The excavations and researches carried out in recent years in Anatolia, as well as in Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan, have shed a completely nix light on Turkish art. Our principal objective has been to examine, from various points of view, the links connecting monuments of architecture created in widely separated areas, and to reveal by means of plans and diagrams the unity and contiruity of Turkish art.
The place of Turkish art within Islamic Art as a whole has long been a subject of controversy. In those regions in which Islamic Art developed it was founded on an already on an established basis of pre-Islamic civilization, the most important of these being the Late Antique and Christian cultures of Syria, and the Sasanian arts of Iraq and Iran. The Arabic, Persian and Turkish elements added to these formed the basis of the development of Islamic Art. The majority of the states in the Islamic world were founded sy the Turks and for nearly one thousand years, from the 9th century onwards the Turks, apart from some minor instances, remained the dominant element in the Islamic world. Consequently, it is obvious that the development of Turkish art will pave been influenced by a number of different arts deriving from various countries. The tomb of Ismail the Samanid at Bukhara dating from the first half the roth centruy played an important role, as a monument of revolutionary design derived from the Sasanian fire-temples, in the development of Karakhanid and Seljuk tomb design, and to this added the influence of the external appearance of Buddhist stupas. The plan of the Ghaznevid palaces, itself derived from the Sasanids, shows the influence of Abbasid palace architecture. Other architectural forms such as the iwan, the squinch and the dome are also forms derived from the Sasanids. But in spite of this, in all monuments of Turkish art, in whatever geographical region they may be, one is immediately struck by a characteristic style which clearly distinguishes them from any other artistic productions.

In recent works dealing with the art of Islam, such as K. Otto-Dorn's volume Die Kunts des Islam published in 1964, and Ernst Grube's volume The World of Islam puslished in 1966, more than half the book is in each case devoted to Turkish art. In the work by Derek Hill and Oleg Grabar published in 1964 and 1967 entitled Islamic Architecture and Its Decoration A. D. 800-1500, about half the book is given up to Turkish art. Thus in works dealing with Islamic Art which are based on research carried out in recent years Turkish art occupies an increasingly important place.

The attractive works produced in architecture and the other arts in the Safavid period from the 16th century onwards refiect most vividly the marked difference of style between Iranian and Turkish works of art. Although forms deriving from the Seljuks are to be found in II-Khanid art and even in Safavid architecture wi find the real continuation of Great Seljuk art in all its various aspects not in Iran but in Anatolia. This is a powerful indication of the strength of continuety and development in Turkish art. As for the art produced by the Ottomans this might well be rescribed as a new and original exploitation, on a world scale, in landb that had witnessed the fusion of the various styles, in lands that had witnessed the fusion of the world's richest cultures, of all the various styles of Turkish art that had preceded it.

Treatment of such a subject as Turkish art with the tremendous temporal and geographical sweep which this covers demands that it shold be broken up into section. It seems more natural to consider it in terms of dyhasties since, with the constant invasions of the Middle Ages and the vast movements of populations this implies, geographical areas rarely have the requisite homogeneity to provide a firm basis for classification. On occasions the dyhastic and the geographical criteria come into conflict and, inevitably, displacement of some sort is required. But it has seemed less confusing to deal with, for example, the 9th century Tulunids of Egypt out of sequence and in association with the Syrian Zengids because the architevtural tradition they founded is more to be related to the Middle East than to Central Asia. It must also be remembered that classification in terms of dynasties is not just another way of giving dates; the Karakhanids, for example, survive well after the appearance of the Great Seljuks on the secene, but it has seemed more accurate to continue to speak of Karakhanid rather than Seljuk architecture in some cases because these earlier schools depended upon an older tradition and not uopn the innovations of the seljuks. Dating is not always secure but the works discussed in this volume have been dated as far as present state of our knowledge permits.