Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021): 181-216 The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”): New Data about Women Patrons, Chancery Practices, and Foundation Inscriptions in Seventh/Thirteenth- Century Saljuq Anatolia* DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Independent Scholar (david_durandguedy@yahoo.com) Abstract The Marʿashī Library of Qum owns an unstudied manuscript containing official documents from the Rum Saljuq dynasty. The manuscript includes an Arabic text for the foundation of a ribāṭ. Its patron was unmistakably the Georgian wife of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II (d. 644/1246), the unfortunate sultan beaten by the Mongols at Kösedağ. The building was a caravanserai, most probably located at the stage of Düden, immediately northeast of Antalya. Its construction can be dated to around 636/1238. It was part of a cluster of buildings erected with sultanic patronage on the road from Antalya to Konya. Gurjī Khātūn’s aim in founding the ribāṭ was to establish her son, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II, as indisputable heir apparent over the other (and older) offspring of the sultan. Beyond the light it casts on her long-term strategy to become wālida (Tk.valide, queen mother), the text allows us to refine our knowledge of women patrons, a subject that had been tackled so far mostly through the case of Māhparī Khātūn. Finally, the source in which this text was found proves that inscriptions (at least this one) were authored by personnel of the chancery, as supposed by van Berchem and by Redford after him. In the first part of the seventh/thirteenth century, most of Anatolia fell under the rule of the Saljuq state.1 The sultans of Konya conquered a large part of the Mediterranean coast and the Black Sea coast and made decisive territorial gains in the east and the southeast (Fig. 1). Three Christian polities continued to exist (the empires of Nicea and Trabzon and the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia), but the Saljuqs were hegemonic. In this move toward political unification, marriage was a powerful tool alongside military conquests. 1. An epistolary exchange with Andrew Peacock about MS Marʿashī 11136 spurred me to write a short note on this inscription, which eventually took me much further than anticipated. I am grateful to Scott Redford for reading a previous version of this article and for sharing with me his comments and expertise on Saljuq caravanserais. I am also thankful to Emad al-Din Sheykh al-Hokamaee for clearing some reading issues. In addition, I have benefited from the useful remarks and suggestions made by the peer reviewers. © 2021 David Durand-Guédy. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which allows users to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the original authors and source. 182 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Figure 1: The Saljuq Sultanate and the Neighboring Powers before Kösedağ (641/1243) (Date of Capture inside Frame) Many khātūns, as the female sultans were known, were of foreign origin. Their political role behind the curtains has been mentioned, most often to be deplored, in the chronicles.2 Recent scholarship has focused on their role as “patrons of architecture,” to quote Bates’s pioneering article on the subject.3 Indeed, a significant number of buildings from this period in Anatolia can be traced to female patrons.4 The daughters of the Ayyubid wife of sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I (d. 1237), built for her a well-known mausoleum in Kayseri 2. On the political role of the khātūns, see the state of the art in B. De Nicola, Women in Mongol Iran: The Khatuns, 1206–1335 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 5–9. 3. Ü. Bates, “Women as Patrons of Architecture in Turkey,” in Women in the Muslim World, ed. L. Beck and N. Keddie, 245–60 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Since Bates’s article, which dealt mostly with the Ottomans, several important articles have been published, in particular in D. Fairchild Ruggles, ed., Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000). See also H. Z. Watenpaugh, “Art and Architecture,” in Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, ed. S. Joseph, online ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2014). The last book of D. Fairchild Ruggles, The Extraordinary Architectural Patronage of the 13th-Century Egyptian Slave-Queen Shajar al-Durr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), deals with a female sultan on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea who was an exact contemporary of the subject of the present article. 4. In his landmark survey of Saljuq architectural patronage in the seventh/thirteenth century, Crane mentioned several women patrons but did not focus on them. See H. Crane, “Notes on Saldjūq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 36 (1993): 1–57. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 183 after her death (Fig. 2). Māhparī Khātūn, a Greek or Armenian noble whose marriage with the same ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn sealed the conquest of Alanya, built a famous complex in Kayseri that has recently been the subject of in-depth publications by Eastmond, Blessing, and Yalman.5 Another wife of the same sultan, ʿIṣmat Khātūn, the sister of the deposed ruler of Erzurum, also engaged in building, as Redford has shown.6 These construction activities took place from the Pamphylian coast to the Yeşilırmak River. Figure 2: Genealogical Tree of the Rum Saljuqs in the Seventh/Thirteenth Century (Spouses Noted in Italics) The present article aims to contribute to this active scholarly field, but through a different kind of source: an inscription copied in MS Marʿashī 11136. The manuscript, long held in private hands in Iran and now kept at the Marʿashī Library in Qum, is a munshaʾāt, that is, 5. A. Eastmond, “Gender and Patronage between Christianity and Islam in the Thirteenth Century,” in Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. A. Ödekan, E. Akyürek, and N. Necipoğlu, 78–88 (Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 2010); P. Blessing, “Women Patrons in Medieval Anatolia and a Discussion of Māhbarī Khātūn’s Mosque Complex in Kayseri,” Belleten 78 (2014): 475–526; S. Yalman, “The ‘Dual Identity’ of Mahperi Khatun: Piety, Patronage and Marriage across Frontiers in Seljuk Anatolia,” in Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100–1500, ed. P. Blessing and R. Goshgarian, 224–52 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017). 6. S. Redford, “Paper, Stone, Scissors: ʿIsmat al-Dunya wa’l-Din, ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kayqubadh, and the Writing of Seljuk History,” in The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, ed. A. C. S. Peacock and S. N. Yildiz, 151–70 (London: I. B. Tauris, 2012). 184 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) a compilation of official and private writing, primarily designed to serve as a letter-writing handbook for secretaries. This manuscript has a complex history, and it was produced by several hands over a period of several decades in seventh/thirteenth- and early eighth/ fourteenth-century Anatolia.7 The document that sparked this article is copied in a section on the correct use of honorific titles (alqāb, sg. laqab). Laqabs were used since the beginning of Islam, initially for the caliphs, but in the Saljuq period their use ballooned seemingly out of control (the inflation was already deplored by the great Saljuq vizier Niẓām al-Mulk, d.485/1092). Although never-ending laqabs can be disconcerting to modern historians, the phenomenon can tell us a lot about the state and the society in which it took place.8 The inscription under study here is preceded by the following introductory words: “Honorific titles (alqāb) of the King of the world and the Queen of the world that are [inscribed] above the doorway of the caravanserai of Dūd.n” (alqāb-i khudāygān-i ʿālam wa malika-yi jahān kī bar dar-i kārawānsarāy-i dūd.n ast). This text is exceptional on several grounds. First, it is far longer than the lengthiest building inscription of a Saljuq caravanserai known so far.9 Second, the patron is none other than the Georgian wife of the last independent Saljuq ruler of Rum. Her eventful life is documented in a vast array of written sources, first collected by Vryonis. She is famous for having erected, much later, the mausoleum of the mystic Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. 672/1273) in Konya, but nothing was hitherto known of her building activities during the reign of her husband.10 Third, the text seems also to be the only surviving example of a foundation inscription copied in a munshaʾāt, and as such it can inform us about the relationship between “paper, stone, and scissors,” to use Redford’s words.11 7. The manuscript was in a private collection in Tabriz before entering the Marʿashī Najafī Library of Qum at the end of the twentieth century. It has never previously been exploited by scholars working on medieval Anatolia. For an introduction to its contents and its complex history, see D. Durand-Guédy, “Manbaʿī-yi muhim dar bāra-yi Saljūqiyān-i Rūm wa dabīr-khāna-yi fārsī-yi ān-hā: Nuskha-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Āyat Allāh Marʿashī, shumāra 11136,” Mīrāth-i Shahāb 100 (tābistān 1399sh. [2020]): 63–84; D. Durand-Guédy, “A New Source on the Saljuqs of Rum and Their Persian Chancery: Manuscript 11136 of the Marʿashī Library (Qum),” Der Islam, forthcoming in 2022. 8. Research on titulature does not belong only to diplomatics. It has also been explored successfully by several historians, such as C. E. Bosworth, “The Titulature of the Early Ghaznavids,” Oriens 15, no. 1 (1962): 210–33 (with reference to previous essential scholarship in French); L. Richter-Bernburg, “Amīr-Malik-Shāhānshāh: ʿAḍud ad-Daula’s Titulature Reexamined,” Iran 18 (1980): 83–102; and, with reference to the “jihad titulature” of the Mamluks, C. Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 2000). 9. According to Redford, the lengthiest inscription known to date is Kırkgöz Han’s, near Antalya. See S. Redford, “The Inscription of the Kırkgöz Hanı and the Problem of Textual Transmission in Seljuk Anatolia,” Adalya 12 (2009): 347–59, at 347. The inscription under study here is 40% longer. 10. On Rūmī’s mausoleum, see Crane, “Notes,” 46 (no. 71); Eastmond, “Gender and Patronage,” 85; Blessing, “Women Patrons,” 480. 11. Redford, “Paper, Stone, Scissors.” I could have started my article with the exact words chosen by Redford (ibid., 151): “This chapter addresses three main issues relating to writing a history of the Seljuks. The first is the accordance, or lack thereof, between two different historical sources: chronicles and inscriptions (the ‘paper’ and ‘stone’ in the title). The second concerns sultans’ wives and their place in the Seljuk social order, and the third is legitimacy.” Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 185 I will start by giving a transcription of the Arabic text, followed by a translation and analysis of its content. Beyond the obvious issues of identification (identity of the patron, location of the caravanserai), I will highlight the new insights the text provides about the period in which it was produced. I will also put it in perspective with what we know of the history of the manuscript in which it is included. At the end of the article, I will argue that this document proves the role of the dīwān al-inshāʾ (official chancery) in the composition of foundation inscriptions. 1. The Text of the Inscription and Its Translation The text of the inscription appears on fol. 29v of MS Marʿashī 11136. The author of the manuscript included it in a series of nine documents about the honorific titles suitable for members of the royal family—especially the sultan, but also his appointed heir. In this part of the manuscript the script is handsome and can be deciphered without a problem (Fig. 3). Figure 3: Text of the inscription in MS Marʿashī 11136 [1[ أمــرت بعمــارة هــذه الربــاط المســبلة الموقوفــة الموبــدة علــى ســاير الخاليــق النازليــن بهــا و المســافرين عنهــا ــم ــاب األم ــك رق ــم مال ــي العال ــة الســلطان األعظــم ظــل هللا ف ــام دول ــي أي ــا [2[ ف نحــو مشــارق األرض و مغاربه ســلطان ســالطين األفــاق صاحــب التــاج و اللــواء و النطــاق غيــاث الدنيــا و الديــن مغيــث االســالم و المســلمين أبــي الفتــح كيخســرو بــن كيقبــاذ خلــد هللا ســلطانه [3[ الســتر الغاليــة 12ملكــة أقاليــم العالــم درة تــاج آل داود بانيــة بيــوت الحســنات وليّــة االلهــام و الكرامــات عصمــت الدنيــا و الديــن صفــوة االســالم و المســلمين المعتصمــة بحبــل هللا المتيــن والــدة الملــك المعظــم عــال الدنيــا و الديــن فخــر آل ســلجوق ولــي عهــد والــده ســلطان البــر ــي ــا ف ــا و بلغه ــا بناه ــا م ــل منه ــا و تقب ــا عيناه ــد والده ــا وال ــرت ببق ــا و ق ــرات يداه ــي الخي ــن بســط هللا ف و البحري [4[ فــي تاريــخ كــذا كــذا الداريــن مــا أبتغهــا 12.  Recte العاليــة الســتر. Al-sitr al-ʿāliyya (“the elevated veil”) is more probable than al-sitr al-ghāliyya (“the expansive veil”) for a metaphoric address to a high-ranking lady. 186 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) [1] Amarat bi-ʿimārat hādhihi al-ribāṭ al-musbala al-mawqūfa al-muʾabbada ʿalā sāʾir al-khalāʾiq al-nāzilīn bihā wa-l-musāfirīn ʿanhā naḥw mashāriq al-arḍ wa-maghāribihā, [2] fī ayyām dawlat sulṭān al-aʿẓam, ẓill Allāh fī al-ʿālam, mālik riqāb al-umam, sulṭān salāṭīn al-āfāq, ṣāḥib al-tāj wa-l-liwāʾ wa-l-niṭāq, Ghiyāth al-dunyā wa-l-dīn, Mughīth al-islām wa-l-muslimīn, Abī al-Fatḥ Kay-Khusraw b. Kay-Qubādh—khallada allāhu sulṭānahu, [3] al-sitr al-ʿāliyya, malikat aqālīm al-ʿālam, durrat tāj āl Dāʾūd, bāniyya buyūt al-ḥasanāt, waliyyat al-ilhām wa-l-karāmāt, ʿIṣmat al-dunyā wa-l-dīn, Ṣafwat al-islām wa-l-muslimīn, al-muʿtaṣima bi-ḥabl Allāh al-matīn, wālidat al-malik al-muʿaẓẓam ʿAlāʾ al-dunyā wa-l-dīn, fakhr āl Saljūq, walī ʿahd wālidihi, sulṭān al-barr wa-l-baḥrayn— bassaṭa Allāhu fī al-khayrāt yādahā wa-qarrat bi-baqāʾ wālid wālidihā ʿaynāhā wa-taqabbala minhā mā banāhā wa-ballaghāhā fī al-dārīn mā ibtaghāhā [4] fī taʾrīkh kadhā wa-kadhā. The text follows the classical structure of foundation inscriptions.13 It starts (§1) with a statement of foundation containing a verb (“order”) and an object (here: the construction of a ribāṭ).14 These are followed by (§2) an adverbial phrase of time (here: during the reign of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II”), (§3) the subject of the action (here: ʿIṣmat al-Dīn), and finally (§4) the date. The only originality in this text, to which we will come back later, lies in the qualification of the building (its charitable purpose). The inscription can be translated as follows: [1] She has ordered the construction of this ribāṭ, dedicated to a charitable purpose, endowed, eternal for all the creatures setting foot in it and [all] the travelers arriving to it and leaving it for the east or the west of the world, 15 [2] in the days of the greatest sultan, God’s shadow on earth, the master of the necks of the nations, sultan of all the sultans under the sky, possessor of the crown, the flag, and the belt, Ghiyāth al-dunyā wa-l-dīn , Mughīth al-islām wa-l-muslimīn Abū al-Fatḥ Kay-Khusraw b. Kay-Qubād—may God make his rule eternal, [3] the high lady, queen of the climes of the world, pearl of the crown of the family of David, builder of pious foundations [maybe: mosques], the inspiring woman through whom God works miracles, ʿIṣmat al-dunyā wa-l-dīn, Ṣafwat 13. J. M. Rogers, “Waqf and Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia: The Epigraphic Evidence,” Anatolian Studies 26 (1976): 69–103, at 72. 14. The verb is distinctly in the feminine third person (amarat), instead of the usual “amara bi-ʿimāra” (sometimes read in the passive voice, umira, or even the passive of the intensive form, ummira) seen in foundation inscriptions for both male and female patrons (see Rogers, “Waqf and Patronage,” 73). 15. The same expression is in the inscription of Kırkgöz Hanı. Contrary to Redford (“Kırkgöz Hanı,” 353, line 2), I understand al-nāzilūn bihā and al-musāfirūn ʿanhā not as people “residing in the caravenserai and travellers”, but as “arriving and departing travellers”. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 187 al-islām wa-l-muslimīn, holding firm to God’s rope [cf. Quran 3:103], mother of the powerful prince ʿAlāʾ al-Dunyā wa-l-Dīn, glory of the Saljuq family, appointed heir by his father, sultan of the land and the two seas—may God make her hand extend her good deeds, and may she be happy with the father of her father,16 may what she has built receive a good reception, and may she obtain in the two worlds [this one and the next] what she desires [4] on the date of so and so. 2. Identification Gurjī Khātūn There is no doubt whatsoever about the identity of the patron. First, the inscription is dated to the reign of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw b. Kay-Qubād, that is, Kay-Khusraw II (r. 634–44/1237–46). Mentioning the name of the reigning sultan was expected when the building was not erected by the sultan himself. Second, the patron is introduced as the “mother of the powerful prince ʿAlāʾ al-Dunyā wa-l-Dīn.” This can be none other than the mother of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II (d. 655/1257) (Fig. 2).17 She bore the name of her grandmother, Tamar, the mighty queen of Georgia at the end of the twelfth century (Fig. 4). Her mother, Rusudan, was also a formidable queen of Georgia, who acceded to the throne at the age of twenty-nine and picked the son of the Saljuq ruler of Erzurum as her husband. Their daughter Tamar was given in marriage to seal the alliance between the Rum Saljuqs and the Bagratid Georgians after the two dynasties became neighbors. Specifically, after his tremendous victory over the Khwārazmians at Yāsī Chaman in 627/1230, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I of Konya took Erzurum, abolished the independent principality of his cousin Jahān-Shāh, married his sister, and pushed his advantage by sending his army into Georgian territory, where Jahān-Shāh had withdrawn. After the loss of several fortresses, in the troubled context created by the Mongol conquests, Queen Rusudan of Georgia proposed to Kay-Qubād I a marriage between her daughter and his son, the appointed heir Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II.18 16. The manuscript has wālid wālidihā, “father of her father”, but this is obviously a mistake, as Gurjī Khātūn’s grand-father, Mughīth al-Dīn Ṭughrulshāh, was then long dead (Fig. 2). Maybe the copyist meant wālid waladihā, “the father of her son”, i.e. the reigning sultan. 17. Ibn Bībī says explicitly that ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn was “born of the princess of Georgia” (az malaka-yi Gurj). See his al-Awāmir al-ʿAlāʾiyya fī al-umūr al-ʿalāʾiyya, ed. Zh. Mutaḥḥidīn (Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i ʿUlūm-i Insānī wa Muṭāliʿāt-i Farhangī, 1390sh.), 420. Cf. al-Mukhtaṣar Saljūq-nāma-yi Ibn Bībī, ed. M. T. Houtsma in Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides, vol. 3: Histoire des Seldjoucides d’Asie mineure, d’après Ibn Bîbî (Leiden: Brill, 1902), 212. 18. Rusudan was enjoying a moment of respite after the demise of the Khwārazm-Shāh, who had occupied Georgia since 622/1225. The Mongols would not invade Georgia until 633/1236. See C. E. Bosworth, “Al-Ḳabḳ,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 4:341–50 (Leiden: Brill, 1978). 188 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Figure 4: The Bagratids of Georgia in the Thirteenth Century The marriage was eventually concluded in 635/1237, after the prince ascended the throne (634/1237).19 At the Saljuq court, Tamar was known as Gurjī Khātūn, as evidenced by Georgian and Persian sources.20 Despite Brosset’s commented translation of the Georgian Chronicle, Tamar/Gurjī Khātūn has long been overlooked. Canard did not deal with her in his article dedicated to the (often very negative) image of Georgian queens in Muslim sources.21 Vryonis totally ignored her in his 1971 monograph on Saljuq Anatolia. However, he made up for the oversight in a later article. Commenting on the painted figure of a woman called “Kira Thamàris” in a church in Cappadocia, Vryonis argued that this “Lady Tamar” is no other than Gurjī Khātūn, of whom he offered a detailed biography.22 To this end, he analyzed all the available 19. The most detailed account of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II’s reign is that of N. Kaymaz, Anadolu Selçuklu Sultanlarından II. Giyâsu’d-dân Keyhusrev ve Devri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1958); see 37–39, 80–82. Cf. G. Leiser, “Observations on the ‘Lion and Sun’ Coinage of Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw II,” Mesogeios 2 (1998): 96–114, at 103. 20. Georgian Chronicle = Kartlis Tskhovreba (Kʿartʿlis Cʿxovreba), trans. M. F. Brosset, Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle, part 1: Histoire ancienne, jusqu’en 1469 de J.-C. (Saint Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’académie impériale des sciences, 1849), 502 n. 2, 508: “Tamar, fille de Rusudan, que le sultan nommait Gurji Khātūn” (all of these events are dealt with in the “Hundred Years’ Chronicle” book of the Georgian Chronicle). Āqsarāyī says that the mother of ʿ Alāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād was “Gurjī Khātūn, the queen of the Georgians (malaka-yi Abkhāz).” Āqsarāʾī, Tārīkh-i Salājaqa yā Musāmirat al-akhbār, ed. O. Turan as Müsâmeret ül-ahbâr, Mogollar zamininda Türkiye Selçukluları Tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1944), 47. The benevolent figure of Gurjī Khātūn appears sixteen times in Aflākī’s hagiography of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, the great mystic of Konya who died in 672/1273. See Aflākī ʿĀrifī, Manāqib al-ʿārifīn, ed. T. Yazici, corrections and additions by T. Subḥānī (Tehran: Dūstān, 1396sh.), index. 21. Georgian Chronicle, 502; M. Canard, “Les reines de Géorgie dans l’histoire et la légende musulmane,” Revue des études islamiques 37 (1969): 3–20 (Gurjī Khātūn is mentioned in passing at 12). 22. S. Vryonis Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971); idem, “Another Note Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 189 sources in Georgian (the Royal Chronicle), Syriac (Bar Hebraeus), and Persian (mainly Āqsarāyī’s chronicle of the Saljuqs and Aflākī’s hagiography of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī). In 1998, Leiser discussed Gurjī Khātūn in an article about the famous Rum Saljuq gold dinar showing a sun and a lion (a passage from Bar Hebraeus had led to the surmise that Kay-Khusraw II had represented himself as a lion and his beloved Georgian queen as the sun).23 Two other scholars dealt with Gurjī Khātūn from different perspectives. In 2006, Peacock published an important article in which he interpreted the marriage as “a response to the Mongol threat, even if the Georgian-Seljuk alliance proved to be of little concrete use in practice.”24 And in 2007, Eastmond studied Gurjī Khātūn as a symbol of the “cultural syncretism” visible in the artistic production of seventh/thirteenth-century Anatolia.25 Düden The author of the munshaʾāt indicates that the inscription was located “above the doorway of the caravanserai” (bar dar-i kārawānsarā), which was the usual location of such inscriptions.26 At the similar caravanserai of Kırkgöz Han, the inscription is “carved on a single block of limestone and inserted over the entrance into the building.”27 Understandably, the geographical location of the building did not need to be mentioned in the inscription. The toponym “Dūd.n” given by the author of the munshaʾāt in the “title” on the Inscription of the Church of St. George of Belisırma,” Byzantina 9 (1977): 9–22. The church is located 25 km south of Aksaray. Vryonis believed that “Masʿūd,” the male figure represented next to Kira Thamàris, was the puppet Saljuq sultan Masʿūd II (d. 707/1307). In the image, the woman called Kira Thamàris is about three- quarters the latter’s size and appears as the donor of the portrait. This identification of the principal donor has been questioned, see bibliographical references in T. Uyar, “Thirteenth-century ‘Byzantine’ art in Cappadocia and the question of the Greek painters at the Seljuq Court,” in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, ed. A.C.S. Peacock, B. De Nicola and S. Nur Yildiz, 215–231 (Burlington, VT; Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2015), at note 12. 23. Leiser, “Observations.” 24. A. C. S. Peacock, “Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th Centuries,” Anatolian Studies 56 (2006): 127–46, at 143. 25. A. Eastmond, “Art and Frontiers between Byzantium and the Caucasus,” in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557); Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. S. T. Brooks, 154–69 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007). Gurjī Khātūn is mentioned in passing in the standard syntheses of Cahen and Turan. See C. Cahen, La Turquie pré-ottomane (Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes, 1988), 92 and 164; O. Turan, Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye: Siyasi Tarih Alp Arslan’dan Osman Gazi’ye (1071–1328), 6th ed. (Istanbul: Ötüken, 2004), 474, 477, 492, 563. For further details, see Kaymaz, Keyhusrev, 80–82. See also O. Turan, “Les souverains seldjoukides et leurs sujets non-musulmans,” Studia Islamica 1 (1953): 65–100, at 81; O. Turan, “Keyhusrev II.,” in İslam Ansiklopedisi, 6:620–29, trans. G. Leiser as “Kaykhusraw II Ghiyath al-Din,” Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society 33 (1985): 81–107, at 103; Eastmond, “Gender and Patronage,” 84–85; Blessing, “Women Patrons,” 480–81; R. Shukhurov, “Harem Christianity: The Byzantine Identity of Seljuk Princes,” in Peacock and Yildiz, Seljuks of Anatolia, 115–50, at 122. For the image of Gurjī Khātūn in Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī’s hagiography, see also B. De Nicola, “The Ladies of Rūm: A Hagiographic View of Women in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Anatolia,” Journal of Sufi Studies 3, no. 2 (2014): 132–56. 26. S. Redford, “Rum Seljuq Caravanserais: Urbs in Rure,” in The Seljuqs and Their Successors: Art, Culture and History, ed. S. Canby, D. Beyazit, and M. Rugiadi, 35–50 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020), 39. 27. Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 347. Marble was a more frequent alternative to limestone. 190 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) of the document is unfamiliar to me. However, Ibn Bībī speaks of a “manzil-i Dūdān.” It appears in the chapter on the conquest of Antalya, which reports that after the conquest, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw I (d. 608/1211), the namesake grandfather of Gurjī Khātūn’s husband, wanted to go back to his capital, Konya. According to Ibn Bībī, “as they were one stage (manzil) from the coast, the delegates of the sultan’s divan gave the order to settle at manzil-i Dūdān and to gather the sheep of the sultan.”28 This reference to the flocks belonging to the sultan (akhmās-i khāṣṣ) is interesting, as they are seldom mentioned in the chronicles on the Saljuqs. Dūdān is the persianized form of Diadion, which fell to the Saljuqs one generation before the capture of Antalya.29 The Düden River now flows from the mountains north of Antalya into the sea east of the city. The Dūdan caravanserai was probably located upstream, east or northeast of the city (Fig. 5).30 Its site is now occupied by the current urban agglomerationof 2.5 million inhabitants. The only evidence we have of Seljuk construction on the Düden River proper is what seems to be a rebuilding of part of a Roman aqueduct as a bridge (see the Soğukasku bridge in Fig. 5).31 Figure 5: Antalya and its Hinterland (Base Map: Google Earth) The toponym itself may be one of the rare survivals from Hittite, as the Hittite düden refers to a stream or river that disappears only to reappear. The Düden Çayı that flows into the Mediterranean east of Antalya is such a stream: it originates in a series of springs at the 28. Ibn Bībī, Awāmir, 99. Cf. Mukhtaṣar, 35, lines 11–12. 29. According to the Christian historians quoted by Cahen, Turquie, 48, Diadion was captured by ʿIzz al-Dīn Qïlïj Arslan II (d. 588/1192). 30. The Greek name for the river, katarraktes, refers to its waterfalls. The Upper Düden Waterfalls, about eight kilometers from the Hadrian Gate, are today a well-known recreation spot for the inhabitants of Antalya. 31. I am indebted to Scott Redford for this information. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 191 base of the foothills of the Taurus mountains (the Kırkgözler springs) and then disappears in the limestone formations (karst) of the region, only to reappear after several kilometers.32 There are several other locations called “Düden” in Anatolia (around Niksar, southeast of Malatya, and east of Denizli, respectively), but they are less likely to be the site of our caravanserai. None of them is mentioned in the pre-Ottoman sources, and they are all way out of the center of Saljuq power in that period. The Düden Lake north of Tuz Gölü occupies a more strategic position, and it would have been meaningful to build a caravanserai at the intersection of two key trade roads: the Tarsus-Ankara road (via Niğde and Aksaray) and the Antalya-Ankara road (via Konya). However, I am not aware of any construction in this bare landscape. Conversely, a caravanserai near Antalya would fit perfectly what we know of the region (Pamphylia) in that period. Redford remarked that “Seljuk sub-sultanic patronage often clustered in certain regions of Anatolia.”33 During Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II’s reign, Pamphylia was such a cluster. The conquest of the southern littoral had been the great project of the Saljuqs before they looked eastward. ʿIzz al-Dīn Qïlïj Arslan II prepared the ground; his son Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw I carried out the conquest of Antalya; and the latter’s son ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I conquered Kalonoros (renamed Alanya). He also launched several building projects to tie the region to the Saljuq Kernland: a road from Alanya to Konya and a caravanserai at Alara (Fig. 6). Figure 6: Women’s Patronage in Rum Anatolia (1232–45) (Free Vector Form from Vecteezy.com) 32. A presentation of the Düden water basin can be found in T. Baran, Y. Dalkiliç, and Ü. Öziş, “Antalya- Düden Havzasi Su Kaynaklarinin Geliştirilmesi,” in Antalya Yöresinin Inşaat Mühendisliği Sorunları Kongresi, 2:52–60 (Antalya: İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası Antalya Şubesi, 2005). 33. Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 350. 192 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) His son, Gurjī Khātūn’s husband, was even more dedicated to Antalya: while Kay-Qubād I also built caravanserais in central Anatolia (at Aksaray and Kayseri), Kay-Khusraw II built exclusively on the Mediterranean coast (Sarafşa Han) and in its near hinterland (Kırkgöz Han, İncir Han).34 The aim was to turn the Pamphylian coast into a commercial hub between the Southwest Asian trade, the eastern Mediterranean (more specifically Cyprus), and even Armenian Cilician territories.35 The exact location of the caravanserai is a matter of conjecture. Kırkgöz, where the sources that feed the Düden River emerge, is a possible location. But that would mean that Kırkgöz Han and the caravanserai of Gurjī Khātūn are one and the same building, which would require us to hypothesize a complex building history with a change of patron. The most likely location, however, is somewhere near the Düden River east of Antalya. Its proximity to the city would easily explain the lack of remains. The well-known example of Eğirdir Han reminds us that cut stones were sought-after commodities: built near Lake Eğirdir (110 km north of Antalya), this caravanserai’s monumental portal has been entirely removed and reassembled in the nearby town as the portal for a madrasa.36 The author of the munshaʾāt replaced the date of the original inscription with “so-and- so,” following common practice.37 We know that the reign of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II lasted eight solar years, from 634/1237 to 643/1245.38 If ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn was seven years old at the death of his father, it means he was born within the first year of his parents’ marriage;39 636/1238 is a plausible guess.40 It corresponds to the dates of construction of the caravanserais built by the sultan in the Antalya region. The two that are dated (Eğirdir Han in 635 AH and İncir Han in 636 AH) happen to be on the road linking Antalya to Konya via the lakes of Eğirdir and Beyşehir (site of the palace of Qubād-ābād). So is also Kırkgöz Han, built by Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II’s mother-in-law. It is tempting to surmise that Gurjī Khātūn, who appears to have been very close to the sultan, launched the Düden building project as soon as her son ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn was born. But a later date cannot be excluded. Although the defeat at Kösedağ (641/1243) had immediate 34. Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II also finished Eğridir Han, located further from the coast and started by his father. See Redford, “Urbs in Rure,” 42–43. 35. Cahen, Turquie, 122, 124. 36. Redford, “Urbs in Rure,” 43. As a consequence, the inscription of Eğirdir Han is still visible, but not at its original site. 37. The place and date mentioned in the colophons of the letters copied in munshaʾāt are systematically left out. Redford (“Kırkgöz Hanı,” 349) believes that on the inscription of Kırkgöz Han, the scribe left out the date because of a lack of space. 38. The date of his death is not recorded in the sources. For long, it was dated to 644/1246, as in C. E. Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996), 213. But Kaymaz, followed by Turan, opted for 643/1245, see Leiser, “Observations,” 114 n. 56. Cahen mentions only the CE year (Turquie, 230: “end 1245 or 1246”). 39. The age of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn at the death of his father is given by Simon de Saint-Quentin in Histoire des Tartares, ed. J. Richard (Paris: Geuthner, 1965), 82 (“Raconadius erat .xi. annorum, Azardinus .ix., Aladinus vero .vii, et iste quidem natu minimus regine filius quoad ipsos paterne hereditatis heres erat legitimus”). See also Cahen, Turquie, 230 n. 8. 40. This is the date assumed by Turan, Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye, 477. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 193 financial repercussions for the Saljuq state, the region of Antalya had not lost its appeal for the sultan, and actually it is the only region in which Saljuq patronage is attested after 641/1243. This is irrefutable for military architecture (the walls of Antalya), but very probably true for commercial buildings, too.41 The reason is obvious: it was the city furthest from the Mongol ordu, with an easy escape route by boat if necessary. 3. Remarks about the Text of the Inscription To enable a more thorough analysis, I have prepared several tables listing the denominations found in foundation inscriptions. Table 1 references all the foundations by woman patrons in Rum, Table 2 the foundations by male patrons during the reign of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II, and Table 3 the foundations of that particular sultan. The patron of the Düden caravanserai is referred only by her honorific titles (laqabs), without mention of her name (ism) or genealogy (nasab). This is not unusual. The most frequent form of denomination in Table 1 (accounting for seven out of thirteen inscriptions) combines a laqab with an ism, but the dominance of this form is largely due to the many foundations of Māhparī Khātūn, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I’s wife.42 Another of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn’s wives, Ṭughrulshāh’s daughter, is referred to only by her laqab, never her ism (Table 1: items 4 and 11). In fact, in the official documents (sulṭāniyyāt) copied into the munshaʾāt, laqab is the denomination by default, and the ism may or may not be given. In the Düden inscription,43 two of these laqabs are standard for Saljuq queens: “ʿIṣmat al-dunyā wa-l-dīn” (literally, “the virtue of the world and the faith”) and “Ṣafwat al-islām wa-l-muslimīn” (literally, “The quintessence of Islam and the Muslims”). Two other ʿIṣma are known in the Saljuq family: the daughter of Ṭughrulshāh (himself a Saljuq) who married sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād (Fig. 2)44 and, in the previous generation, a sister of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw I.45 According to Uzunçarşılı, followed by Blessing, the title “Ṣafwa” was given to queens of non-royal origin, whereas “ʿIṣma” seems to have been reserved for women born as princesses (indeed, Māhparī, the daughter of the Christian commander of Kalonoros, is never given the laqab ʿIṣmat al-Dīn).46 However, the titles were not exclusive. 41. Blessing (“Women Patrons,” 480) writes that “after 641/1243 Seljuks rulers are no longer recorded as patrons of architecture,” but several royal inscriptions on the walls of Antalya postdate Kösedağ. For Redford (“Kırkgöz Hanı,” 350), the “plainer caravansarays” of Pamphylia without decoration (like Şarapsa and Kargı) “were built in the last years of the sultan’s reign […] a time when he had diminished resources, but spent most of his time in these parts”. 42. Five of the six inscriptions for Māhparī contain a laqab and an ism. 43. I speak hereafter of the “Düden inscription” to refer to the text under study, although the text presently exists only in a manuscript. At the end of this article I address the relationship between the stone and the paper. 44. Redford, “Paper, Stone, Scissors,” 155. For the title Ṣafwat [al-Dīn], see also İ. H. Uzunçarsılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtına Medhal (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1941), 66; E.S. Wolper, “Princess Safwat al-Dunyā wa al-Dīn and the Production of Sufi Buildings and Hagiographies in Pre-Ottoman Anatolia,” in D. Fairchild Ruggles, Women, Patronage, 35–52, at 42–43 45. ʿIṣmat al-Dunyā wa-l-Dīn Gawhar Nasība; see Crane, “Notes,” 41; Blessing, “Women Patrons,” 479 n. 12. 46. Blessing, “Women Patrons,” 492, 510. 194 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Table 1: Denominations in Foundation Inscriptions by Women Patrons Item Foundation (AH date) Patron (ism when known) Denomination of the sultan (see Appendix) Denomination of the patron RCEA no. laqab (first word or in full) other 1. Çifte Medrese in Kayseri (602) Gawhar var. 1 + GhD KKh b. QA ʿIṣma Gawhar Naṣība b. QA 2. Külük Mosque in Kayseri (607) Atsüz Altï var. 1 + ʿIzD AbF KK b. KKh + 21 - Atsïz Altï Khātūn b. Maḥ. b. Yāghībaṣān 3665 3. Hospital of Divriği (626) Tūrān Malik - - Tūrān Malik bt. FD Bahrāmshāh 4. Uluborlu Friday Mosque (629) Ṭughrulshāh’s daughter 1–2, 22, var. 24, ʿAD AbF KQ b. KKh ʿIṣma, Ṣafwa bt. Ṭughrulshāh bt. QA 4044 5. Huand Hatun complex in Kayseri (635) Māhparī 1 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ Ṣafwa, Fātiḥat al- khayrāt - 4146 6. 1 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ Ṣafwa Māhparī Khātūn 4147 7. Hatun Han in Pazar (636) Māhparī 1, var. 2, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 Ṣafwa, Wālida Māhparī Khātūn 4157 8. 1, var. 2, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 Ṣafwa,Wālida, Malika Māhparī Khātūn 4158 (Erdmann no. 36) 9. Çinçili Han (637) Māhparī var. 9 Malika, Ṣafwa, Wālida Māhparī Khātūn (Erdmann no. 37) 10. [Düden Ribāṭ (n.d.)] Tamar/Gurjī Khātūn 1, 22, var. 23, 25 + GhD MghI AbF KKh b. KQ [mother of malik muʿaẓẓam ʿAD, Fkhr, walī ʿahd, 5] Sitr, Malika, Durra, Waliyya, ʿIṣma, Ṣafwa, Wālida - 11. Kırkgöz Han Ṭughrulshāh’s daugther 1, 22, var. 23, 25, GhD AbF KKh b. KQ ʿIṣma, Durrat Tāj al-Duwal 4263 (Erdmann no. 56) 12. Māhparī’s cenotaph in Kayseri (645) Māhparī [mother of GhD KKh b. KQ] Malika, Maryam, Khadīja, Ṣafwa, Wālida Māhparī Khātūn 4259 13. Çifte Künbed in Kayseri (645) al-Malika al-ʿĀdila’s daughters (not named in the inscription) - dedicatee: ʿIṣma, Ṣafwa, Sayyida, Zubayda, Ṣāḥibat al-Khiṣāl, Khātūn al-Dunyā, Malika, Manshāʾ al-Yumn - 4273 Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 195 Table 2: Denominations in Foundation Inscriptions by Male Patrons during the Sultanate of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II Item Foundation (AH order) Patron (ism when known) Denomination of the sultan (see Appendix) Denomination of the patron RCEA no. laqab other 1. Kutahya Mosque (634) ʿImād al-Dīn Hizār Dīnārī 1, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ ʿImādD Hizār Dīnārī 4134 2. Madrasat Sirāj al-Dīn in Kayseri (636) Sirāj al-Dīn Badr 1 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 22 SirājD Badr 4156 3. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Mosque in Antalya (637) atabeg Armaghān 1, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 Atabak Armaghān 4179 4. Qarāṭāy Han (638) Qarāṭāy 1–2, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 missing 4190 (Erdmann no. 32) 5. Elbistan’s Friday mosque (639) Chawlï var. 1 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 MubārizD Abū al-ʿIzz, Chawlī al- Dhawwāq al-sulṭānī 4199 6. Sirchālī Mosque in Konya Badr al-Dīn b. Muṣliḥ 1, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 BadrD b. Muṣliḥ 4211 7. Hidirlik Mosque ʿImād al-Dīn Hizār Dīnārī 1, 22 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ ʿImādD Hizār Dīnārī 4228 8. Tower in the walls of Antalya (642) Abū Bakr b. Saʿīd 1–3, var. 4 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 Abū Bakr b. Saʿīd 4239 9. Burmali Minaret in Amasya (645) brothers Farrukh & Yusūf al- Khāzin 1 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ b. KKh + 21 Farrukh & Yusūf al- Khāzin 4261 Table 3: Denominations of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II in Buildings He Commissioned Item Foundation (AH date) Denomination of the sultan (see Appendix) RCEA no. 1. Eğirdir Han (635) 1–20 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ b. QA b. Mas b. QA + 21 (total: 22) 4148 (Erdmann no. 33) 2. Walls of Antalya (636) 1, 22, var. 4 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 (total: 5) 4159 3. İncir Han (636) 1–6, 8, 20 + GhD AbF KKh b. KQ b. KKh + 21 (total: 10) 4162 (Erdmann no. 29) 4. Walls of Antalya (642) 1–3, 9, var. 4, 23 + GhD + 24, var. 22 + AbF KKh b. KQ + 21 (total: 10) 4238 196 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Kay-Qubād I’s two royal spouses (Bint Ṭughrulshāh and al-Malika al-ʿĀdila) are both called “ʿIṣma” and “Ṣafwa” (see Table 1: items 4 and 13). Yalman noted that the inscription for al-Malika al-ʿĀdila does not fit Uzunçarşılı’s theory, but she tried to normalize the exception by arguing that “the Ayyubid princess seemed to be implying descent from the Rum Seljuk dynasty.”47 Since the princess and her son were slaughtered by her Saljuq “parents,” this assumption is difficult to accept (the daughters of al-Malika al-ʿĀdila took the extraordinary initiative of declining to mention the reigning Saljuq sultan in the inscription on the monument they built for their mother in Kayseri to show their aversion to the dynasty). Gurjī Khātūn’s rank was even higher than those of Ṭughrulshāh’s daughter and al-Malika al-ʿĀdila. Her mother ruled Georgia, and her father was a Saljuq prince (Fig. 4). The Düden inscription shows that “ʿIṣma” and “Ṣafwa” were usual titles for Rum Saljuq khātūns. This is confirmed by a model of a letter for a khātūn in the manuscript from which our text is drawn.48 The same was true in Mongol Iran, as evidenced by Muḥammad b. Nakhjawānī’s Dastūr al-kātib, a chancery manual completed in Tabriz in 767/1365–66.49 The second laqab given to Gurjī Khātūn, “pearl of the crown of the family of David,” signals her origin. The “family of David” is the usual expression used to refer to the Bagratid dynasty, which can be traced back to the start of the ninth century CE and which ruled Georgia and the western Caucasus since the days of David IV the Builder (d. 1125 CE). David had been the emblematic royal first name since Bagratid propagandists advanced the claim of biblical descent.50 Ibn Bībī uses it in the message Queen Rusudan allegedly sent to ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I to offer peace: It has come to our mind that now our countries are neighbors. My pure and secluded child, who is descended from the loins of the Saljuqs and the race of David (az ṣulb-i Saljūq u nizhād-i Dāwūd), [should] go to the nuptial room of the prince of Islam, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw.51 The son Gurjī Khātūn had with the sultan had the same dual background.52 Let us note 47. Yalman, “‘Dual Identity,’” 235. 48. MS Marʿashī 11136, fol. 10r. 49. We can note that the Dastūr al-kātib gives six possible series of laqabs for khātūns: ʿIṣma appears in two of them and Ṣafwa in three (Nuṣra, a title not recorded for Rum Saljuq khātūns, is also mentioned). See Muḥammad Munshī Nakhjawānī, Dastūr al-kātib fī taʿyīn al-marātib, ed. ʿA. A. Aḥmadī Dārānī, 2 vols. (Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1395sh.), 1:63–64. 50. David was the name of Queen Rusudan’s father, father-in-law, son, nephew, and great-nephew. The claim of Davidic descent is detailed by Sumbat in his chronicle of the Bagratids. See S. Rapp Jr., “Sumbat Davitʿis-dze and the Vocabulary of Political Authority in the Era of Georgian Unification,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 120, no. 4 (2000): 570-76. But it is also mentioned even earlier, in mid-tenth-century Byzantium; see Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik, trans. R. J. H. Jenkins (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1949; reprint, 2008), 204–7 (§45). 51. Ibn Bībī, Awāmir, 378. Cf. Mukhtaṣar, 184, lines 16–20; Peacock, “Georgia,” 138. 52. The links between the Saljuqs and the Bagratids were not exclusive, and Gurjī Khātūn had on her side a formidable range of connections that stretched over the whole of Asia Minor (see Eastmond, “Art and Frontiers”). Contrary to Yalman (“‘Dual Identity’”), I prefer to speak of “background” rather than “identity,” as the latter notion is now being used so extensively and in such a way that its very meaning has become blurred Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 197 that in the Sünbül Zaviye of Tokat (691 AH), the dual descent of Muʿīn al-Dīn Pervaneh’s daughter is also exalted. The patron, Sünbül, praises her former master as al-malika . . . al-mukarrama ilā al-ṭarafayn al-nasībat al-abuwayn (“the queen . . . venerated on both sides for the genealogy of her two parents”).53 Do the honorific titles of Gurjī Khātūn tell us something about her faith? The question deserves to be asked because according to the Georgian chronicle, she had been allowed to remain a Christian and to practice her religion openly.54 The same source details the events that led to her conversion during the reign of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II, but it is not dated.55 Many of the titles mentioned in the Düden inscription carry no religious connotations, but “Ṣafwat al-islām wa-l-muslimīn” followed by a reference to “holding firm to God’s rope” implies that she was a Muslim.56 In sum, the Düden inscription portrays Gurjī Khātūn as a woman of royal blood and as a staunch Muslim, but also as the wife of the sultan and the mother of the appointed heir. It gives her seven laqabs altogether. The reigning sultan is mentioned in the inscription, as was customary. The sultan’s main title, “Ghiyāth al-dunyā wa-l-dīn”, had been borne already by his homonymous grandfather, the conqueror of Antalya, Kay-Khusraw I.57 The other sultanic titles used in the Düden inscription are also found elsewhere. As can be seen in Tables 2, 3, and in the appendix, al-sulṭān al-aʿẓam appears every time the name of the sultan is mentioned.58 “Shadow of God on earth” also appears recurrently, though not on Eğirdir Han or İncir Han, which were built by the sultan at the beginning of his reign. However, the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the Düden caravanserai was built after Kösedağ, as this title appears on the walls of Antalya both before and after 641/1243, and also on all the caravanserais built by female patrons at Kayseri, Pazar, Çinçili, and Kırkgöz (see Tables 2–3). (obviously, this already lengthy article is not the place to engage with this issue). 53. Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, ed. E. Combe, J. Sauvaget, and G. Wiet, 18 vols (Cairo: IFAO, 1931–91) [henceforth RCEA], inscription no. 4959. This Sufi lodge is discussed by Wolper, “Princess Safwat al-Dunyā,” 41–43. 54. Georgian Chronicle, 1:502 and 524 (“en effet elle avait un prêtre, des images et des croix, non secrètement mais tout à fait à découvert”). See Turan, “Souverains seldjoukides,” 81; Eastmond, “Art and Frontiers,” 163–64. 55. According to the Georgian Chronicle, Gurjī Khātūn’s conversion was the unforeseen consequence of her mother Rusudan’s schemes to get rid of her nephew David (future David VI Ulu; see Fig. 4), who also stayed at the court of Konya. At some point, Rusudan told the sultan that her daughter Gurjī Khātūn and her nephew David had maintained illicit relations. The sultan beat her, and “the unfortunate woman, tired of suffering, renounced the true faith she had been keeping until then” (Georgian Chronicle, 1:524; Peacock, “Georgia,” 142). Vryonis (“Another Note”) put forward the influence of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī as a decisive factor in Gurjī Khātūn’s conversion. Since Rūmī’s father settled in Konya in 626/1228, this is not impossible. 56. Wa-ʿtaṣimū bi-ḥabl Allāhi jamīʿan wa-lā tafarraqū is one of the most famous verses of the Quran. “God’s rope” has usually been interpreted as a metaphor for the Quran. The sincerity of Gurjī Khātūn’s conversion has been questioned by Vryonis (“Another Note,” 20), but it is not the issue here. 57. Ghiyāth and Mughīth (both meaning “succorer”) are built on the same root, ghātha, meaning “to water (with rain),” hence “to help.” 58. In some inscriptions, al-sulṭān al-aʿẓam is followed by shāhanshāh al-muʿaẓẓam, but the latter epithet is not as powerful a title as the superlative aʿẓam. 198 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The title “possessor of the crown, the flag, and the belt” is much rarer. It appears only once elsewhere: in the nearby Kırkgöz Han, built by Ṭughrulshāh’s daughter (Table 1: item 11). The two inscriptions are remarkably similar as far as the denominations for the sultan are concerned.59 Since the text is in Arabic, the word liwāʾ (flag) has been preferred over sanjaq, the emblematic Turkish word used in Persian chronicles but not in Arabic ones.60 Redford noted that the belt (niṭāq) is a new and unexpected element of Saljuq regalia, but he meant in an inscriptional sense.61 In fact it was used in qaṣīdas in honor of great Saljuq sultans. For example, Amīr Muʿizzī, the malik al-shuʿarā of sultan Malik-Shāh b. Alp Arslan (d. 485/1092), declaimed: داد جوانی و پيروزی و دولت و سپاه وکمر تاج و تخت و شمشير و افسر و نگين The ring, the “hat,” the sword, the throne, the crown, and the belt; they conferred [on this sultan] an army and a state, as well as victory and youth.62 The belt is a symbol of determination (the Persian kamar bastan is the exact equivalent of the English “to gird one’s loins”), and the image is often used by the same panegyrist.63 Redford, who surmises that Kırkgöz Han was built after Kösedağ, suggests that “the enumeration of regalia could be read as an insistence on his legitimacy: the sultan actually had these items in his possession, and with them retained the right to rule, despite his defeat at Kösedağ.”64 The last person mentioned in the Düden inscription is Gurjī Khātūn’s son with the sultan, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II. Like all Saljuq princes, he is al-malik al-muʿaẓẓam.65 His title “sultan of the land and the two seas” refers to the Saljuq control over the ports on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean achieved during the reigns of Kay-Khusraw II’s father (Sinop, 1214) and grandfather (Antalya, 1207).66 Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II himself bore this title at the beginning of his reign, as evidenced by inscriptions dated 635 and 636 AH in the 59. Niṭāq (pl. nuṭuq) is also mentioned as Saljuq regalia elsewhere in MS Marʿashī 11136: we read “dhū al-tāj wa-l-niṭāq wa-l-liwāʾ wa-l-ʿalam” on fol. 28v (quoted below). In the Kırkgöz Han inscription, however, Redford (“Kırkgöz Hanı,” 353, line 4, and 355) reads naṭaq. The word was left blank in the RCEA (no. 4263). Fikri Erten (quoted by Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 348, line 4) suggested awṭān. 60. See S. Redford, “Flags of the Seljuk Sultanate of Anatolia: Visual and Textual Evidence,” in The Hidden Life of Textiles in the Medieval and Early Modern Mediterranean: Contexts and Cross-Cultural Encounters in the Islamic, Latinate and Eastern Christian Worlds, ed. N. Vryzidis, 67–82 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020). 61. Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 355 n. 14. 62. Amīr Muʿizzī, Dīwān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl (Tehran: Kitābfurūshī-yi Islāmiyya, 1318sh.), 147, v. 3380. 63. E.g. Amīr Muʿizzī, Dīwān, 145, v. 3328: bast dar shāhī kamar tā lājaram ʿalam gushād: “in kingship, he put on his belt so that necessarily he will conquer the world.” There are many similar verses in the Dīwān. 64. Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 357. 65. In Saljuq Iran, the head of the family was al-sulṭān al-aʿẓam, while the princes with an appanage (such as Sanjar b. Malik-Shāh and his nephews in western Iran) were only al-malik al-muʿaẓẓam. 66. ʿIzz al-Dīn Kay-Kāwūs I is called “sultan of the land and the sea” on the walls of Sinop (RCEA, inscription no. 3761). Antalya is reconquered afterward, and only then do we see the use of the dual “the two seas.” See G. Leiser and S. Redford, Victory Inscribed: The Seljuk Fetihname on the Citadel Walls of Antalya, Turkey (Istanbul: AKMED, 2008), 101. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 199 region of Antalya (see Table 3: items 1–3 and Table 2: item 8). However, it is not included among the titles inscribed on the walls of Antalya in 642 AH (Table 3: item 4), maybe because it had been granted to ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn in the meantime, possibly when the latter was appointed “heir of his father” (walī ʿahd wālidihi). Let us now turn to the functions of Gurjī Khātūn’s foundation. 4. Functions of the Foundation The inscription speaks of a ribāṭ. This is a loaded word. Long thought to denote a kind of “Muslim military monastery” or “fortified convent,” its meaning has been entirely reassessed after Chabbi’s seminal article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.).67 The tribal sense had to do with horses, or rather, the action of keeping horses. The term came to be used for buildings after a complex evolution. In fourth/tenth-century geography (first and foremost in the writings of Ibn Ḥawqal and al-Muqaddasī), ribāṭ has a military, religious (synonymous with khānaqāh), or commercial function.68 In other words, a ribāṭ could mean a caravanserai (that is, a staging post and lodging built on a trade road). Al-Iṣṭakhrī (fl. fourth/tenth century) may be the earliest source on “the evolution from the military ribāṭ to the manzil, i.e. staging post along itineraries.”69 In Anatolia, caravanserais were usually called khān.70 The word was first used in Ayyubid territories at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century.71 It also appears in the inscriptions of Eğirdir Han and İncir Han, both built by Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II. Ribāṭ is found in older inscriptions, such as that at Dokuzun Han built north of Konya by Kay-Khusraw II’s grandfather.72 But it would be wrong to think that the term khān merely 67. J. Chabbi, “Ribāṭ. 1. History and Development of the Institution,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 8:493–506 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). See also C. Picard and A. Borrut, “Râbata, ribât, râbita: Une institution à reconsidérer,” in Chrétiens et musulmans en Méditerranée médiévale (VIIIe–XIIIe s.): Échanges et contacts, ed. P. Sénac and N. Prouteau, 33–65 (Poitiers: Centre d’études supérieures de civilisation médiévale, 2003); E. de La Vaissière, “Le Ribāṭ d’Asie centrale,” in Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle, ed. E. de La Vaissière, 71–94 (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008). 68. A. Miquel, La géographie humaine du monde musulman (jusqu’au milieu du 11e siècle), vol. 4: Les travaux et les jours (Paris: EHESS, 1988), 54–56 (“Les ribāṭ-s: De la piété militaire à la piété tout court”) 69. Picard and Borrut, “Râbata,” 48. 70. The standard reference works on caravanserais in Turkey are those of Erdmann, Rogers and Yavuz: K. Erdmann (with H. Erdmann for vols. 2–3), Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols (Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 1961–76); J.M. Rogers, “Royal Caravansarays and Royal Inscriptions in Seljuk Anatolia,” Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi – In Memoriam Prof. Albert Louis Gabriel 9 (1978): 397–431; A. T. Yavuz, “The Concepts that Shape Anatolian Seljuq Caravanserais,” Muqarnas 14 (1997): 80–95 (with reference to her publications in Turkish). The chapter on caravanserais in Hillenbrand’s summa is very useful for putting the pre-Ottoman Anatolian buildings in a wider perspective: R. Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, Meaning (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994), 346–50. A good introduction on the subject of Saljuq caravanserais is now Redford, “Urbs in Rure.” 71. See the inscription at Aqaba in RCEA, inscription no. 3720. See also N. Elisséeff, “Khān,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 4:1010–17 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 1011. 72. RCEA, inscription no. 3668. See also the inscription for Karaçaviran (dated 607/1210) in RCEA, inscription no. 3669. 200 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) replaced ribāṭ, as the latter still appears in Kırkgöz Han and Derebucak Han, two foundations very close in space and time to the Düden caravanserai.73 The Kırkgöz and Düden (and Derebucak) inscriptions also share mention of the function of the building: it was for the benefit of “all the creatures living in it and [all] the travelers leaving it for the east or the west of the world.”74 The reference to arriving and departing travelers (al-nāzilūn bihā wa-l-musāfirūn ʿanhā) is enough to conclude it was a caravanserai. That being said, caravanserais were more than instruments of trade, and recent scholarship tends to view them as multifunction institutions that also played a role in tax collection, monitoring rural neighborhoods, royal residence (more on this below), and possibly even defense (the original meaning of ribāṭ). Several types of caravanserai buildings could be found in Anatolia. We lack sufficient information to decide whether Gurjī Khātūn built a caravanserai with a monumental entrance giving access to a central rectangular courtyard surrounded by rooms, like Kırkgöz Han, or whether her ribāṭ was of a mixed type, like Dokuzun Han (Fig. 7). I would guess the former because of the building’s geographical location (close to Kırkgöz Han), but this is speculative. By erecting a caravanserai, Gurjī Khātūn was following the example set by her mother- in-law, Māhparī, who had been very active in construction at the beginning of the reign of her son Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II. Not only did Māhparī finish a vast complex at the gate of Kayseri (a mosque and a madrasa with a mausoleum and a bathhouse); she also built at least two caravanserais in Central Anatolia (five more are attributed to her by tradition) (Fig. 6).75 Building caravanserais was a typical charity work in the Saljuq lands, and women were among the most prolific patrons, both because they could possess fortunes and because these constructions were “a public demonstration of the ruling family’s piety and generosity.”76 But beyond the desire to accommodate travelers and to sustain long-distance trade, Gurjī Khātūn was pursuing more personal goals: strengthening her son’s chances of becoming the next sultan and therefore her own of becoming “mother of the reigning sultan” 73. The eight words remaining from the foundation inscription of Derebucak Han (south of Beyşehir Lake) are quoted in Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 349. 74. The same formula is also found on what remains of the Derebucak Han and hence is not as unusual as Redford thought (ibid., with reference to Rogers, “Waqf and Patronage,” 72). 75. See Eastmond, “Gender and Patronage,” 81. Eastmond attributes to Māhparī a further caravenserai, known only through the report of a seventeenth-century French traveler (ibid., n. 27). Interestingly, this traveler speaks of “Aladin, Roy des Selgioukes,” which is likely to refer to an inscription in the name of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I, Māhparī’s husband. However, the possibility that it refers to ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II is not to be totally excluded. Besides, Konyalı tentatively attributes the foundation of Kadın Han (620/1223–24), halfway between Konya and Akşehir, to one of the wives of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II. See İ. H. Konyalı, Âbideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi (Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1964), 382–86, quoted by Crane, “Notes,” 48–49 and Blessing, “Women Patrons,” 502 and 522 (see RCEA, inscription no. 3896). 76. D. Fairchild Ruggles, “Women, Patrons,” in Medieval Islamic Civilization, ed. J. Meri (New York: Routledge, 2006), 863–5, at 864. On the economic function of the caravanserai, “pious foundations, offering food and lodging free to all comers, or else commercial enterprises,” see Rogers, “Royal caravansarays,” 410. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 201 Figure 7: Two Thirteenth-Century Caravanserais Top: Dokuzun Han (10 km North of Konya); Bottom: Kırkgöz Han (30 km North of Antalya) (Source: Erdmann, Karavansaray, 1, Taffel I, Fig. 4 and Taffel XXX; Photos from Turkishhan.org) (wālida, Tk. valide). She knew she was not the sultan’s only wife. And she was not even the only khātūn of royal blood: like his father, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II had sought a matrimonial alliance with the Ayyubids, and in 635/1238, the same year he married Tamar alias Gurjī Khātūn, he also married the sister of the ruler of Aleppo.77 The marriage would remain childless, but Gurjī Khātūn did not know that. The sultan also married the daughter of one Muẓaffar al-Dīn Muḥammad, the ruler of eastern Karahisar. More critically, he had fathered two sons by Greek wives: ʿIzz al-Dīn Kay-Kāwūs and Rukn al-Dīn Qïlïj Arslan (Fig. 2). According to Āqsarāyī and Simon de Saint-Quentin, both were older than Gurjī Khātūn’s son.78 77. The marriage is described by the Aleppine Ibn al-ʿAdīm, who was sent as an envoy to Konya. In exchange, al-Malik al-Nāṣir included the name of the Saljuq sultan on his coins and in the sermon of the Friday prayer. Ibn al-ʿAdīm, Zubdat al-ṭalab fī taʾrīkh al-Ḥalab, ed. Kh. al-Manṣūr (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 495. See A.-M. Eddé, La principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183–658/1260) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999), 115. 78. Āqsarāyī, Tārīkh, 47; Simon de Saint-Quentin quoted by Cahen, Turquie, 230 n. 8. 202 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Bar Hebraeus affirms that the sultan was deeply in love with Gurjī Khātūn, to the extent that he neglected the affairs of the state.79 Āqsarāyī insists, however, that her royal lineage was the decisive factor: [Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw] made [ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II] his appointed heir (walī ʿahd), because his mother was Gurjī Khātūn, the queen of the Georgians (malaka-yi Abkhāz). It is by virtue of the lineage of her mother that he succeeded over his brothers; moreover, his father loved him more than he did his other children.80 The death of the sultan’s father had shown that succession was unforeseeable and could quickly become bloody. On that occasion, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II had seized the chance to ascend the throne in Kayseri and immediately got rid of his half-brothers, the sons of the Ayyubid princess al-Malika al-ʿĀdila (herself first imprisoned and later killed).81 Redford surmises he may have benefited from the help of ʿIṣmat al-Dīn bt. Ṭughrulshāh, the unhappy wife of Kay-Qubād I. In any case, the sultan’s accession showed that double royal descent did not guarantee the throne, and this was not good news for Gurjī Khātūn. If even Saladin’s niece could be ousted this way, she herself must take better precautions. By having her son mentioned explicitly as walī-ʿahd in her inscription, already with the royal title “sultan of the land and the two seas” and associated with Saljuq regalia (the crown, the flag, and the belt), Gurjī Khātūn aimed to carve in stone the succession to her husband.82 The inscription was visible at the beginning of the royal road linking the Mediterranean coast with the capital Konya and, beyond it, with Kayseri and eastern Anatolia. That caravanserais could also serve as royal residences gave further support to her goals, as the inscription would lie in plain view of all the court.83 If the sultan of Rum traveled like the sultans in Iran did, his departure from his Antalya would have happened in two stages: first the caravan would have been prepared a few kilometers away from the city, and then it would leave for good. The Düden caravanserai would have been ideally located to serve as the first staging post. That it did so is even more plausible since we have seen that Ibn Bībī said that the Saljuq court spent time in the area. What happened next? If Ibn Bībī is correct (and he was a direct witness to the events), after Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II’s death, the great amir Jalāl al-Dīn Qarāṭāy and the vizier 79. Bar Hebraeus says that “he loved her dearly”; Maktbānūṭ zabnē, ed. and trans. E. A. Budge, The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l-Faraj, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), 2:403. As mentioned in note 55, the Georgian Chronicle reports that the sultan got mad at his wife and forced her to embrace Islam after Rusudan led him to believe she had been unfaithful. Whether this burst of rage should be interpreted as proof of jealous love is debatable. The whole anecdote rather reads like a tale inspired by Ways-u-Rāmin. 80. Āqsarāyī, Tārīkh, 47. 81. Ibn Bībī, Awāmir, 419–20. Cf. Mukhtaṣar, 212. 82. Rogers (“Royal Caravansarays,” 414) discusses insightfully whether the inscriptions of sultanic titles and motto could have “Chancery force”. 83. Rogers (“Royal Caravansarays,” 406, 411) speaks of caravanserais as “Royal staging places,” “Royal lodgings,” or “palaces of winterquarters;” Eastmond (“Gender and Patronage,” 82) as “royal houses.” See also A. Yavuz, “Anatolian Seljuk Caravanserais and their Use as State Houses,” 10th International Congress of Turkish Art, 17-23 September 1995, Geneva, ed. F. Déroche et al. 757–65 (Geneve: Fondation Max van Berchem, 1999). Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 203 Shams al-Dīn Iṣfahānī agreed to put another son of the late sultan, ʿIzz al-Dīn Kay-Kāwūs II, on the throne. He was of Greek ancestry, like Qarāṭāy, and his background may have played in his favor in the new strategic configuration (Byzantium was very weak but still existed, while Georgia had been occupied by the Mongols). This must have been a disappointment for the partisans of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn and his mother. However, the succession was not as bloody as the previous one. The young Prince ʿAlā al-Dīn even became associated with the crown, at first in a subaltern position and then as an equal in the unusual “indivis sultanate” that Jalāl al-Dīn Qarāṭāy imposed in the name of the three brothers. Unfortunately for Gurjī Khātūn, her son died a few years later, during a diplomatic mission to Mongolia.84 5. Function of the Text within the Manuscript Finally, we need to consider the function of this text within the munshaʾāt. I have described elsewhere the complex assemblage making up MS Marʿashī 11136.85 The only colophon found in the manuscript is dated 716 AH, but the first ninety-two folios were written seven decades or so earlier. On the basis of the incipit and the contents of the documents, I hypothesized that the first author/compiler/copyist (I called him “Author A”) worked in the chancery of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II, and that he started his work shortly before Kösedağ and resumed it afterward. The manuscript opens with eleven folios filled with alqāb/khiṭāb, that is, the various formulas and honorific titles to be used depending on the rank of the addressee. This is a logical start for letter-writing guidelines. This section contains forty-one documents dealing first with officials of the Saljuq state (including the khātūns) and then with a few non-Muslim correspondents the Saljuqs had on their eastern frontier (Mongols, Georgians, Armenians).86 Interestingly, addressing the sultan is not discussed. This is understandable if the author, as I surmise, was at the service of the sultan. The following section (fols. 11r–28r) contains thirty-two documents organized thematically (letters of felicitation, condolences, etc.). Then, quite unexpectedly, the author adds nine sample documents—including the Düden inscription—on honorific titles suitable for the sultan (alqāb-i salāṭīn; fols. 28r–31r). Except for the Düden inscription, these texts are quoted from official correspondence. The reason these documents are not part of the first section on honorifics is not immediately clear, but a closer examination reveals that six out of the nine deal not with the sultan, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II, but with his son, Prince ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II. Hence, it appears that this section was written by someone who was close to the circles favorable to Gurjī Khātūn and keen to portray her son as the future head of the Saljuq dynasty. ʿAlāʾ 84. Gurjī Khātūn managed to keep her position in Konya by marrying Muʿīn al-Dīn Pervaneh (and incidentally by helping Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī), but this part of her career lies outside the scope of this article (the relevant sources have been translated to French by Brosset and Huart and used by Vryonis and Eastmond in their studies of Gurjī Khātūn). See also the standard study of N. Kaymaz, Pervane Mu’inü’d-din Süleyman, index (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1970). 85. See Durand-Guédy, “Manbaʿī,” 80–81; see also idem, “New Source.” 86. I expect to publish this alqāb/khiṭāb section in a future article. The documents dealing with khātūns may have been written for Gurjī Khātūn, but there is nothing to prove it. 204 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) al-Dīn is called the appointed heir (walī ʿahd) in the Düden foundation inscription but also in four other documents in this series.87 As a comparandum with the Düden inscription, here is the text of the first document: برســم مطالعــه خزانــه مــوالی و موالــی العالــم مواليــه و ملــوک أکــرة االرض عنــد عتبــة ابيــه، ]1] ــرا ــه ام ــف بوجه ــن حلّ ــن، [3[ َم ــعده المح ــن و زال بس ــه الفت ــکن بيمين ــذی س ــن، ال ــلطان الّزم ــد س ــی عه [2[ ول اقطــار اآلفــاق و انقــاذ لقســمه [. . .]88 الــروم و الشــام و العــراق وفقهــم هللُا و صانهــم مــن النفــاق، [4[ و هــو ــه ــم، [5[ روح هللا و كلمت ــوا و الَعل ــاق و الل ــاج و النط ــم، ذو الت ــي األم ــاب أقاص ــك رق ــم، مال ــک المعزالمعظ المل ــن ــزل م ــم ي ــول ل ــول الكه ــل بعق ــام، [6[ طف ــن األن ــه بي ــده النظــام، فضــل هللا و آيات ــم،89 دّرة عق ــى مري ــا عل القاه الفطــام، الســاللة الطاهــرة مــن [ال . . .[90 الزاهــرة، نتيجــة عــرق آل داوود، المولــود بالطالــع المســعود، [7[ ــة القاهــرة، و ــن، مغيــث االســالم و المســلمين، جمــال الدول ــار رحمــة هللا فــی العالمي ــن، [8[ آث ــة و الدي عــال الدول ــا ــاث الدني ــم، غي ــي العال ــل هللا ف ــم، ظ ــلطان االعظ ــن الس ــاد [10[ ب ــر كيقب ــو المظف ــرة، [9[ اب ــة الباه ــالل األم ج و الديــن، فضــل هللا و آياتــه فــي العالميــن، ملــك الرحمــة فــي الدنيــا، المنصــور مــن الســما، المظفــر علــى االعــدا، ابو الفتــح كيخســرو بــن كيقبــاذ، قســيم أميــر المؤمنيــن، [11[ عظـّـم هللاُ شــأنهما و أظهــر فــي الخافقيــن برهانهمــا و جعــل قحــم اعدايهمــا تيجــان أســنة الّرمــاح، مــا حيهــل منــادی الفــالح، محمــد و آلــه االكرميــن الطاهريــن.91 For the transliteration and translation, I have divided the text into eleven units: [1] According to the study of the archives of my lord—the masters of the world are his slaves (bi-rasm-i muṭāliʿa-yi khazāna-yi mawlāy mawālī al-ʿālam mawālīhi); the kings of the ploughmen of the earth are present on the threshold of his father (mulūk akarat al-arḍ ʿinda ʿatabat abīhi)— [2] the appointed heir of the sultan of the age, by whose oath conflicts are appeased and by whose fortune hardships disappear (walī-ʿahd sulṭān al-zaman al-ladhī sukina bi-yamīnihi al-fitan wa-zāla bi-saʿdihi al-miḥan), [3] the one by whose face the amirs of the outlying regions have sworn oaths (man ḥallafa bi-wajhihi umarāʾ aqṭār al-āfāq), and whom the [lands?] of Rum, Syria, and Iraq, which God gave to him and preserved from costly expenditure, have sworn to obey (wa anqādha li-qasamihi [. . .] al-Rūm al-Shām wa-l-ʿIrāq waffaqahu Allāh wa-ṣānahum min al-nifāq); [4] he is the glorious and magnificent prince (wa-huwa al-malik al-muʿizz al-muʿaẓẓam), the master of the necks of the most distant nations (mālik riqāb aqāṣī al-umām), the possessor of the crown, the belt, the flag, and the standard (dhū al-tāj wa-l-niṭāq wa-l- liwāʾ wa-l-ʿalam). [5] He is the “spirit from God and His Word cast on Maryam” (rūḥ Allāh wa-kalimatihi 87. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II is also mentioned as walī ʿahd in other documents included in the manuscript, such as two letters sent from Konya on fols. 37v–38v. 88. One word starting with kāf has been erased. 89.  Cf. Quran 4:171: َُو َکلَِمتُهُ أَْلقاها إِلي َمْريََم َو ُروٌح ِمْنه . 90. One word is not legible. 91. MS Marʿashī 11136, fol. 28r–v. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 205 alqāhā ʿalā Maryam),92 the pearl of His necklace (durrat ʿiqdihi al-niẓām), the gift of God and a proof of [God] among all the creatures (faḍl Allāh wa āyātihi bayn al-anām). [6] He is a child with the understanding of mature men, even though he has not been weaned yet (ṭifl bi-ʿuqūl al-kuhūl lam yazal min al-fiṭām), a pure scion of the shining [missing word] (al-sulāla al-ṭāhira min al-[. . .] al-zāhira), a product of the lineage of the family of David (natījat ʿirq āl Dāʾūd), born on an auspicious day (al-mawlūd bi-l-ṭāliʿ al-masʿūd), [7] ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla wa-l-Dīn; [8] a mark of God’s compassion in all worlds (āthār raḥmat Allāh fī al-ʿālamīn), succorer of Islam and the Muslims (mughīth al-islām wa-l-muslimīn), the beauty of the victorious state (jamāl al-dawla al-qāhira), the glory of the shining umma (jalāl al-umma al-bāhira), [9] Abū al-Muẓaffar Kay-Qubād; [10] son of the greatest sultan (al-sulṭān al-aʿẓam), the shadow of God on earth (ẓill Allāh fī al-ʿālam), Ghiyāth al-Dunyā wa-l-Dīn, the gift of God and a proof of [God] among all the creatures (faḍl Allāh wa-āyātihi bayn al-anām), the dispenser of mercy in this low world (malik al-raḥma fī al-dunyā), the victorious thanks to heaven (al-manṣūr min al-samāʾ), victorious over the enemies (al-muẓaffar ʿalāʾ al-aʿdāʾ), Abū al-Fatḥ Kay-Khusraw b. Kay-Qubād, the partner of the commander of the faithful (qasīm amīr al-muʾminīn). [11] May God enhance the greatness of both of them (ʿaẓẓama Allāh shaʾnahumā); may He make their proofs more visible (aẓhara fī al-khāfiqayn burhānahumā); may He transform the dangers posed by their enemies into a crown made of spearheads (wa-jaʿala quḥam aʿdāyihumā tījān asinnat al-rammaḥ), until the herald says, “Hasten to salvation” (mā ḥayyahal munādī al-falāḥ).93 This text exhibits many similarities with, but also notable differences from, the Düden inscription. Right away, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II is designated as the “appointed heir” (§2). Multiple references are made to the “oaths” (yamīn, qasam, ḥallafa bi-) binding the great amirs of the sultanate to him (§§2, 3). We know that oaths were an essential instrument of what Mottahedeh called the “acquired loyalties” that structured Islamic polities.94 It is perhaps because of these oaths that ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, still a prince (malik), is adorned with title (“master of the necks of the most distant nations”) and regalia (crown, belt, flag, standard) given to the sultan in the Düden inscription (§4). 92. In the Quranic verse 4:171, the preposition following alqā is ʿ alā, replaced here by ilā. Arberry’s translation of this verse reads: “[The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God], and His Word that he committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him.” 93. This refers to the muezzin’s call to prayer (adhān): ḥayya ʿalā al-ṣalā wa-ḥayya ʿalā al-falāḥ. 94. R. Mottahedeh, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001), 40–60. 206 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The following section emphasizes the divine favor enjoyed by the prince. He is not only a “sign of God”;95 he is the “Spirit of God” (rūḥ Allāh) and the “Word of God,” two expressions from a Quranic verse about Jesus (§5). This may or may not be a reference to the prince’s Christian mother. (The reference to Maryam should not be interpreted as a marker of Christianity, as she is the most venerated female figure in the Quran.) The next sentences provide additional credentials: he may be a child, but he has “the understanding of mature men”; and thanks to his mother, the royal blood of David’s house (ʿirq āl Dāʾūd) flows through his veins (§6). His main laqab, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn (§7), is followed by four others (§8), then a generic kunyā, his ism (§9), and finally his nasab (son of al-sulṭān al-aʿẓam Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw, whose list of titles ends with the usual “partner of the commander of the faithful,” §10). We can note that two of the sultan’s titles emphasize his victories;96 two others (faḍl Allāh wa-āyātihi bayn al-anām and malik al-raḥma fī al-dunyā) do not appear in any of the foundation inscriptions (see Tables 1–3). The concluding sentences are prayers (duʿā), one of them explicitly referring to the “dangers” awaiting the Saljuqs (quham, sg. quḥma). No date is given, but since ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II is described as a child not yet weaned (§6), the text was probably composed around 636/1238–39. But the message is clear: the text describes the prince as the rightful heir, appointed by his father, product of the union of two dynasties, recognized by all the amirs, already invested with Saljuq regalia, and intellectually competent to assume royal power. It is this kind of text that led me to surmise that Author A worked in the chancery of Konya, in the circles advocating the rights of Gurjī Khātūn’s son. The formula chosen for the Düden caravanserai, though shorter, is perfectly in line with this program. There are other instances of a “Georgian connection” in this part of the munshaʾāt. For example, the malik Abkhāz (meaning the Georgian king) is one of the few non-Muslim rulers to be dealt with in the alqāb/khiṭāb section. Author A also included an interesting oath (sawgand-nāma) sent by Saladin to the king of Georgia. The document, in Persian, is attributed to the famous kātib ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī and begins with the words “In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, of God the Unique . . .” (fols. 27v–28r). Further on, the same Author A has copied three answers to the King Dāʾūd of Georgia, obviously David V Narin, who happened to be Gurjī Khātūn’s brother. By contrast, the manuscript contains no correspondence from Konya toward Byzantium or the Ayyubid states. The Düden inscription tells us something more. In Victory Inscribed, their detailed study of the long Saljuq inscriptions on the walls of Antalya, Leiser and Redford address the issue of authorship. Following the hypothesis of van Berchem, they argue that the 95. With about four hundred occurrences, āya (pl. āyāt) is one the most ubiquitous terms in the Quran; see Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, 5:2. 96. The title “beauty of the victorious state” would have rung hollow after the devastating defeat at Kösedağ, but it might have been an instance of wishful thinking. And Ibn Bībī recalls that the vizier sent to negotiate with the Mongols told their general that the bulk of the Saljuq army was still ready to fight. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 207 inscriptions had been written by members of the Saljuq chancery.97 The argument is logical: only the secretaries (kātibs) of the chancery (diwān al-inshāʾ) would have had not only the necessary linguistic skills but also the expertise to choose the right honorific titles and the right words. A qāḍī would have known the former, but not the latter. In his later article on Kırkgöz Han, Redford takes up the same argument: “We can hypothesize that the texts of lapidary inscriptions derived indirectly from the Seljuk chancery, through the mediation of the Persianate administrative class of the Anatolian Seljuks, specifically those attached to the retinues of the patrons of those buildings.”98 With the evidence available to him, Redford could make only a strong case for his “chancery hypothesis.” MS Marʿashī 11136, with the Düden inscription, provides what we might call the “smoking gun.” The inclusion of a foundation inscription within a munshaʾāt seems less incongruous if we surmise that the inscription had been drafted by the author of the munshaʾāt himself. Of course, in the absence of epigraphic remains, we cannot say whether the text found in the manuscript had really been carved in full on the caravanserai’s portal (it is unusually long). In 1976, Rogers argued that since the Saljuq chancery operated in Persian, it could have only “indirect” control over foundation inscriptions, which were invariably in Arabic.99 However, this argument is not tenable, as we know that the Anatolian chancery was in fact multilingual, issuing documents in arabic, Persian, Greek, and possibly Armenian. Indeed, the Antalya inscription published by Redford in Legends of Authority is clearly an Arabic product of the Saljuq chancery.100 Besides, seventh/thirteenth-century Persian prose was phagocytized by Arabic words and expressions (the chronicles of ʿAṭāʾ Malik Juwaynī and Ibn Bībī, two Khurasanians working in the Ilkhanid administration, are emblematic of this evolution). The recourse to formulaic sentences and the concision of the text meant that the kātib, whoever he was, had an easy job.101 The high likelihood of the “chancery hypothesis” is even more obvious when we compare the Düden inscription with those of the nearby and contemporary Kırkgöz Han (and Derebucak Han). The similarities in the sentences they have in common are striking. The only differences concern one title (durrat tāj al-duwal), the date, and a handful of variants. On that account, the readings of some words in the Kırkgöz Han inscription might 97. Leiser and Redford, Victory Inscribed, 116–17. See M. Van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum. Première partie – Égypte, tome premier, Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1893–1903, 553 (quoted by Rogers, “Waqf and Patronage,” 71). The article of Rogers, “Royal caransarays”, also investigates “some parallelism in Saljuq epigraphy between certain inscriptions and chancery formula”, but he emphasizes the role of the qadi (p. 431). 98. Redford, “Kırkgöz Hanı,” 352. 99. Rogers, “Waqf and Patronage,” 71. 100. S. Redford, Legends of Authority: The 1215 Seljuk Inscriptions of Sinop Citadel, Turkey (Istanbul: Koç University Press, 2014). 101. I do not imply that chancery staff were involved in all the inscriptions found in Anatolia; the case of waqf inscriptions, recently surveyed by Peacock, is of course different, as they often constitute abstracts of legalized paper waqfiyyas written by the qāḍī, occasionally even complete with witnessed signatures. See A. C. S. Peacock, “Waqf Inscriptions from Medieval Anatolia,” in Philanthropy in Anatolia through the Ages, ed. O. Tekin, C. Roosevelt, and E. Akyürek, 183–93 (Istanbul: Koç University Press, 2020). 208 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) be emended. I have already mentioned naṭaq (recte niṭāq?), but the same may also apply to other words (certainly to musʾala/musbala, and probably to muʾayyada/muʾabbada).102 The wordings of the two inscriptions are so close they can be published as two versions of the same text. If the Kırkgöz Han inscription is chosen as the master copy, it would look as follows (the 40% of text added in Düden appears between brackets): ــافرين ــا و المس ــن به ــق النازلي ــاير الخالي ــى س ــدة 105 عل ــة الموي ــئلة 104 الموقوف ــاط المس ــذه الرب ــارة ه ــر103 بعم أم عنهــا نحــو مشــارق األرض و مغاربهــا فــي أيــام دولــة الســلطان األعظــم ظــل هللا فــي العالــم ]مالــك رقــاب األمــم[ ســلطان ســالطين األفــاق صاحــب التــاج و اللــواء و النطــق106 غيــاث الدنيــا و الديــن ]مغيــث االســالم و المســلمين[ أبــي الفتــح كيخســرو بــن كيقبــاذ خلــد هللا ســلطانه الســترالعالية107 ملكــة أقاليــم العالــم ]درة تــاج آل داود ثانيــة بيــوت ــة االلهــام و الكرامــات[ عصمــت الدنيــا و الديــن ]صفــوة االســالم و المســلمين المعتصمــة بحبــل هللا الحســنات وليّ المتيــن والــدة الملــك المعظــم عــال الدنيــا و الديــن فخــر آل ســلجوق ولــي عهــد والــده ســلطان البــر و البحريــن[ درة تــاج الــدول بســط هللا فــي الخيــرات ملکهــا108 ]و قــرت ببقــا والــد والدهــا عيناهــا[ و تقبــل منهــا مــا بناهــا و بلغهــا فــي الداريــن مــا شــفاعها109 فــي تاريــخ الثالــث عشــرة If Kırkgöz Han was built after Kösedağ, as Redford is inclined to think on the basis of its plain decoration, its inscription could therefore have been copied (with minor modifications) from Düden Han’s. How can we be sure that the caravanserai of Gurjī Khātūn was indeed built? The question needs to be asked because the only evidence we have of its existence is an inscription in a munshaʾāt. Redford notes that caravanserais “were larger and more impressive than any Seljuq palace that we know, and most mosques as well,” and I am not aware of the remains of a caravanserai on the Düden River.110 Besides, we know that some munshaʾāt with didactic ambitions included mock documents composed by the authors themselves. However, I believe it is highly likely that the caravanserai existed. Our inscription does not belong to the category of mock documents: not only can the various protagonists be easily identified, but the inscription was copied in the 1240s into a work almost certainly dedicated to Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II. Referring explicitly to the caravanserai of Düden if there was in fact no caravanserai there would have made no sense. And it would have defeated the purpose, since the goal of this text, was to enhance the legitimacy of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād II. 102. Musbala is clearly readable in the manuscript. Redford (Legends of Authority, 352), who suggested musʾala, admitted he does not know of other parallels for that word in Anatolian Saljuq epigraphy. 103.  Düden: أمرت. 104.  Recte المسبلة; cf. Düden. 105.  Düden: الموبدة. 106.  Recte النطاق; cf. Düden. 107.  Düden: الغالية. 108.  Var. Düden: يداها. 109.  Var. Düden: أبتغها. 110. Redford, “Urbs in Rure,” 48. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 209 Conclusion The manuscript Marʿashī 11136 reveals a hitherto unknown caravanserai built in Anatolia during the Saljuq period. There were perhaps hundreds of them.111 New vestiges continue to be discovered.112 But few are documented by foundation inscriptions, and none of the known inscriptions are as long as this one. The text informs us of the ambitions of the patron, the Georgian wife of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II. It proves that she was indeed active as a patron of architecture during the lifetime of the sultan. It confirms the existence of a cluster of “Saljuq sub-sultanic patronage” (in Redford’s phrase) in the region of Antalya during the reign of this sultan. Incidentally, it allows us to reassess some of the previous readings of inscriptions in the same region. And it confirms the account of the late chronicler Āqsarāyī according to which the son of Gurjī Khātūn was appointed walī ʿahd. Ibn Bībī, who was a direct witness to the events, says nothing about her and not much about her son, probably on purpose, since Gurjī Khātūn’s grand plan was foiled at the death of the sultan and she never became an omnipotent queen mother (although she kept her influence through other means).113 Finally, this source gives a fascinating insight into a subject long of interest to historians of Islam and art historians: the relationships among inscriptions, those who compose them, and those who chisel them onto stone tablets and fit them into architectural spaces. It proves that some foundation inscriptions were drafted by personnel of the dīwān al-inshāʾ. These are remarkable results for a few lines that had long waited to be read in a library in Qum. 111. According to Yavuz, up to two hundred caravanserais were built in Anatolia during the Saljuq period. But Erdmann (quoted by Elisséeff, “Khān,” 1011) speaks of 119 khans built in the seventh/thirteenth century in southwest Asia. He himself cataloged ninety-eight such buildings West of Sivas. 112. A Saljuq caravanserai has been recently identified at Seyitgazi, south of Eskişehir; see Redford, “Urbs in Rure,” 49 n. 12. 113. Redford (“Paper, Stone, Scissors,” 165) commented in detail on the treatment of ʿIṣmat Khātūn, the wife of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kay-Qubād I, by Ibn Bībī and speculated that he refrained deliberately from mentioning her. 210 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Appendix: Honorific Titles Given to Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II in Inscriptions Item Title Translation 1. al-sulṭān al-aʿẓām the greatest sultan 2. shāhanshāh al-muʿaẓẓam the magnificent king of kings 3. mālik riqāb al-umām the master of the necks of the nations 4. sayyid salāṭīn al-ʿarab wa-l-ʿajam lord of the sultans of the Arabs and the Persians 5. sulṭān al-barr wa-l-baḥrayn sultan of the land and the two seas 6. dhū al-qarnayn al-zamān the Dhū al-Qarnayn of the age 7. ṣāḥib Khusraw al-ʿādil the just lord Khusraw 8. Iskandar al-thānī the second Alexander 9. sulṭān al-salāṭīn al-ʿālam sultan of the sultans of the world 10. al-muʾayyad min al-samāʾ the one assisted by heaven 11. al-muẓaffar ʿalā ]al-aʿdāʾ] the victorious over [the enemies] 12. qāhir al-kafara wa-l-mushrikīn the conqueror of the infidels and the polytheists 13. qāmiʿ al-zanādiqa wa-l-mutammaridīn the suppressor of the atheists and the rebels 14. qāṭiʿ al-khawārij wa-l-bāghiyyin the crusher of whose who revolt and transgress against the law 15. ʿumdat al-ḥaqq the upholder of the truth 16. ʿuddat al-khalq the viaticum of mankind 17. muʿīn khalīfat Allāh the aide of the caliph of God 18. mughīth khalīfat Allāh the helper of the caliph of God 19. sulṭān bilād al-Rūm wa-l-Armān wa-l- Shām wa-Diyār Bakr wa-l-Ifranj sultan of the lands of Rum, Armenia, Syria, Diyār Bakr, and the Franks 20. tāj āl-i Saljūq the crown of the Saljuq family 21. qasīm amīr al-muʾminīn the partner of the commander of the faithful 22. ẓill Allāh fī al-ʿālam shadow of God on earth 23. marzbān al-āfāq margrave of the horizons 24. ʿalāʾ al-islām wa-l-muslimīn the elevation of Islam and the Muslims 25. ṣāḥib al-tāj wa-l-liwāʾ wa-l-niṭāq possessor of the crown and the banner and the belt The numeration of these 25 items is used in Tables 1, 2, 3 for the denomination of the sultan. The other abbreviations used in the Tables are: AbF: Abū al-Faṭh KQ: Kay-Qubād GhD: Ghiyāth al-Dīn KKh: Kay-Khusraw ʿIzD: ʿIzz al-Dīn Mas: Masʿūd KK: Kay-Kāwūs QA: Qïzïl Arslan Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 211 List of Figures Fig. 1. The Saljuq Sultanate and the Neighboring Powers before Kösedağ (641/1243) (Date of Capture inside Frame) Fig. 2. Genealogical Tree of the Rum Saljuqs in the Seventh/Thirteenth Century (Spouses Noted in Italics) Fig. 3. Text of the Inscription in MS Marʿashī 11136 Fig. 4. The Bagratids of Georgia in the Thirteenth Century Fig. 5. Antalya and Its Hinterland (Base Map: Google Earth) Fig. 6. Women’s Patronage in Rum Anatolia (1232–45) (Free Vector Form from Vecteezy.com) Fig. 7. Two Thirteenth-Century Caravanserais. (Maps from Erdmann, Karavansaray, 1, Taffel i, Fig. 4 and Taffel xxx; photos from Turkishhan.org). List of Tables Table 1. Denominations in Foundation Inscriptions by Women Patrons Table 2. Denominations in Foundation Inscriptions by Male Patrons during the Sultanate of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II Table 3. Denominations of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay-Khusraw II in Buildings He Commissioned 212 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Bibliography Aflākī ʿĀrifī. Manāqib al-ʿārifīn. Edited by T. Yazici. Corrections and additions by T. Subḥānī. Tehran: Dūstān, 1396sh. [2017]. Translated by C. Huart as Les saints des derviches tourneurs. 2 vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1918–22. Amīr Muʿizzī. Dīwān. Edited by ʿA. Iqbāl. Tehran: Kitābfurūshī-yi Islāmiyya, 1318sh. Āqsarāʾī, Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad. Tārīkh-i Salājaqa yā Musāmirat al-akhbār. Edited by O. Turan as Müsâmeret ül-ahbâr, Mogollar zamininda Türkiye Selçukluları Tarihi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1944. Bar Hebraeus. Maktbānūṭ zabnē. Edited and translated by E. A. Budge as The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l-Faraj. 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1932. Baran, T., Y. Dalkiliç, and Ü. Öziş. “Antalya-Düden Havzasi Su Kaynaklarinin Geliştirilmesi.” In Antalya Yöresinin Inşaat Mühendisliği Sorunları Kongresi, 2:52–60. Antalya: İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası Antalya Şubesi, 2005. Bates, Ü. U. “Women as Patrons of Architecture in Turkey.” In Women in the Muslim World, edited by L. Beck and N. Keddie, 245–60. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Blessing, P. “Women Patrons in Medieval Anatolia and a Discussion of Māhbarī Khātūn’s Mosque Complex in Kayseri.” Belleten 78 (2014): 475–526. Bosworth, C. E. “Al-Ḳabḳ, 1.-3.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 4: 341–50. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ———. “The Titulature of the Early Ghaznavids.” Oriens 15, no. 1 (1962): 210–33. ———. The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. Cahen, C. La Turquie pré-ottomane. Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes, 1988. Canard, M. “Les reines de Géorgie dans l’histoire et la légende musulmane.” Revue des études islamiques 37 (1969): 3–20. Chabbi, J. “Ribāṭ. 1. History and Development of the Institution.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 8:493–506. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio. Edited by G. Moravcsik. Translated by R. J. H. Jenkins. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1949. Reprint, 2008. Crane, H. “Notes on Saldjūq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 36 (1993): 1–57. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 213 De Nicola, B. “The Ladies of Rūm: A Hagiographic View of Women in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Anatolia.” Journal of Sufi Studies 3, no. 2 (2014): 132–56. ———. Women in Mongol Iran: The Khatuns, 1206–1335. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. Durand-Guédy, D. “Manbaʿī-yi muhim dar bāra-yi Saljūqiyān-i Rūm wa dabīr-khāna-yi fārsī-yi ān-hā: Nuskha-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Āyat Allāh Marʿashī, shumāra 11136.” Mīrāth-i Shahāb 100 (tābistān 1399 sh. [2020]): 63–84. ———. “A New Source on the Saljuqs of Rum and Their Persian Chancery: Manuscript 11136 of the Marʿashī Library (Qum).” Der Islam (forthcoming, 2022). Eastmond, A. “Art and Frontiers between Byzantium and the Caucasus.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557); Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, edited by S. T. Brooks, 154–69. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007. ———. “Gender and Patronage between Christianity and Islam in the Thirteenth Century.” In Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, edited by A. Ödekan, E. Akyürek and N. Necipoğlu, 78–88. Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 2010. Eddé, A.-M. La principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183–658/1260). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999. Elisséeff, N. “Khān.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., 4:1010–17. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Erdmann, K. Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts. Vol. 1. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 1961. ——— and H. Erdmann. Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts. Vols. 2 and 3. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 1976. Fairchild Ruggles, D, ed. Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. ———. “Women, Patrons.” In Medieval Islamic Civilization, ed. J. Meri, 863–865. New York: Routledge, 2006. ———. The Extraordinary Architectural Patronage of the 13th-Century Egyptian Slave-Queen Shajar al-Durr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Georgian Chronicle = Kartlis Tskhovreba (Kʿartʿlis Cʿxovreba). Translated by M. F. Brosset as Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle, part 1: Histoire ancienne, jusqu’en 1469 de J.-C. Saint Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’académie impériale des sciences, 1849. Hillenbrand, C. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2000. 214 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) Hillenbrand, R. Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, Meaning. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994. Ibn al-ʿAdīm. Zubdat al-ṭalab fī taʾrīkh al-Ḥalab. Edited by Kh. al-Manṣūr. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996. Ibn Bībī. Al-Awāmir al-ʿAlāʾiyya fī al-umūr al-ʿalāʾiyya. Edited by Zh. Mutaḥḥidīn. Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i ʿUlūm-i Insānī wa Muṭāliʿāt-i Farhangī, 1390sh. [2011]. ———. Al-mukhtaṣar Saljūq-nāma-yi Ibn Bībī [abridgment]. Edited by M. T. Houtsma in Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides, vol. 3: Histoire des Seldjoucides d’Asie mineure, d’après Ibn Bîbî. Leiden: Brill, 1902. Kaymaz, N. Anadolu Selçuklu Sultanlarından II. Giyâsu’d-dân Keyhusrev ve Devri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1958. ———. Pervane Mu’inü’d-din Süleyman. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1970. Konyalı, İ. H. Âbideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi. Konya: Yeni Kitap Basımevi, 1964. La Vaissière, E. de. “Le Ribāṭ d’Asie centrale.” In Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle, edited by E. de La Vaissière, 71–94. Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008. Leiser, G. “Observations on the ‘Lion and Sun’ Coinage of Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw II.” Mesogeios 2 (1998): 96–114. ——— and S. Redford. Victory Inscribed: The Seljuk Fetihname on the Citadel Walls of Antalya, Turkey. Istanbul: AKMED, 2008. Miquel, A. La géographie humaine du monde musulman (jusqu’au milieu du 11e siècle), vol. 4: Les travaux et les jours. Paris: EHESS, 1988. Mottahedeh, R. Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society. 2nd rev. ed. New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001. Muḥammad Munshī Nakhjawānī. Dastūr al-kātib fī taʿyīn al-marātib. Edited by ʿA. A. Aḥmadī Dārānī. 2 vols. Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1395sh. [2016]. Peacock, A. C. S. “Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th Centuries.” Anatolian Studies 56 (2006): 127-46. ———. “Waqf Inscriptions from Medieval Anatolia.” In Philanthropy in Anatolia through the Ages, edited by O. Tekin, C. Roosevelt, and E. Akyürek, 183–93. Istanbul: Koç University Press, 2020. Picard, C. and Borrut, A. “Râbata, ribât, râbita: Une institution à reconsidérer.” In Chrétiens et musulmans en Méditerranée médiévale (VIIIe–XIIIe s.): Échanges et contacts, edited Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (“the Georgian Lady”) • 215 by P. Sénac and N. Prouteau, 33–65. Poitiers: Centre d’études supérieures de civilisation médiévale, 2003. Rapp, S., Jr. “Sumbat Davitʿis-dze and the Vocabulary of Political Authority in the Era of Georgian Unification.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 120, no. 4 (2000): 570-76. RCEA = Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe. Edited by E. Combe, J. Sauvaget, and G. Wiet. 18 vols. Cairo: IFAO, 1931–91. Redford, S. “The Inscription of the Kırkgöz Hanı and the Problem of Textual Transmission in Seljuk Anatolia.” Adalya 12 (2009): 347–59. ———. “Paper, Stone, Scissors: ʿIsmat al-Dunya wa’l-Din, ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kayqubadh, and the Writing of Seljuk History.” In The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, edited by A. C. S. Peacock and S. N. Yildiz, 151–70. London: I. B. Tauris, 2012. ———. Legends of Authority: The 1215 Seljuk Inscriptions of Sinop Citadel, Turkey. Istanbul: Koç University Press, 2014. ———. “Flags of the Seljuk Sultanate of Anatolia: Visual and Textual Evidence.” In The Hidden Life of Textiles in the Medieval and Early Modern Mediterranean: Contexts and Cross- Cultural Encounters in the Islamic, Latinate and Eastern Christian Worlds, edited by N. Vryzidis, 67–82. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020. ———. “Rum Seljuq Caravanserais: Urbs in Rure.” In The Seljuqs and Their Successors: Art, Culture and History, edited by S. Canby, D. Beyazit, and M. Rugiadi, 35–50. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020. Richter-Bernburg, L. “Amīr-Malik-Shāhānshāh: ʿAḍud ad-Daula’s Titulature Reexamined.” Iran 18 (1980): 83–102. Rogers, J. M. “Waqf and Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia: The Epigraphic Evidence.” Anatolian Studies 26 (1976): 69–103. ———. “Royal Caravansarays and Royal Inscriptions in Seljuk Anatolia.” Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi – In Memoriam Prof. Albert Louis Gabriel 9 (1978): 397–431. Shukurov, R. “Harem Christianity: The Byzantine Identity of Seljuk Princes.” In The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, edited by A. C. S. Peacock and S. N. Yildiz, 115–50. London: I. B. Tauris, 2012. Simon de Saint-Quentin. Histoire des Tartares. Edited by J. Richard. Paris: Geuthner, 1965. Turan, O. “Les souverains seldjoukides et leurs sujets non-musulmans.” Studia Islamica, 1 (1953): 65–100. 216 • DaviD DuranD-GuéDy Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29 (2021) ———. Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye: Siyasi Tarih Alp Arslan’dan Osman Gazi’ye (1071– 1328). 6th ed. Istanbul: Ötüken, 2004 (1st ed. 1971). ———. “Keyhusrev II.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 6:620–29. Translated by G. Leiser as “Kaykhusraw II Ghiyath al-Din.” Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society 33 (1985): 81–107. Uyar, T. “Thirteenth-century ‘Byzantine’ art in Cappadocia and the question of the Greek painters at the Seljuq Court.” In Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, edited by A.C.S. Peacock, B. De Nicola and S. Nur Yildiz, 215–231. Burlington, VT; Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2015. Uzunçarsılı, İ. H. Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtına Medhal. Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1941. Van Berchem, M. Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum. Première partie – Égypte, tome premier. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1893-1903. Vryonis, S., Jr. “Another Note on the Inscription of the Church of St. George of Belisırma.” Byzantina 9 (1977): 9–22. ———. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. Watenpaugh, H. Z. “Art and Architecture.” In Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, edited by S. Joseph. Online ed. Leiden: Brill, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1872-5309_ ewic_COM_00004 (accessed April 4, 2021). Wolper, E.S. “Princess Safwat al-Dunyā wa al-Dīn and the Production of Sufi Buildings and Hagiographies in Pre-Ottoman Anatolia.” In Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies, edited by D. Fairchild Ruggles. 35–52. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Yalman, S. “The ‘Dual Identity’ of Mahperi Khatun: Piety, Patronage and Marriage across Frontiers in Seljuk Anatolia.” In Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100–1500, edited by P. Blessing and R. Goshgarian, 224–52. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. Yavuz, A. T. “The Concepts that Shape Anatolian Seljuq Caravanserais.” Muqarnas 14 (1997): 80–95. ———. “Anatolian Seljuk Caravanserais and their Use as State Houses.” In 10th International Congress of Turkish Art, 17-23 September 1995, Geneva, edited by in F. Déroche, C. Geneguard, G. Renda and J.M. Rogers, 757–65. Geneve: Fondation Max van Berchem, 1999.