The arrival of the Selcuk Turks on the Anatolian scene in the 11C did not signify the arrival of the Turks in general, but rather their emergence as an organized political entity in Anatolia. Large-scale migrations of Turkish peoples from their ancestral lands, roughly between the Ural and Altay mountain ranges of Central Asia, had been occurring since time immemorial. These were chiefly due to the cyclical recurrence of climatic changes involving the progressive desiccation and therefore desertification of huge areas of the arable and pasture-land on which their steppe economy depended, con comitant with increasing pressure of population over the centuries. Indeed, similar cultural elements encountered as far apart, in the Old World, as China, India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and central Europe may be said to be located around the rim, as it were, of the cultural hub of the Central Asian steppe—a hub comprising the forefathers of the Turks. The characteristic steppe culture of the Turks derived from an admixture of sedentary and nomadic lifestyles, in varying proportions during the course of time as policy dictated. Sections of this autochthonous people, as they moved away from the ancestral homelands—simply migrating or conquering as they went—tended to call themselves, and be known by, their more immediate tribal or clan names. But this practice, natural though it may have been in territories and among peoples where the majority belonged to the same, Turkish, race, has served only to divert the attention of contemporaries, perhaps, and succeeding generations, certainly, from the actual racial unity of the apparently diverse peoples who have been moving west and settling in, for example, Anatolia since the beginning of recorded time.
Indeed, it was only in the 6C that the Gokturk Empire of the steppe-land west of the Orhon River, stretching from Manchuria to the shores of the Black Sea, emerged as the first state to take its name from that of the people who founded it and comprised its nucleus— the Turks. Yet it can be said with certainty that the Huns of Central Asia, as early as the first millennium BC, were among the first politically-organized groups of Turks participating in and changing written history.
Hence, we can see that the Anatolian Selcuk Turks of the 11C AD were simply the latest in a long history of Turkish migrations; for in the racial and cultural mix of historic and prehistoric Anatolia there had always been a strong Turkish, or Proto-Turkish, presence. But Selcuk is the name of the people and dynasties who directly caused the Turkish domination of the Islamic world and initiation of an entirely new age in the history of Islamic civilization. The Selcuks comprised two main branches and ruled between the 11th and 14C in Turkistan, Harezm (Khwarizm), Horasan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaycan (Azerbaijan) and Anatolia. The parent body was that of the Great Selcuks, incorporating the Iran, Iraq and Syria Selcuks, and its offshoot comprised the Anatolian (or Rum; derived from Roman) Selcuks, both descendants of the Oguz (Uz) Turks. The Great Selcuks' displacement of the ruling Turkish Gazneli (Gaznavid) dynasty in 1040 established their domination over the Iranian plateau territory, and from this base their ruler, Tugrul Bey (1038-63) overwhelmed the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad in 1055, becoming protector of the Caliphate. In this way, the Great Selcuks became rulers of virtually the entire western region of the Islamic world from their center of government in Iran.
It was from this foundation that the Muslim Turkification of Anatolia derived, out of which the Anatolian Selcuk State was to emerge in due course. And this Muslim Turkification—through the large-scale migration of groups of Turks (often known as Turkmens) under the leadership of their Beys , and their constant harassment of the Armenian and Georgian buffer-states and eastern frontiers of the Byzantine Empire—was carefully orchestrated by the dual policy of the Great Selcuk rulers. First, they found it expedient to prepare a base composed of their own kith and kin—whether Muslim or pagan—for future expansions. Secondly, with the continuous arrival of new groups of nomadic Turks from Central Asia, they needed both to ease the pressure of population and to divert these unruly nomadic clans away from the settled urban society of the Selcuks' new empire; and where better than the fertile pastures and uplands of Anatolia that so resembled the steppe country of their homeland? Thus, the migrants were controlled and encouraged to establish their own petty territories over eastern Anatolia, all later to be incorpor ated into the Anatolian Selcuk State. For example, the Saltuk principality (1072-c 1202) was established by Emir Saltuk, one of the commanders in the battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt) in 1071, who was duly awarded territory around Erzurum by the Sultan in return for military service; such was the normal pattern. But the main thrust of the Great Selcuk offensive under Alp Arslan (1063-72) and his son Meliksah (1072-92) was carried out by Suleyman Sah who advanced after the battle of Malazgirt right across Anatolia to take Iznik (Nicaea) on the south-eastern tip of the Marmara Sea in 1078.
The absence of a united Byzantine/Latin Christian front paved the way for Suleyman Sah's expansionist policies in the 1080s, to the extent that he was soon in a position to charge customs duties on ships passing through the Bosphorus Straits (Istanbul Bogazi). Yet in the ensuing years, the partial recuperation of the Byzantine Empire, aided by disunity among the petty Turkish rulers constantly squab bling over succession and the spoils of victory, was compounded with the Crusader attacks from 1096. Then it took nearly a century to consolidate Anatolian Selcuk power and authority, if not influence— a consolidation marked by the battle of Myriocephalon in 1176. And what had long been seen by their adversaries as land under Turkish occupation now became known universally as Turkia (Turquia or Turchia)—a Turkish homeland.
Further victories, defeats and internecine strife continued, and out of this struggle the dominant Anatolian Selcuk State reached its zenith in the reign of Alaeddin Keykubad (1220-37), only to be confronted shortly afterwards with a new 'crusade', this time from the east. The Mongols (or, more correctly, Mogols), the other autoch thonous people of Central Asia, had, like the Turks, their own long history of movement, migration and invasion far distant from their homeland, often in conjunction with but also without or even against their old neighbors, the Turks. The Mongols now confronted the Selcuk Turks in Anatolia, this time with an added dimension of pagan versus Muslim. And at the famous battle of Kosedag in 1243 the Selcuks lost Anatolia plunged once more into political turmoil. While Turkification increased with the influx of numerous Turks driven before the Mongol armies, Anatolian Turkish political unity was shattered; but its Islamization continued unabated due to the non hostile stance of the newly-converted Mongols towards Islam.
All told, the Empire of the Great Selcuks and its branch, the Anatolian Selcuk State, comprised a harmonious blend of both Turkish and Islamic elements, a synthesis of the Islamic cultural environment with the customs and traditions—political, economic, legal, even psychological—of the Turkish steppe culture.
The most prominent feature of the state was the Turkish 'feudal' structure that had characterized it since the early, pagan, Gokturk and later, Muslim, say Karahanli empires. According to this, the state was considered the common property of the ruling dynasty and thus the succession did not pass to a single prince but was divided up amongst them all, leading inevitably to numerous succession struggles as the multiple heirs fought for primacy. The Great Selcuks incorporated this feudal, tradition into their statecraft, awarding royal princes and Turkmen beys their various rights according to the feudal hierarchy, when Tugrul Bey himself took the Islamic title of Sultan after the battle of Dandanakan in 1040 and drew all the feudal beys under his mandate. However, the sheer power and privilege of the beys was a major obstacle to the Selcuk attempts to unify and centralize the state, an obstacle that was reduced by the state recruitment of new Turkish emirs according to the system of patron/client mutual obligation [kul in Turkish; cliens in Latin), according to which senior positions were filled by those who had no other source of backing except the monarch. However, the established Turkish law accepting the state as the common property of the entire dynasty was too strong to be broken, at least by the Selcuks. The new emirs rapidly accumulated local dynastic power like that of the feudal beys, and despite the title of Sultan acquiring the sense of Imperator or Hakan (Kagan) during the Selcuk period, it never represented an absolute authority on the lines of that of the Iranian Sassanid or the Byzantine emperors. Indeed, the Great Selcuk title of Sultan al-'Azam (Greater Sultan) implicitly acknowledged the existence of lesser sultans, or local rulers. And the succession struggles continued to constitute the state's greatest weakness; for example, in 1185 the Anatolian Selcuk, Kilic Arslan II (1156-92) in his old age divided his state amongst his 11 sons, each attached directly to himself but independent of one another, but immediate strife broke out which only increased on the death of Kilic Arslan—the exposed vul nerability at once attracting attack and invasion from Crusaders, Byzantines, Armenians of Cilicia and others who sought to take their advantage. Yet for all this, in contrast with the feudal system of contemporary Europe and the 'feudal' tendencies of later Ottoman state practice—which served to promote the stagnation of society with its excessive emphasis on a stability engendered through the succession of the first-born son regardless of talent—the Selcuk tradition, while it certainly provoked instability through internecine struggle, did ensure the primacy of merit.
Moreover, the position of primacy held by the successful prince was enhanced during the Selcuk period by the partnership of Sultan and Caliph. On the Great Selcuk Sultan, Tugrul Bey, becoming the protector of the Caliph and being proclaimed 'World Ruler' in Baghdad in the Caliph's Palace in 1058, the Sultan was authorized to enact civil laws. This paved the way for the outstanding religious tolerance that was to mark the Selcuk period and offered support and succor to its numerous non-Muslim subjects—various Christian sects, Jews and pagans. On the fall of the Great Selcuks, the mantle of partner and protector of the Caliph was donned by the Anatolian Selcuks who continued to contain the Caliph within the bounds of religion.
Within the Selcuk state—whether Great Selcuk or Anatolian— there continued to be a special emphasis on Turkish titles in state administration and, indeed, Turkish administrative titles such as Atabey (Prince's tutor) and Subasi (Superintendent) permeated even as far as the Delhi Sultanate in India. The Sultan normally retained his Turkish personal name and added a Muslim one—for example, 'Izz-al-Din Kilic Arslan II’—and used, after the ratification of his position by the Caliphate, Islamic titles bestowed by the Caliphate, such as Kasim Emir ul-Mu'minm (Partner of the Caliphate). The Hutbe (Friday prayer) was read throughout the land in the name of the Sultan, and his signature adorned edicts and central government decisions.
Government was broadly administered through four separate Divans (Ministries) under a Divan-i Vezaret (Prime Ministry) pre sided over by the Sahib Divan-i Saltanat or Hace-i Buzurg (Prime Minister) who was second only to the Sultan in authority. The Sultan reserved certain days of the week for audience with high officials, the distribution of military 'fiefs’, the ratification of the appointment of vassal rulers and, significantly, the direct reception of his subjects as suppliants. Besides the central administration, the provinces were carefully administered down to the smallest town with its locally elected head. The sophistication of the Selcuk provincial adminis tration may be deduced from its advanced communications and intelligence systems, with fortified positions along ill major routes— especially trade routes—protecting the freedom of the highways and with military stations sited along the frontiers.
The Selcuk Sultan presided over the high court in cases of treason against the state and appointed judges (kadis) to the judiciary. The highest of those was the Kadi of Konya, the capital, who supervised both consuetudinary (secular; orf) and canonical (religious; seriat) jurisdiction, the latter administered according to the Hanefi school of jurisprudence. The armed forces had their own, separate kadis.
The armed forces were the object of one of the most important and far-reaching innovations effected by the Selcuks' Turkish/Islamic synthesis—the military/economic institution of ikta ('fief'). This was a system by which the state could mobilize and maintain huge armies at minimal expense. Specific territory was allocated in lieu of salary to a state official who was responsible for its administration and for the payment of tax there from. This ikta could be transferred from father to son, provided the duty was inherited, thus ensuring a long-term interest in the welfare of the land and its population. By this method the Selcuks created not only a valid form of maintenance for the Turkmens who formed the backbone of the army and state, but also a positive inducement to benevolent local administration, public works and agricultural development in that greater production increased income but extortionate policies would ruin the inheri tance for the ikta-holder's successors. For the Selcuk soldiers, who were carefully dispersed throughout the Anatolian provinces and were maintained and equipped by the land-taxes, were under the command of the Subasis who resided in the provincial centers and represented the central authority of the Selcuk state. Indeed, it might be argued that the advantage of the military ikta system lay in the spreading in this way of Selcuk sovereignty over as wide an area as possible. The Anatolian Selcuks, unlike the Great Selcuks, did not grant huge iktas; they were clearly aware that these would be difficult to control. A Subasi who was also the governor of a province, was granted only a small ikta for his personal maintenance and that of any soldiers residing on this land; otherwise he exerted only military and administrative authority over the province to which he was appointed, and could claim no right of possession over the land or the soldiers, as loss of the duty for any reason meant loss of these. While the ikta cavalry was fundamental to the Selcuk armed forces, there were also the permanent troops maintained centrally. These comprised two groups: troops under Turkmen commanders who held centrally-located iktas, and kuls of the Palace—salaried personnel directly attached to the Sultan, recruited from various races and educated at the Palace, serving under commanders selected for their merit and loyalty, and in permanent readiness for battle. There was also a special unit of mercenaries composed of non-Muslim Turks and Christians of various origins. The provincial and central armies, then, were the two major sources of soldiery; at their peak, the Anatolian Selcuks could mobilize 100,000 men under arms, with a central salaried force of 12,000. Clearly, the aim of minimal expenditure in maintaining as large and as well-motivated a military as possible was a valid one.
The ikta system was as relevant to Selcuk land economy as it was to Selcuk military organization. It was one of three main types of land dispensed by the state, to which all land belonged (as miri). Ikta was granted in return for a duty and could be reclaimed if that duty were given up, although, as we have seen, provincial iktas tended to become hereditary, as did the duty. Vakif comprised land belonging to the Sultan, the taxes of which were allocated to the upkeep of institutions of learning or of social welfare. Mulk was land separated from that of the Sultan and granted freely and without qualification to persons of distinction or to those who had performed some outstanding service. It was often turned into vakif on the demise of the recipient, although it was inheritable.
As for the residents of the land, these were classified according to the type of land on which they resided, and gave their service and taxes to those under whom they worked, but they were not slaves tied to the land (or serfs), and they possessed recognized rights of objection and disobedience. Our knowledge of the population on the land is derived largely from the numerous censuses of population and land, including newly conquered lands, carried out by the Selcuks whose provincial administration, as I have pointed out, was detailed and painstaking.
Economic development was paramount in the transition of the steppe Turks into a predominantly settled culture based on an urban society. A massive surge in overland trade between Anatolia and the Near East, Central Asia and eastern Europe, and in maritime trade between Anatolia and the Far East, India, the Mediterranean and the whole of Europe, was stimulated by a number of factors. Chief among these must have been the growing Selcuk political stability and centralization of power, combined with their administrative sophistication which controlled the major trade routes under the overall protection of their vast armed forces.
Since the early Islamic period, the domination of the eastern Mediterranean trade by the Muslim states and the Christian/Muslim conflicts of the area had blocked Anatolia from the main routes of maritime trade, to the extent that the later Byzantine period of rule in Anatolia had been one of stagnation. Indeed, it is hard to find widespread material evidence of a prosperous and thriving urban society to match that of Hellenistic or Roman Anatolia, except to a limited extent in the eastern region which had long been under Islamic domination. But the impetus of the Selcuks in the 13C changed all this and opened up the international trade routes, by land and sea, between the Muslim and Christian lands, and thereby stimulated the very marked economic prosperity of the country.
The Selcuk sultans well understood the importance of the transit trade and adjusted their military and economic policies accordingly. They conquered the Black Sea and Mediterranean ports and transferred to them a Turkish population with trading skills and capital, they concluded trade agreements with the Latins, and they levied low customs duties— all tactics directed towards the stimulation of trade and the economy. Perhaps most interesting was the very first appearance of a kind of state insurance which guaranteed the losses of tradesmen resulting from brigands on land or from corsairs and foreign navies at sea.
Overland trade was organized in kervans (caravans); and at every staging post was located a Kervansaray (caravanserai), built to cater for all the needs of the traveller entirely free of charge. All travelers could enter and stay for up to three days with full board, medical attention for the sick and new shoes for the poor. Some even contained libraries and chess-sets (chess was a popular pastime) for the entertainment of travelers. These kervansarays were elaborately organized and often enormous, employing their own staff, including a resident doctor, running a medical unit, and a small mosque for prayers, and raising their own flocks for feeding their guests. They were run as vakifs, of which the first, written condition was that every traveller be treated equally regardless of economic, social, religious or ethnic status. And they doubled up effectively as fortresses when necessary. For example, one kervansaray near Aksaray (Nigde) was besieged for two months by a Mongol commander and his troops when a Turkish bey took refuge with his 20,000 soldiers, but held out successfully; clearly a fully fortified and self-sufficient complex of buildings. Indeed, travelers and traders from all over the world—but most notably Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta—were full of admiration and praise for the charity, comfort and security provided to all, without any charge, on the vast road network and in the cities and towns of the Selcuk State. For, in addition to the kervansarays, the Selcuks maintained institutions such as the misafirhane (guesthouse), imaret (charitable institution serving food to the poor) and zaviye (religious lodge) which welcomed freely as their guests travelers, the poor, members of learned societies and so on.
All this clearly indicates the level of benevolence of the state. Indeed, the records of these institutions show the quantities of sheep, rice, cracked wheat (bulgur), honey, oil and other foodstuffs required for their charitable activities. And the aim, above all, was the display of the munificence and beneficence of the state so as to improve and increase the people's sense of gratitude, obligation and loyalty to the central authority, possibly at the cost of their individuality. It is no wonder that all the neighboring Turkish buffer-states also allocated substantial resources to welfare services such as these; for the wealth and magnificence of the state was measured in terms of its degree of charitable care and welfare for its subjects.
Similarly, the larger cities contained colonies for foreigners and religious minorities, notably Iranians, Arabs, non-Muslim Turks such as Idil (Volga) Bulgars and Kipcaks, Latin and other Christians, and Jews. These had their own districts with hans (inns), Christian and Jewish religious sanctuaries and, in Konya and Sivas, Latin consu lates to look after the special needs of their communities.
Not surprisingly, parallel with the rapid and massive development of international trade, Anatolian Selcuk cities grew in size, popula tion and wealth, with Konya, Sivas and Kayseri achieving promi nence among a range of thriving urban communities across Anatolia from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, some newly established by the Selcuks, others given new vitality and yet others completely rebuilt and renovated after centuries of warfare, sieges and economic neglect. As international trade increased, there also grew up the huge international fairs for which Anatolia has long been well-known, mostly just outside cities and towns—that near Kayseri on the trade route between Anatolia, Syria and Iraq being considered one of the largest. In response to the development of maritime trade, dockyards were established at Sinop and Alaiye (Alanya) for the northern and southern fleets respectively.
But Anatolia was not simply a well-organized vehicle for the international transit trade under the Selcuks. Contemporary opinion attributed its great wealth not merely to its extensive trade and low customs duties but also to its high level of agricultural and industrial production, based on rich natural resources, fertile soil and abundant flocks and herds. Past history can testify to Anatolia's ever-abundant agricultural and mineral resources. In addition to extensive export of animals and grain, industries based on the extraction and export of iron ore, silver, copper, alum and salt grew up. A thriving carpet industry developed, the Selcuks introducing woven carpets to Anat olia, and the products of Selcuk Turkmen weavers were exported to Islamic and Christian countries alike. The production of mohair and silk cloth (the latter known among the Christians as Turkish silk, seta Turchia) as well as numerous varieties and patterns of wool, cotton and silk material, including the famous Selcuk velvet bro cades, was prominent especially in Bursa and Uskudar, and exports went all over the world. Other industries included leather, dyes, soap, oil and wax for lamps, while many cities developed their own viticulture and cultivation of medicinal plants for export. Certain luxury goods were imported, such as sugar from Egypt, furs from the northern Bulgar and Kipcak Turks, glass from Iraq and satins from the Byzantine state. In addition, cloth of various qualities and some armaments such as helmets and ballistae were both home-produced (mainly in Sivas) and imported.
The economic prosperity of Selcuk Anatolia was reflected in the private wealth of individuals, as evinced by their conspicuous con sumption, particularly in wedding celebrations, dowries and so forth. And not just entrepreneurial activity, but the extraordinarily high salaries and ikta incomes of statesmen and senior officials provided for this kind of lifestyle. Moreover, while in the Islamic world generally it was the Jews who were the great bankers and moneylenders, in Selcuk Anatolia prominent Muslim Turkish bankers and moneylenders were also numerous. Indeed, the money economy, with its common use of money orders and bills of exchange, can be said to have been highly developed—it is possible that the English word 'check' derives, via Arabic and the Crusaders, from the Turkish verb cekmek (to draw [money]). The Selcuk rulers evidently followed a specific monetary policy as they regulated and encouraged trade, limiting the passage of cash out of the country so that the wealthy were encouraged to invest in industry and construction and other immovable property. Selcuk gold coins were in high demand elsewhere, due to careful maintenance of the standard and value of the coinage right up to the Mongol in vasions.
As in their welfare policies, so the Selcuk religious stance attested their zeal in seeking to display the Islamic faith which they had so recently discovered. Thus the Selcuks in Anatolia revealed all the enthusiasm of the newly converted with a corresponding lack of profound knowledge of the faith they so ardently embraced—a combination which must surely have accounted in no small measure for their great tolerance. Indeed, the syncretic Islam of the Anatolian Turks, originating as they did from Central Asia with their own coherent religion, to this day reflects their strong tendency towards shamanistic practices, particularly in folk dances, folk music and folk customs. And the Selcuk rulers seem primarily to have sought to intensify the Islamic adherence and belief of the newly-arriving Turkmen nomads. For, as the Selcuks conquered new lands, they immediately set up religious buildings and, especially in the areas bordering Byzantine Christian territory, encouraged religious zealots and dervishes to travel there, stimulating yet further the Islamic belief of the Muslim inhabitants and settlers. Thus, the resettlement and repopulation policies of the Selcuks may be seen as running parallel with their policy of Islamization of the Turkmens. And coupled with this, it should be borne in mind that the Selcuks, on entering Anatolia, entered a predominantly Christian land, where no doubt pronounced religious tolerance would be politically expedient in establishing an effective rule. Certainly, the whole tenor of the Selcuks' religious policy indicated their keen desire to show the supremacy of Islam in every aspect, so that there was no need for the use of force in order to convert the populace who, in turn, were able to reside and worship freely and without constraint as they wished— as is evident from the judicial records of the canonical law-courts and from local place names.
Not surprisingly, all these factors combined to produce a most syncretic Islamic belief in Anatolia—a synthesis of views and back grounds that prepared the ground for the emergence of such humanitarian and tolerant thinkers as Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi, Muhiddin Ibn 'Arabi and Yunus Emre. For the official Sunni orthodoxy of the state in no way debarred or discouraged Sufi mysticism, one of the main functions of which was the creating of a link between the intellectuals and the people. On the contrary it is likely that one of the factors most instrumental in the spread of Sufism was the Mongol invasions and devastation, for the widespread spiritual crisis and despair thus created proved fertile ground for the establishment of mystic orders (tarikats). The Selcuks were noted for their invitations to prominent Islamic figures—be they of Turkish, Iranian or Arab origin and whether of orthodox or Sufi persuasion—and Selcuk Anatolia became a sanctuary for many of these. During this period, the most important scholars of the Islamic world dwelt in areas under Turkish domination, and particularly in the various Selcuk domains.
The policies of the Selcuks in Anatolia and elsewhere of founding throughout their lands mosques, medreses (Islamic institutes of higher education), libraries, medical schools, hospitals, imarets, zaviyes, and kervansarays, all deriving their income and mainten ance from vakif lands, formed one of their finest contributions to the history of civilization. But most important was the Selcuk organization of the medreses—previously left to private benefactors—under state patronage, maintained by vakifs and offering free education. Allocations were usually made for teachers and students, and further incentive to scholarship came through the provision of prize money. With the Selcuk domination of the Islamic world, this state provision for medreses became widespread.
In the medrese, besides the study of Islam, philosophy, mathema tics, astronomy and medicine were all taught in the larger centers, and some, if not all, in the smaller or more remote ones—depending to some extent on the degree of tolerance of the local religious hierarchy. The larger Selcuk cities, such as Konya, Kayseri, Sivas, Erzurum and Mardin, boasted several medreses each, and most towns had access to one: for example, the Caca Bey Medrese in Kirsehir which was originally established as an observatory.
As far as the medical sciences were concerned, Selcuk Anatolia was well endowed in the 13C. Three medical schools—the Gevher Hatun Sifaiye founded in Kayseri in 1205, the Izzettin Keykavus Darussifa founded in Sivas in 1217, and the Turan Melek Darussifa founded in Divrigi in 1228—functioned as hospitals as well as centers of learning; the Izzettin Keykavus Darussifa, for example, employed a large staff including doctors, ophthalmologists and surgeons and was financed by several vakifs. As the 13C progressed, another hospital—the Atabeg Ferruh—was founded in Cankiri in 1235, and more medical centers at Amasya (1266), Kastamonu (1272) and Tokat (1275). Books of medicine were also written and studied.
In addition to the natural and medical sciences, other intellectual disciplines flourished in Selcuk Anatolia, not least because so many noted Sufi mystics (mutasavvuf) found it such a suitable environ ment, especially among the newly converted populace. The list is long of prominent mystics, philosophers, historians and literary figures of the Islamic world who accepted Selcuk hospitality and resided in Anatolia at some stage in their careers or, like Celalettin Rumi, spent their days there in tranquility away from the turbulence of the Mongol invasions; the mystics Sadreddin Konevi and Necmettin Daye, the philosopher Sehabeddin Suhraverdi, the poets Yunus Emre and Nizameddin Gencevi, and the historians Ravendi, Ibn Bibi; Kadi Burhaneddin Anevi and later Kerimuddin Aksarayi would certainly be included, along with the world-famous Nasreddin Hoca of Sivrihisar—the ubiquitous hero of countless Sufi parables all over the Middle East to this day.
The scholars and writers of the Selcuk period preferred to use Arabic as the language of religion, Farsi (Persian) as the language of state and of literature, and Turkish as the language of business and of conversation. Thus, in the literary field, Farsi became the accepted tongue even though a number of celebrated examples show that the Turkish language could provide no less artistic a medium. The great poet, Yunus Emre, wrote indisputably the best mystical poetry of the period entirely in the most excellent Turkish, and Celalettin Rumi and his son, Sultan Veled, composed poetry in Turkish in addition to their usual Farsi compositions, while in Konya and in other large cities resided a number of authors and poets who wrote in Turkish—such as Ahmed Fakih, Hoca Dehhani, Hoca Mes'ud and Seyyad Hamza. Yet, ironically, the tradition of writing in Farsi continued, most likely through some kind of intellectual snobbery, as it were, with Turkish-speaking poets boasting to one another that their Farsi was even better than that of native Iranian poets. In addition, as with the language of state, the adoption of Farsi seems to have been a deliberate choice, as a means of distancing the ruling classes from the people. Further, in the ethnic mix of Turk, Arab and Iranian at the Selcuk court, the adoption of a language other than Turkish would avoid the exclusiveness of a racially Turkish and Turkish-speaking aristocracy, while at the same time reserving Turkish as a private, and even confidential, means of communication between the royal family and their closest aides.
The flowering of the architectural and decorative arts in Selcuk Anatolia represents one of the most spectacular developments of the Islamic world during this period. The prominence of architecture obviously derives from the active construction policy undertaken by Selcuk monarchs in all spheres of life and over all parts of their territories. Konya, the capital, was a large city containing numerous public buildings including the Sultan's Palace and a Great Mosque (Alaeddin Camii). It was enclosed by a fortified wall with, as contemporary accounts tell us, 144 towers constructed of finely cut stone and boasting antique columns decorated with lions, deer, elephants and dragons carved in relief. But most towns overspilled their fortifications and show little concern for spatial organization or indeed any comprehensive urban planning—surprising in view of the Selcuks' acute sense of planning at the regional and state levels, as attested by their highly developed communications system.
Selcuk architecture in Anatolia derived its inspiration from a number of sources—from the tented communities of their Central Asian ancestral homeland, from the Islamic traditions of the Middle East and in particular of the Great Selcuk Empire, and from local Anatolian styles and the dictates of geography. Out of all these influences, Anatolian Selcuk architecture developed its own distinc tive form, spatial organization and decoration, to achieve a new and original style.
Apart from palaces and fortifications, of which little remains bar contemporary descriptions and some archaeological evidence, the bulk of Selcuk architectural energy was directed into religious buildings and public works of a charitable aspect funded as religious endowments. The former include mosques, mescids (small local mosques without a mimber—pulpit) and turbes. 12C mosques in eastern and central Anatolia are unrelated experiments in building rather than steps in the development of a definite style, but by the 13C the basilica style was becoming widespread with its light-wells and domes, as in the ornate Ulu Cami—the sole remaining isolated masterpiece of this style—in Divrigi, or even triple domes, as in the Alaeddin Camii in Nigde, the Ulu Cami in Sinop and, most signifi cantly, the Gok Medrese Camii in Amasya whose series of triple-domed units has been suggested as the prototype of the multi-domed Great Mosque of the early Ottoman period.
A second major Selcuk style features numerous beautifully-carved wooden posts inside the mosque and a flat wooden roof resting on unassuming stone walls devoid of ornamentation; the pillars sometimes bear antique Hellenistic or Byzantine marble capitals and sometimes rest on them. These mosques, notably the Ulu Cami at Afyonkarahisar and the Esrefoglu Camii at Beysehir, reveal a direct evolution from the portable prayer-tents with their carved wooden support-posts of the newly-converted nomadic Turkmens of Central Asia, via the mosques with carved wooden posts of 11th and 12C Central Asia and are thus an example of the direct Turkish contribu tion to Anatolian culture. The domed turbes, to be found all over central Anatolia, characteristically free-standing with their round or octagonal form resting on a square base, seem to hark back to Central Asian steppe traditions—the shamanistic Gok-Turks mum mified the dead and kept them in a tent for six months before burying them.
In the realm of Selcuk public architecture, we find a wide variety of buildings ranging from the medreses and hanekahs (dervish monas teries) to hamams (Turkish baths) and hospitals. Buildings were chiefly of stone, rather than the bricks of the Great Selcuk and other Muslim states' preference, and the use of this material in construction stimulated the magnificent Selcuk craftsmanship in stone-carving. Carved-stone decoration in the form of figural and abstract geometrical designs appeared on all kinds of buildings and on the stone features such as the mihrab (niche indicating the direction of Mecca) and number of the mosques. The earlier preference for geometrical patterns, angular calligraphic inscriptions, simple rosettes and mukarnes (stalactites) gradually altered during the course of the 13C to incorporate a more ornate, even baroque, style with delicate but richly intricate floral motifs and more cursive border patterns. The harmony in style and form throughout Anatolia was marked, the only appreciable regional difference being that eastern cities such as Erzurum, Sivas and Divrigi favored a very high relief, while the central Anatolian regions of Konya and Kayseri practiced a low relief with very fine decorative work.
In stonework, as in other decorative forms employed by the Selcuks, figural representation, both human and animal, abounded. The characteristic human figure—occasionally a woman, but more commonly a man—was depicted sitting cross-legged holding a handkerchief or pomegranate, musical instrument or cup, and sur rounded by attendants. Round faces, almond-shaped eyes and small mouths reflected the Central Asian ideal of beauty, reminiscent of Uygur-Turfan wall-paintings. Small human heads often appeared in rosettes or scattered among arabesques on Selcuk portals, mihrabs and capitals—apparently in a shamanistic usage as charms or amu lets. Most remarkable, perhaps, was the existence in Konya of free standing human statuary; the 12C Arab traveller, al-Harawi, described in detail the statues of both men and women adorning the gardens of the wealthy, while a later Arab, al-Ghazzi, commented disapprovingly during his 16C travels on the human statues at the city gates and along the city walls—so life-like 'they seemed on the verge of speech'. This representation of the human figure, even in the most religious buildings and artifacts and even in the form of sculpture-in-the-round, is yet another indication of the intellectual openness of Islam reflecting on the vibrant syncretic vigor of Selcuk Anatolia.
The real, mythical and fantastical animal depictions in all types of art similarly reveal influences from the pre-Islamic shamanism of Central Asia as well as traditional motifs of Anatolian antiquity—if indeed these were not the same thing. Lions and bulls, for example, were common in Selcuk decorative arts, as were double-headed eagles, all of which, as we have seen, recur time and again in the Anatolian civilizations. The Tree of Life appears once more as a significant ornamental element of Selcuk architecture, often in con junction with a pair of lions or dragons or as part of the arabesque forming the background for double-headed eagles or lions. The dragon—usually depicted in pairs with entwined and knotted bodies—common to Chinese art is very differently portrayed in Selcuk decoration, yet the connection through the Turkmens' migra tions across Asia over the centuries, even millennia, is quite clear. And the conjunction of many of these human and shamanistic animal figures with astrological motifs such as planets and signs of the zodiac reveal complex and interesting symbolism throughout Selcuk decorative art; as does also the more rare appearance of sphinxes, sirens, winged angels, griffons and harpies—magical creatures believed to be endowed with supernatural powers of protection. As for the natural world, all kinds of birds and animals appear and hunting scenes are especially common in non-religious architecture, for instance, on the stucco so popular in palace decoration.
Stucco held an important place in early Islamic architecture, both religious and secular. Yet in contrast to the Great Selcuk Empire where stucco was much used and developed considerably, Selcuk Anatolia, with its preference for stone-carving, reserved stucco mainly for palaces. Of these, the most interesting and important examples, portraying many of the motifs available to Selcuk artists, were in the Kubadabad Palace at Beysehir and the Pavilion of Kilic Arslan II in the Alaeddin Palace at Konya.
Probably the most important form of Selcuk decorative art in the facades and furnishings of, particularly, religious buildings was woodwork. The style and technique of Selcuk wood-carving was remarkably developed and produced spectacular effects. It was employed on doors, window-panels, columns and capitals, pillars, beams, consoles and mihrabs, and on such furnishings as mimbers and lecterns (rahle). But the most outstanding achievement was arguably in the monumental wooden mihrabs and mimbers. Great skill and craftsmanship was required for the complex kundekari technique based on tongue-in-groove construction whereby individ ually-carved units were fitted together to compose panels that created larger pieces, as can be seen in the mimbers of the Alaeddin Camii in Konya, the Ulu Cami of Sivrihisar and the Esrefoglu Camii at Beysehir. The meticulous attention and skill required for such work, however, was not always forthcoming, so that various types of false kundekari emerged, apparently the same but in fact carved from single solid blocks subsequently attached with pins or glue to the mimber or other architectural feature to be adorned. This inferior work also tended to warp and split, unlike true kundekari where the use of panels with the grain running at right-angles to that of the frame prevented warping. Examples of false kundekari include the mimbers of the Alaeddin Camii and Arslanhane Camii in Ankara and the Ulu Cami and Huand Hatun Camii in Kayseri.
Other forms of decorative wood-carving were reliefs—deep-cut, flat or rounded—commonly used on window-panels, lecterns, daises and cenotaphs; with deep-cut rounded reliefs most popular for panels containing calligraphic inscription and arabesques. Open lattice-work was much used for the balustrades of mimbers. But pride of place went to the portable, collapsible lecterns of the Selcuk wood-carving art, for they display workmanship of an unusually fine quality. Painted and lacquered woodwork was also produced.
The third prominent type of architectural decoration for which the Selcuks were renowned in their innovation and artistic achievement was that of tiles. Anatolia was the center for tiles in the 13C Islamic world; and these, and glazed bricks, were extensively used to adorn palaces, mosques, turbes, mescids and medreses. The first important tile-manufacturing center was Konya, with lesser centers at Kubad abad, Ahlat, Kayseri and Aksehir, all producing tiles of a remarkable consistency and uniformity in both style and subject matter. Both tiles and tile mosaics, with their brilliant colors (especially the turquoise, purple and cobalt blue), came to be widely used in Selcuk architectural decoration. Tile mosaics, which could be applied easily to curved surfaces, became very popular for decorating domes, vaults, arches and mihrabs, and were most suitable for the various rounded motifs and geometrical designs favored by the period. In the construction of domes, a common technique was the skilful arrangement of bricks, glazed bricks and tiles or tile mosaics to form intricate geometrical patterns: and glazed monochrome tiles were also used to cover broad surfaces to great effect. But the richest and most interesting tiles were those made for the palaces, consisting mainly of star-and-cross-shaped pieces representing figural com positions such as the Sultan, the palace elite, hunting scenes and real or fantastic animals. These tiles were produced only for the palaces— structures that no longer exist and are known only through exca vations.
After the outstanding quality and work in tiles, it may come as a surprise to find that Selcuk pottery reveals no really original develop ment. Indeed, very little survives beyond the odd fragment of luster-ware and numerous pieces of glazed slip-ware for mosque and domestic use—both in monochrome and with figural decoration of the characteristic Selcuk style. As for the Selcuk use of glassware, there is little evidence of glass manufacture in this period, although glass was certainly used in the windows of the Kubadabad and Alaeddin Palaces. Excavation in Kubadabad has revealed fragments of colored glass probably of cups, plates, bottles and other palace ware, and a single gilded and enameled plate, with an inscription around the rim indicating that it was made to order for the Selcuk Sultan Giyaseddin Keyhusrev (1237-47). At this time, the centers of enameled and gilded glass were Aleppo and Damascus.
In metallurgy, on the other hand, the Anatolian and the Great Selcuks excelled in both technique and design. In Anatolia, the metalwork showed strong regional characteristics reflecting a variety of influences in decorative motifs and technical experimentation in design. Unfortunately, few of the metal—and fewer still of the precious metal—artifacts of the Anatolian Selcuks have survived; reliance must be placed largely on the accounts of contemporary chroniclers, such as Ibn Bibi who describes the gold and silver ware used at the wedding feast of Sultan Izzettin Keykavus (1211-19) and the gold artifacts stored in the Selcuk treasury, and the few extant items. Recent archaeological research has, however, un earthed more bronze, brass and silver items of Anatolian Selcuk provenance, such as mirrors, candlesticks and incense-burners, bowls, plaques, buckles, lamps and drums. Konya seems to have been the center of production in metalwork; and the various tech niques employed, such as pierced-work, inlay, cloisonné enamel, cast relief and embossing, all displaying excellent craftsmanship, indicate the advanced level reached. The decorative motifs and patterns are, as is to be expected, typical of the Selcuk decorative arts, representing all the human, animal and abstract designs, but most commonly the Anatolian motifs of double-headed eagle, lion, bull, griffon and sphinx together with magical astrological signs. Unusual is the incorporation of Byzantine themes, such as the apotheosis of Alexander of Macedon. Yet these serve to underline the rich synthesis of Anatolian craftsmanship.
First-hand evidence of Anatolian textiles in the Selcuk period is sadly lacking, comprising only two red silk pieces, probably of 13C Konya provenance, gold-brocaded, with lion, double-headed eagle and dragon's-head motifs. However, the travelers Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo have much to say in praise of Anatolian silks and other fabrics, and the Kubadabad Palace tilework with its vivid figural representations depicts the patterned kaftans worn by the nobility.
But a far more important Selcuk contribution to Anatolian culture was their introduction of the knotted carpet—a tradition belonging to the pastoral society of their Central Asian homeland. The few surviving carpets of the Selcuk period, found in the Alaeddin Camii in Konya, are double-knotted with the Turkish or Gordion (Gordes) knot, and feature stylized geometrical designs and motifs of natural origin in a limited range of colors (red tones, blue, dark blue, beige and yellow) and angular calligraphic borders. Once again, it is largely from contemporary sources that we derive our information— Marco Polo was much impressed with the Selcuk knotted carpets, which he tells us were sought after throughout the world.
Mention should be made, at least in passing, of the art of miniature painting, evinced in illustrated manuscripts during the Selcuk period. While a few have survived from 12th and 13C Anatolia, these reflect contemporary Islamic styles in general rather than a specific ally Anatolian contribution. Nevertheless, they form a valuable historical and cultural record of the lifestyle such as tents, clothing, weapons, human types, architectural features and even mechanical devices. However, even here, elements peculiar to the Anatolian Selcuk iconography and artistic style are present; so it may be argued that within a broadly homogeneous Islamic style of minia ture-painting, possibly the most original works were of Anatolian provenance.
Thus, the Anatolian Selcuks, despite the tortuous complexity of their rise and political consolidation as a major regional power by the 13C, undoubtedly proved a fertile and imaginative source of cultural and artistic endeavor. Drawing on a wide range of influences from various sources, they created more than just a synthesis—an orig inality in styles, in techniques, in objectives that was to characterize the entire Selcuk domain, from decorative arts to architectural innovations, from scholarly thought to a rare religious tolerance. It can be no coincidence that the unsettled politics of the time and exposure to so many antagonists stimulated an intellectual vivacity that revealed itself in the widespread search for new ideas and the hospitality accorded to visiting scholars, mystics and religious digni taries—culminating in an environment that in turn fostered both thought and craftsmanship. And yet the seeming coincidence of cultural symbols and motifs of Anatolian history and pre-history with those brought by the Selcuks from their ancestral homelands is too striking to be accepted simply as such—leading one to speculate on the still-obscure origins of many of the peoples entering Anatolia over the millennia.
No comments:
Post a Comment