a East-west exchange and the metamorphosis
pendium of Chronicles”) produced in 714/1314–
of dragon imagery
5, bear eloquent witness to this phenomenon
Temüjin, the leader of a small Mongol tribe,
The first part of the Epilogue explores the dragon
became a conqueror of the eastern part of Mon-
imagery as potent symbol of cross-cultural con-
golia by defeating the Kereit ruler Ong Khān in
nection and artistic exchange during the Mongol
1203 Having been proclaimed Supreme Chief of
era in general and the Ilkhanid period in par-
al Mongols in 1206, Genghis Khān and his armies
ticular In the Mongol visual arts, including coin-
swiftly vanquished a vast area of the Asian con-
age, sculptural and architectural elements, as well
tinent which included most of Eurasia from the
as in manuscript il ustrations, the dragon appears
China Sea to the banks of the Dnieper Central
in different stylistic guises as elements of Chinese
Asia, in the widest geographic interpretation of
and Western Asian derivation combine, testifying
the term, was thus for the first time united under
to the meeting and merging of cultural elements
a single ruler and Genghis Khān was said to have
from east and west and providing evidence of
carried out God’s will as decreed by divine rev-
early acculturation in the development of an
elation in becoming master of the world 4 When
Ilkhanid idiom The breadth of the emerging
Genghis died in 1227, the Great Mongol Empire
dragon iconography is illustrated in the text and
(Mong yeke mongghul ulus) was divided into
illustrations of Ilkhanid manuscripts
various khānates (appanages) ruled over by his
More than any other creature, the dragon is
descendants The Great Khāns (qaghan s ), Möngke
identified with China,1 also known as the land of
(r 1251–1260) and Qubilay (r 1260–1294), both
Chīn (al-Sīn in the Arabised form), Khitay or
descendants of Genghis Khān’s youngest son
Cathay 2 One consequence of the Mongol inva-
Toluy, ruled Mongolia and northern China as the
sions and subsequent Mongol hegemony was a
yuan dynasty (1271–1368) from their capitals,
westward movement of the arts that led to the
first at Qaraqorum in Mongolia and later at
introduction of stylistic aspects of East Asian
Khānbāliq (lit “City of the Khāns,” Chin Dadu,
(mostly Chinese and Chinese-inspired Mongol)
now known as Beijing) in China They were sup-
derivation,3 which include the motif of the dragon
ported by three collateral principalities: the
Surviving portable and monumental art from the
Golden Horde, descended from Genghis Khān’s
Ilkhanid realm, in particular the tile decoration
eldest son Juchi in most of Russia; the Chagha-
of the royal residence at Takht-i Sulaimān and
tayids, descended from Genghis’s second son
the grand illustrated copy of the most important
Chagatay, in the region from the Aral Sea to the
single historical source for the Mongol empire,
Altai mountains; and the Ilkhans descended from
Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb’s Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh (“Com-
Hülegü/Hūlāgū, in Western Asia
1 The definition of what “China” entails has been a sub-
“Constable of the Turks” (Sepahdār-i Torkān) ( idem, p 142,
ject of scholarly debate in the field of history of Chinese art,
l 1630)
3
see Thorp and Vinograd, 2001; Hay, 1999, pp 120–62
For a discussion of the influence of so-called “conquest
2 For a discussion of the geographical boundaries of
dynasties” on the social and cultural history of China and
the various names related to China and the East, see
the often repeated associated concept of a one way “sinici-
Thackston in his translation of Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb, Jamiʿuʾt-
sation” which necessarily leads to a one-sided interpretation
tawarikh, vol 1, 1998–9, p 24, n 2 As Melikian-Chirvani
of this socio-cultural phenomena, see Wittfogel and Fêng,
(1997a, pp 127 and 164, n 33) has shown, the descrip-
1949, pp 14–5; Bol, 1987, pp 461–538; and Crossley, 1990,
tions of the land of Chīn in the Shāh-nāma refer to eastern
pp 1–34
4
Turkestan, the area of Khotan and Kāshghar (sometimes
This premise is evident throughout Mongol rule and
going as far west as the Samarqand area), the land of the
exemplified, for instance, in Hülegü’s letter addressed to the
Turk Afrāsīyāb (tr and ed Mohl, 1838–1878, vol 3, p 390,
French king Louis IX which expresses the Mongolian world-
l 1155), whose son Pīrān is referred to as “Constable of
view, namely that Mongol commands represent God’s will
Chīn” (Sepahdār-i Chīn) ( idem, p 44, l 491) as well as
on earth Meyvaert, 1980, p 249
210