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

Download by: [171.67.216.22] Date: 06 January 2016, At: 07:00

Al-MasāqJournal of the Medieval Mediterranean

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

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

Patricia Blessing

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

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

Published online: 05 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia:The Funerary Complexes of S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın

ʿAlı and Mahperı Khatun*

PATRICIA BLESSING*

ABSTRACT This article presents two seventh/thirteenth-century Islamic funerary complexeslocated in Anatolia (roughly today’s Turkey) in the context of multi-functional ensembleswith a mausoleum enclosed within the larger structure. Such monuments, although quitenumerous, are poorly understood in terms of their relationship to Islamic funerarypractice. The case studies at the centre of this article, the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya,

built between 656/1258 and 684/1285, and the Mahperı Khatun Complex in Kayseri,begun in 635/1237-38, are two funerary complexes that allow for an analysis ofpatronage, gender, the placement of the body (or bodies) of the deceased and spatialconception in these monuments. The article discusses the structural features of the two casestudies, their patrons and inscription programmes in order to analyse how thesearchitectural ensembles were used to frame, encase and protect the burials.

Keywords: Architecture – religious / Islam / eastern Mediterranean; Ikonion/Konya; Konya; Turkey; Kayseri; Turkey; Anatolia – architecture; Rum (sultanate)– architecture; Burials – Muslim burials; Patronage; architectural – in Turkey

Among the Islamic monuments of medieval Anatolia, multifunctional funerarycomplexes abound, starting in the late-sixth/twelfth century with some of the earliestextant Saljuq buildings, and continuing into the ninth/fourteenth century with theburials of the first Ottoman sultans in Bursa. Some of these monuments wereintended for the burial of holy men and holy women, while others contain the mau-solea of notables, rulers and their families. These architectural ensembles have

© 2015 Society for the Medieval Mediterranean

*The author would like to thank Nezar AlSayyad, Shahzad Bashir, Jelena Bogdanovic, Maria CristinaCarile, Beate Fricke, Marisa Galvez, Seth Hindin, Alexander Key, Beatrice Kitzinger, Katherine Marsen-gill, Asa Mittmann, Heba Mostafa and Heghnar Watenpaugh for suggestions at various stages while thisarticle was in preparation. Thanks are also due to the two anonymous reviewers for al-Masaq for theircomments and suggestions, and to Alun Williams for editing. Related papers were presented at theByzantine Studies Conference in 2012 in a panel sponsored by the International Center of MedievalArt, a workshop on New Approaches to Medieval Art at the University of California, Davis, in March2013, and at the Theoretical Approaches to the Middle Ages Workshop at the Stanford HumanitiesCenter in February 2014.

Correspondence: Patricia Blessing, Society of Architectural Historians, 1365 N. Astor Street, Chicago, IL60610, USA. E-mail: pblessin@stanford.edu

Al-Masaq, 2015Vol. 27, No. 3, 225–252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110.2015.1102494

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

multiple functions in addition to burial. While a mausoleum is always integrated intothe structure or stands nearby, other sections of the complexes may serves asmosques, madrasas, khanqahs, bathhouses, and nearly any possible combinationof two or more functions appears in extant examples.1 The two case studies inthis article, the Mahperı Khatun Complex in Kayseri, built in the second quarterof the seventh/thirteenth century, and the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya, built

between 656/1258 and 684/1285 will stand as examples for the complex architectureand the inscription programmes that appear on these buildings, and frame theirpatrons’ burials (often in family mausolea that contained the graves of relatives).

An important feature shared by these monuments is the placement of burials withrespect to other parts of the site.2 Thus, knowledge of the spatial relationshipbetween the burials and other parts of the building, the use of inscriptions to labelcertain sections, and the choice of site is essential in order to understand thesemonuments within the broader theme of Islamic funerary practices.3 Even thoughmausolea were seen as problematic in theological writings from an early point on,because of proscriptions against building on tombs, funerary monuments prolifer-ated in medieval Islamic architecture. The Qubbat al-Sulaybiyya in Samarraʾ (c.247–248 862) is the earliest extant identifiable Islamic funerary monument, andconsists of a domed chamber with an ambulatory.4 Freestanding structures domi-nated funerary architecture into the fifth/eleventh century, when mosque-mausoleaappeared in Fat

˙imid Egypt.5 Large multifunctional complexes, including mausolea,

along with structures such as madrasas and hospitals, began to proliferate in AyyubidSyria and Egypt in the late sixth/twelfth century, only to be further expanded in

1From the period between 1200 and 1400, around 30 multi-functional funerary structures have been pre-served in Anatolia. For surveys of this material, see Ülkü Bates, “The Anatolian Mausoleum of theTwelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Centuries”, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, 1970; HakkıÖnkal, Anadolu Selçuklu türbeleri (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 1996).2On funerary practices and burial rites in early Islam, see Janine Sourdel-Thomine and Y. Linant de Bel-lefonds, “K

˙abr”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth

et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/kabr-SIM_3744, accessed 4May 2015; Juan Eduardo Campo, “Burial”, in Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾan, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe,http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/burial-EQSIM_00065,accessed 4 May 2015; Leor Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society(New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); Ignaz Goldziher, “Ueber Todtenverehrung im Hei-denthum und im Islam”, in Muhammedanische Studien, volumes I–II (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961),I: 229–63; Ignaz Goldziher, “Veneration of Saints in Islam”, in Muslim Studies, ed. S.M. Stern, trans.C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, volumes I–II (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967), II: 255–341.3The monumental construction of mausolea is connected to the larger issue of the permissibility of build-ing on tombs. For an overview of relevant sources, see Thomas Leisten, Architektur für Tote: Bestattung inarchitektonischem Kontext in den Kernländern der islamischen Welt zwischen dem 3./9. und 6./12. Jahrhundert(Berlin: D. Reimer, 1998), pp. 5–23. On the development of mausolea, see further Oleg Grabar, “TheEarliest Islamic Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents”, Ars Orientalis 6 (1966): 7–46;Melanie DawnMichailidis, “Landmarks of the Persian Renaissance: Monumental Funerary Architecturein Iran and Central Asia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries”, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, 2007.4Grabar, “Earliest Islamic Commemorative Structures”, 14–15; for an overview of mausoleum architec-ture, see alsoMohammad Gharipour and Patricia Blessing, “Mausoleums of the IslamicWorld”, in Ency-clopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, third edition, ed.Helaine Selin (Berlin and New York: Springer, 2015), doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_10227-1,accessed 31 August 2015.5Caroline Williams, “The Cult of ‘Alid Saints in the Fatimid Monuments of Cairo. Part II: TheMausolea”, Muqarnas 3 (1985): 39–60.

226 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Mamluk architecture beginning in the second half of the seventh/thirteenth century.Such examples reached monumental scale, as, for instance, in the funerary complexof Sultan Qalawun in Cairo (683–85/1284–85) with its large domed chamber con-nected to a madrasa and hospital.6 The combination of several functions, as thecase studies from Anatolia below will show, had the double purpose of commemora-tion and charity, while also potentially providing financial security to the patron’sdescendants. Thus, the memorial function cannot be untied from the broader econ-omic, social and urbanistic properties of these monuments. It is also important tonote that much research remains to be done on the archaeological aspects of funer-ary architecture, and particularly of the graves within the complexes. Understand-able reluctance to disturb tombs, particularly those within functioningmonuments, plays a central role in this.7

Thus, research on funerary monuments often has to rely on textual sources, andon the study of extant monuments and their architecture, rather than on the burials.While the preservation of memory is a central concept in funerary practices, anotheris baraka (lit. blessing), which includes the notion that supplication at the tombs ofsaints or other venerated figures could be particularly beneficial.8 Even thoughdescribed as problematic in early Islamic normative texts, the placement of tombsnear mosques speaks to a desire on behalf of the patrons to preserve their memoryin proximity to a place of prayer.9 The notion of ziyara, visits to tombs (mostoften of saints, but also more generally), was more contentious and, as Josef Merihas pointed out, it was of most concern to H

˙anbalı scholars, if not to Ibn H

˙anbal

(d. 241/855) himself.10 Opposition came mostly from later disciples, most famouslyIbn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), who opposed the practice of ziyara if it was to includesupplication for the benefit of the living:

In the legally permissible ziyara, the living does not have need for the deadby making a request of him (masʾala) or seeking his intercession (tawas

˙s˙ul).

But rather, the dead derives benefit from the living. God the Exalted hasmercy upon the living who supplicates for the dead.11

From this point of view, it was thus acceptable to offer prayers for the benefit ofthose buried in a mausoleum, and the prayer could in effect be to the credit of thefaithful offering it as well. Moreover, the H

˙anbalı view was the strictest of the

four schools of Sunni Islam with regard to ziyara; the other schools,

6Michael Meinecke, Die mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten und Syrien (648/1250 bis 923/1517), volumesI–II (Glückstadt: Verlag J.J. Augustin, 1992), I: 44–6.7For an overview of funerary practices based on archaeological investigation, see Andrew Petersen, “TheArchaeology of Death and Burial in the Islamic World”, in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology ofDeath and Burial, ed. Liv Nilsson Stutz and Sarah Tarlow (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013),pp. 242–58, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199569069.013.0014, accessed 29 August 2015.8G.S. Colin, “Baraka”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E.Bosworth, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/baraka-SIM_1216, accessed 4 May 2015; Joseph W. Meri, The Cult of Saints among Muslims and Jews in MedievalSyria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 9–10, 121.9Leisten, Architektur für Tote, 15–23.10Meri, Cult of Saints, 126–38.11Ah

˙mad b. ʿAbd al-H

˙alım Ibn Taymiyya,Majmuʿ fatawa Shaykh al-Islam Ah

˙mad b. Taymiyya, ed. ‘A. al-

ʿAs˙imı, volumes I–XXXVII (Riyadh: Mat

˙abi’ al-Riyad

˙, 1991), XXVII: 71, translation in Meri, Cult of

Saints, 131.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

including the H˙anafı one prevalent in seventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia, did not

reject it.12 More stringently, al-Ghazalı (d. 505/1111) proposed that visits to thetombs of saints and those of family members had the same aim: “supplicatingGod on behalf of the dead”.13 Practices connected to the remembrance of thedead were thus acceptable, and even desirable. Hence, the presence of a mausoleumnear a mosque could be a tool to achieve prayers for the dead, as many visitors to themosque would likely offer them.

More pragmatically, the act of connecting a mausoleum to a large foundationcould increase the likelihood of the structure itself surviving, by comparison tomore vulnerable freestanding mausolea. Moreover, the larger monument –

mosque, madrasa or khanqah – could be endowed with a waqf in order to ensuremaintenance and staff for the mausoleum as well. Thus, the placement of theburial within a larger architectural complex is intrinsically connected to the notionof a space reserved for pious actions and religious practice, which could attract thefaithful and eventually transform the site into a shrine.14 While the two tombsstudied in this article do not belong to saints, they nevertheless take on many ofthe trappings of a sacred site15: the presence of a mosque near the tomb and hencethe possibility for prayer, spatial strategies to emphasise the presence of the tomb,and inscription programmes to present prominently the patron buried at the site.

In the analysis that follows, monumental inscriptions will be an important aspect,as part of an effort within the history of Islamic architecture to pay increased atten-tion to texts on buildings that are not strictly historical – such as Qurʾan or H

˙adıth

passages – and to include them as sources for social analysis.16 Monumental inscrip-tions are generally divided into two broad categories. The first, that of historicalinscriptions, includes texts referring to the foundation of the monument, itspatrons or occasionally its waqf.17 The second includes texts that do not providedates and names, mostly passages from the Qurʾan and H

˙adıth.18 The classical col-

lections of Arabic epigraphy focus on historical inscriptions for their documentaryvalue; religious texts are rarely reproduced in full.19 In a rare study of Qurʾanic

12Meri, Cult of Saints, 133. In Anatolia, the H˙anafı school of law was prevalent because of the Saljuq

sultans’ adherence to it: W. Heffening and J. Schacht, “H˙anafiyya”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, second

edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/hanafiyya-SIM_2703, accessed 4 May 2015.13Meri, Cult of Saints, 139–40.14On the notion of intercession and the role of relics in Islam, see most recently F. Barry Flood, “Bodiesand Becoming: Mimesis, Mediation and the Ingestion of the Sacred in Christianity and Islam”, in Sensa-tional Religion: Sensory Cultures inMaterial Practice, ed. SallyM. Promey (NewHaven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 2014), pp. 459–93.15For a narrower definition, see Oleg Grabar, “La mosquée et le sanctuaire: Sainteté des lieux en Islam”,Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 222/4 (2005): 481–9.16See the pioneering study by Irene A. Bierman,Writing Signs: The Fatimid Public Text (Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press, 1998); more recently, see chapters in Calligraphy and Architecture in the MuslimWorld, ed. Mohammad Gharipour and Irvin Cemil Schick (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,2013).17Waqf inscriptions are relatively rare in medieval Anatolia. Examples have been preserved in the BuruciyeMedrese in Sivas (670/1271-72) and the Yakutiye Medrese in Erzurum (710/1310); see Patricia Blessing,“Allegiance, Praise, and Space: Monumental Inscriptions in Thirteenth-century Anatolia as ArchitecturalGuides”, in Calligraphy and Architecture in the Muslim World, pp. 431–46.18Sheila S. Blair, Islamic Inscriptions (New York: New York University Press, 1998), pp. 29–52.19Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, ed. Etienne Combe, Jean Sauvaget, Gaston Wiet, volumes I–XVIII (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1931–1998), hereafter, RCEA; Max van

228 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

texts in monumental inscriptions, passages that frequently appear were cataloguedand arranged by region, with emphasis on the so-called central Islamic lands (thatis, Bilad al-Sham, Mesopotamia, Khurasan and Egypt).20 Regional context andspecific meanings related to a particular building are not discussed, and Anatoliaremains in the marginal place that it often holds in surveys of the medievalIslamic world.

New approaches to Islamic epigraphy have emerged as scholars have begunincreasingly to study the full inscription programmes of buildings in order toanalyse specific monuments within their social and political space.21 In thecontext of funerary monuments, inscriptions on cenotaphs are important additionsto the more prominent ones on portals. The question of interior and exterior place-ment, and hence public versus restricted access to the tomb, is central. These ques-tions will emerge in the discussion of both case studies that will be introduced in thenext section, and subsequently analysed in detail.

Funerary complexes in Anatolia: two case studies and their context

The two case studies in this article, theMahperıKhatun Complex in Kayseri and theS˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya, show varied strategies to present and commemorate

the founders of large monumental complexes containing burials in medieval Anato-lia, focusing on an analysis of architecture and inscriptions. While most studies ofmausolea in medieval Anatolia have focused on the funerary structure, here, thebroader architectural context of the burials will be analysed. In both the MahperıKhatun Complex and the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, it is important to consider how

burials were presented and memory was established. The comparison of the twocase studies will show how space, commemoration and patronage were intertwinedin Islamic funerary complexes in Anatolia in the seventh/thirteenth century. Thechoice fell on these two case studies for several reasons: first, to discuss both royaland non-royal and male and female patrons; second, because both include amosque and a mausoleum, along with another structure; and third, because bothcomplexes are relatively well preserved.

Several central questions emerge that have larger implications for an understand-ing of Islamic funerary architecture in medieval Anatolia. First, one of the funerarycomplexes was built for a female member of the Saljuq dynasty, and the other for amale member of the ruling elite who was not related to the sultans. This leads us toquestion of the extent to which gender affected the construction of such funerarycomplexes, in both patronage and architectural detail. Second, one of the complexeswas built before, and the other after the Mongol conquest of Anatolia in 641/1243.Power dynamics shifted greatly during this period, changing access to the resources

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

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

that were needed for high-level patronage.22 The S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex is a case in

point: its patron, S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı (d. 684/1285), rose to great power

in the aftermath of the Mongol conquest. The patron of the Mahperı KhatunComplex, Mahperı Khatun, was one of the wives of ʿAlaʾ al-Dın Kayqubad(r. 616/1219–635/1237), the last Saljuq sultan before the Mongol conquest of Anato-lia. Her son, Ghiyath al-Dın Kaykhusraw II (r. 635/1238–644/1246), had to submit toMongol rule in 641/1243. These events will be further discussed below.

The Mahperı Khatun Complex in Kayseri

The Mahperı Khatun Complex (locally known as Huand Hatun Complex) standsfacing the medieval citadel of Kayseri (Figure 1).23 The complex consists of amosque, madrasa (Figure 2) and mausoleum, and the ruins of a bathhouse with sep-arate sections for men and women. Inscriptions on both portals of the mosque datethis section to 635/1237-38, while the other parts of the complex are undated. Thepatron, Mahperı Khatun (d. after 643/1246), was the mother of the ruling Saljuqsultan Ghiyath al-Dın Kaykhusraw II (r. 635/1238–644/1246) and one of thewidows of his father and predecessor, ʿAlaʾ al-Dın Kayqubad (r. 616/1219–635/1237).24 Mahperı Khatun was one of the most prolific female patrons known inmedieval Anatolia, although she is not mentioned in much detail in the writtensources of the period, such as chronicles and hagiographies.25

The mausoleum of the patron, placed at the centre of the Mahperı KhatunComplex, is the focal point of the foundation in spatial terms (Figure 3). Barelyvisible from the outside, the mausoleum is enclosed within the fabric of the buildingcomplex. Only its conical dome is visible above the surrounding walls. An analysis ofthe spatial connections between different parts of the building, and of the inscrip-tions that mark them will present the various layers of this funerary complex.26

Two portals, withmuqarnas niches above the doorways, lead into the mosque, oneon the eastern (Figure 4), and the other on the western side (see Figure 1) of thebuilding. Buttresses accentuate the surface of the walls and give the building a

22J. Michael Rogers, “Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia, 1200–1300”, PhD Thesis, Oxford University, 1971;Howard G. Crane, “Notes on Saljuq Architectural Patronage in 13th-century Anatolia”, Journal of theEconomic and Social History of the Orient 36/1 (Jan. 1993): 1–57; Patricia Blessing, Rebuilding Anatoliaafter the Mongol Conquest: Islamic Architecture in the Lands of Rum, 1240–1330 (Farnham and Burlington,VT: Ashgate, 2014).23For a study of this monument in the context of female patronage, see Patricia Blessing, “WomenPatrons in Medieval Anatolia and a Discussion of Mahbarı Khatun’s Mosque Complex in Kayseri”, Bel-leten (Türk Tarih Kurumu) 78/282 (August, 2014): 475–526.24Antony Eastmond, “Gender and Patronage between Christianity and Islam in the Thirteenth Century”,in Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, 1 Uluslararası Sevgi Gönül BizansArastırmaları Sempozyumu / First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, ed. AynurÖdekan, Esra Akyürek, Nevra Necipoglu (Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 2010), pp. 78–88.25For an overview of female patrons and their foundations in medieval Anatolia, see Aynur Durukan,“Anadolu Selçuklu sanatında kadın baniler”, Vakıflar Dergisi 17 (1998): 15–36.26Since only fragments of Qurʾan passages have been preserved in this building, analysis will focus on his-torical inscriptions. The following passages appear on the complex: the Throne Verse (Q II: 255) justbelow the roof of the mausoleum, and Q IX: 18 twice, first on the western portal of the mosque, andsecond, in a short fragment in the outer wall of the mausoleum courtyard. This last fragment is limitedto the section: “[a]qama l-s

˙alaw[a]t wa-ʿat

˙a l-zakaw[a]t” ([who] keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed

alms). All English translations of Qurʾan passages are from: The Qur’an, trans. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem(Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

230 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

fortified aspect; otherwise, only small windows interrupt the strong stone-built walls.In the north-western corner of the mosque, a corridor leads from the portal into theprayer hall. Entering through the portal, the viewer is offered a glimpse of the mau-soleum through a partially open arch. The visual tease does not lead to access,however, and the visitor must either stop and contemplate the mausoleum from adistance, or walk on into the sanctuary of the mosque. Having entered throughthis portal on the western side of the mosque, the visitor has had the chance tosee the foundation inscription, placed on a marble plaque high above the muqarnasniche, which provides information about the patron:

FIGURE 2. View of madrasa, Mahperı Khatun Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph.

FIGURE 1. View of western portal of mosque, dome of mausoleum, and minaret, MahperıKhatun Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

FIGURE 3. View ofmausoleum, taken around 1900,MahperıKhatun Complex, Kayseri (HalilEdhem, K

˙ays

˙eriye Sehri, plate 8).

232 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

[It] ordered the construction of this blessed mosque in the days of the great-est sultan, Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın, the father of conquest, Kaykhusrawson of Kayqubad, the great queen, the wise, the ascetic, S

˙afwat al-Dunya

wa-l-Dın, Mahbarı Khatun, may God perpetuate the shadows of her splen-dour and multiply her power, in the year 635/1238.27

The mosque is the only part of the Mahperı Khatun Complex that is securelydated with building inscriptions, pointing out the patron’s position as the motherof the ruling sultan. The inscription on the eastern portal closely echoes the onejust cited, although it does not mention the patron’s name, only her titles and herrole as the ruling sultan’s mother.28 Like its counterpart on the western portal,this foundation inscription is placed high up on the façade, and legibility from theground is limited. This poses the question of the extent to which the content ofthese inscriptions would have been readily available.29 Symbolically, the mosquetakes centre-stage in these texts. They do not refer to the mausoleum: neither itspresence, nor the fact that Mahperı Khatun is buried next to her mosque, is

FIGURE 4. Eastern portal of mosque, Mahperı Khatun Complex, Kayseri; author’sphotograph.

27“(1)Amara bi ʿimarat hadh(a) l-masjid al-mubarak fı ayyam al-sult˙an al-aʿz

˙amGhiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın

Abu l-Fath˙Kaykhusraw b. (2)Kayqubad al-malika al-kabıra S

˙afwat al-Dunya wa-l-DınMahbarı (3)Khatun

adama allah z˙ilal jalaliha fı sanat khamsa wa-thalathın wa-sittamıʾa”, RCEA, No. 4147, and Halil Edhem

(Eldem), K˙ays˙eriye Sehri: Mebanı-yi islamıye ve kitabeleri: Selçuki ta’rih inden bir k

˙ıt‘a (Istanbul: Matba‘a-yı

Orhaniye, 1334/1918-19), p. 65. Unless otherwise noted, all transliterations and translations are theauthor’s.28On the eastern portal: “[It] ordered the construction of this blessed congregational mosque in the daysof the greatest sultan, Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın, the father of conquest, Kaykhusraw son of Kayqubad,the great queen, the wise, the ascetic, S

˙afwat al-Dunya wa-l-Dın, his mother, the opener of good deeds,

may God perpetuate the shadows of her splendour and multiply her power, in Shawwal of the year 635/May–June 1238,” RCEA, No. 4146, and Edhem, K

˙ays˙eriye Sehri, 64.

29On this issue, see Richard Ettinghausen, “Arabic Epigraphy: Communication or Symbolic Affirma-tion”, in Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of GeorgeC. Miles, ed. Dikran K. Kouymjian (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974), pp. 297–317.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

acknowledged.30 This point will be discussed further below, but it may hint at thefact that the elements of the complex were considered separate entities within thelarger whole.

The solution to this question is not helped by the uncertainty of some points in theconstruction history of the monument. The chronology of the building beyond thedate of construction of the mosque, clearly indicated in the inscriptions just dis-cussed, is unclear. Scholars have suggested two possible sequences of construction,which affect interpretation of the monument. Art historian Albert Gabriel and, later,archaeologist Mahmud Akok have suggested that the mosque and the madrasa werebuilt in close succession, perhaps as a single project and that the mausoleum wasadded later, at an unknown date.31

Archaeologist Haluk Karamagaralı suggests that the site of the mausoleum wasoccupied by a baptistery or similar Christian structure before the Saljuq conquestof Kayseri, and that the mosque and madrasa were added later to transform thesite into an Islamic place of worship and commemoration.32 This hypothesis findsa correlation in what little information is available about the patron. MahperıKhatun was probably born as a Christian and converted to Islam after the deathof her husband, Saljuq sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Dın Kayqubad, in 635/1237.33 Hence, themosque – built in 635/1238 – may have been her first act of patronage as aMuslim. This point of chronology is not easily solved, and it does not distractfrom the fact that the patron’s mausoleum clearly dominates the complex. Its pos-ition at the juncture between mosque and madrasa emphasises the commemorationof Mahperı Khatun.

The mausoleum is undated, and is adorned only by a Qurʾanic inscription (Q II:255, the so-called “Throne Verse”), which runs along the top of the octagonalsection, just below the muqarnas cornice at the base of the dome (Figure 5).34 Themausoleum stands in a small courtyard, visible only from the entrance to themosque. One of the funerary structure’s eight walls is connected tothe madrasa; the latter extends to the north, at a ninety-degree angle to themosque.35 The mausoleum used to be surrounded by tombstones, of which only

30The same is true in the Buruciye Medrese in Sivas (670/1271-72) where the funerary function is notmentioned in external inscriptions, only in those in the interior of the mausoleum itself: Blessing, “Alle-giance, Praise, and Space”, 437–8. Systematic study of other monuments in Anatolia in this regard has notbeen completed, but overall it appears that the mausolea are treated as secondary entities in largercomplexes.31Albert Gabriel, Les monuments turcs d’Anatolie, volumes I–II (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1931), I: 39–50 for adetailed description of the monument and Gabriel’s suggested sequence of construction; Mahmut Akok,“Kayseri’de Hunad Mimari Külliyesinin rölövesi”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 16/1 (1967): 5-44, at 6–7.32Haluk Karamagaralı, “Kayseri’deki Hunat Camisinin restitüsyonu ve Hunat Manzumesinin kronolojisihakkında bazı mülahazalar”, Ankara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 21 (1976): 199–245, at 207–13.Further discussion in Suzan Yalman, “Architecture andMarriages across Frontiers: The Case of MahperiKhatun”, unpublished paper presented at the Society of Architectural Historians Annual Conference,Austin, TX, 11 April 2014.33Osman Turan, Selçuklular zamanında Türkiye: Siyasî tarih Alp Arslan’dan Osman Gazi’ye, 1071–1318,8th edition (Istanbul: Ötüken, 2004), pp. 423 and 468; Nejat Kaymaz, Anadolu Selçuklu SultanlarındanII. Giyâsü’d-dîn Keyhüsrev ve devri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2009), p. 25.34“God: there is no God but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful. Neither slumber nor sleep over-takes Him. All that is in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who is there that can intercedewith Him except by His leave? He knows what is before them and behind them, but they do not compre-hend any of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; itdoes not weary Him to preserve them both. He is the Most High, the Tremendous” (Q II: 255).

234 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

FIGURE 5. Enclosure of mausoleum, Mahperı Khatun Complex, Kayseri; author’sphotograph.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

a few badly decayed fragments survive, forming a little graveyard in the vicinity of themain tomb, and protected by its enclosure (see Figures 3 and 6). On the northernside, access to the mausoleum is possible from a side chamber of the adjacentmadrasa.

The mausoleum of the Mahperı Khatun Complex is built of the same dark greystone as the mosque and madrasa, but its base consists of rows of muqarnas in whitemarble (Figure 6). Inside the mausoleum, three stone cenotaphs mark burials.36 Amih

˙rab (prayer niche) in the interior wall of the mausoleum marks the qibla, that is,

the direction of Mecca to guide the orientation of Muslim prayer. The lower level ofthe mausoleum, the burial chamber or crypt where the bodies of the deceased wouldhave been either buried in the ground or, in parallel to other examples frommedievalAnatolia, placed on the floor in wooden coffins, is entirely closed off. This also opensthe broader question, not further discussed in the limited space of this article, of theadherence to Islamic burial customs in medieval Anatolia. According to Islamic law,burial should have taken place in the ground, with the body simply wrapped in ashroud.37 In medieval Anatolia, however, numerous examples are known in which

FIGURE 6. Fragments of tombstones in the mausoleum courtyard and base of mausoleum,Mahperı Khatun Complex, Kayseri; author’s photograph.

35In plan, the madrasa finds many close parallels in thirteenth-century Anatolia with its open courtyard,arcades leading towards a large ıwan in the east-west axis. For a survey, see: Aptullah Kuran, Anadolumedreseleri (Ankara: Middle East Technical University, 1969).36Önkal, Anadolu Selçuklu türbeleri, fig. 44. Cenotaphs are largely understudied within Islamic art history,and are often taken for granted as part of mausolea. It is, however, crucial to note that unlike sarcophagi,cenotaphs do not contain bodies. Rather, burials took place in the crypt below: F. Barry Flood, “Presen-tation, (Re)animation and the Enchantments of Technology”, Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 61-2(2012): 229-36, at 229; Sheila S. Blair, “Cenotaph”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, ed. Kate Fleet,Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/cenotaph-COM_24386, accessed 3 May 2015.37Campo, “Burial”.

236 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

the bodies in their wooden coffins placed in the chamber simply dried out, turninginto mummies naturally.38

The inscription on Mahperı Khatun’s cenotaph is undated, yet clearly presentsher position as a royal woman and former queen mother:

This is the tomb of the lady, the veiled lady, the fortunate, the martyr, theascetic, the servant, the devote, the striver, the promoter of faith, thechaste, the just princess, the queen of the women in the world, the virtuous,the clean, Mary of her age and Khadıja of her time, the mistress at theexpense of thousands [of riches], purity of the world and of religion,Mahbarı Sult

˙an Khatun, the mother of the late sultan Ghiyath al-Dunya

wa-l-Dın Kaykhusraw son of Kayqubad, may God have mercy upon themall, Amen.39

The epigraphic programme thus establishes Mahperı Khatun’s identity as a royalpatron, and presents the complex as a place of pious commemoration. Since theinscription on the cenotaph refers to “the late sultan Ghiyath al-Dın Kaykhusraw”,it is clear that the inscription was carved after 644/1246, the year Mahperı Khatun’sson died. It does not, however, give a date for Mahperı Khatun’s burial; the date ofher death is unknown, and the latest written record of Mahperı Khatsun being aliverefers to the year 652/1254.40

The second high-ranking woman who was buried in the mausoleum, SaljuqıKhatun, was laid to rest in 683/1284; the inscription on her cenotaph indicatesthat she was a daughter of Ghiyath al-Dın Kaykhusraw and hence MahperıKhatun’s granddaughter.41 The date on this inscription suggests that the burial ofSaljuqı Khatun was added several decades after her grandmother’s death.

In the inscription on her cenotaph, MahperıKhatun’s role as a queen-mother andas a patron is strongly emphasised. The title S

˙afwat al-Dunya wa-l-Dın (purity of the

world and of religion), used in all three inscriptions, may point to MahperıKhatun’sinitial role as a non-royal wife of the sultan.42 She is designated as theMary of her age

38Hakkı Önkal, “Türk türbe mimarisinde cenazelik katının gelis mesi”, Türk Kültürü 307 (1988): 732–38;Ibrahim HakkıKonyalı “Türklerde mumya ve mumyacılık”, Tarih Konusuyor 3/15 (April, 1965): 1196–9,1257; Faruk Sümer, “The Seljuk Turbehs and the Tradition of Embalming”, in Atti del secondo congressointernazionale di arte turco, Venice, 26–29 September 1963 (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Semi-nario di Turcologia, 1965), pp. 245–8.39“(1) hadha qabr al-sitt al-sayyida al-satıra al-saʿıda al-shahıda al-zahida al-ʿabida al-murabit

˙a al-mujahida

al-mas˙una al-s

˙ah˙iba al-ʿadila (2) al-malikat al-nisaʾ [sic!] fı l-ʿalam al-ʿafıfa al-naz

˙ıfa Maryam awaniha wa-

Khadıjat zamaniha s˙ah˙ibat al-maʿrufa al-mutas

˙addiqa bi-l-mal uluf s

˙afwat al-dunya (3) wa-l-dın Mahbarı

Khatun walidat al-sult˙an al-marh

˙um Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın Kaykhusraw b. Kayqubad rah

˙imahum

Allah ajmaʿın amin”: Halil Edhem, K˙ays˙eriye Sehri, 67, and RCEA, No. 4259.

40Nas˙ir al-DınH

˙usayn ibnMuh

˙ammad ibn Bıbı, al-Avamir l-ʾalaʾiyye fı l-umuri l-ʿalaʾiyye, ed. Adnan Sadık

Erzi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956), p. 536.41“In the name of God the Merciful the Compassionate. The owner of this tomb is Saljuqı Khatun, thedaughter of the martyr sultan Kaykhusraw b. Kayqubad in Muh

˙arram of the year 683/ March–April

1284”: Halil Edhem, K˙ays˙eriye Sehri, 69, and RCEA, No. 4840.

42Ismail Hakkı Uzunçars ılı, Osmanlı devleti teskilâtına medhal, third edition (Ankara: Türk Tarih KurumuBasımevi, 1984), p. 61; Ahmet Aksit, “Melike-i Adiliye kümbetinde Selçuklu devri saltanat mücadelesinedair izler”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Arastırmaları Dergisi 11 (2002): 239–45; Scott Redford, “Paper,Stone, Scissors: ʿAlaʾ al-Dın Kayqubad, ʿIs

˙mat al-Dunya wa ’l-Dın and the Writing of Seljuk History”,

in The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, ed. Andrew C.S. Peacock andSara Nur Yıldız (London: I.B. Tauris, 2013), pp. 151-70, at p. 155.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

(Maryam awaniha) and Khadıja of her time (Khadıja zamaniha), connecting her tomodels of female devotion with the mother of ʿIsa (Jesus) and the Prophet Muh

˙am-

mad’s first wife. The question remains of whether the title Maryam awaniha, to myknowledge unique in medieval Anatolia, is indeed related to Mahperı Khatun’sChristian past, since Maryam is also mentioned in the Qurʾan. The temporalaspect included in these references is an important part of the monument’s com-memorative function. They were part of a framework for the burial that ensuredthe preservation of Mahperı Khatun’s memory across time. The endowment ofthe complex, responsible for its upkeep, providing charity, and ensuring the perpe-tual continuation of the monument and hence its patron’s memory, would only haveadded to this aspect of the monument. The waqfiyya has unfortunately not been pre-served, and hence no further information is available on this element of the MahperıKhatun Complex.

In the second case study, the S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya, the mausoleum is

located similarly close to the mosque, even adjacent to the qibla wall. The followinganalysis of the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex will further elucidate the spatial and religious

concepts used in the construction of multi-functional funerary monuments inseventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia.

The S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya

The S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya consists of a series of buildings that were con-

structed over time, in close proximity to each other near the Larende Gate on theroad to Karaman. Construction began with the mosque in 656/1258, as noted inthe foundation inscription placed above its portal.43 It is unclear whether the com-plex’s large scale and multifunctional uses were planned from the beginning.

The portal (Figure 7), initially crowned with a pair of minarets (only one of whichsurvives), was mostly built of brick, with a few elements in marble. Most notable arethe two late antique sarcophagi that form the base of the portal, and its interlacedmarble carvings. Apart from the prayer niche within the mosque, the portal is theonly original part of the mosque to have survived a fire in the nineteenthcentury.44 Above a muqarnas hood, also carved in stone, the foundation inscriptionpresents the founder.45

This simple inscription does not do justice to the power to which S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr

al-Dın ʿAlı was about to rise in 656/1258, when the mosque was built. In the contextof Anatolia after the Mongol conquest, S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı was one of

several officials of the Saljuq court who managed to align themselves with the newoverlords, and effectively rule Anatolia by negotiating with the Mongols, on theone hand, and maintaining appearances for a largely powerless Saljuq sultan, on

43RCEA, No. 4429.44Michael Meinecke, Fayencedekorationen seldschukischer Sakralbauten in Kleinasien, volumes I–II (Tübin-gen: Wasmuth, 1976), II: 306.45“The construction of this blessed mosque was ordered during the days of the rule of the sultan, theshadow of God on earth, the ruler of the necks of the people, the lord of the sultans of the Arabs and Per-sians, ʿIzz al-Dunya wa-l-Dın father of conquest Kaykawus son Kaykhusraw – may God extend his rule –by the weak servant who needs the grace of God, ʿAlı ibn al-H

˙usayn, son of the pilgrimAbu Bakr, mayGod

forgive him and his parents, in the year 656/1258”: RCEA, No. 4429.

238 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

the other hand. This political shift entailed profound changes in patronage; S˙ah˙ib

ʿAt˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s intervention in Konya is symptomatic of this transformation.At the time of the Mongol conquest of Anatolia, one-and-a-half centuries had

passed since the initial Muslim conquest of the region began under the commandof the Great Saljuq sultan Alp Arslan (r. 455/1063–465/1073). When Alp Arslan’sforces began to push into Anatolia, the Byzantine emperors had been struggling tohold on to the eastern parts of the region for a century.46 With the defeat of Byzan-tine Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes (r. 1068–1071) at Manzikert, Anatolia openedup to further advances by the Saljuqs and their affiliates.47 A century later, Manuel IKomnenos (r. 1143–1180) had to abandon central and eastern Anatolia followinghis defeat at the battle of Myriokephalon in 571/1176.

Over the following decades, military leaders who had initially come to the regionwith the Great Saljuq armies progressively established their own proto-states in partsof central and eastern Anatolia.48 Once the Saljuqs had removed most of their rivals,and investments could be made in relative security, patronage was expanded: adense network of caravanserais along trade routes was established, and mosquesand madrasas were either rebuilt or newly founded. Over the first quarter of the thir-teenth century, a style connected to Saljuq patronage slowly emerged, even thoughimperial architecture was never fully realised. Nevertheless, the rule of ʿAla al-DınKayqubad (r. 616/1219–635/1237) – Mahperı Khatun’s spouse – is generally

FIGURE 7. Portal of mosque with dome of khanqah visible at the back, S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex,

Konya, photograph taken around 1885; John Haynes Archive, Courtesy of Fine Arts Library,Harvard University.

46The standard historical survey of the period in English remains Claude Cahen, The Formation of Turkey:The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, trans. P.M. Holt (Harlow, UK: Longman,2001).47Andrew C.S. Peacock, Early Saljuq History: A New Interpretation (London and New York: Routledge,2010), p. 5.48Ibid., 4 and 72–98.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

considered the apogee of Saljuq rule in Anatolia, particularly with regard to the con-solidation of Konya as a capital under the sultan’s patronage.49

The Mongol conquest of Anatolia in 641/1243, followed by the progressiveintegration of Anatolia into the Mongol realm, broke off this development of aSaljuq royal style. At this point, the dynamics of rule and patronage changed infavour of the notables of the court, including S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı.

Royal patronage disappeared, and the tendency towards a unified, Saljuq styledid not take further shape.50 Patronage was transferred to the notables of thecourt, while the sultans disappeared from the domain of public architecture, inkeeping with their loss of authority, except that they continued to be named infoundation inscriptions.

The arrangement between Saljuq elites and Mongol overlords involved powergames among various officials and the pretender of their choice to the Saljuqthrone. The Saljuq sultanate was largely symbolic at this point, and the Mongolrulers in Iran were the overlords to be pacified with tributes and gifts. Along withMuʿın al-Dın Sulayman pervane, S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı was the main actor

behind the scenes in the period after the death of Jalal al-Dın Qarat˙ay (d. 652/

1254), formerly the most powerful official to maintain his influence beyond theMongol conquest.51 Both Muʿın al-Dın Sulayman pervane and S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr

al-Dın ʿAlı remained in power for years.The inscription on the portal of the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Mosque clearly mentions the name

of ʿIzz al-Dın Kaykawus II, on whose behalf S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı negotiated

at the time of construction. Muʿın al-Dın Sulayman pervane occupied the same rolefor Rukn al-Dın Qilij Arslan IV (r. 652/1248–663/1265), the second pretender to theSaljuq sultanate.52 After Muʿın al-Dın Sulayman pervane persuaded S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a

Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı to support Rukn al-Dın Qilij Arslan IV, ʿIzz al-Dın Kaykawus IIfled to Constantinople in 661/1262.53 Following the death of Rukn al-Dın QilijArslan IV, Muʿın al-Dın Sulayman pervane became regent for sultan Ghiyath al-Dın Kaykhusraw III (r. 666/1266–682/1283).54

The next crisis soon followed: in 677/1277 Mamluk armies led by sultan BaybarsI (r. 658/1260–677/1277) took hold over Anatolia as part of the conflict between thisdynasty and the Mongol rulers of Iran and Anatolia (the Il-Khanids). Even thoughthe Mamluks had to retreat after six months due to difficulties in provisioning theirsoldiers, the invasion had profound effects onMongol rule in Anatolia. Muʿın al-DınSulayman pervane, suspected of collaborating with the Mamluks, was executed onthe order of the Il-Khanid ruler, and direct rule was imposed with the appointmentof governors from Iran. Nevertheless, S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı remained in

49Scott Redford, “The Alaeddin Mosque in Konya Reconsidered”, Artibus Asiae 51/1-2 (1991): 54–74;Suzan Yalman, “ʿAla al-Din Kayqubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan as Cosmic Ruler”, Muqarnas29 (2012): 151–86; Suzan Yalman, “Building the Sultanate of Rum: Religion, Urbanism and Mysticismin the Architectural Patronage of ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad (r. 1220–1237)”, PhD Thesis, Harvard Univer-sity, 2011.50Blessing, Rebuilding Anatolia, 13, 21–5.51On Jalal al-Dın Qarat

˙ay, see the detailed study in Osman Turan, “Selçuklu devri vakfiyeleri. III: Celâ-

leddîn Karatay vakıfları ve vakfiyeleri”, Belleten 12 (1948): 17–170.52Cahen, Formation of Turkey, 190–1.53Ibid., 191; For a detailed study of ʿIzz al-Dın Kaykawus II’s exile in Constantinople, see Rustam Shu-korov, “Sultan ʿIzz al-Din Kaykavus v Vyzantii (1262-1264/1265 gg.)”, Vyzantijskij Vremennik (ByzantinaXronika) 71/96 (2012): 7–26.54Cahen, Formation of Turkey, 195.

240 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

power for close to a decade, until his death in 684/1285.55 After the execution of hisrival, S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı continued to flourish, as the numerous monu-

ments he commissioned clearly show.56 Despite its architectural splendour, S˙ah˙ib

ʿAt˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s funerary complex maintains a pretence of humility in its

inscriptions, perhaps in keeping with the pious idea behind the burial.At the entrance of the khanqah, a pointed arch with engaged corner colonettes

forms the recess for the doorway. The foundation inscription is carved onto the tri-lobite panel above the doorway’s segmental arch. Though the portal of this buildingis less elaborately decorated than its interior, it serves to draw the visitor towards thecentral space. The inscription on S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s khanqah (Figure 8)

clearly points to the presence of Sufis, who would have prayed for the founder as partof their religious practice:

The reckoning of God. [It] built and constructed this blessed khanqah as anabode of the pious servants of God, and as a living place for the god-fearingcompanions of the bench during the days of the rule of the great sultan, theshadow of God on earth, Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın, the Father of Con-quest, Kaykhusraw son of Qilij Arslan, the proof of the prince of believers,may God prolong his reign and extend his rule, the weak slave who begs ofthe grace of his kind Lord, ʿAlı son of al-H

˙usayn son of the pilgrim Abu

Bakr, may God accept [this] from him, during the months of the year678/1279. 57

In the context of Konya, the members of this otherwise unknown Sufi group wereperhaps conceived as a supplement or even competition to the followers of Jalalal-Dın Rumı (d. 672/1273) who were present in a nearby shrine.58 The group men-tioned in the foundation inscription of S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s khanqah would

likely have received food and perhaps even a stipend from the charitable endowmentthat was established to finance the funerary complex. This presence would have beenin direct connection to the mausoleum for the founder and his family that wasattached to the south side of the mosque.59 A direct structural connection was estab-lished between the mosque, mausoleum and khanqah, in which the first two sections

55Cahen, Formation of Turkey, 195, 205–6; Reuven Amitai, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-IlkhanidWar, 1260–81 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 168–77.56M. Ferit (Ugur) andM.Mesut (Koman), Selçuk veziri Sahip Ata ve ogullarının hayat ve eserleri (Istanbul:Türkiye Matbaası, 1934).57“(1) h

˙asab allah (2) bana wa-anshaʾ hadhihi l-khanqah (3) al-mubaraka manzilan li-ʿubbad allah (4) al-

s˙alih

˙ın wa-maskanan li-as

˙h˙ab al-s

˙affa al-muttaqın fı ayyam dawlat (5) al-sult

˙an al-muʿaz

˙z˙am z

˙ill allah fı l-

ʿalam Ghiyath al-Dunya wa-l-Dın Abı (6) l-Fath˙Kaykhusraw bin Qilij Arslan burhan amır al-muʾminın khal-

lada allah (7)mulkahu wa-ʾabbada dawlatahu l-ʿabd al-d˙aʿıf al-rajı rah

˙mat rabbihi (8) al-lat

˙ıf ʿAlı b. al-H

˙usayn

b. al-H˙ajj Abı Bakr (9) taqabbala allah minhu fı shuhur sanat thaman wa-sabaʿın wa-sittamıʾa”: RCEA, No.

4770.58S ahabettîn Uzluk,Mevlânanın türbesi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1946); Meinecke, Fayencedekoratio-nen, II: 340–52.59“This is the tomb of the lady, the innocent queen, Khatun, daughter of the great lord ʿAlı b. al-H

˙usayn,

may God illuminate her tomb, in Shaʿban 671/ March 1273”, RCEA, No. 4664. Thésaurus d’épigraphieislamique, no. 32856 suggests that the date given in RCEA is wrong, instead proposing the date 691/1291-92. For the fragmentary texts on two other cenotaphs, see RCEA, Nos. 4887 and 4719.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

FIGURE 8. Portal of khanqah, S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, Konya; author’s photograph.

242 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

FIGURE 9. Interior of khanqah, with the door leading to the mausoleum visible at left, S˙ah˙ib

ʿAt˙a Complex, Konya; author’s photograph.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

FIGURE 10. Interior view of mausoleum, S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, Konya; author’s photograph.

244 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

of the building shared a wall, but where the main way of access to the burial ledthrough the khanqah.60

The portal of the khanqah stands at a ninety-degree angle to that of the mosque.The mausoleum connects the two structures, but is not visible from the outside. Thecourtyard of the khanqah is covered by a large dome built of brick, decorated with tilemosaic around its base (Figure 9). From the north-eastern corner of the khanqah, acorridor leads to the mausoleum. At the end of the corridor, a door led into theprayer hall of the mosque, potentially providing access at times when it remainedopen.

The mausoleum itself is richly decorated with tile mosaic, which covers large sec-tions of walls and cenotaphs (Figure 10), and glazed tiles set into brick using bannaʾıtechnique in the corridor. Within the mausoleum, a restoration inscription at theside of the large entry arch (Figure 11) is dated 682/1283, suggesting that the funer-ary structure was added before that date. The exact date of construction of the mau-soleum is unclear, but its position between the mosque and khanqah suggests that itwas added at the latest together with the latter building, in 678/1279. The restorationinscription states:

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

FIGURE 11. Restoration inscription in mausoleum, S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, Konya; author’s

photograph.

60RCEA, No. 4779; Yılmaz Önge, “Konya Sahib Ata Hankâhı”, in Suut Kemal Yetkin’e Armagan (Ankara:Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 1984), pp. 281–2.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

then overtaken by death, his reward fromGod is sure. God is most forgivingand most merciful [Q IV: 100]. The Prophet, may peace be upon him, said:The souls of the martyrs are green birds who eat from the fruit of heaven,and the Prophet, may peace be upon him, said: God glorifies and exaltsthose who follow in His path and only strive in His way, and have beliefin my prophets and trust in God’s prophets, and grants them by His willaccess to paradise. This blessed building was renewed during the monthof Muh

˙arram, the opener, in the year 682/ April 1283.61

The inscription is a combination of H˙adıth and Qurʾan, with the addition of his-

torical content. The restoration was completed only a few years before the patron’sdeath. S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı perhaps commissioned these changes to the

funerary structure in anticipation of his death, as he had likely reached a relativelyadvanced age at that point.62

One of the central features of the complex is its emphasis on the small mauso-leum, toward which the foundation is directed, and on the richly decorated ceno-taphs. The decoration in the tomb chamber, with its numerous inscriptions andmulti-coloured tile panels, enhances the importance of this small space. Thoughthe section containing the burials of the founder and his relatives is much smallerthan the domed courtyard of the adjacent khanqah, it is decorated much more exten-sively, with tiles on all of its walls and on the cenotaphs.

The emphasis in the colour scheme on turquoise and blue (in addition to smallelements in black and white) perhaps suggests an allusion to paradise – an obser-vation corroborated by the mention of paradise in the restoration inscription.63

The presence of a fountain on the portal of the mosque, in addition to its charitablefunction of providing water for residents of nearby streets, may also point to thisparadisiacal reference.64 The Qurʾanic inscriptions that adorn the frames aroundthe fountain, all referring to water and springs, only reinforce this impression.65

The addition of the khanqah to a family tomb seems to have been both a spiritualand a political move on the part of S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı. Perhaps, the patron

may even have intended a parallel to the dynastic mausoleum of the Saljuq sultans atthe Alaeddin Mosque in Konya. In fact, family mausolea were not common in med-ieval Anatolia; that of Jalal al-Dın Rumı is the third extant example in Konya. There,

61“Qawluhu subh˙anuhu taʿala [followed by Q III: 163–4 and IV: 101]. Qala l-nabı ʿalayhi l-salam arwah

˙al-

shuhadaʾ t˙ayr khad

˙ar yaʾkulu min thamar al-janna wa-qala l-nabı ʿalayhi l-salam tad

˙ammana allah ʿazza wa-

jalla li-man kharaja fı sabılihi la yakhrujuhu illa jihada fı sabılihi wa-ıman wa-tas˙dıq bi-rusulı ʿala mard

˙ahi an

adkhalahu l-janna s˙adaqa rusula allah jaddada hadhihi l-ʿimara al-mubaraka fı shahr miftah

˙al-muh

˙arram

sanat ithnayn wa-thamanın wa-sittamıʾat al-hijra”: RCEA, No. 4826; Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique,no. 33174.62 Ferit (Ugur) and Mesut (Koman), Selçuk veziri Sahip Ata, 26–7.63On the association between water and paradise, see Carole Hillenbrand, “Gardens beneath WhichRivers Flow: The Significance of Water in Classical Islamic Culture”, in Rivers of Paradise: Water inIslamic Art and Culture, ed. Sheila Blair and Jonathan Bloom (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,2009), pp. 27–58.64L. Gardet, Relevant Qurʾan passages are discussed in “Djanna”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition,ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/djanna-COM_0183, accessed 14 March 2014.65Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique, no. 31374. The passages in question are: QXXV: 48–51; LXXVIII: 14–16; XXXIX: 21–2; LXXVI: 5–6, 10, 17.

246 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

one may perhaps speak of a Sufi dynasty. Indeed, the combination of a dynasticmausoleum with a mosque, even though the architecture of the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a mauso-

leum differs quite strongly from the tomb of the Saljuq sultans, may be a referenceto the burial of the now powerless rulers, and a show of S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s

financial means, sufficient to establish something similar for his own family.The founder’s cenotaph, covered with tiles and inscriptions, evokes S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a

Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s memory, and mentions the exact date of his death:

The great lord, Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı b. al-H˙usayn, may God illuminate his

place of rest, passed from the abode of destruction to the abode of eternityon the first of Shawwal 683/ 30 November 1285.66

Together with the graves of his relatives, the burial of the founder is here pre-sented in a central space that is as close as could be allowed to the mosque –

where the burial would have been forbidden.67 On the founder’s cenotaph, andalso on the cenotaph of S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı’s daughter, the Throne

Verse (Q II: 255) is inscribed. Clearly, this passage was common in a funerarycontext in seventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia, and could be used on burials ofmen and women alike, as the monumental inscription bands on the mausoleaof Jawhar Nasıba (built in 602/1205) and Mahperı Khatun in Kayseri furtherconfirm.

The expansive tile decoration of the S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Mausoleum, even in its current,

heavily restored state, clearly marks the commemorative focus of the monumentand forms the culmination of a trajectory that leads from the simple entranceportal to the sparsely decorated khanqah and finally to the tomb chamber. Anumber of the cenotaphs bear inscriptions naming the persons buried in thecrypt below. Thus, while the monument’s exterior is relatively plain and displayslittle text, the interior reveals itself to be a colourful monument to the founder’smemory.

While the mausoleum may not have been accessible to everyone, it certainlywould have made an impression on those able to visit it. Moreover, the connectionsbetween the mosque and the mausoleum, a small window inserted into the qibla walland a door that may have remained closed, made the founder’s tomb present tothose praying on the other side, and ensured that prayers spoken for the founderreached their target.

Similarly, the religious practice of Sufis in the khanqah further supported thememory of the patron and his family through prayer. Perhaps, the presence ofspaces infused with prayer on both sides of the mausoleum created a paradisiacalplace in the tomb chamber, accessible through one of these sacred spaces, namelythe khanqah. The colour and splendour of the tiles serves to visually enhance themausoleum of the building, and to emphasise its central place in preserving thepatron’s memory.

66“(1) intaqala min dar al-fanaʾ ila dar al-baqaʾ al-s˙ah˙ib al-muʿaz

˙z˙am (2) Fakhr al-Dın ʿAlı b. al-H

˙usayn

nawwara allah mathwahu (3) fı awwal min shawwal sanat arbaʿ wa-thamanın wa-sittamı ʾa: RCEA, No.4863; Thésaurus d’épigraphie islamique, no. 3563, 2b.67On the prohibition of burial in mosques, see Leisten, Architektur für Tote, 15–23. No such restrictionexists for madrasas and khanqahs, perhaps explaining the primary way of access to the mausoleum inboth cases studied here.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Comparative examples in medieval Anatolia

The composition of the mausolea in the two funerary complexes differs in onecentral element: while, in the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, the mausoleum is not visible

from the outside, the Mahperı Khatun Mausoleum repeats the form of a freeseventh/standing funerary structure. The mausoleum is an octagonal tower builtof stone, covered with a conical roof.68 Most such mausolea are freestanding, andtheir shape has been linked, somewhat problematically in terms of formalist connec-tions and ethno-national approaches to art history, to the felt tents of Turkic nomadsin Central Asia, from where the ancestors of the Saljuqs hailed.69 The MahperıKhatun Complex is one of the few cases in which this type of mausoleum is usedas an integral part of an architectural ensemble, yet clearly recognisable in itsoverall form, distinct from the building fabric. As the following examples show,this way of integrating a mausoleum into a larger, multi-functional ensemble,without partially absorbing its shape into the wider fabric of the monument, israre in thirteenth-century Anatolia.

Two freestanding mausolea stand in the courtyard of theAlaeddin Mosque in Konya, in its current state reconstructed in 615/1219–618/

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

68The structure is studied in detail in Bates, “The Anatolian Mausoleum”, 141–5; Önkal, Anadolu Sel-çuklu türbeleri, 120–6.69Guitty Azarpay, “The Islamic Tomb Tower: A Note on its Genesis”, in Essays in Islamic Art in Honor ofKatharina Otto-Dorn, ed. Abbas Daneshvari (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1981), pp. 9–12.

248 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

1221 (Figure 12).70 The mausoleum without a roof was not completed and wasnever used for burial. In the other mausoleum, built in the 1190s, several Saljuqsultans were buried, although the bodies were lost in the 1920s and only the tiledcenotaphs remain on the upper level of the mausoleum.71 Just as in the MahperıKhatun Complex, the roof of this mausoleum is visible above the enclosure of themosque. This visibility is even more strongly accentuated through the building’slocation on the citadel hill at the centre of historical Konya. The two mausoleaare not, however, structurally connected to the mosque. Rather, they are freestand-ing structures that were built in the courtyard. Hence, they are visible and potentiallyaccessible to anyone who visits the mosque. Originally, a portal (now closed off) ledinto the courtyard of the mosque from the exterior and provided a direct pathtowards the prayer hall that passed by the mausolea.

In addition to these freestanding mausolea within a larger mosque compound,several examples exist in which the funerary structures are structurally connectedto other buildings, often a mosque or madrasa. In these cases, usually only adome rises above the roofline of the main structure. The Çifte Medrese inKayseri, also known as the complex of Jawhar Nasıba and Ghiyath al-DınKaykawus I (r. 588/1192–593/1196 and 601/1202–608/1211), is the earliestextant example in Anatolia. Built in 602/1205, it contained a hospital and amedical school, in addition to the mausoleum of Jawhar Nasıba, the Saljuq prin-cess whose estate funded the structure.72 In the S ifaiye Medrese in Sivas, built in614/1216-17, the burial of Saljuq sultan ʿIzz al-Dın Kaykawus is crowned by adome built of brick. It rises above the stone structure of the large medicalmadrasa that houses the mausoleum (Figure 13).73 In Amasya, an anonymousmausoleum is enclosed within the Gök Medrese Mosque, and crowned by anoctagonal brick dome with tile decoration (Figure 14). This undated buildingmay have been built in the 1230s.74 A striking contrast emerges between the mau-soleum built into the larger structure, and the freestanding T

˙orumt

˙ay Mausoleum

(built in 679/1280-1) that is located just across from the entrance, and points to adifferent trend in funerary architecture.75 In these buildings, the presence of themausoleum is hinted at from the outside with a dome that reminds the viewer of afull-fledged, freestanding mausoleum, yet the structure has all the benefits –

endowment, attendants, frequent visitors offering prayers – that the inclusion ina larger complex brings. Returning to the two case studies presented earlier,several points can be offered in conclusion.

70Ibrahim Hakkı Konyalı, Abideleri ve kitabeleri ile Konya tarihi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1964),pp. 576–86. On the mosque, see Redford, “Alaeddin Mosque”.71The bodies would have been preserved in the crypt. On the mausoleum and the fate of the sultans’bodies, see M. Zeki Oral, “Konya’da Alâ üd-Din Camii ve türbeleri tarihi”, Ankara Üniversitesi IlâhiyatFakültesi Dergisi 5/1–4 (1956): 144–64; Konyalı, Konya tarihi, 580–5; Konyalı “Türklerde mumya vemumyacılık”.72Kuran, Anadolu medreseleri, 65–7.73The extant building is only half of a larger complex that contained a hospital, madrasa and mausoleum:Metin Sözen, Anadolu medreseleri: Selçuklu ve Beylikler devri volumes 1-II (Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik Üni-versitesi – Mimarlık Tarihi ve Rölöve Kürsüsü, 1970), I: 90–101.74Ethel Sarah Wolper, Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), pp. 60–1.75Ibid., 62.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

FIGURE 14. Dome of mausoleum, Gök Medrese Mosque, Amasya; author’s photograph.

FIGURE 13. Mausoleum of Sifaiye Medrese, Sivas, during restoration in 2010; author’sphotograph.

250 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Case studies: comparison and conclusion

In the Mahperı Khatun Complex, full structural integration of the mausoleum intothe larger complex is eschewed, yet the idea of maintaining the visual aspect of a free-standing structure remains. In this, it is a unique example at the juncture betweenthe two general types described above: freestanding mausolea and integrated oneswith distinct domes. As noted before, the mausoleum is not fully visible from theoutside of the MahperıKhatun Complex. Rather, the conical roof of the mausoleumemerges behind a wall between the portals the madrasa and mosque. Four small slitsin this wall allow passers-by to see the mausoleum – but only when standing directlyin front of them. Thus, only a viewer who is aware of the presence of the mausoleummight proceed to purposefully gaze through the slits and, so perhaps as the founderhoped, direct a prayer for the eternal rest of the patron. The enclosure provides aprotected space for the mausoleum, an area that is exclusively reserved for theburial of the monument’s patron.

The small, garden-like space surrounding the mausoleum of the MahperıKhatunComplex may perhaps be seen as a reflection of paradise, in the hope that thedeceased would finally reach that heavenly garden, rather than just an earthlyone.76 The concept of the barzakh, a liminal space between heaven and hell,between life and death is important in Islamic thought. The grave is not just aplace for the dead body, but also one where the spirit of the deceased will dwelluntil the Day of Resurrection (yawm al-qiyama).77 Hence, attempts to diminishthe torments of the grave (ʿadhab al-qabr) were essential parts of funerary practice.78

This included both the prayers said at the funeral and those that would later beoffered near the tomb.79 An enclosed space in proximity to a mosque was ameans to circumvent the restriction against burials within the mosque proper,while offering the consolations of prayers. In the Mahperı Khatun Complex, thefunerary structure is technically separate from the mosque because there is nodirect access. Hence, there is no risk of the burial polluting the prayer space.

Similarly, in the S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, a small window inserted into the qibla wall

of the mosque forms an opening between the prayer hall and the founder’s mauso-leum. While access to the mosque was probably possible through the corridor con-necting mosque and khanqah, the primary way of entrance led through the latterstructure. The visual connection offered by the window provided an additional pres-ence of the founder’s burial in the eyes of those praying on the other side, andensured that prayers spoken for the founder could be heard in the burial space.

The comparison between the two cases studies in this article, theMahperıKhatunComplex in Kayseri and the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex in Konya, shows certain common

traits in the way these funerary monuments were constructed. In both cases, the

76Halevi,Muhammad’s Grave, 199; Jane Idleman Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Under-standing of Death and Resurrection (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981), pp. 31–62.77“The barzakh is a barrier between hell and paradise or else the grave which lies between this life and thenext,” B. Carra de Vaux, “Barzakh ,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bian-quis, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/barzakh-SIM_1249,accessed 12 February 2014.78A.J. Wensinck and A.S. Tritton, “ʿAdhab al-K

˙abr,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed.

P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, et al., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/adhab-al-kabr-SIM_0301, accessed 4 May 2015.79Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave, 160–4.

Buildings of Commemoration in Medieval Anatolia 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

mausoleum is surrounded by, or encased within, buildings with other functions thatserve as a shell for the central funerary part of the monument. In the MahperıKhatun Complex, this impression is even more strongly accentuated by therestricted access to the inside of the mausoleum, and by the limited sightlines thatare offered to the visitor of other parts of the monument.

In the S˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, the mausoleum is more easily accessible from both

mosque and khanqah, while, at the same time, its visibility from the outside ismore limited. There, its presence is not announced, either in inscriptions or inthe sight of a conical roof or dome, as in the Mahperı Khatun Complex. Thus, inboth cases, we are faced with a funerary monument that is central to the largercomplex, and hidden from view. This should perhaps not be interpreted as a signof humility on the part of the patrons: no expense was spared in the construction,be it in the extensive tile decoration in the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex or in the marble

dado of Mahperı Khatun’s mausoleum. The enclosed space provided a safe abodefor the dead, a space that was designed to diminish the torments of the grave, des-tined to last until the end of days, when paradise could finally be accessed. The pres-ence of a prayer space and the restricted access to the funerary structure would onlyhave enhanced this aspect.

While gender certainly was a factor in the inscriptions, particularly on the patrons’cenotaphs, it appears to have been less of an issue in the construction overall. Eventhough access to the Mahperı Khatun mausoleum is restricted in several ways, it istempting to suggest that the burial of a female patron would have been more closelyprotected but no other examples that would support this interpretation have beenpreserved. In the mausoleum of the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, for instance, at least one

female member of the patron’s family was buried, and yet access to the mausoleumis less difficult than in the Mahperı Khatun Complex.

In both funerary complexes, inscriptions are important parts of the overall dec-oration of the architecture, adding layers of meaning included in the historicaland Qur’anic texts. The foundation and funerary inscriptions in both monumentscarefully trace the patrons’ lives and careers, but also record the changes in rule:in the S

˙ah˙ib ʿAt

˙a Complex, two sultans are mentioned while, in the Mahperı

Khatun Complex, the patron’s son is the ruler in the foundation inscriptions ofthe mosque, but mentioned as deceased on his mother’s cenotaph. The recordingof this dynastic memory (and hence the historical events that both patrons werepart of) may have played a role in the larger commemorative purpose of the build-ings. In both cases, the patrons’ burials are enshrined in the centre of a largercomplex that would ensure the survival of the mausoleum, as well as the patrons’reputation as pious Muslims who dispensed charity through the endowmentsattached to the monuments.

252 Patricia Blessing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

171.

67.2

16.2

2] a

t 07:

00 0

6 Ja

nuar

y 20

16