Bibliographic record
Abstract
Craftsmen in Medieval Anatolia: Methods and MobilityThe following analysis of the two primary materials, namely stone and brick, and the methods of combining and manipulating them, is used to delineate a methodological framework for determining the processes required to build large-scale mixed-media construction projects.The specific focus here is on the situation in Anatolia in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, but the principle of analysing the constituent elements of buildings in order to understand the working methods of the craftsmen is applicable to much of the architecture of the pre-modern world.In lieu of any surviving technical treatise, the detailed study of techniques and decorative motifs can provide a wider understanding of the training, geographic origins and mobility of the craftsmen responsible for the construction of the Islamic architecture of medieval Anatolia. 1 Stylistic and comparative analysis with structures in the wider Islamic-ruled world, from Iran and Central Asia to Syria and Egypt, can provide the evidence for assertions in regard to the origin and training of a number of the craftsmen working in Anatolia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.Aside from the indigenous building traditions, two clearly discernible, external Islamic sources were integral to the development of a unique Anatolian architectural aesthetic in the first quarter of the thirteenth century.First, stereotomic stone-working methods, developed primarily for marble construction in Zengid and Ayyūbid Syria in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries can be found in Konya.Second, the brick and glazed-tile building style that flourished in northwestern Iran under Ildegüzid patronage in the twelfth century was used in a number of surviving buildings across Anatolia.2 This chapter presents evidence of craft practices gleaned from close analysis of buildings to in order to understand the working methods, mobility and origins of craftsmen active across Anatolia.Although the primary focus is on buildings with Rūm Saljūq patrons, 3 the mobility of craftsmen, and the fluidity of boundaries and political alliances, means that the results also apply to a number of the surviving Saltūkid and Megüjekid structures.The strong influence of, and in some cases on, the indigenous Armenian and Byzantine traditions, 4 alongside the evidence of Persianate brick and glazed-tile structural and decorative techniques is clear.Through the examination of a number of little-known details and discussion of the constituent materials in this chapter, a new understanding of the processes required to extract, manufacture and combine the constituent materials into the extant corpus of buildings, not hitherto seen in previous scholarship, is discussed in detail in the conclusion.The surviving structures may be viewed as records of, and memorials to, the anonymous craftsmen and labourers who built them, as much as to the elite patrons who paid for them.Craftsmen working on the most prestigious commissions 5 had to move from one site to the next upon completion of a project.Possibly, vernacular structures in the larger urban context would have been built by local resident builders.The focus here is on the master craftsmen who were responsible for the majority of the surviving corpus of elite buildings.It was these individuals, 6 working at the highest register of craftsmanship, who set the formal and aesthetic tone for the builders of less prestigious structures across the region.7 Workshop Organization and ToolsDuring this time period, most of the raw materials necessary for building would have been transported to construction sites, often over considerable distances.8 Consequently, the study of the working methods and mobility of craftsmen cannot be separated from an examination of the process of extraction and transportation of the materials required to build the extant structures.On top of that, production facilities, such as kilns and forges, would have
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".