jecting tongues, encircle and surmount the human
central figure is portrayed with one or both of
head The smal head thus appears almost to grow
his arms extended to hold the staffs just below
out of the dragon’s body, while being flanked at
the dragon heads, in other words as if grasping
the same time by four other dragon heads that
the necks of the dragons The fact that sometimes
project from just below (fig 138) It is thus lit-
the figure does not hold the creatures’ necks with
erally engulfed by the dragon heads and seems
both hands may suggest that the actual holding
almost to fuse with the body of the giant polyce-
of the necks is not a prerequisite For the imagery
phalic dragon The text to the illustration states
to convey its iconological content to the contem-
that the dragon was so large that it snapped off the
porary beholder – namely the ruler as victor over
top third of the minaret of Anṭākiya (Antioch) 101
mythical creatures which symbolise any and all
With regard to the paired reliefs at Susuz Han,
hostile forces – it apparently sufficed to represent
Öney has identified the human heads as sun
the key elements of a central figure flanked by
rosettes threatened by the “underground forces
two dragons
and the dark moon symbol” of the dragon,102
In its most detailed and perhaps most complete
hence associating it with astrological functions,
execution, this important iconographic expression
according to which the dragon is the cause of
is emblematised on an architectural structure In
solar and lunar eclipses It is important to note
a powerful parallel to the widely spread iconogra-
however, as Abbas Daneshvari has demonstrated,
phy of the ruler flanked by dragons the extraor-
that the concept of the dragon solely in its role
dinary representation of a frontally portrayed
as eclipse monster threatening the light of the
figure seated cross-legged is shown grasping the
luminaries and, by extension, the rulers as their
tongues of a pair of mighty confronted dragons
worldly embodiments, presents only one aspect
The reliefs are carved on a now destroyed section
of the multivalent symbolism of the dragon 103 As
of the Talisman Gate, the Bāb al-Ṭilasm (formerly
has been shown above there exists at the same
Bāb al-Ḥalaba), one of the four gates at the east
time another possibility: that of perceiving the
of Baghdad (figs 139a and b) 104 The gate was
symbolism of the gaping dragons’ jaws flanking
part of the city wall of Baghdad, the capital of the
a central motif as beneficial and apotropaic At
ʿAbbasid caliphate, and according to the inscrip-
Susuz Han this reading is supported by paired
tion was completed in 618/1221–2 under the
winged figures whose presence seems to bestow
caliph Abu ’l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad al-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāh
a honorific dimension upon the iconography of
(577/1181–620/1223) In order to restore moral
the gaping dragons’ jaws flanking the mask-like
and political unity and to bring about a revival
human faces (figs 7 and 124) It thus appears rea-
of the old grandeur of the ʿAbbasid empire,105
sonable to assume that the iconographic theme of
the caliph sought to develop and incorporate in
dragons’ jaws flanking other central motifs, such
the principal Sunnī states fraternities dedicated
as inscriptions, vegetation or animal heads may
to the classical Islamic futuwwa (which may be
be similarly associated with a beneficial, apotro-
translated as “youthful manliness”), whose aim
paic function
was to promote a chivalric code of behaviour 106
Portrayed in high relief on the upper part of the
The dragon-tamer
spandrels of the arched gateway were two majes-
tic confronted horned dragons whose wide-open
The representation, examined above, of the ruler
snouts with turned-up tips, marked by rows of
transposed to a cosmic plane flanked on either
sharp teeth and fangs, reveal excessively long
side by dragons, survived mainly on portable
tongues with bifid ends that are grasped with both
objects (figs 113–116), in particular on silver-
outstretched hands by the central frontally-por-
inlaid metalwork from the greater Khurasan
trayed figure The latter has a “moon-shaped” face
region, from where this visual expression spread
flanked by long tresses, which is distinguished by
westward It is significant in this respect that the
a halo and a three-pronged crown, and sits cross-
101 Kitāb ʿajāʾib al-makhlūqāt, ed Wüstenfeld, 1849, repr
Sarre, 1936, fig 26 (detail); Kühnel, 1950, p 11, fig 12;
1967, p 133 See Badiee, 1978, p 124
Gierlichs, 1996, pl 66 1; Meinecke, 1989, p 58, fig 7; Haupt-
102 Öney, 1969–70, p 200 Cf Otto-Dorn, 1978–9, p 131
mann von Gladiss, ed , 2006, p 114, fig 12
103 Daneshavri, 1993, pp 15–25, esp pp 20–1
105 For a translation of the inscription, see Sarre and
104 Preusser, 1911, p 16 top; Sarre and Herzfeld, 1920,
Herzfeld, 1911, vol 1, pp 35–6
vol 2, pp 153–6, vol 3, pls 10–1; Hartner, 1938, fig 26;
106 Cahen and Taeschner, “Futuwwa,” EI 2 II, 961a
the dragon in relation to royal or heroic figures
125
legged just above the apex of the arch He is clad in
resenting not only the control of speech but also
an ornately patterned loose long coat, belted just
the ritual of public subjugation of the dragons and
below the slightly protruding belly over trousers,
thereby the harnessing of their forces This time-
with short boots projecting from below the hem
honoured motif of victory doubtless symbolises
The dragons have muscular forelegs depicted
the caliph’s heroic feat of overcoming adverse
with toes and talonesque claws, the inner forelegs
forces, embodied by the dragons whose likeness
being raised Their heads are crowned by a pair
was moreover sometimes used to emblema-
of curved horns that project from the top of the
tise personified historical foes 108 The pairing of
head and are flanked by smal , cusped ears, folded
dragons observed specifically on monumental
to the back; the faces are rendered with small,
depictions was presumably intended as much
almond-shaped eyes and trefoil-shaped motifs
to reinforce and replicate the symbolic meaning
on the face and upper part of the neck, which is
as to create an effect of pictorial symmetry This
demarcated below the jaw line by small, contigu-
tendency to double single units is a well-known
ous curls, while larger curls accentuate the back of
phenomenon among Near Eastern cultures 109 It
the neck The enormous dragons’ scaly serpentine
may thus be presumed that the iconographic
tails twine along the arch forming two impressive
elements of this composition have been selected
knots, the first combining a pretzel-shape with
in order to convey a certain meaning or to
an additional loop, the second a straightforward
evoke a certain response in the beholder It is in
pretzel-like knot, then extend into three more
the consciousness of the latter that the full cul-
loops and taper to the tip (lacunae attest to the
tural meaning of the artwork unfolds As Ernst
possible existence formerly of small heads whose
Gombrich has pointed out: “The form of a rep-
identity, bird or dragon heads, can no longer be
resentation cannot be divorced from its purpose
verified) The dragons’ feathery elegantly upswept
and the requirements of the society in which the
wings project from the haunches and end in curls,
given visual language gains currency ”110
the long uppermost tip curling inward and ter-
In order to provide an insight into the sym-
minating in small, crested birds’ heads with
bolic mindset and linguistic expression of the
wattles projecting from the chin and long feath-
period during which the imagery of the dragon
ers sweeping down the back of the necks With
was commonly used as metaphor and allegory,
their small, curved beaks the birds peck at the
Ernst Herzfeld refers to the report of the contem-
dragons’ wings
porary scholar Yāqūt, who compares the conquest
The monumental depiction of the cross-legged
of the fort of Ṭabaraq near Rayy by the Great
central haloed and crowned figure (apparently
Saljuq sulṭān Ṭoghrıl III in 588/1192 (previously
small in size but in fact reaching about 60 cm in
occupied by the Khwārazm-shāh Takash) to a
height)107 subduing the giant dragons by holding
serpent with two heads, one in Iraq, the other in
their tongues seems to reflect the ancient concept
Khurasan, who opens its mouth because it wants
of the dragon-tamer The fact that the royal figure,
to swallow both 111 This double-headed giant ser-
who is comparatively small in proportion to the
pent or paired dragon whose bifid tongues are
dragons, manages to subjugate the great beasts
immobilised and are effectively bound by the
only adds to the impression of dominance and
restraining hands of the central seated figure is
prestige the presentation intends to convey The
imbued with more effective talismanic power than
gesture of tightly grasping the dragons’ tongues
anything else As suggested many years ago by
is probably the crucial aspect of the image, rep-
Herzfeld112 and more recently by Meinecke,113 the
107 Meinecke, 1989, p 58
be more likely since al-Nāṣir had succeeded in securing
108 Friedrich Sarre interprets one of the dragons as sym-
the return of the Syrian and Iranian Ismāʿīlīs to the fold
bolising the Khwārazm-shāh ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn
of Sunnī orthodoxy in 608/1211–2 See however Marshall
Takash, who had been overcome by the Mongols in the
Hodgson (1955, pp 215–25, esp pp 222–3, n 31) who rejects
year before the erection of the monument, and the other
van Berchem’s reading of Ḥasan symbolising the second
as a personification of the Mongols themselves (Sarre and
dragon Cf Hartmann, 1975, pp 164–6; ul-Huda, 2003,
Herzfeld, 1911, vol 1, p 40) Max van Berchem however
pp 13–40, esp p 35
conceives the second dragon as representing the Ismāʿīlī
109 See Kuntzmann, 1983, esp 51–116; Anthony, 2007,
Grand Master of Alamūt, Jalāl al-Dīn Ḥasan III ibn
pp 134–5; Kristiansen and Larsson, 2005, pp 264, 297
Muḥammad II who was subordinate to the caliphate since
110 Gombrich, 1960, pp 87–90
608/1211–2 Al-Juwaynī, Taʾrīkh-i jahān-gushāy, tr Boyle,
111 Muʿjam al-buldān, III, p 507, cited after Sarre and
1912–37, vol 2, pp 364, 391, 699–701; van Berchem, “Das
Herzfeld, 1920, vol 2, p 153
Baghdad Talismantor,” ed Sarre and Herzfeld, 1911, vol 1,
112 Sarre and Herzfeld, 1911, vol 1, pp 38–40
and idem, 1897, pp 474–7 This second interpretation may
113 The significance of the gate as potent victory
126