¹ This paper was inspired by a viewing of one of the key images under discussion in the course of a colloquium on “La Méditerranée des Arméniens (XII^e-XV^e siècle)”, held in the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem in July 2009. I am grateful to the organisers of this colloquium, Gérard Dédéyan and Claude Mutafian, for my invitation. Claude Mutafian and Dickran Kouymjian also offered much kind advice and assistance during the writing of early versions of this piece. Some areas discussed here formed part of papers given at the Universities of Birmingham, St Andrews, Edinburgh and Wisconsin, Madison; I am grateful for the comments and advice given on these occasions, and would like especially to thank Reuven Amitai, Robert Bartlett, Leslie Brubaker, Peter Cowe, Peter Jackson, Susan Manly and David Morgan. I would like to acknowledge my great debt to my colleague Tim Greenwood, whose assistance with the Armenian material has been invaluable.

² On this incident see, for example, the Chronicle attributed to Sparapet, Smbat, King Het‘um's brother, in La Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, translated by Dédéyan, Gérard (Paris, 1980), p. 103Google Scholar; see also Der Nersessian, Sirarpie, “The Armenian Chronicle of the Constable Smpad or of the ‘Royal Historian’”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIII (1959), p. 160Google Scholar (a different redaction, here misleadingly summarised). This incident is also mentioned by another text associated with the Armenian royal court, the chronicle attributed to King Het‘um II: in Hakobyan, V. A. (ed.), Manr zhamanakagrut‘yunner XIII-XVIII dd. (Erevan, 1951), i, p. 82Google Scholar.

³ On the attitude of the Franks of Acre to Bohemond's submission to Hülegü, and specifically that of the Papal Legate, Thomas Agni, bishop of Bethlehem, see Jackson, Peter, “The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260”, English Historical Review, XCV (1980), p. 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ On the evidence for Het‘um I being informed by Armenian sources about the impact of the Mongols, see Mutafian, Claude “The Brilliant Diplomacy of Cilician Armenia”, in Armenian Cilicia, (ed.) Hovanissian, Richard G. and Payaslian, Simon (Costa Mesa, 2008), p. 105Google Scholar.

⁵ Submission to the Mongols did not, at this point, imply any great enthusiasm: the act of betrayal of the Seljuk royal women was not carried out with an easy conscience, but rather through fear of the consequences. This is clear from the account of Ganjakets, Kirakos‘i (Patmut‘yun Hayots‘, (ed.) Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, K. A. (Erevan, 1961), p. 285Google Scholar) and that attributed to the king's brother Smbat (“Chronique du royaume de la Petite Arménie, par le Connétable Sěmpad”, edited and translated by Dulaurier, Édouard, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Documents Arméniens 2 vols, (Paris, 1869-1906), i, p. 649Google Scholar). Even leaving this incident aside, it is likely that King Het‘um's decision to submit to the Mongols and pay them tribute was because of fear of the likelihood of a Mongol attack on his lands: see, for example, the account of another contemporary writer, Grigor Aknerts‘i, where this is stated: “History of the Nation of the Archers”, edited and translated by R. P. Blake and R. N. Frye, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XII (1949; also reprinted with corrections appended, Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p. 313. This material is discussed in more detail in Stewart, Angus, “Alliance with the Tartars: The Armenian kingdom, the Mongols, and the Latins”, in La Méditerranée des Arméniens, XII^e - XV^e siècle, (ed.) Mutafian, Claude, (Paris, 2014), pp. 208-209Google Scholar.

⁶ On this dilemma, see Jackson, “The Crisis in the Holy Land”, especially pp. 503-507; also Jackson, The Mongols and the West (Harlow, 2005), pp. 119-123.

⁷ On the development of the Mongol-Mamluk conflict, see Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Īlkhānid war, 1260-1281 (Cambridge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ On the development of Ilkhanid-Latin relations see, for example, Jackson, The Mongols and the West, pp. 165-195; Meyvaert, Paul, “An unknown letter of Hulagu, Il-Khan of Persia, to King Louis IX of France”, Viator, XI (1980), pp. 245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richard, Jean, Au-delà de la Perse et de l'Arménie: L'Orient latin et la découverte de l'Asie intérieure (Turnhout, 2005), especially pp. 175-193Google Scholar; Richard, “D’Älǧigidäi à Ġazan: La continuité d'une politique franque chez les Mongols d'Iran”, in L'Iran face à la domination mongole, (ed.) Denise Aigle (Tehran, 1997), pp. 57-69.

⁹ On Armenian contributions to Mongol campaigns, see Canard, M., “Le royaume d'Arménie-Cilicie et les Mamelouks jusqu'au traité de 1285”, Revue des études arméniennes IV (1967), pp. 223, 244Google Scholar; Amitai-Preiss. Mongols and Mamluks, pp. 183, 189; Stewart, Angus, The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks (Leiden, 2001), pp. 136-152Google Scholar. These contributions could even be noted by Persian sources: see, for example, Rashīd al-Dīn’s account of the Ilkhan Ghazan's invasion of Syria in 1299-1300, in W. M. Thackston's translation, Jami‘u't-tawarikh – Compendium of Chronicles, 3 vols (Cambridge, MA, 1998-99), iii, pp. 646-647.

¹⁰ For details and translations of the treaty arranged in 1285 between King Lewon II and Sultan Qalawun, which arranged for the payment of this tribute, see Canard, “Le royaume d'Arménie-Cilicie”, pp. 247-259; and Holt, P. M., Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260-1290): Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian Rulers (Leiden, 1995), pp. 92-103Google Scholar.

¹¹ Gospel book copied for Catholicos Kostandin I, Hṙomkla, 1260 (Jerusalem, Arm. Patr. 251). On this work, see Bołarean, N., Mayr ts‘uts‘ak dzeüagrats‘ Srbots‘ Yakobants‘ 11 vols (Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts) (Jerusalem, 1966-1995), ii, pp. 14-23Google Scholar.

¹² On T‘oros Rōslin and his works, see Der Nersessian, Sirarpie, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia 2 vols (Washington, 1993), i, pp. 51-76Google Scholar; see also Narkiss, Bazalel (ed.), Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1980), pp. 47-54Google Scholar; and Dickran Kouymjian, Arts of Armenia, cap. 2, “Miniatures”, section H, “Cilician Period” (http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/miniatures.htm).

¹³ Narkiss, Armenian Art Treasures, p. 47; Evans, Helen C., “Cilician Manuscript Illumination: the Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Centuries”, in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts, (ed.) Mathews, Thomas F. and Wieck, Roger S. (New York, 1994), p. 74Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 58.

¹⁵ For example, see his depiction of the Harrowing of Hell in another Jerusalem manuscript, from 1265 (Arm. Patr. 1956, fol. 110), reproduced in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 216; for a discussion of his innovations in composition, see Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, pp. 61-66. Possible Western European influence on the compositions of T‘oros Rōslin have also been suggested: see, for example, the arch of celestial angels in the Nativity image from his 1260 Gospel Book discussed below, for which Western comparisons are identified by Chookaszian, Levon, “L'art occidental, l'art français et la miniature arménienne du XIII^e siècle”, in L’Église arménienne entre Grecs et Latins, fin XI^e – milieu XV^e siècle, (ed.) Augé, Isabelle and Dédéyan, Gérard (Paris, 2009), pp. 112-113Google Scholar. Sources of possible Latin Christian influence on T‘oros Rōslin are also considered by Evans, Helen C., “Armenian Art Looks West: T‘oros Ṛoslin's Zēyt‘un Gospels”, in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, (ed.) Mathews, Thomas F. and Wieck, Roger S. (New York, 1998), pp. 103-114Google Scholar. The relationship of Armenian religious art and the Byzantine-mediated model is discussed in Kouymjian, Dickran, “Armenian Gospel Illumination and the Classical Tradition”, in Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament, (ed.) Ajamian, S. and Stone, M. E. (Atlanta, 1994), pp. 59-73Google Scholar; and also by Weyl Carr, Annemarie, “Icon-Tact: Byzantium and the Art of Cilician Armenia”, in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, (ed.) Mathews, Thomas F. and Wieck, Roger S. (New York, 1998), pp. 73-102Google Scholar. Carr argues that “common characteristics unite the art of Byzantium and Armenia”; for example, “manuscripts display the biblical events in shared conventions that are as recurrent and recognizable as the words of the Bible itself”; and “as well as sharing this germinal Christian vocabulary, the two traditions were linked by recurrent artistic interchanges”; nevertheless, “the art of Byzantium and the art of Armenia are so different as to challenge the very utility of such phylogenetic abstractions” (p. 73). Part of the discussion of this thesis focuses on T‘oros Rōslin, and specifically his Gospel Book of 1262, now in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (MS W.539): pp. 84-92.

¹⁶ See for example his introduction of portraits of Old Testament prophets to his depictions of the canon tables – prophets whose texts relate typographically to the relevant New Testament episodes: Narkiss, Armenian Art Treasures, p. 51.

¹⁷ Narkiss, Armenian Art Treasures, p. 53. Evans argues that “the most original aspect of Ṛoslin's works . . . is the richness of his narrative illuminations”: “Cilician Manuscript Illumination”, p. 74.

¹⁸ Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 56.

¹⁹ This image is at fol. 15v. See also Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 212; and Claude Mutafian, L'Arménie du Levant (XI^e-XIV^e siècle) (Paris, 2012), ii, Fig. 122

²⁰ See Meredith, Cecilia, “The Illustration of Codex Ebnerianus: A Study in Liturgical Illustration of the Comnenian period”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXIX (1966), pp. 419-424CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of points of comparison between miniatures by T‘oros Rōslin and Byzantine manuscript illustration, especially concerning Evangelist portraits, see Chookaszian, Levon, “L'Oeuvre de T‘oros Rōslin et l'enluminure Byzantine”, Revue des études arméniennes, XXVIII (2001-2), pp. 399–424Google Scholar.

²¹ For a more conventional frontispiece portrait of Matthew by T‘oros Rōslin, see, for example, the 1265 Jerusalem manuscript (Arm. Patr. 1956, fol. 14v), reproduced in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 193. For reproductions of the other Evangelist portraits in the 1260 Gospel Book, see Narkiss (ed.), Armenian Art Treasures, Fig. 62 (Mark; fol. 102v); Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 192 (Luke; fol. 160v); and Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 186 (John; fol. 255v). According to Der Nersessian, the portrait of Luke in this manuscript is probably the work of an assistant: Miniature Painting, i, p. 57.

²² The various other elements of the composition – the Shepherds, the midwives washing Jesus, etc. –are all described by labels as well, generally in less emphasised lower case, though the label for the infant Christ on his mother's knee is also in bold capitals.

²³ For example, see the version by T‘oros Rōslin himself, in a Gospel Book from 1268 also commissioned by Kostandin I, now in Erevan (Matenadaran 10675, fol. 177; in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 213); or an example from another Jerusalem manuscript (Arm. Patr. 2568, fol. 8v), by an unknown but different hand, but commissioned by Prince Vasak, who was also a patron of T‘oros Rōslin (in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 380).

²⁴ This may reflect the tradition that the Magi visited the Holy Family a dozen nights after the nativity. While in the early Church the Adoration of the Magi was celebrated on the same day as the Nativity on January 6, by the thirteenth century, certainly in Western and Armenian traditions, the Nativity had moved to its earlier date while the Magi's arrival was still celebrated at Epiphany. See, e.g., the Armenian Synaxarion dated to 1269 by Kirakos Arewelts‘i, in (ed) G. Bayan's translation, “Le Synaxaire Arménien de Ter Israel, V: Mois de Kalotz”, Patrologia orientalis, XVIII (1924), pp. 102-103 (Nativity – 17 k‘ałots‘ / 25 December), pp. 186-192 (discussion of the dates of the Nativity and Epiphany), pp. 193-195 (Epiphany and arrival of the Magi – 29 k‘ałots‘ / 6 January). See also Bisgaard, Lars, “A Black Mystery: the Hagiography of the Three Magi”, in Medieval History Writing and Crusading Ideology, (ed.) Lehtonen, Tuomas M.S. and Villads Jensen, Kurt (Helsinki, 2005), p. 121Google Scholar.

²⁵ For two more conventionally arranged versions of this by T‘oros Rōslin, see the Washington Freer Gallery Adoration (Ms. 32.18, pp. 8-9; attributed to Rōslin, and dated to ca 1268; in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 183); or the Erevan Adoration of 1268 (Matenadaran 10675, fol. 19; in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 184).

²⁶ “Mogk‘ yarevelits‘ ekin”. Note that the label for the Evangelist portrait in the compartment below the main scene, “St Matthew writes his Gospel” (sbn Mat‘eos gr˙ē ziwr av etarann), is similarly emphasised by a blue background.

²⁷ Leonid Ouspensky, in idem and Lossky, Vladimir, The Meaning of Icons (revised edition, Crestwood, New Yoir, 1983), p. 160.Google Scholar

²⁸ Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 60.

²⁹ Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 539, fol. 19; reproduced in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, Fig. 215.

³⁰ Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 60.

³¹ Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 61.

³² Bołarean, Mayr ts‘uts‘ak dzeüagrats‘ Srbots‘ Yakobants‘, ii, pp. 17-18.

³³ For the former interpretation, see Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 60.

³⁴ Claude Mutafian translates it as ‘le tatare est arrivé aujourd'hui’: L'Arménie du Levant, i, p. 147, and ii, Fig. 122.

³⁵ Narkiss, Armenian Art Treasures, p. 52; Narkiss translates the label as “the day when the Tatars are coming”.

³⁶ Mutafian, L'Arménie du Levant, i, p. 147, asks if “ne serait-ce pas là Houlagou lui-même, ainsi identifié à un Roi mage qui serait le Tatare [. . .] arrive aujourd'hui?”

³⁷ Hebraeus, Bar, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, 2 vols., edited and translated by Wallis Budge, E. A. (London, 1932), i, p. 435.Google Scholar

³⁸ Bołarean, Mayr ts‘uts‘ak dzeüagrats‘ Srbots‘ Yakobants‘, ii, pp. 17-18.

³⁹ Mutafian, L'Armenie du Levant, i, p. 147, suggests that T‘oros Rōslin must have attended the meeting between Hülegü and the catholicos – assuming such a meeting took place. He also suggests that “l'arrivée de l'armée tatare étant perçue comme une providence”.

⁴⁰ Dickran Kouymjian argues that these new motifs of Chinese origin in Armenian miniatures were not used ignorantly, but rather their symbolic meaning was fully understood and exploited. This argument is developed in a series of articles: “Chinese Elements in Armenian Miniature Painting in the Mongol Period”, in Armenian Studies/Études Arméniennes: In Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, (ed.) Dickran Kouymjian (Lisbon, 1986), pp. 415-86; “Chinese Motifs in Thirteenth Century Armenian Art: the Mongol Connection”, in Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, (ed.) Linda Komaroff (Leiden, 2006), pp. 303-324; “The Intrusion of East Asian Imagery in Thirteenth Century Armenia: Political and Cultural Exchange along the Silk Road”, in The Journey of Maps and Images on the Silk Road, (ed.) Phillippe Forêt and Andreas Kaplony (Leiden, 2008), pp. 119-133; “Chinese Dragons and Phoenixes among the Armenians” in Civilizational Contribution of Armenia in the History of the Silk Road, (ed.) A. A. Melkʻonyan (Erevan, 2012), pp. 227-253. In the latter essay the relationship of iconography found in the Takht-i Sulaymān tiles and in Armenian miniatures is discussed at length.

⁴¹ For the suggestion that silks produced in Cilicia in the early fourteenth century were produced after a ‘Tartar’ fashion, see Jacoby, David, “Silk Economics and Cross-Cultural Artistic Interaction: Byzantium, the Muslim World, and the Christian West”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, LVIII (2004), p. 233.Google Scholar

⁴² It has been suggested that such use of specifically Mongol figures in a Christian context may not be unique in the contemporary Near Eastern context. Jean Maurice Fiey identified an image of Helena and Constantine with the True Cross in a Syriac lectionary now in Rome (Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana; Vat. sir. 559, f. 223v), which he dates to 1260, as being in effect a double portrait of Hülegü and his Christian wife Doquz Khatun: Fiey, J. M., “Iconographie Syriaque: Hulagu, Doquz Khatun . . . et six ambons?”, Le Museon, LXXXVIII (1975), pp. 59–68Google Scholar; for an illustration in colour of this image, see Lenzi, G., “Lezionario dei Vangeli. Siriaco”, in I Vangeli dei Popoli: La parola e l'immagine del Cristo nelle culture e nella storia, (ed.) D'Aiuto, Francesco, Morello, Giovanni and Piazzoni, Ambrogio M. (Vatican City, 2000), p. 309Google Scholar, Fig. 75. Fiey's identification here is based on Constantine's Mongol physiognomy, and the couple's robes, which show oriental designs. It is clear that Doquz Khatun did have a very good reputation among Christians in the Near East. Contemporary Armenian sources, for example, note how she intervened on behalf of the Christian population of Baghdad to prevent their massacre: see for example, Vardan Arewelts‘i, in Thomson's, Robert W. translation “The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc‘i”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers XLIII (1989), p. 217Google Scholar; Kirakos Ganjakets‘i, Patmut‘yun Hayots‘, (ed.) Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, p. 382. Another Armenian observer, Step‘annos Orbēlean, even went so far as to refer to the pair as being “not any less in piety than Constantine and his mother Helena”, while referring to Hülegü as “the great and pious conqueror, the hope and expectation of Christians”, and describing Doquz as ‘all-blessed’: Patmut‘iwn nahangin Sisakan arareal Step‘annosi Orbēlean ark‘episkopi Siwneac‘, (ed.) K. Šahnazareanc‘ (Paris, 1859; reprinted Tiflis, 1910), p. 419. That such sentiments were recorded at the time, albeit in a different Near Eastern Christian community, may nevertheless add some reinforcement to interpretation of this image as an intentional symbiosis of Christian Roman and Mongol royalty.

Interestingly, the contemporary Syriac observer of (and, at Aleppo, unwilling participant in) these affairs, Bar Hebraeus, does not mention Doquz Khatun as the protector of the Christians of Baghdad – the credit is given to the (Syriac) Catholicus – but he does later state that she was noted as a “believing queen and lover of Christ”: Chronography, translated by Budge, i, pp. 431, 435. Similarly, the Armenian Grigor Aknerts‘i does not refer to Doquz Khatun's intervention at Baghdad, but later states that Hülegü “was very good, loving Christians, the church, and priests” (something of a theme in this work) and also that “his blessed wife . . . was good in every way . . . [and] very much loved by all Christians, Armenians and Syrians, so that she had a tent church and a sounder [of the call to mass] who travelled with her, and many Armenian and Syrian priests”: “History of the Nation of the Archers”, edited and translated by Blake and Frye, pp. 340-341 (see also p. 178 of the 1954 reprinting).

Nevertheless, it is not at all clear that Fiey's interpretation of this image should be accepted. This Vatican manuscript has a very close relationship with another lectionary (London, B.L. Add. 7170), which includes a very similar image of Constantine and Helena with Central Asian appearance, but which is securely dated to 1215-22. This suggests that, even if the Vatican lectionary is dated to 1260, rather than being a response to current affairs this depiction of Constantine and Helena represents a pre-Mongol iconographic tradition, perhaps relating to contemporary Islamic depictions of Seljuk-era Turkish rulers. On these two manuscripts, and their relationship, see, e.g., Buchtal, Hugo, “The Painting of the Syrian Jacobites in relation to Byzantine and Islamic Art”, Syria XX (1939), pp. 136-150CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leroy, Jules, Les manuscrits syriaques à peintures conserves dans les bibliothèques d'Europe et d'Orient (Paris, 1964), pp. 280-313Google Scholar; and now Snelders, Bas, Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction: Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area (Leuven, 2010), pp. 151-213Google Scholar.

⁴³ For a colour reproduction, see Weitzmann, Kurt, “The Icons of the Period of the Crusades”, in The Icon, (ed.) Weitzmann et al. (New York, 1982), p. 221Google Scholar. The beam as a whole is discussed in the context of other such beams at Sinai by Weitzmann, Kurt, “Icon Programs of the 12^th and 13^th Centuries at Sinai”, Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archaiologikēs Hetaireias, XII (1984), pp. 82–86Google Scholar; the Nativity icon is briefly discussed. Another discussion of this beam, alongside another one also thought to be ‘crusader’ work, is by Zeitler, Barbara, “Two Iconostasis Beams from Mount Sinai: Object Lessons in Crusader Art”, in The Iconostasis: Origins – Evolution – Symbolism, (ed.) Lidov, Alexei (Moscow, 2000), pp. 223-242Google Scholar. The whole beam is discussed by Cotsonis, John, and reproduced in colour, in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557), (ed.) Evans, Helen C. (New York, 2004), pp. 362-363Google Scholar, and Fig. 220.

⁴⁴ Weitzmann, Kurt, “Icon Painting in the Crusader Kingdom”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XX (1966), p. 62Google Scholar. In contrast, Zeitler points out that there is no evidence that the beam was made at or for Sinai, nor that a designated Latin-rite chapel existed there in the thirteenth century: “Two Iconostasis Beams”, pp. 227-230.

⁴⁵ Folda, Jaroslav, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the fall of Acre, 1187-1291 (Cambridge, 2005), p. 318.Google Scholar See also Folda, Jaroslav, “The Figural Arts in Crusader Syria and Palestine, 1187-1291: Some New Realities”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, LVIII (2004), pp. 315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Folda, “Crusader Artistic Interactions with the Mongols in the Thirteenth Century: Figural Imagery, Weapons, and the Çintimani Design”, in Interactions: Artistic Interchange Between the Eastern and Western Worlds in the Medieval Period, (ed.) Colum Hourihane (Princeton, 2007), pp. 147-166. Zeitler problematises the concept of ‘crusader’ icons and challenges the assumption that this beam must necessarily have been the work of a Latin-rite artist: “Two Iconostasis Beams”, pp. 232-234.

⁴⁶ On the development of the representation of the Adoration of the Magi/Three Kings, see, e.g., Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, translated by Seligman, Janet (London, 1971), I, pp. 94-117Google Scholar. For an account of the development in the West of the idea that the three Magi were of royal stock, see, e.g., Bisgaard, “A Black Mystery”, p. 122; Bisgaard suggests that while the attribution can be seen earlier, in illustrations it was more especially from the “tenth and eleventh century . . . that crowns began to appear on their heads”. Certainly, by the twelfth century, and the development of the cult of the Three Kings at Cologne, this representation had become commonplace.

⁴⁷ Weitzmann, “Icon Painting”, p. 63.

⁴⁸ Weitzmann, “Icons of the Period of the Crusades”, p. 204. See also Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, pp. 60-61, n. 46, where Weitzmann's identification of the Sinai Mongol Magus as Kitbugha is rejected. Folda responds explicitly to this criticism: Crusader Art, p. 634, n. 711. Neither note, however, provides a convincing account of contemporary confessional and diplomatic politics. Zeitler states that the “suggestion . . . that this figure represents the Mongol general Kitbuqa . . . is surely fanciful”: “Two Iconostasis Beams”, p. 226.

⁴⁹ Weitzmann, “Icon Painting”, p. 63. This passage is also quoted by Folda: Crusader Art, p. 321; “Figural Arts”, p. 324; “Crusader Artistic Interactions”, p. 149.

⁵⁰ Folda's argument is given in “Figural Arts”, pp. 323-329; and Crusader Art, pp. 320-324. The two versions are identical in places.

⁵¹ Crusader Art, p. 321; also, “Figural Arts”, p. 326: “His physiognomy is characterized as Mongol, and he wears a typical Mongol cap”. For a discussion of what this ‘typical’ Mongol cap may have been, and how it was perceived, see Stewart, Angus, “If the Cap Fits: Going Mongol in Thirteenth Century Syria”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, XXVI (2016), pp. 137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar; these images are discussed at pp. 144-146.

⁵² For the conflict in the county of Tripoli, see for example, the account of the Gestes des Chiprois, (ed.) Gaston Paris, Louis de Mas Latrie and Charles Kohler, in Recueil des historiens des croisades: documents arméniens 2 vols. (Paris, 1869-1906), ii, pp. 748-750; in general, see, e.g., Richard, Jean, The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291, translated by Birrell, J. (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 461-462Google Scholar.

⁵³ Crawford, Paul (translator), The ‘Templar of Tyre’: Part III of the ‘Deeds of the Cypriots’ (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 34-35Google Scholar; see also the Gestes des Chiprois, (ed.) Paris, Mas Latrie and Kohler, p. 751.

⁵⁴ On these events in Aleppo, see al-Ḥalabī, ʿIzz al-Dīn Muḥammad Ibn Shaddād, al-Aʾlāq al-khaṭīra fī dhikr umarāʾ al-shām wa'l-jazīra, 1:i, Taʾrīkh ḥalab, (ed.) Sourdel, Dominique (Damascus, 1953)Google Scholar, p. 36; see also Canard, “Le royaume d'Arménie-Cilicie”, p. 219. When the Mongols under Ghazan occupied Damascus in 1300, the Armenian forces accompanying them are singled out in the Arabic accounts as being responsible for a series of atrocities, and there is some support for this in the rather more positive accounts by sources sympathetic to the invasion. For a discussion of this aspect of the occupation, see Stewart, The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks, pp. 141-145.

⁵⁵ ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Ibn, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir fī sīrat al-malik al-Ẓāhir, (ed.) al-Khuwayṭir, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (Riyāḍ, 1976), pp. 299-300Google Scholar. Antioch was taken by Baybars amid great massacre, in 1268, following which the sultan wrote a letter describing the events to Bohemond, and upbraiding him; again, no mention is made of his actions in Damascus: al-Rawḍ al-zāhir, pp. 307-309 (the attack), pp. 309-313 (the letter). Peter Jackson, in his discussion of the incident, refers to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir's account of these events: “The Crisis in the Holy Land”, p. 486. For Baybars’ attack on Bohemond's lands in 1268, see, for example, Thorau, Peter, The Lion of Egypt: Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the Thirteenth Century, translated by Holt, P. M. (London, 1992), pp. 189-192.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ According to the Chronicle attributed to Smbat Sparapet, Hülegü, accompanied by King Het‘um, broke through the walls of Aleppo and “entering the city they marched on the citadel and drawing their swords, mercilessly slaughtered the nation of the Ismaelites”, plundering the Christian population; “taking their booty and captives they proceeded to Damascus, and subjugated the towns . . . as far as Jerusalem” (Der Nersessian, “The Armenian Chronicle”, p. 160; see also La Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, translated by Dédéyan, p. 105). According to Kirakos Ganjakets‘i, Hülegü took Aleppo by storm and began to destroy it, but halted the destruction when the garrison in the citadel submitted. He then went to Damascus where he was received with tribute, peacefully: Patmut‘yun Hayots‘, (ed.) Melik‘-Ohanjanyan, pp. 387-388. According to Grigor Aknerts‘i, Hülegü’s forces “took Aleppo, killed mercilessly, made captives, and gorged themselves on many treasures . . . when the people of Damascus learned that they had taken Aleppo, then they themselves, of their own will, gave over the city” to the Ilkhan: “History of the Nation of the Archers”, edited and translated by Blake and Frye, pp. 348-349. With regard to the length of Het‘um's attendance on the campaign, Vardan Arewelts i, does state that when Hülegü “took all the country of Sˇam [Syria], there was also with him our crowned Het‘um, who freed from death the Christians . . . in every place”: Thomson (translation) “The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc i”, pp. 217-218. There is, however, nothing explicitly said about his presence at Damascus. The colophon of T‘oros Rōslin's Gospel Book of 1260, mentioned above, refers, after the notice of its completion in the reigns of Möngke and Hülegü, to “the divine and pious king of Armenia Het‘um, . . . when he took the celebrated Halp [Aleppo], and all its cities and fortresses”: Bołarean, Mayr ts‘uts‘ak dzeüagrats‘ Srbots‘ Yakobants‘, ii, p. 18. The implication here is that the expedition was conducted by Het‘um himself, which certainly accentuates his role; but no mention is made of Damascus – though, of course, this could be because the manuscript was completed before news of any happenings there reached Hṙomkla.

⁵⁷ Jackson, The Mongols and the West, p. 117. In the same vein, Peter Thorau suggests that the account of the ‘Templar of Tyre’ is “as doubtful as [Bohemond's] actual presence” in Damascus at the time, pointing out that this is our only source for the event, “while all other sources, both Frankish and Arabic, are silent on the matter”: Thorau, The Lion of Egypt, pp. 68-69. Nevertheless, the story has left traces in accounts of the Mongol conquest of the city. David Morgan cautiously, and without going into detail, mentions “the famous scene in which Damascus was entered by the Mongols and their allies, allegedly headed by three Christians”, Bohemond, Het‘um and Kitbugha, which “might have seemed to herald a new era for the fortunes of Christianity in the land of its foundation”, pointing out, however, that this incident is only described in the Gestes des Chiprois: The Mongols (Oxford, 1986), pp. 154-155, and n. 34. J. J. Saunders, however, appears to take the story of the triumphal entry of the three at face value, and, without reference to sources, mentions that “one of the city mosques was converted into a church, Christian”: The History of the Mongol Conquests (London, 1971), p. 113Google Scholar. Joshua Prawer reports the whole story of the conversion of the mosque, and the actions of Bohemond and his followers in the city; on the basis that the source for the incident is itself Frankish, Prawer states that “Il n'y a pas à mettre en doute la matérialité des faits”: Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, translated by G. Nahon (Paris, 1969-70), ii, p. 426, and n. 14. For a detailed recent discussion of these events, which separates the later actions of the Christian population of Damascus from the Gestes des Chiprois story, often confused in accounts of the Mongol occupation, see Sourdel, Dominique, “Bohémond et les chrétiens à Damas sous l'occupation mongole”, in Dei Gesta per Francos: Études sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard, (ed.) Balard, Michel, Kedar, Benjamin Z. and Riley-Smith, Jonathan (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 295-299.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Folda, “The Figural Arts”, pp. 328-329; Crusader Art, p. 323.

⁵⁹ Crusader Art, p. 324; “Figural Arts”, p. 329.

⁶⁰ Crusader Art, p. 324; “Figural Arts”, p. 329.

⁶¹ Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1951-54), iii, p. 300Google Scholar; cited by Weitzmann, “Icon Painting”, p. 63; Folda, Crusader Art, pp. 321, 634; Folda, “Figural Arts”, p. 326.

⁶² Folda, “Crusader Artistic Interactions”, p. 150.

⁶³ Mūsā al-Yūnīnī, Quṭb al-Dīn, Dhayl mirʾāt al-zamān fī taʾrīkh al-aʿyān (4 vols; Ḥaydarābād, 1954-61), ii, pp. 33-36Google Scholar; see Amitai, Reuven, “An Arabic biographical notice of Kitbughā, the Mongol general defeated at ʿAyn Jālūt”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, XXXIII (2007), pp. 219-234Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ “Figural Arts”, p. 328.

⁶⁵ Pace, Valentino, “Italy and the Holy Land: Import Export. I. The Case of Venice”, in The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, (ed.) Goss, Vladimir P. (Kalamazoo, 1986), p. 333Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Folda, Crusader Art, p. 635, n. 726.

⁶⁷ Zeitler, “Two Iconostasis Beams”, p. 230; see also Mouriki, D., “Icons from the 12^th to the 15^th Century”, in Sinai: Tresures of the Monastery, (ed.) Manafis, Konstantinos A. (Athens, 1990), pp. 102-103Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Zeitler, “Two Iconostasis Beams”, pp. 232-234.; Zeitler's study of this and another beam concludes that “if these two epistyle beams tell us anything at all, it is that, within the specific circumstances of the eastern Mediterranean in the thirteenth century, we cannot pronounce with confidence whether an artist was Syrian, Greek or Venetian. Rather, these two beams emerge as products that are specifically Levantine and that, therefore, could have functioned in a variety of contexts”.

⁶⁹ For all of this material, see Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, p. 138.

⁷⁰ For this tale, and a discussion of its analogues, see The King of Tars, (ed.) Judith Perryman (Heidelberg, 1980).

⁷¹ Grigor Aknerts‘i, “History of the Nation of Archers”, edited and translated by Blake and Frye, pp. 286-287.

⁷² Grigor Aknerts‘i, “History of the Nation of Archers”, edited and translated by Blake and Frye, pp. 294-297.

⁷³ A critical translation of Smbat's letter, based on the various surviving versions, is in Richard, Jean, “La lettre du Connétable Smbat et les rapports entre Chrétiens et Mongols au milieu du XIII^ème siècle”, in Études arméniennes in memoriam Haïg Berbérian, (ed.) Kouymjian, Dickran (Lisbon, 1986), pp. 688-692.Google Scholar Hayton's Flor des estoires is edited in Recueil des historiens des croisades: documents arméniens 2 vols. (Paris, 1869-1906), ii, pp. 113-366.

⁷⁴ Richard, “La lettre du Connétable Smbat”, p. 690; translated in Jackson, Peter, The Seventh Crusade, 1244-54: Sources and Documents (Farnham, 2009), pp. 78-79Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ The passage continues: ‘The people of this land do not practice feats of arms, but are very skilled in the study of the arts and sciences. Most of them do not eat meat nor drink wine, nor do they kill any living thing. They have good and wealthy cities, and many great temples where they worship their idols that they hold in great reverence. In these lands wheat and other crops grow well, but they do not have vineyards, because they hold it a great sin to drink wine. This kingdom of Tharse is bordered to the east by the kingdom of Cathay; to the west by the kingdom of Turkestan; to the north by desert; to the south by a wealthy province called Sim, which is between the kingdom of Cathay and the kingdom of India; and in this land one finds fine diamonds.’ Hayton, Flor, pp. 122-123.

⁷⁶ Hayton, Flor, pp. 169-170 (Doquz Khatun), p. 174 (Kitbugha).

⁷⁷ Hayton, Flor, p. 174; this account of the attack on Sidon is discussed by Jackson, “Crisis in the Holy Land”, p. 485 (the circumstances of this event are analysed further at pp. 499-500).

⁷⁸ For a discussion of some of these themes, see Stewart, Angus, “The Armenian kingdom and the Near East: Het‘um of Gorigos and the Flor des estoires de la terre d'Orient”, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk eras, VII, (ed.) Vermeulen, Urbain, D'hulster, Kristof and Van Steenbergen, Jo (Leuven, 2013), pp. 525-548.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ On this, see Jackson, Mongols and the West, pp. 97-103, 175-176. Pope Innocent IV, in a letter of 1260, warned Edward, son of King Henry III of England, that the Mongols had a policy of simulating sympathy for Christians: see Rymer, Thomas (ed.), Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cujuscunque generis acta publica, inter reges Angliae et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, pontifices principes, vel, communitates habita aut tractata, I:i (revised edition, London, 1816), p. 403Google Scholar; and Jackson, Mongols and the West, p. 185.

⁸⁰ Ottonis Episcopi Frisingensis, “Chronica sive Historia de Duabus Civitatibus”, (ed.) Hofmeister, Adolf, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicum in usum scholarum, XLV (Hannover, 1912), pp. 366-367Google Scholar; translated by Mierow, C. C., The Two Cities: A chronicle of universal history to the year 1146 ad by Otto Bishop of Freising (New York, 1928), p. 444Google Scholar. On the relationship of Prester John and the Mongols, see, for example, Morgan, David, “Prester John and the Mongols”, in Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes, (ed.) Beckingham, Charles F. and Hamilton, Bernard (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 159-171Google Scholar; and de Rachewiltz, Igor, “Prester John and Europe's Discovery of East Asia”, East Asian History, XI (1996), pp. 59–74Google Scholar.

⁸¹ This development is traced, e.g., by Bernard Hamilton, “Continental Drift: Prester John's Progress through the Indies”, in Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes, (ed.) Beckingham and Hamilton, pp. 237-269, especially pp. 252-53. See also Kaplan, Paul H. D., The Rise of the Black Magus in Western Art (Ann Arbor, 1985), pp. 51-58Google Scholar.

⁸² For these developments in the representation of the Three Kings, see, e.g., Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, p. 112. For the development of the Black Magus in Western European art, see, e.g., Kaplan, Rise of the Black Magus, pp. 85-101. While Kaplan does point to possible earlier examples, he concludes that the evidence “suggests that the invention of an image of the Black Magus occurred at some point between about 1340 and 1375”, stressing that this coincides with textual affirmations of the idea, and also with “the growing tendency to place . . . Prester John in black Ethiopia, which begins a few decades before 1340, but becomes the norm only after that date” (pp. 85-86). Kaplan later points out that the depiction of one of the Magi as black only became standard across Western European art by the early sixteenth century (pp. 112-119).

⁸³ Lucy-Anne Hunt has identified another example from this period of a Nativity scene where the Magi are differentiated in terms of their appearance, again in a Syriac context. The sanctuary wall painting of the Syrian Jacobite church of al-ʿAdhrāʾ at Dayr al-Suryan in Wadi al-Naṭrūn in Egypt, which has been somewhat tentatively dated to about 1225-50, depicts the Annunciation and Nativity. In the latter, Hunt suggests that the third, youngest Magus has ‘oriental’ features: see Hunt, Lucy-Anne, “Christian-Muslim Relations in Painting in Egypt of the Twelfth to mid-Thirteenth Centuries”, Cahiers archéologiques: fin de l'antiquité et moyen âge, XXXIII (1985), p. 122Google Scholar. It is possible that this example, along with that from Sinai, represents evidence for a developing Near Eastern tradition; its dating may be suggestive of a relationship with the rumours circulating at the time in the Near East and reported by participants in the Fifth Crusade (in Egypt from 1218-21), concerning the imminent arrival of a force led by a ‘King David’, who was identified as the son of Prester John: see, e.g., Jackson, Mongols and the West, p. 48. It would be tempting to see the Sinai icon as a later example of the same thing. It may well be, of course, that even if the dating of the Dayr al-Suryan example is accurate, its simultaneity with the Fifth Crusade, and the circulation of these rumours, is merely coincidental. It should also be stressed that the identification of the third Magus as being ‘oriental’ here is much less clear-cut; his face is only very slightly differentiated, if at all, from the other two Magi, and his clothing is of a similar style.

⁸⁴ Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, p. 60

⁸⁵ There are many examples of portraits in works from this period from the Armenian kingdom: see the discussion in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, pp. 154-162. Two near contemporary donor examples from Gospel Books are: the portrait of Queen Keran, King Lewon II and their children in the ‘Keran Gospels’, produced in Sis in Cilicia in 1272, by a scribe, Avetis, known to have worked on volumes illustrated by T‘oros Rōslin (Jerusalem, Arm. Patr. 2563, fol. 380; in Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, fig. 641); or that of Archbishop John, brother of King Het‘um I, depicting his ordination of priests, in a Gospel Book possibly produced in Akner in 1289 (Erevan, Matenadaran 197, fol. 341v; see also Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting, i, pp. 96-97, and fig. 645).

⁸⁶ For example, see the accounts of the betrayal of the Seljuk Sultan's mother and sister after the battle of Köse Dagh that confirmed the initial submission by Het‘um I to the Mongols: see p. 2 above.