichte Armeniens und Mesopotamiens (Berlin 1907), 125–60Google Scholar, and especially 154, No. 12. Neither Güreşsever, G. and Altun, A., “Bayburt köylerinde Türk mimarî eserleri,” Sanat Tarihi Araştīrmalarī III (Istanbul 1970), 33–47Google Scholar, nor Ünal, R. H., “Monuments islamiques pré-ottomans de la ville de Bayburt,” Revue des Études Islamiques XL (1972), 99–127Google Scholar, offer any comment on the inscriptions.

¹¹³ RCEA 4327

¹¹⁴ It is doubtful whether he ever was Pervāne. Cahen (Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 240) assumes that he was simply a prominent Tokat figure who took his title from that of his father Najm al-Dīn Abu’l-Qāsim b. ‘Alī al-Ṭūsī (Ibn, Bībī, Aya Sofya, 349Google Scholar; Mukhtaṣar, 144, 153, 264–5; Duda, 145–6, 153, 253–4). Turan gives him the title Pervāne (Selçuklular zamanında Türkiye (Istanbul 1971) 468Google Scholar), but, I suspect, on the basis of the present inscription. In any case (ibid. 471) he had already been replaced in office by 651/1252–3, when Niẓām al-Dīn Khurshīd was Pervāne (Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 343).

¹¹⁵ MTA. II, 107Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Oral, M.Z., “Anadolu’da sanat deǧeri olan ahşap minberler kitabeleri ve tarihçeleri,” VD. V (1962), 26Google Scholar. Oral dates these inscriptions circa 548/1153–4.

¹¹⁷ Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 189, citing the 13th-century Kitāb al-Jughrāfıyya of Ibn Sa‘īd.

¹¹⁸ Usually read as Sīqistūs. However Mayer, (Architects, 119, with references)Google Scholar, following Wittek, reads Sebastos.

¹¹⁹ M. Behçet, art. cit. II, 45, No. 8; Ülkütaşır, art cit., 125 (g), (h).

¹²⁰ RCEA 4665 after Behçet, M., Qasṭamūnī. Anaṭūlī Tūrk āthār wa maḥkūkāti tatabbu‘ātina asās (Istanbul 1341/1922), 56Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Panofsky, E., “Abbot Suger of St-Denis” reprinted in Meaning in the Visual Arts (New York 1955), 139–80Google Scholar; Von Simson, O., The Gothic Cathedral, 2nd edition (London–New York 1962), 96–8Google Scholar, the latter citing two other mediaeval bishops, Benno of Osnabrück and Otto of Bamberg who, in his view, were architect-designers in the modern sense. Even in the Renaissance, he observes, a patron who commissioned a building often had more concrete ideas to contribute than his modern counterpart.