ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚD¨ARBAÚYÔAÚN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) 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 Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225.

ˆams-al-d^n Èldegoz (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 H®ab^b al-s^ar (Tehran, II, p. 557) describes his origins as a small, ugly Qep±a@q slave who rose in Sultan Mas¿u@d's favor, but Ebn al-At¯^r (XI, pp. 338-89) says that he had been a slave of Kama@l Somayram^, vizier of Sultan Mahámu@d b. Moháammad (511/1117 to 525/1131), and that on the vizier's death he passed first to Mahámu@d, then to Sultan Mas¿u@d (527/1133 to 547/1152) who gave him Arra@n as eqtáa@¿ ; the Salèu@q-na@ma (p. 160) says that Mas¿u@d gave him the widow of Sultan T®og@rel b. Moháammad in marriage. He presumably became ata@bak of his stepson, Arsla@nÞa@h b. T®og@rel, although the prince was not always in his care. It seems unlikely that he had control of all the Muslim parts of Arra@n in his earliest period, and tradition dates as later his position as the real ruler of the Iraq sultanate. The early Armenian writer Mxit¿ar GoÞ (tr. Dowsett, BSOAS 21, p. 487) says that Èldegoz was lord of Nakòèava@n before he gained control of Ganèa, and he cites a series of Saljuq governors of Arra@n and Azerbaijan whose relationship to Èldegoz is uncertain (compare Minorsky, “Tabr^z,” EI¹ IV, p. 585). Sources such as H®osayn^'s Akòba@r (p. 181 and passim) make it clear that members of the family always considered Nakòèava@n their home base, and that is where their building activity seems to have been centered (see below). Èldegoz 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 Baylaqa@n to ˆamkòor (ˆamku@r) 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 Mas¿u@d's last favorite, K¨a@sásá Beg Arsla@n b. Palangar^ 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 AÚq Sonqor II of Mara@g@a concluded in 549/1154-55 with his enemy, Sultan Moháammad b. Mahámu@d (Bonda@r^, Zobda, p. 243, Minorsky, “Mara@gha,” EI¹III, p. 263).

Even before 548/1153, Èldegoz was involved in intrigues resulting from the succession struggle after the death of Mas¿u@d in 547/1152. He was in the coalition which supported Solayma@nÞa@h b. Moháammad against Sultan Moháammad b. Mahámu@d, and when that failed, he continued to work against Moháammad, 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 Arsla@nÞa@h in late 549/1154 or early 550/1155, and he may have put the title of ata@bak on his coins at this time (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, pp. 298-300). However, he continued to work against Moháammad through other members of the Saljuq family besides Arsla@nÞa@h. Caliphal support of another coalition for Solayma@nÞa@h did not prevent his defeat at Nakòèava@n by Sultan Moháammad in 551/1156, and the subsequent reconciliation effected there did not keep Èldegoz from again intriguing with the caliph's vizier, Ebn Hobayra, in an attempt to supplant Moháammad with his brother, MalekÞa@h, while the sultan was besieging Baghdad; he abandoned the attempt when Moháammad lifted the siege and started back to Hamada@n.

His ambitions were finally realized when, after the death (possibly on his orders) of Solayma@nÞa@h who ruled briefly after the death of Moháammad (555/1160), a group of amirs invited him to bring Arsla@nÞa@h to Hamada@n and install him as sultan; he was probably proclaimed great ata@bak then (555/1160), thus becoming the holder of a new office, that of ata@bak 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 Fa@rs, Kerma@n, K¨u@zesta@n, Kela@tá (Akòla@tá), and ˆerva@n. He faced two revolts (556/1161 and 561/1165) led by H®osa@m-al-d^n Èna@nè of Ray, who the second time was aided by the K¨úa@razmÞa@h Èl-Arsla@n, and ended the danger from this quarter by pressuring Èna@nè's own vizier into having his master assassinated. Ray went to Èldegoz's son, Moháammad Pahlava@n, as did Ardab^l on the death of another amir, and he obtained the position of am^r-e háa@èeb at the sultan's court. His other son, Qezel Arsla@n ¿Ot¯ma@n, who seems to have been responsible for the home territories in the northwest, became am^r-e esfahsa@la@r. 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 Dab^l (Dvin), he was able to defeat them with the aid of the Shah Arman of K¨ela@tá 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 ata@bak Zang^ of Fa@rs submitted formally in ceremonies held in 560/1165 (H®osayn^, Akòba@r, pp. 153-56). In 565/1169-70 an army was sent to assist Malek Arsla@n of Kerma@n (Kerma@n^, Bada@÷e¿, pp. 43-48). K¨u@zesta@n was apparently involved through a Saljuq prince, a son of MalekÞa@h, its real ruler, being his ata@bak ˆomla (Ebn al-At¯^r, XI, pp. 328f.). The Khorasani amir, Mo÷ayyed Ay Aba, read the kòotába for Arsla@nÞa@h for four years but dropped it in 562/1167 when Èldegoz decided not to challenge the K¨úa@razmÞa@h for control of Khorasan (Luther, “End of Saljuq Dominion”). Ma@zandara@n was not under his control, nor was Mara@g@a in Azerbaijan itself. The ruler of Mara@g@a, Nosárat-al-d^n AÚq Sonqor II, (see Ata@baka@n-e Mara@g@a), twice made moves which Èldegoz considered threatening (556/1160-61 and 563/1167-68) and twice defeated his son Moháammad when he was sent against him. Nosárat-al-d^n's successor lost Tabr^z to the Ildegozids, apparently in 570/1174-75, although the sequence of events around Èldegoz's death is not clear (Ebn al-At¯^r, XI, p. 388f.; Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 291; Luther, Sultanate, p. 201; Minorsky, Studies, p. 99). H®osayn^ (Akòba@r, p. 172) indicates that Mosul and “Arm^n^ya” gave the kòotába for the Iraq sultan, thus implying a relationship with the ata@baks. 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 ˆerva@nÞa@hs 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 Èldegoz 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.). Arsla@nÞa@h tried to throw off Ildegozid control after the ata@bak's death, but he died before his attempt was really underway, possibly poisoned by the new ata@bak, Moháammad b. Èldegoz (Ravand^, Ra@háat al-sáodu@r, pp. 248-352; Houtsma, “Remarks,” pp. 140-42; Luther, Sultanate, pp. 203f.), who installed his ward T®og@rel b. Arsla@nÞa@h as sultan and maintained the essential elements of the system intact until his death in 582/1186. His brother Qezel Arsla@n held a subordinate position as ruler of the northwest.

Nosárat-al-d^n Moháammad b. Èldegoz (571/1175 to 582/1186): The inscription recorded from the Tower of the Ata@baks (see below) refers to him as al-Malek al-¿AÚlem al-¿AÚdel A¿záam Ata@bak Abu@ Ôa¿far Moháammad b. Ata@bak Èldegoz. In the written sources he is often referred to as Moháammad Ôaha@n-pahlava@n, 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 enÞa@÷ discovery (AfÞa@r, “¿Ahd-na@ma” and Mokòta@ra@t) has added to our information about him. He disposed of the attempts of the Saljuq Moháammad, brother of Arsla@nÞa@h, 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 Tabr^z (see above) may have occurred early in his period. He dealt with a revolt of the Salghurid Dakla@ (Tekla) of Fa@rs about the middle of the period (see Ata@baka@n-e Fa@rs) 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 Abu@ Bakr who restored Ani to the Muslims, but he did succeed in resisting the Ayyubid Sáala@há-al-d^n's claim to K¨ela@tá in 581/1185-86. An attempt to intervene in Kerma@n was abandoned because of his death. Several sources from the period (Luther, “Ra@vand^'s Report”) attribute western Iran's subsequent troubles to Moháammad'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 Ra@vand^ (R®a@háat al-sáodu@r, p. 335), that the mamluks would respect these arrangements after his death. Abu@ Bakr was assigned the northwest under Qezel Arsla@n's tutelage. Uzbek was to have Hamada@n, and Moháammad's two stepsons, the sons of Èna@nè K¨a@tu@n (daughter of Èna@nè Sonqor of Ray, also called Qat^ba [?], see Ebn Esfand^a@r, II, p. 152) who are usually referred to in the sources as Qotlog@ Èna@nè and Am^r-e Am^ra@n ¿Omar, were to have other parts of Ôeba@l.

Mozáaffar-al-d^n Qezel Arsla@n ¿Ot¯ma@n (582/1186 to 587/1191): He used the title al-Malek al-Mo¿azázáam on a coin struck after he proclaimed Sanèar b. Solayma@nÞa@h sultan (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 328). When Moháammad b. Èldegoz died, the mamluks split into factions, some supporting his brother Qezel Arsla@n, others supporting Moháammad's widow, Èna@nè K¨a@tu@n's efforts on behalf of her two sons. Sultan T®og@rel fled and resisted the new ata@bak until he was captured in 586/1190. Qezel Arsla@n then attempted to revive the old

arrangement by proclaiming as sultan the infant Sanèar b. Solayma@nÞa@h. Then he proclaimed himself sultan but was assassinated shortly after, apparently on the initiative of Èna@nè K¨a@tu@n (Ebn Esfand^a@r, II, p. 154).

Nosárat-al-d^n Abu@ Bakr b. Moháammad (587/1191 to 607/1210): He used the titles Ôaha@n-pahlava@n (p. 336) and al-Soltáa@n al-Mo¿azázáam/A¿záam, ˆa@hanÞa@h al-A¿záam/Mo¿azázáam (Kouymjian, Numismatic History, p. 343). Abu@ Bakr set out immediately on Qezel Arsla@n's death and took control of the home territories in the northwest, while Qotlog@ Èna@nè fought with T®og@rel over Ôeba@l. Defeated by the sultan, he and his brother Am^r-e Am^ra@n challenged Abu@ Bakr and were defeated in 589/1193. Qotlog@ Èna@nè fled back to Ôeba@l, there to finally ensure the end of T®og@rel by calling in the K¨úa@razmÞa@h ¿Ala@÷-al-d^n TekeÞ, whose troops killed the sultan during their second incursion in 591/1194. He received territory from the K¨úa@razmÞa@h (Ebn al-At¯^r, XII, p. 108), but according to Ebn Esfand^a@r (II, p. 154) he was killed sometime later by the Khwarazmian general, M^a@èoq. Am^r-e Am^ra@n challenged Abu@ Bakr again with help from the ˆerva@nÞa@h and the Georgian Queen Tamar, and defeated him near Ganèa, although Abu@ Bakr was able to escape back to Nakòèava@n with his life, after seeing his army destroyed. Am^r-e Am^ra@n died before he could take advantage of his victory. Ganèa submitted once again to Abu@ Bakr (H®osayn^, Akòba@r, pp. 185-90; Brosset, Histoire, pp. 436ff.; Abu@ H®a@med, D¨ayl, p. 191). Having survived these assaults, Abu@ Bakr, who had made at least one foray into Ôeba@l (Ebn Esfand^a@r, 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 Hamada@n, he also faced relentless pressure from the Georgians. Ani fell in 595-596/1199 (dated in Christian sources). The ata@bak 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 ˆerva@n, but he was decisively defeated according to the Georgian/Armenian sources (Limper, Mongolen, pp. 52-54). ˆamkòor and Ganèa had to acknowledge Georgian overlordship. Abu@ Bakr's marriage to a daughter of the king of Georgia did not prevent the loss of Dvin in 599/1202-03 (Ebn al-At¯^r, XII, p. 242; Limper, Mongolen, p. 52). Before his death incursions by the Georgians had reached disastrous proportions, including the capture and sack of Ardab^l in 606-07/1210 and a raid down through Tabr^z and all the way across northern Iran as far as Gorga@n (Brosset, Histoire, pp. 468-72). The ata@bak had compensated himself by taking Mara@g@a in 604/1207-08 after it was left to a minor of the Ahámad^l^ (Ata@baka@n-e Mara@g@a) line. He had earlier been able to forestall an attack by the rulers of Mara@g@a and Erbel by calling on the mamluk Aydog@meÞ (Aytog@meÞ), actual ruler of Ôeba@l (600/1203-04 to 608/1211-12), who acknowledged old ties of loyalty and turned the attackers back (Ebn al-At¯^r, XII, pp. 236f.).

Mozáaffar-al-d^n Uzbek (607/1210 to 622/1225): His titles are not known; Ôovayn^ (e.g., III, p. 245) has only Mozáaffar-al-d^n. He seems to have spent his time in Nakòèava@n and Tabr^z, although Kouymjian (Numismatic History, p. 294) argues that Ardab^l was his capital, since that is the only known mint. But there was a ruler in Ardab^l whose attack on Ani caused the Georgian sack of Ardab^l 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 Mog@a@n. Uzbek is accused by his contemporaries of shameful inaction in the face of the Georgian incursions (e.g., Ebn al-At¯^r, XII, p. 435). He lost all of Arra@n save Nakòèava@n, accepted the overlordship of the K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 614/1217-18, and paid tribute to the Georgians. He saved Tabr^z 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 Tabr^z and his wife, the daughter of Sultan T®og@rel, to Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225 and died, we are told, on hearing that Ôala@l-al-d^n had married her (Ôovayn^, II, p. 157; anecdote in Nasav^, S^ra, Ar., p. 207, Pers, p. 149). He was in the ancestral stronghold of Alenèaq. His son, Qezel Arsla@n-e K¨a@mu@Þ, so-called because he was a deaf-mute, married an Ahámad^l^ princess, and according to one interpretation of the evidence (Ôovayn^, I, p. 116, II, p. 248; tr. Boyle, I, p, 148 n. 29; Nasav^, S^ra, Ar. pp. 223-24, Pers. pp. 161-62) entered Ôala@l-al-d^n'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. Moè^r-al-d^n Baylaqa@n^ seems to have been closer to Èldegoz and Moháammad whereas At¯^r-al-d^n Akòs^kat^ was nearer to Qezel Arsla@n (D^va@n-e At¯^r, introd. Homa@yu@n Farrokò, pp. 75-77; Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., p. 208). Z®ah^r-al-d^n Fa@rya@b^ is especially associated with Abu@ Bakr (D^va@n, introd. B^neÞ, pp. 86-92). ˆaraf-al-d^n ˆafarva Esáfaha@n^ may have belonged to Moháammad's entourage (¿Awf^, Loba@b, p. 615). Other poets connected with the family are: ¿Ema@d^ ˆahr^a@r^ (¿Awf^, p. 724; Sáafa@, Adab^ya@t II, p. 745); Ôama@l-al-d^n Moháammad ¿Abd-al-Razza@q Esáfaha@n^ (Sáafa@, II, p. 732); Rokn-al-d^n Da¿v^da@r (Sáafa@, III/1, p. 347); At¯^r-al-d^n Awma@n^ (Sáafa@, III/1, p. 395); Qewa@m^ Motáarrez^, Yu@sof Fozμu@l^ (DawlatÞa@h, ed. Browne, p. 117); Ôama@l AÞhar^ (¿Awf^, p. 406); Ôama@l K¨oèand^ (Ebn Esfand^a@r, II, p. 152). K¨a@qa@n^ wrote poems in praise of Qezel Arsla@n (D^va@n, introd. ¿Abba@s^, p. 26) and also wrote a long letter to that ata@bak (MonÞa÷a@t, pp. 148-63). Nezáa@m^ Ganèav^ certainly dedicated his K¨osrow o ˆ^r^n to members of the family, first to Moháammad, then to Qezel Arsla@n, along with Sultan T®og@rel, according to Sáafa@ (II, p. 803). As far as Nezáa@m^'s Eqba@l-na@ma is concerned, there is a difference of opinion (Naf^s^, Nezáa@m^, pp. 115-16; Minorsky, “Caucasica II,” pp. 872-74; Sáafa@, 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 Nezáa@m^ had with any ruler was with Qezel Arsla@n (Naf^s^, Nezáa@m^, pp. 86-93). Uzbek's vizier, Abu÷l-Qa@sem Ha@ru@n (q.v.) was a well-known patron of learning in Tabr^z.

As far as architecture is concerned, according to Ra@vand^ (Ra@háat al-sáodu@r, pp. 300-01). Èldegoz and his wife built and endowed a madrasa in Hamada@n in which they are buried; there are two mausoleums from the period still extant at Nakòèava@n, 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 ata@baks, assumed to be that of Èldegoz by Hartmann, Sarre, and Minorsky (EI¹III, p. 840), and the name Mo÷mena K¨a@tu@n, assumed to be the name of Èldegoz's wife; it had a gate which bore the name of Moháammad b. Èldegoz, 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 Ra@vand^ (above) and the statement by Ebn Esfand^a@r (II, p. 152) that Moháammad b. Èldegoz was also buried at the madrasa in Hamada@n. 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 Ata@baka@n-e Mara@g@a.

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 Müdürlüg¡ü, Selçuklu Tarihi, Alparslan ve Malazgirt Bibliyog¡rafyasé, Ankara, 1971, contains a somewhat unsystematic but useful bibliography.

1. Medieval sources. Abu@ H®a@med Moháammad b. Ebra@h^m, D¨ayl-e Salèu@q-na@ma, publ. in RaÞ^d-al-d^n Fazμlalla@h, Ôa@me¿ al-tawa@r^kò II, pt. 5, D¨ekr-e ta@r^kò-e AÚl-e Sal±uq, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayénlaréndan, III/6, Ankara, 1960, pp. 181-94. Abu÷l-H®asan ¿Al^ H®osayn^, Akòba@r al-dawla al-Salèu@q^ya, Lahore, 1933, pp. 128-97. È. AfÞa@r, ed., al-Mokòta@ra@t men al-rasa@÷el, Tehran, 2535 = 1355 ˆ./1976, pp. 129-33 (possibly other letters). Abu÷l-Fathá Bonda@r^, Zobdat al-nosára wa nokòbat al-¿osára, ed. M. Th. Houtsma, in Recueil de textes relatifs aà l'histoire des Seldjoucides II, Leyden, 1889, pp. 222-85. M. -F. Brosset tr., Histoire de la Ge‚orgie, pt. 1, St. Petersburg, 1849, pp. 387-400, 414-15, 432-47, 466-83, 496-511. Ebn al-At¯^r (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 Esfand^a@r, II, pp. 104-69. Abu÷l-ˆaraf Na@sáehá b. Záafar Ôorfa@daqa@n^, Tarèama-ye ta@r^kò-e yam^n^, ed. Ô. ˆe¿a@r, Tehran, 1345 ˆ./1966, pp. 419-42. Ôovayn^, I, p. 116; II, pp. 38, 97-117, 120-22, 156-58, 248; III, pp. 245-46. H®ab^b al-S^ar (Tehran), II, pp. 557-59. Afzμal-al-d^n Kerma@n^, Bada@÷e¿ al-azma@n f^ waqa@÷e¿ Kerma@n, ed. M. Baya@n^, Tehran, 1326 ˆ./1947, pp. 29-58, 47-75, 107-08. Moháammad b. Ahámad Nasav^, S^rat al-Soltáa@n Ôala@l-al-d^n Mankobert^, Cairo, 1953, Ar., pp. 53-61, 194-207, 223-24, 255-57; Pers. tr., S^rat-e Ôala@l-al-d^n M^nkbern^, ed. M. M^nov^, Tehran, 1344 ˆ./1965, pp. 24-31, 140-49, 161-62. Záah^r-al-d^n N^Þa@pu@r^, Salèu@q-na@ma, in RaÞ^d-al-d^n Fazμlalla@h, Ôa@me¿ al-tawa@r^kò II, pt. 5, D¨ekr-e ta@r^kò-e AÚl-e Sal±u@q, Türk Tarish Kurumu Yayénlaréndan III/6, Ankara, 1960, pp. 119-80. Moháammad b. ¿Al^ Ra@vand^, Ra@háat al-sáodu@r wa a@yat al-soru@r, ed. M. M. Eqba@l, GMS, London, 1912, pp. 233-403.

2. Modern sources. È. AfÞa@r, “Ahd-na@ma-^ az Ata@bak Moháammad-e Èldegoz” Ta@r^kò, 1/2, 2536 = 1356 ˆ./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 Mxit¿ar GoÞ,” 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 Adharbayja@n 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 Salju@q 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 Muháammad Jaha@n Pahlava@n,” Iran and Islam, in memory of V. Minorsky, ed. C. E. Bosworth, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 393-406. V. Minorsky, “Ahámad^l^s,” EI²I, pp. 300-01. Idem, “Caucasica II,” BSOAS 13, 1951, pp. 868-77. Idem, “Ildeg^z,” EI¹II, p. 465. Idem, “Mara@gha,” EI¹III, pp. 261-66. Idem, “Nakh±uwa@n, EI¹III, pp. 839-40. Idem, Studies in Caucasian History, London, 1953, pp. 84-157. Idem, “Tabr^z,” EI¹ IV, pp. 585-86, 593.

3. Literature, learning, and architecture. At¯^r-al-d^n Akòs^kat^, D^va@n, Tehran, 1337 ˆ./1958. ¿Awf^, Loba@b (Tehran). E. Jacobsthal, ”Mittelalterische Backsteinbauten zu Nachtschewân,” Deutsche Bauzeitung 33, 1899, pp. 513-16, 521, 525-28, 549-51, 569-74. K¨a@qa@n^, D^va@n, ed. M. ¿Abba@s^, Tehran, 1336 ˆ./1957. Idem, MonÞa÷a@t-e K¨a@qa@n^, Tehran, 1349 ˆ./1970. N. Khanikoff, “Les Inscriptions Musulmanes du Caucase,” JA 20, 1862, (for the Tower of Ata@baks) 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. Naf^s^, ed., D^va@n-e qasáa@÷ed wa g@azal^ya@t-e Nezáa@m^ Ganèav^, Tehran, 1338 ˆ./1958-59. Re‚pertoire chronologique d'e‚pigraphie arabe IX, Cairo, 1937. Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 201-13. Sáafa@, Adab^ya@t II; III/2, Tehran, 1352-53 ˆ./1973-74. F. Sarre, Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst, Berlin, 1910, pp. 8-l5 and plates. Survey of Persian Art IV. Z®ah^r-al-d^n Fa@rya@b^, D^va@n, ed. T. B^neÞ, MaÞhad, 1337 ˆ./1957-58.

(K. A. Luther)