One of the most important results of this study, particularly with regard to the aim of describing the object being studied, is the documentation method for the mason’s marks that allow us to describe and document in detail mason’s marks observed in medieval Anatolian Turkish architecture. A documentation method for mason’s marks has been established that provides us with a means of examining the mason’s marks on either a single structure or the Anatolian Seljuk period structures as a whole, and an example has been presented by implementing the method on a selected monument. As most scholars in Europe researching mason’s marks are historians, the identification and documentation of mason’s marks have been carried out and evaluations made without paying attention to the building process. Many scholars have evaluated the mason’s marks according to their locations and defined them according to their positions on the interior or exterior, while ignoring the building process. Such descriptions do not provide for identification of many data and lead to weak evaluations. However, in the documentation of the mason’s marks, a grouping based on their locations on vertical carriers (continuous carriers: wall; spot carriers: column, pier), superstructure (arch, vault, dome) and constructional elements will facilitate the efforts to determine where the masons or groups worked and what their qualities were. In the documentation table for mason’s marks, the “name of the building”, “construction date” and “location” are given first for the monument to be studied. The “inventory number” is for 327 marks documented on 73 monuments in 2000 and this number has reached 455 today. In the column for “mason’s mark”, the mark itself is drawn. “Type of the mark” inquires whether this mark is an identity or a pragmatist mark. Marks considered pragmatist according to their forms or to their use together with other marks must be written here together with the other identity marks. Apart from the blocks which bear a pragmatist mark together with an identity mark, blocks with more than one identity mark may indicate that masons with different identity marks worked together on the same part of the building, or the same mason’s mark appearing more than once on a single block may indicate the number of those working in the group. It is therefore important to look for other marks together on the same block. Checking the size of the marks may lead to identification of local masons of Anatolia or those itinerant ones coming from other regions of medieval Mediterranean; or, changes in the size of mason’s marks over time may be used to inquire about the quarry or identification of identity marks. The “stoneworking technique” category shows from which mason’s mark that particular mark was made and may facilitate distinguishing between quarry marks and mason’s marks or between different mason groups. “Type of stone” reveals which stone type was used for the construction of monuments in medieval Anatolian Turkish architecture. Detailed documentation of the location of the mark is very important; therefore, “location of the mark” is sub-divided into two as “covered section” and “open section” (courtyard), both of which are further sub-divided as vertical carriers (walls, piers), superstructure (arch, vault) and construction elements. Thus, it will be possible to identify which mason or mason groups worked at which part of the building and in which order; the phases of the construction process; and the quality of the masons. “Frequency of the mark” shows the frequency of the mark observed on the building and facilitates the identification of which mark belonged to an individual and which one belonged to a group. “Documentation type” indicates in what way the mark was documented. The data coming from the definition and documentation table need to be examined within an inventory system that will allow its evaluation within the entirety of the medieval Anatolian Turkish architecture. This inventory system has already been presented in previous publications but it is recommended that it be developed further based on the data contained in the mason’s marks documentation table. Examples of inventory form have been prepared in Excel for the mason’s marks of Ağzıkara Han; all the mason’s marks identified in the Anatolian and Mediterranean cultural heritage can be integrated into this system. Excel is insufficient for making more comprehensive projects, however. Therefore, it is hereby recommended that the data in the Mason’s Marks Documentation Table as well as the visual materials (photographs and impressions) be transferred to digital media and transformed into a multi-layered, interactive and transitive database and software based on a “geographical information system”.