ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN

an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arrān and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225.

 

ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arrān and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Atābaks” (atābakān-e aʿẓam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arrān and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Jalāl-al-dīn Ḵᵛārazmšāh in 622/1225.

Šams-al-dīn Īldegoz (ca. 530/1135-36 to 571/1175): On his name see Minorsky, Studies, p. 92 n. 2; Bosworth, EI2III, p. 1111 (Bosworth’s Turkish reconstruction of the name as “Ildeñiz” is hardly correct). The Ḥabīb al-sīar (Tehran, II, p. 557) describes his origins as a small, ugly Qepčāq slave who rose in Sultan Masʿūd’s favor, but Ebn al-Aṯīr (XI, pp. 338-89) says that he had been a slave of Kamāl Somayramī, vizier of Sultan Maḥmūd b. Moḥammad (511/1117 to 525/1131), and that on the vizier’s death he passed first to Maḥmūd, then to Sultan Masʿūd (527/1133 to 547/1152) who gave him Arrān as eqṭāʿ ; the Salǰūq-nāma (p. 160) says that Masʿūd gave him the widow of Sultan Ṭoḡrel b. Moḥammad in marriage. He presumably became atābak of his stepson, Arslānšāh b. Ṭoḡrel, although the prince was not always in his care. It seems unlikely that he had control of all the Muslim parts of Arrān in his earliest period, and tradition dates as later his position as the real ruler of the Iraq sultanate. The early Armenian writer Mxiṭʿar Goš (tr. Dowsett, BSOAS 21, p. 487) says that Īldegoz was lord of Naḵǰavān before he gained control of Ganǰa, and he cites a series of Saljuq governors of Arrān and Azerbaijan whose relationship to Īldegoz is uncertain (compare Minorsky, “Tabrīz,” EI1 IV, p. 585). Sources such as Ḥosaynī’s Aḵbār (p. 181 and passim) make it clear that members of the family always considered Naḵǰavān their home base, and that is where their building activity seems to have been centered (see below). Īldegoz was always concerned with the defense of the Araxes (Aras)-Akhurean corridor up to Ani and the belt of towns and castles in the Kura (Korr) valley from Baylaqān to Šamḵor (Šamkūr) against the Georgians, who were expanding southward in this period. He also sought to secure his position on the edges of the declining Saljuq empire by gaining control over parts of Azerbaijan; he probably gained clear control over it only after the death of Masʿūd’s last favorite, Ḵāṣṣ Beg Arslān b. Palangarī in 548/1153, who had been given a position in that area as well. His situation in Azerbaijan seems to have been regularized by a peace which he and Āq Sonqor II of Marāḡa concluded in 549/1154-55 with his enemy, Sultan Moḥammad b. Maḥmūd (Bondārī, Zobda, p. 243, Minorsky, “Marāgha,” EI1III, p. 263).

Even before 548/1153, Īldegoz was involved in intrigues resulting from the succession struggle after the death of Masʿūd in 547/1152. He was in the coalition which supported Solaymānšāh b. Moḥammad against Sultan Moḥammad b. Maḥmūd, and when that failed, he continued to work against Moḥammad, perhaps indicating his alienation from the sultan by striking coins only in the name of the supreme sultan Sanjar (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 300). He gained, or perhaps regained, custody of his stepson Arslānšāh in late 549/1154 or early 550/1155, and he may have put the title of atābak on his coins at this time (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, pp. 298-300). However, he continued to work against Moḥammad through other members of the Saljuq family besides Arslānšāh. Caliphal support of another coalition for Solaymānšāh did not prevent his defeat at Naḵǰavān by Sultan Moḥammad in 551/1156, and the subsequent reconciliation effected there did not keep Īldegoz from again intriguing with the caliph’s vizier, Ebn Hobayra, in an attempt to supplant Moḥammad with his brother, Malekšāh, while the sultan was besieging Baghdad; he abandoned the attempt when Moḥammad lifted the siege and started back to Hamadān.

His ambitions were finally realized when, after the death (possibly on his orders) of Solaymānšāh who ruled briefly after the death of Moḥammad (555/1160), a group of amirs invited him to bring Arslānšāh to Hamadān and install him as sultan; he was probably proclaimed great atābak then (555/1160), thus becoming the holder of a new office, that of atābak of a reigning sultan, exercising state power in the sultan’s name. With control over the Iraq sultanate came variously strong allegiances owed the Iraq sultan by the rulers of Fārs, Kermān, Ḵūzestān, Kelāṭ (Aḵlāṭ), and Šervān. He faced two revolts (556/1161 and 561/1165) led by Ḥosām-al-dīn Īnānǰ of Ray, who the second time was aided by the Ḵᵛārazmšāh Īl-Arslān, and ended the danger from this quarter by pressuring Īnānǰ’s own vizier into having his master assassinated. Ray went to Īldegoz’s son, Moḥammad Pahlavān, as did Ardabīl on the death of another amir, and he obtained the position of amīr-e ḥāǰeb at the sultan’s court. His other son, Qezel Arslān ʿOṯmān, who seems to have been responsible for the home territories in the northwest, became amīr-e esfahsālār. The resources available to him through his control of the Iraq sultanate helped him beat back the attacks of the thriving Georgian monarchy for most of his rule; when they attacked in 556/1161, taking Ani and sacking Dabīl (Dvin), he was able to defeat them with the aid of the Shah Arman of Ḵelāṭ and others. He restored Ani to the traditional Muslim ruling family, the Shaddadids, in 559/1164 (Minorsky, Studies, pp. 90-101).

As far as the adjoining territories are concerned, the atābak Zangī of Fārs submitted formally in ceremonies held in 560/1165 (Ḥosaynī, Aḵbār, pp. 153-56). In 565/1169-70 an army was sent to assist Malek Arslān of Kermān (Kermānī, Badāʾeʿ, pp. 43-48). Ḵūzestān was apparently involved through a Saljuq prince, a son of Malekšāh, its real ruler, being his atābak Šomla (Ebn al-Aṯīr, XI, pp. 328f.). The Khorasani amir, Moʾayyed Ay Aba, read the ḵoṭba for Arslānšāh for four years but dropped it in 562/1167 when Īldegoz decided not to challenge the Ḵᵛārazmšāh for control of Khorasan (Luther, “End of Saljuq Dominion”). Māzandarān was not under his control, nor was Marāḡa in Azerbaijan itself. The ruler of Marāḡa, Noṣrat-al-dīn Āq Sonqor II, (see Atābakān-e Marāḡa), twice made moves which Īldegoz considered threatening (556/1160-61 and 563/1167-68) and twice defeated his son Moḥammad when he was sent against him. Noṣrat-al-dīn’s successor lost Tabrīz to the Ildegozids, apparently in 570/1174-75, although the sequence of events around Īldegoz’s death is not clear (Ebn al-Aṯīr, XI, p. 388f.; Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 291; Luther, Sultanate, p. 201; Minorsky, Studies, p. 99). Ḥosaynī (Aḵbār, p. 172) indicates that Mosul and “Armīnīya” gave the ḵoṭba for the Iraq sultan, thus implying a relationship with the atābaks. In most cases, the precise nature of these relationships with neighboring territories is not known, but they were probably quite loose and mostly a matter of convenience. The Šervānšāhs for example took care to keep on good terms with both the sultanate and the Georgian monarchy, and the Ildegozids themselves were interested in trade and commercial relations with their Christian subjects and neighbors (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, pp. 425-27).

Not long before his death in 571/1175 Īldegoz lost Ani to the Georgians, although it was apparently later restored to the family’s control and to their vassals, the Shaddadids (Minorsky, Studies, pp. 100f.). Arslānšāh tried to throw off Ildegozid control after the atābak’s death, but he died before his attempt was really underway, possibly poisoned by the new atābak, Moḥammad b. Īldegoz (Ravandī, Rāḥat al-ṣodūr, pp. 248-352; Houtsma, “Remarks,” pp. 140-42; Luther, Sultanate, pp. 203f.), who installed his ward Ṭoḡrel b. Arslānšāh as sultan and maintained the essential elements of the system intact until his death in 582/1186. His brother Qezel Arslān held a subordinate position as ruler of the northwest.

Noṣrat-al-dīn Moḥammad b. Īldegoz (571/1175 to 582/1186): The inscription recorded from the Tower of the Atābaks (see below) refers to him as al-Malek al-ʿĀlem al-ʿĀdel Aʿẓam Atābak Abū Jaʿfar Moḥammad b. Atābak Īldegoz. In the written sources he is often referred to as Moḥammad Jahān-pahlavān, which also appears on some of his coins (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 323). The sources give almost no chronology for his decade, even though a recent enšāʾ discovery (Afšār, “ʿAhd-nāma” and Moḵtārāt) has added to our information about him. He disposed of the attempts of the Saljuq Moḥammad, brother of Arslānšāh, to overthrow him, and may have had a campaign against the Georgians soon after he took control (Luther, Sultanate, pp. 206-210). The acquisition of Tabrīz (see above) may have occurred early in his period. He dealt with a revolt of the Salghurid Daklā (Tekla) of Fārs about the middle of the period (see Atābakān-e Fārs) and around 572/1176-77 or the following year was prepared to assist the Georgian Liparit against the Georgian King Giorgi II, though this proved unnecessary. It is not known whether it was he or his son Abū Bakr who restored Ani to the Muslims, but he did succeed in resisting the Ayyubid Ṣalāḥ-al-dīn’s claim to Ḵelāṭ in 581/1185-86. An attempt to intervene in Kermān was abandoned because of his death. Several sources from the period (Luther, “Rāvandī’s Report”) attribute western Iran’s subsequent troubles to Moḥammad’s placing his own mamluks in all the governorships under his control and to the way in which he parceled out his domains among his sons, hoping, according to Rāvandī (Ṛāḥat al-ṣodūr, p. 335), that the mamluks would respect these arrangements after his death. Abū Bakr was assigned the northwest under Qezel Arslān’s tutelage. Uzbek was to have Hamadān, and Moḥammad’s two stepsons, the sons of Īnānǰ Ḵātūn (daughter of Īnānǰ Sonqor of Ray, also called Qatība [?], see Ebn Esfandīār, II, p. 152) who are usually referred to in the sources as Qotloḡ Īnānǰ and Amīr-e Amīrān ʿOmar, were to have other parts of Jebāl.

Moẓaffar-al-dīn Qezel Arslān ʿOṯmān (582/1186 to 587/1191): He used the title al-Malek al-Moʿaẓẓam on a coin struck after he proclaimed Sanǰar b. Solaymānšāh sultan (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 328). When Moḥammad b. Īldegoz died, the mamluks split into factions, some supporting his brother Qezel Arslān, others supporting Moḥammad’s widow, Īnānǰ Ḵātūn’s efforts on behalf of her two sons. Sultan Ṭoḡrel fled and resisted the new atābak until he was captured in 586/1190. Qezel Arslān then attempted to revive the old arrangement by proclaiming as sultan the infant Sanǰar b. Solaymānšāh. Then he proclaimed himself sultan but was assassinated shortly after, apparently on the initiative of Īnānǰ Ḵātūn (Ebn Esfandīār, II, p. 154).

Noṣrat-al-dīn Abū Bakr b. Moḥammad (587/1191 to 607/1210): He used the titles Jahān-pahlavān (p. 336) and al-Solṭān al-Moʿaẓẓam/Aʿẓam, Šāhanšāh al-Aʿẓam/Moʿaẓẓam (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 343). Abū Bakr set out immediately on Qezel Arslān’s death and took control of the home territories in the northwest, while Qotloḡ Īnānǰ fought with Ṭoḡrel over Jebāl. Defeated by the sultan, he and his brother Amīr-e Amīrān challenged Abū Bakr and were defeated in 589/1193. Qotloḡ Īnānǰ fled back to Jebāl, there to finally ensure the end of Ṭoḡrel by calling in the Ḵᵛārazmšāh ʿAlāʾ-al-dīn Tekeš, whose troops killed the sultan during their second incursion in 591/1194. He received territory from the Ḵᵛārazmšāh (Ebn al-Aṯīr, XII, p. 108), but according to Ebn Esfandīār (II, p. 154) he was killed sometime later by the Khwarazmian general, Mīāǰoq. Amīr-e Amīrān challenged Abū Bakr again with help from the Šervānšāh and the Georgian Queen Tamar, and defeated him near Ganǰa, although Abū Bakr was able to escape back to Naḵǰavān with his life, after seeing his army destroyed. Amīr-e Amīrān died before he could take advantage of his victory. Ganǰa submitted once again to Abū Bakr (Ḥosaynī, Aḵbār, pp. 185-90; Brosset, Histoire, pp. 436ff.; Abū Ḥāmed, Ḏayl, p. 191). Having survived these assaults, Abū Bakr, who had made at least one foray into Jebāl (Ebn Esfandīār, II, p. 162), not only had to see his family’s influence in that province reduced to almost nothing under Uzbek, who was nominally in charge in Hamadān, he also faced relentless pressure from the Georgians. Ani fell in 595-596/1199 (dated in Christian sources). The atābak apparently sought to counter this pressure first by helping Giorgi Bogolyubskii in 596-597/1200 (Christian sources) in his attempt to return to Georgia, then by moving on Šervān, but he was decisively defeated according to the Georgian/Armenian sources (Limper, Mongolen, pp. 52-54). Šamḵor and Ganǰa had to acknowledge Georgian overlordship. Abū Bakr’s marriage to a daughter of the king of Georgia did not prevent the loss of Dvin in 599/1202-03 (Ebn al-Aṯīr, XII, p. 242; Limper, Mongolen, p. 52). Before his death incursions by the Georgians had reached disastrous proportions, including the capture and sack of Ardabīl in 606-07/1210 and a raid down through Tabrīz and all the way across northern Iran as far as Gorgān (Brosset, Histoire, pp. 468-72). The atābak had compensated himself by taking Marāḡa in 604/1207-08 after it was left to a minor of the Aḥmadīlī (Atābakān-e Marāḡa) line. He had earlier been able to forestall an attack by the rulers of Marāḡa and Erbel by calling on the mamluk Aydoḡmeš (Aytoḡmeš), actual ruler of Jebāl (600/1203-04 to 608/1211-12), who acknowledged old ties of loyalty and turned the attackers back (Ebn al-Aṯīr, XII, pp. 236f.).

Moẓaffar-al-dīn Uzbek (607/1210 to 622/1225): His titles are not known; Jovaynī (e.g., III, p. 245) has only Moẓaffar-al-dīn. He seems to have spent his time in Naḵǰavān and Tabrīz, although Kouymjian (Numismatic History, p. 294) argues that Ardabīl was his capital, since that is the only known mint. But there was a ruler in Ardabīl whose attack on Ani caused the Georgian sack of Ardabīl mentioned above (assuming this was not a Safavid: Minorsky, Studies, p. 103). In general, the amirs were more and more on their own, since Uzbek took little interest in the affairs of his kingdom. Minorsky (“Caucasica II,” pp. 868-75) and Kouymjian (Numismatic History, pp. 369-410) provide us with information on the vassal Maleks of Ahar, or Bishkinids and Kouymjian (pp. 411-18) has turned up an unknown vassal who minted coins in the Kura valley or Moḡān. Uzbek is accused by his contemporaries of shameful inaction in the face of the Georgian incursions (e.g., Ebn al-Aṯīr, XII, p. 435). He lost all of Arrān save Naḵǰavān, accepted the overlordship of the Ḵᵛārazmšāh in 614/1217-18, and paid tribute to the Georgians. He saved Tabrīz from the Mongol assaults of 617/1220-21 and 618/1221-22 by buying them off, although they ravaged many of the other towns in his territories. He finally left both Tabrīz and his wife, the daughter of Sultan Ṭoḡrel, to Jalāl-al-dīn Ḵᵛārazmšāh in 622/1225 and died, we are told, on hearing that Jalāl-al-dīn had married her (Jovaynī, II, p. 157; anecdote in Nasavī, Sīra, Ar., p. 207, Pers, p. 149). He was in the ancestral stronghold of Alenǰaq. His son, Qezel Arslān-e Ḵāmūš, so-called because he was a deaf-mute, married an Aḥmadīlī princess, and according to one interpretation of the evidence (Jovaynī, I, p. 116, II, p. 248; tr. Boyle, I, p, 148 n. 29; Nasavī, Sīra, Ar. pp. 223-24, Pers. pp. 161-62) entered Jalāl-al-dīn’s service.

Literature, learning, and architecture. All of the Ildegozids were patrons of literature and learning, even though the later ones were apparently more drunken than devout. They were patrons of many of the well-known poets of the period and were closely associated with some of them. Moǰīr-al-dīn Baylaqānī seems to have been closer to Īldegoz and Moḥammad whereas Aṯīr-al-dīn Aḵsīkatī was nearer to Qezel Arslān (Dīvān-e Aṯīr, introd. Homāyūn Farroḵ, pp. 75-77; Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., p. 208). Ẓahīr-al-dīn Fāryābī is especially associated with Abū Bakr (Dīvān, introd. Bīneš, pp. 86-92). Šaraf-al-dīn Šafarva Eṣfahānī may have belonged to Moḥammad’s entourage (ʿAwfī, Lobāb, p. 615). Other poets connected with the family are: ʿEmādī Šahrīārī (ʿAwfī, p. 724; Ṣafā, Adabīyāt II, p. 745); Jamāl-al-dīn Moḥammad ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Eṣfahānī (Ṣafā, II, p. 732); Rokn-al-dīn Daʿvīdār (Ṣafā, III/1, p. 347); Aṯīr-al-dīn Awmānī (Ṣafā, III/1, p. 395); Qewāmī Moṭarrezī, Yūsof Fożūlī (Dawlatšāh, ed. Browne, p. 117); Jamāl Ašharī (ʿAwfī, p. 406); Jamāl Ḵoǰandī (Ebn Esfandīār, II, p. 152). Ḵāqānī wrote poems in praise of Qezel Arslān (Dīvān, introd. ʿAbbāsī, p. 26) and also wrote a long letter to that atābak (Monšaʾāt, pp. 148-63). Neẓāmī Ganǰavī certainly dedicated his Ḵosrow o Šīrīn to members of the family, first to Moḥammad, then to Qezel Arslān, along with Sultan Ṭoḡrel, according to Ṣafā (II, p. 803). As far as Neẓāmī’s Eqbāl-nāma is concerned, there is a difference of opinion (Nafīsī, Neẓāmī, pp. 115-16; Minorsky, “Caucasica II,” pp. 872-74; Ṣafā, II, pp. 704-06) as to whether or not it was dedicated to an Ildegozid. It does seem to be true that the only meeting Neẓāmī had with any ruler was with Qezel Arslān (Nafīsī, Neẓāmī, pp. 86-93). Uzbek’s vizier, Abu’l-Qāsem Hārūn was a well-known patron of learning in Tabrīz.

As far as architecture is concerned, according to Rāvandī (Rāḥat al-ṣodūr, pp. 300-01). Īldegoz and his wife built and endowed a madrasa in Hamadān in which they are buried; there are two mausoleums from the period still extant at Naḵǰavān, one dedicated to a local figure (Repretoire IX, pp. 30f.), the other with inscriptions which link it to the family (ibid, pp. 150-52; Survey of Persian Art IV, p. 1788. Sarre, Denkmäler, pp. 8-15 and plates; Jacobsthal, “Backsteinbauten,” pp. 549-51 [with inscriptions done by Hartmann]; Khanikoff, “Inscription,” pp. 113-16; Historical Monuments, pls. 119-21). This latter structure is a splendid example of the early use of colored tile; it bears the partially effaced name of one of the atābaks, assumed to be that of Īldegoz by Hartmann, Sarre, and Minorsky (EI1III, p. 840), and the name Moʾmena Ḵātūn, assumed to be the name of Īldegoz’s wife; it had a gate which bore the name of Moḥammad b. Īldegoz, and is dated 582/1186-87. A problem is created in assuming any of the three to have been buried there by the explicit statement of Rāvandī (above) and the statement by Ebn Esfandīār (II, p. 152) that Moḥammad b. Īldegoz was also buried at the madrasa in Hamadān. An older photograph, reproduced by Jacobsthal (p. 513, remarks p. 515), shows the ruins of a mosque of the period no longer there when he visited the tomb, but which may also have been built by the Ildegozids.

See also Atābakān-e Marāḡa.

 

Bibliography:

For additional detail, consult Kouymjian, Numismatic History, pp. 16-71 (“The Sources and the Literature”) and pp. 439-45 (“Bibliography”), and Limper, Die Mongolen, pp. 9-28 (“Die Quellen”) and pp. 456-84 (“Literaturverzeichnis”), who uses the relevant Christian sources. The Ankara Millî Kütüphane Genel Müdürlüğü, Selçuklu Tarihi, Alparslan ve Malazgirt Bibliyoğrafyası, Ankara, 1971, contains a somewhat unsystematic but useful bibliography.

1. Medieval sources.

Abū Ḥāmed Moḥammad b. Ebrāhīm, Ḏayl-e Salǰūq-nāma, publ. in Rašīd-al-dīn Fażlallāh, Jāmeʿ al-tawārīḵ II, pt. 5, Ḏekr-e tārīḵ-e Āl-e Saḷčuq, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından, III/6, Ankara, 1960, pp. 181-94.

Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī Ḥosaynī, Aḵbār al-dawla al-Salǰūqīya, Lahore, 1933, pp. 128-97.

Ī. Afšār, ed., al-Moḵtārāt men al-rasāʾel, Tehran, 2535 = 1355 Š./1976, pp. 129-33 (possibly other letters).

Abu’l-Fatḥ Bondārī, Zobdat al-noṣra wa noḵbat al-ʿoṣra, ed. M. Th. Houtsma, in Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides II, Leyden, 1889, pp. 222-85.

M. -F. Brosset tr., Histoire de la Géorgie, pt. 1, St. Petersburg, 1849, pp. 387-400, 414-15, 432-47, 466-83, 496-511.

Ebn al-Aṯīr (repr.), XI, years 538, 543, 551, 556, 557, 560-64, 568, 569, 581-83; XII, years 584, 587, 588, 590-612, 614, 617-23.

Ebn Esfandīār, II, pp. 104-69.

Abu’l-Šaraf Nāṣeḥ b. Ẓafar Jorfādaqānī, Tarǰama-ye tārīḵ-e yamīnī, ed. J. Šeʿār, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966, pp. 419-42.

Jovaynī, I, p. 116; II, pp. 38, 97-117, 120-22, 156-58, 248; III, pp. 245-46.

Ḥabīb al-Sīar (Tehran), II, pp. 557-59.

Afżal-al-dīn Kermānī, Badāʾeʿ al-azmān fī waqāʾeʿ Kermān, ed. M. Bayānī, Tehran, 1326 Š./1947, pp. 29-58, 47-75, 107-08.

Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Nasavī, Sīrat al-Solṭān Jalāl-al-dīn Mankobertī, Cairo, 1953, Ar., pp. 53-61, 194-207, 223-24, 255-57; Pers. tr., Sīrat-e Jalāl-al-dīn Mīnkbernī, ed. M. Mīnovī, Tehran, 1344 Š./1965, pp. 24-31, 140-49, 161-62.

Ẓahīr-al-dīn Nīšāpūrī, Salǰūq-nāma, in Rašīd-al-dīn Fażlallāh, Jāmeʿ al-tawārīḵ II, pt. 5, Ḏekr-e tārīḵ-e Āl-e Saḷčūq, Türk Tarish Kurumu Yayınlarından III/6, Ankara, 1960, pp. 119-80.

Moḥammad b. ʿAlī Rāvandī, Rāḥat al-ṣodūr wa āyat al-sorūr, ed. M. M. Eqbāl, GMS, London, 1912, pp. 233-403.

2. Modern sources.

Ī. Afšār, “Ahd-nāma-ī az Atābak Moḥammad-e Īldegoz” Tārīḵ, 1/2, 2536 = 1356 Š./1976-77, pp. 82-90.

C. E. Bosworth, Camb. Hist. Iran. V, pp. 167-95.

Idem, “Ildeñizids,” ei EI2III, pp. 1110-13.

J. A. Boyle, in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 303-336.

C. J. F. Dowsett, “The Albanian Chronicle of Mxiṭʿar Goš,” BSOAS 21, 1958, pp. 473-90.

M. Th. Houtsma, “Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks,” Acta Orientalia 3, 1924, pp. 136-52.

D. K. Kouymjian, A Numismatic History of Southeastern Caucasia and Adharbayjān Based on the Islamic Coinage of the 5th/11th to the 7th/13th Centuries, Doctoral thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1969.

B. Limper, Die Mongolen und die christlichen Völker des Kaukasus, Cologne, 1980.

K. A. Luther, “The End of Saljūq Dominion in Khurasan,” Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George G. Cameron, Ann Arbor, 1976, pp. 219-25.

Idem, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran: 1152-1187, Doctoral thesis, Princeton University, 1964.

Idem, “Ravandi’s Report on the Administrative Changes of Muḥammad Jahān Pahlavān,” Iran and Islam, in memory of V. Minorsky, ed. C. E. Bosworth, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 393-406.

V. Minorsky, “Aḥmadīlīs,” EI2I, pp. 300-01. Idem, “Caucasica II,” BSOAS 13, 1951, pp. 868-77.

Idem, “Ildegīz,” EI1II, p. 465. Idem, “Marāgha,” EI1III, pp. 261-66.

Idem, “Nakḥčuwān, EI1III, pp. 839-40.

Idem, Studies in Caucasian History, London, 1953, pp. 84-157.

Idem, “Tabrīz,” EI1 IV, pp. 585-86, 593.

3. Literature, learning, and architecture.

Aṯīr-al-dīn Aḵsīkatī, Dīvān, Tehran, 1337 Š./1958.

ʿAwfī, Lobāb (Tehran).

E. Jacobsthal, ”Mittelalterische Backsteinbauten zu Nachtschewân,” Deutsche Bauzeitung 33, 1899, pp. 513-16, 521, 525-28, 549-51, 569-74.

Ḵāqānī, Dīvān, ed. M. ʿAbbāsī, Tehran, 1336 Š./1957.

Idem, Monšaʾāt-e Ḵāqānī, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970.

N. Khanikoff, “Les Inscriptions Musulmanes du Caucase,” JA 20, 1862, (for the Tower of Atābaks) pp. 113-20.

Moslem Religious Board of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, Historical Monuments of Islam in the USSR, Tashkent, 1962, pp. 33-34, pls. 119-21.

S. Nafīsī, ed., Dīvān-e qaṣāʾed wa ḡazalīyāt-e Neẓāmī Ganǰavī, Tehran, 1338 Š./1958-59.

Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe IX, Cairo, 1937. Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 201-13.

Ṣafā, Adabīyāt II; III/2, Tehran, 1352-53 Š./1973-74.

F. Sarre, Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst, Berlin, 1910, pp. 8-l5 and plates.

Survey of Persian Art IV. Ẓahīr-al-dīn Fāryābī, Dīvān, ed. T. Bīneš, Mašhad, 1337 Š./1957-58.

(K. A. Luther)

Originally Published: December 15, 1987

Last Updated: August 17, 2011

This article is available in print.
Vol. II, Fasc. 8, pp. 890-894