apex the confronted dragon mouths flank a smal ,
It shows a frontally rendered projecting bovine
rounded human head with clearly demarcated
head from the mouth of which springs a pair of
eyes, ears, nose and mouth (figs 7 and 124, detail
addorsed dragons, with upward arching and once
of one muqarnas niche) 54 The dragons’ stylised
looped or knotted necks, their wide-open jaws ori-
festooned tail, which echoes the contemporary
ented to the top 58 An inscription dates the khān to
festoon on the arches of the “Kiosk Mosque” at
667/1268–9 and names Jibrāʾīl ibn Chāchā, vizier
Sultan Han (discussed below), frames the entire
and governor of Kırşehir under sulṭān Ghiyāth
arch (without however ending in a second head
al-Dīn Kai Khusraw III (664/1266–680/1281), as
at the tail tip as shown on the south-facing ogive
its patron 59
arch at Sultan Han) 55 The composition is further
As mentioned earlier, Ani, the ancient Arme-
distinguished by a pair of winged figures flank-
nian capital, had become an important and wealthy
ing a central now destroyed motif that seem to
trading centre during the Shaddādid period 60 In
hover protectively over the composition and can
1124, under David II, Ani was conquered by the
be assumed to have celestial significance 56 Their
Georgians who built their own chain of caravan-
presence seems to bestow a honorific dimension
serais 61 David II laid the foundation for the power
upon the enigmatic iconography of the mask-like
of the Georgian pan-Transcaucasian monarchy
human heads tightly enclosed by the dragons’
(in Peter Golden’s term)62 that reached its zenith
gaping jaws, a feature examined further in chapter
under queen Tʿamar (1184–1211/2) The queen’s
7 The dragon occurs once more on the caravan-
victories were chiefly due to the military successes
serai but as a single depiction (fig 6) Set within
of the Christianised Kurdish generals Zakʿare
the tight angular interlacing strapwork to the right
and Ivane, whose family name in Georgian is
side of the façade of Susuz Han is the small figure
Mkhargrdzeli “Longomani ”63 The brothers took
of a single dragon entwined in a pretzel-like knot,
Ani in 1199 or 1201 and the queen bestowed it on
its re-curving tail end passing through the knot,
them as fief 64 Under the rule of the Zakʿarids (the
which additionally contains, lower down, another
dynastic name of the Mkhargrdzelis), which sur-
depiction of a human face and rosettes 57
vived for a while even after the Mongol conquest
An interesting composition involving the dra -
in 1239, the city experienced a renaissance and
gon occurs on the façade above a window on
became again an important centre of interna tional
Kesikköprü Han situated on the Kırşehir-Kayseri
trade The route passed through Armenia to the
Road to the south of Kırşehir in central Anatolia
Black Sea ports where Trebizond had become the
54 It is noteworthy that in addition to the contemporary
ried to heaven by angels who guarded them from dangers
carved decoration one also finds the reuse of late antique
on the way The need to curb the cult of angel veneration
and Byzantine architectural elements at the khān which
as it appeared increasingly idolatrous is reflected in the
includes an example of a section of a lintel carved with a vegetal
canons of the council of Laodicea ( c 363–364) Protective
frieze enlivened with small human faces projecting from
imagery of this type occurs at entry points of Transcaucasian
the re cesses; documented during the author’s visit in Octo-
churches On each side of the central window of the sixth- to
ber 2008
eighth-century church at Ōdzun, for instance, an angel
55 Riefstahl, 1931, p 67, pl 125; Kühnel, 1950, p 8;
holds what appears to be the coiling tail of a serpent and
Gierlichs, 1996, pp 95, 162–4, pl 11 1–2
the serpents’ bodies intertwine to form a knot at the apex
56 The motif recalls the winged figures or angels, generally
(however on account of the advanced surface deteriora-
referred to as Nike (Victory) or Tyche (Fortuna), depicted on
tion the composition is unfortunately difficult to assess; cf
the sides of the now destroyed Larenda Gate of Konya (Texier,
Redgate, 2000, p 126); a similar serpent knot surmounts the
1862; Sarre, 1910, pl CIX, and idem, 1936, pp 8–9, figs 3, 4;
window of the south portal at the seventh-century church
cf the bas-relief of winged figures of c 617/1220, now pre-
of Mren ( c 640)
served in the İnce Minare Müzesi, Konya, inv nos 883, 884)
57 Öney, 1969a, p 199, figs 15 a (line drawing) and b
and may also be compared to the victoriae set into the span-
(photograph); Gierlichs, 1996, pl 11 3–4
drels of the monumental rock-cut arch at Tāq-i Bustān built
58 Öney, 1969a, pp 184, 207–8, fig 31; İnal, p 160,
by Khusraw II Parwīz (590–628), or the early Christian motif
fig 12; Gierlichs (1996, pp 171–2, pl 17 6) suggests that the
derived from the Roman composition of the imago clipeata
relief carving might be a spolia When the author visited the
held by winged figures (cf L’Orange, 1953, pp 90–102);
khān in 2008, it had just been renovated and the relief with
for instance, the flying figures holding aloft a cross within
the bovine head between two dragons, which previously had
a wreath rendered on the south façade of the seventh-cen-
been in very weathered condition, no longer existed
tury church of Ptghni (Ptghavank ʿ), Ararat (Thierry, 1987,
59 Erdmann, 1961, p 77
p 365, fig 199); or on the façade of the church of Dshwari of
60 Minorsky, 1953, pp 104–5
Mzcheta, built between 586–7 and 604–5 (Baltrušaitis, 1929,
61 Rogers, 1976, pp 322–6, and idem, “Saldjūḳids,” EI 2
pl LXXVI, fig 125) The motif can also be observed on por-
VIII, 936a
table objects such as the sixth-century Byzantine ivory bind-
62 Golden, 1983, p 66
ings of the Ejmiatsin Gospels (Der Nersessian, 2001, p 155,
63 Minorsky, 1953, p 102
cat no 77) Cf Redford, 1993, pp 153–5 According to
64 Idem, p 103 Cf Barthold [Minorsky], “Ānī,” EI² I,
Christian church doctrine the souls of the faithful were car-
507a
dragons on monumental settings in regions west of iran
29
Byzantine capital (1204) after the fall of Constan-
are set within architectural frames consisting of
tinople to the crusaders 65
two columns supporting arches Interestingly
In Ani two caravanserais were built under
in the first two tables the uppermost sections
Zakʿarid rule The façade of the southern caravan-
of the rectangular headpieces carry confronted
serai (596/1200–633/1236)66 was richly decorated
winged dragons, with long raptor-like forelegs,
with a pair of confronted dragons with wings
in the spandrels that surmount the archivolts
and what appear to be forelegs above mythical
The beasts are set against curling foliage, which
winged quadrupeds carved onto the spandrels of
is held in the dragons’ snouts on the headpiece
the ogival arch which was originally covered with
over the Letter of Eusebius to Carpianus on the
a bi-coloured inlay of carved polygons (fig 8) 67
second canon table (fig 9) 70 The iconography of
The overall decorative scheme should however,
the dragons on these miniatures is clearly identifi-
as Rogers notes, be seen in the context of the evi-
able as Eastern Christian, or perhaps particularly
dent taste of the Zakʿarid governors of the city for
Armenian, distinguishable from the Jazīran and
Anatolian Saljuq decoration which had resulted
Anatolian “Saljuq-style” dragon by the long rap-
in the creation of a new “semi-Saljuq” Transcau-
tor-like legs and the shorter snouts The Armenian
casian style that continued to flourish in Armenia
predilection for representing dragons may per-
and metropolitan Georgia long after the decline
haps be associated with the fact that in Armenia
of the Zakʿarids 68
the dragon (vishap) belongs to the pre-Christian
In the context of the confronted dragon rep-
substrate71 and as a result is part of an ancient
resentations in the spandrels of the early thir-
iconographical tradition, combined here with
teenth-century caravanserai in Ani, it is worth
canonical scenes from Christian iconography In
mentioning that a near-identical location was
spite of the fact that these represent two-dimen-
reserved for the hybrid beasts in the upper sec-
sional compositions on paper, they nonetheless
tion of architectural structures recorded in
suggest that placing paired dragons in the span-
the two-dimensional medium of an Armenian
drels of an arch was not rare in pan-Transcau-
manuscript of slightly earlier date, transcribed
casian architecture This is further corroborated
and illuminated in Cilician Armenia The shift
by an analogous composition found on the arch
in geography of Armenian cultural centres from
of a thirteenth- or fourteenth-century wooden
the Armenian plateau westwards occurred after
door from Godaïk in Ararat province, which is
Saljuq raids that led to the capture of Ani in 1064
carved with confronted dragons represented with-
and Kars the following year, at which time the
out wings or legs 72 The placement of the dragons
king, Gagik-Abas, was driven into Cappadocian
in the arch of a door may once again support
exile This led to massive western migrations of
the supposition that a protective function was
Armenians which contributed to the re-Armeni-
intended
sation of ancient Armenia Minor as well as Cap-
A stone relief, now no longer extant, of paired
padocia and Cilicia to the south In the kingdom
confronted dragons with a quadripartite knot at
of Cilicia in Tarsos, miniature painting attained
mid-section with further knotted interlaces above
a high degree of excellence Here in the monas-
and below was found at the hospital (darüşşifa)
teries of Mlich and Skevra the L’viv (Lemberg)
of the atābeg Lālā Jamāl al-Dīn Farrukh during
Gospel was transcribed and lavishly illuminated
the reign of the Rūm Saljuq sulṭān ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn
from 1193 until 1198/99 69 The ten canon tables
Kay Qubādh I of Konya in Çankırı (Gangra),
65 Manandian, A , O torgovle i gorodakh Armenii, Erevan,
Letter to Eusebius, see Der Nersessian and Agemian, 1993,
1954, p 278, as cited in Barthold [Minorsky], “Ānī,” EI² I,
vol 2, fig 318, page to the right)
507a Cf Redgate, 2000, p 258
71 Russell, 2004, p 453 Of note are the large carved stone
66 Rogers, 1976, p 324
steles found throughout the Transcaucasus and beyond, per-
67 A photograph of the dragon relief in the right spandrel
haps datable to the first two millennia bc, often referred to
is reproduced in Sakisian, 1940, pl XVIII, fig 33
as vishap stones, that are generally erected near a spring or
68 Rogers, 1976, pp 315–26
reservoir; hence, they probably are of some ritual or religious
69 Prinzing and Schmidt, eds , 1997, pp 18–21
significance Cf Marr and Smirnov, 1931; Piotrovskiy, 1939
70 Akinian, 1930, p 7, fig 1; Prinzing and Schmidt, eds ,
The steles are also sometimes called vishap azhdahā on
1997, pls I, II Comparable dragons, likewise positioned in
account of their prodigious size by analogy with azhdahā
the spandrels of the rectangular structures that surmount
mard, “giant man”; azhdahā kʿar, “megalith”; and vishap kʿar,
the archivolts, feature also in thirteenth-century Armenian
“stone fish ” See Tchukasizian, 1964, p 326 and n 21 with
manuscripts, such as in the Gospel book commissioned in
further references
1273 by Ter Simeon, the abbot of the monastery of Skevra
72 Hovsépian, 1937, pp 164–5, fig 67
(Istanbul, Topkapı Sarayı Museum, Library, Ms 122, fol 8,
30