outside Ankara, built according to the inscription
of upright confronted dragons whose wide-open
in Muḥarram 633/1235 73 The serpentine bodies
elongated fleshy snouts with upward-curling tips
were oriented to the left, their confronted heads
reveal a row of sharp teeth and projecting tongues
with open jaws demarcated by almond-shaped
and touch at the tips to form a diamond-shaped
eyes and topped by cusped ears, revealing sharp
enclosure Smal , rounded eyes and smal , pointed
teeth and tongues 74 The heads would probably
ears demarcate the heads Their bodies entwine to
have been confronted although it is no longer
form a loop at mid-section and interlace again at
possible to reconstruct this on account of the
the bottom angle of the niche whence they curve
deteriorated condition of the lower dragon head
upward to frame both diagonal sides The two
(fig 175) Interesting in this regard is the record
creatures thus entirely fill the architectural space
by Albert Gabriel of Süheyl Ünver’s suggestion
into which they are fitted (fig 10) 80
that the paired dragons, joined at mid-section by
A striking parallel to the dragons on the türbe
a quadripartite knot, were an ancient symbol of
of Emir Saltuq is found at the church of Saint
healing used on hospitals, transmitted through the
Gregory, which belonged to a monastery, located
Saljuqs,75 an interpretation followed by Mehmet
at the edge of Ani above the cliffs of the Arpa Çay
Önder who also associates the dragon iconogra-
gorge The presence of a new class of wealthy
phy on the darüşşifa with healing 76
merchants that formed during the eleventh and
A second affiliation of the dragon with hos-
twelfth century in Ani is attested to by the inscrip-
pitals in Anatolia is found among the plaster
tion of the merchant Tigran Honentsʿ on the
reliefs on the façade of the Kay Kāwūs Darüşşifa in
Sivas, datable to 614/1217, built during the reign
church he erected in 1215 and dedicated to Saint
of Kay Kāwūs I ibn Kay Khusraw I (r 608/1211–
Gregory the Illuminator The Greek-Orthodox
616/1220) Now in very poor condition, they show
tendency favoured during Zakʿarid rule continued
traces of the body of one dragon with forelegs and
to predominate in the architectural design of this
spiralling tail, which can be presumed to have
church 81 However the depiction of the dragons,
been complemented by a second dragon 77
which appears on the fan-shaped spandrels of a
Only three examples of the representation of
blind arcade, follows the well-established Saljuq-
dragons are known from Islamic sacred archi-
period conventions The recumbent confronted
tecture from the period of the Saljuqs and their
dragons are carved in a horizontal arrangement
“successor states ” One example is the stone relief
in the upper section They are portrayed resting
at a mausoleum (türbe) known locally as that of
on their forelegs, their heads crowned by a pair of
the Emir Saltuq after whom the Türkmen Saltuqid
pointed ears The hybrid creatures have squinting
dynasty ( c. 465/1072–598/1202), former com-
eyes and the characteristic wide-open jaws with
manders of the Saljuq army, is named It is the
rolled-up ends, sharp teeth and flickering tongues
largest and most unusual of a complex of three
with bifid tips which nearly touch at the centre
tombs (Üç Kümbetler) just south of the wal ed city
The sizable upper bodies extend into tapering
of Erzurum, near the Tabriz Gate 78 The drum is
tails which loop twice then arch over the back
circumscribed by eight fan-shaped arched niches
(fig 11) 82 It is interesting that the placement of
formed by the gables of the octagon’s roof, inside
the dragons in a niche is not the only feature to
which are carved animal, vegetal and geomet-
recall the dragons depicted on the türbe of Emir
ric compositions 79 Among the reliefs is a pair
Saltuq, the date of construction of which is uncer-
73 Meinecke, 1976, vol 2, p 103 Cf the general refer-
It is during the period of their rule, which lasted for about
ences in van Berchem, 1910, pp 82–4; Gabriel and Sauvaget,
thirty years, that Otto-Dorn (1964, p 151) suggests that
1940, vol 1, p 166, fig 137
the construction of the türbe took place A later dating
74 The relief has been lost since 1940 and is only known
before the city was taken by the Mongols in 639/1242 has
from photographs and drawings done before this date Cf
also been put forward Ünal, 1968, p 160; Gierlichs, 1996,
Gierlichs, 1996, p 156
p 146, n 6 For a mid- or late fourteenth-century dating,
75 Cited after Gabriel and Sauvaget, 1940, p 168, n 1
see Sinclair, 1998, p 212
76 Cf Süslü, 1987, p 641 By the Ottoman period, the hos-
79 Cf Sinclair, 1998, p 212 The compositions have been
pital became a place of spiritual healing and snake charming
associated with the animal cycle, see Otto-Dorn, 1978–9,
Terzioğlu, A , Mittelalterliche islamische Krankenhäuser, Tech-
pp 126, 144
nische Universität, Berlin, 1968, p 126, as cited in Tabbaa,
80 Öney, 1969a, fig 23; Otto-Dorn, 1978–9, p 126,
2003, p 112 The conspicuous knotting aspect of the dragons
fig 22; Gierlichs, 1996, pp 145–7, pl 1 8
is discussed in chapter 10
81 Barthold [Minorsky], “Ānī,” EI² I, 507a
77 Öney, 1969a, p 198, fig 9
82 Otto-Dorn, 1978–9, p 127, fig 23; Gierlichs, 1996,
78 The city withstood the Saltuqid onslaught until 473/
pl 70 6
1080, when it became the capital of the Saltuqid principality
dragons on monumental settings in regions west of iran
31
tain The dragons on the mausoleum are rendered
recognisable on the east-facing arch (possibly on
upright with doubly entwined bodies and without
account of the surface deterioration), it shows,
forelegs, whereas the dragons on the church of
interestingly, an additional upward oriented, small
Saint Gregory have a more horizontal orientation
dragon head, growing out of one of the bends of
with individually looped tails Nevertheless, there
the dragon festoon to the left (fig 14) 86 Also of
is a consistency in the overall iconographic pro-
note is the fact that both serpentine festoons are
gramme, which is why the dragon sculptures on
surmounted by a further band enclosing a tightly
the so-called türbe of Emir Saltuq may probably
woven knotted composition distinguished by a
be asigned a thirteenth-century date
small eight-petalled star-rosette in the intersti-
The second Saljuq dragon sculpture on Islamic
tial area at the apex (although on the east side,
sacred architecture is found on the small “Kiosk
on account of the surface deterioration, this is
Mosque” situated in the arcaded rectangular
no longer identifiable) Otto-Dorn interprets the
courtyard of the double-section caravanserai
rosette as a planetary symbol suggesting an astral-
Sultan Han, located northeast of Kayseri, on the
mythological reading of the iconography 87
main road that once linked Konya, Kayseri and
The third example is found in the relief sculp-
Sivas to the east (Iraq and Iran) It is the second
ture of a pair of dragon protomes which spring
largest Saljuq caravanserai in Anatolia and was
from the base of a central vegetal composition
built between 629/1232 and 633/1236 on the
topped by a double-headed eagle on the façade of
orders of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay Qubādh I of Konya,
the Çifte Minare madrasa at Erzurum (probably
as attested by an inscription on the portal Rest-
before 640/1242–3) 88 The relief featuring drag-
ing on a four-bay substructure, the south- and
east-facing monumental ogival arches are both
ons springing from a conventionalised vegetal or
symmetrically framed with a complex serpentine
tree-like composition, whose important symbol-
festoon The latter is composed of reciprocally
ism is examined in chapter 4, is set within ogival
arranged pretzel-like shapes, culminating at the
niches at either side of the main façade, but only
apex in confronted dragon protomes The heads
the relief to the right was completed (fig 43) 89
with large, almond-shaped eyes, topped by back-
Rogers associates the Çifte Minare madrasa as
ward-projecting pointed ears, have wide-open
well as the buildings of the Great Mosque and
jaws revealing sharp teeth and tongues (fig 12) 83
hospital at Divriği (626/1228–9 or later) with
Both the south- and east-facing reliefs are closely
elements of a Caucasian building tradition (in
related but while the dragon protomes on the
particular with the influence of western Georgia
south side do not touch each other at the apex,
(Tao-Klargeti)) 90
the bodies of the dragon protomes on the east
A fourth, yet less conspicuous, instance of
side are joined and enlivened by dots 84 Moreover,
dragons on sacred architecture of the Saljuq
on the south-facing arch the dragon festoons end
period may be noted in passing The end of one
in small, inverted dragon heads with large eyes,
of the inscriptions at the façade of the Ak Mosque
necks bent inwards, with the open jaws appearing
(617/1220–634/1237) at Anamur near Alanya
to hold the tip of the outer edge of the festoon-
shows a single double-headed dragon, knotted
band;85 it is thus interesting to observe that they
at mid-section and terminating at either end in
seem to bite (in other words “swallow” or “dis-
an ophidian head 91
gorge”) their own tail tip, an aspect discussed
In the sacred architecture of the pan-Trans-
in chapter 9 (fig 13) While this feature is not
caucasian realm the dragon, as mentioned above,
83 Cf Riefstahl, 1932, p 92; Kühnel, 1950, p 8, fig 15;
119, esp 117–9) suggests that the fall of Erzurum to
Erdmann, 1961, pp 94–5, fig 152; Öney, 1969a, p 197, figs
the Mongols in 1242–3 represented an architectural (as
6, 7, 7a, and eadem, 1978, p 45, fig 31; İnal, 1970–1, p 163,
well as political) terminus ad quem for the dating of the
fig 23; Otto-Dorn, 1978–9, p 127, fig 24; Grube and Johns,
Çifte Minare madrasa For a comprehensive list of suggested
2005, p 234, fig 79 4 For a detailed description, see also
dates of the Çifte Minare madrasa, see Meinecke, 1976,
Roux, 1980, pp 316–7 and fig 10
pp 136–7
84 Öney, 1969a, figs 6, 7; Gierlichs, 1996, pl 6 1, 2
89 Cf Bachmann, 1913, pl 66; Öney, 1969a, p 208 and
85 This detail is documented by Öney, 1969a, fig 7a Cf
fig 32, and eadem, 1969b; Otto-Dorn, 1978–9, p 127, fig 25;
Gierlichs, 1996, pl 6 1, featuring the entire festoon on which
Gierlichs, 1996, pl 12 1, 4, 5
however it is difficult to discern this feature
90 Rogers, 1974a, pp 103–6 and ns 76, 77 Cf idem,
86 See detail in Gierlichs, 1996, pl 7 3
“Saldjūḳids,” EI 2 VIII, 936a
87 Otto-Dorn, 1978–9, pp 130–1, fig 24
91 Roux, 1980, p 316; Öney, 1969a, p 176, figs 12 a and b
88 Michael Rogers (1965, pp 63–85 and 1974a, pp 77–
32