339

 PALACE ARCHITECTURE AND ITS RHETORIC IN SELJUK ANATOLIA:

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF KUBADABAD

PALACE ARCHITECTURE AND ITS RHETORIC IN SELJUK ANATOLIA:

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF KUBADABAD

Thesis submitted to the

Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in

iv

ABSTRACT

Palace Architecture and Its Rhetoric in Seljuk Anatolia:

The Conceptualization of Kubadabad

The palace complex of Kubadabad near Beyşehir - regarding its good state of

preservation - provides an ideal object for the study of palace architecture and the

(courtly) rhetoric under the reign of the Rum-Seljuk Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I

(r.1219-1237).

This thesis offers a new perspective to the existing studies by identifying

common rhetorical methods, and tools that were used by the Sultan and Seljuk

courtiers to articulate courtly/ royal messages on power and kingship. It argues that -

in facing the process of renewal - nature has become a key element of the courtly/

imperial of rhetoric in the thirteenth century Seljuk Anatolia as far as the palace

architecture –i.e. the choice of architectural form, composition, and materials – and

court literature – i.e. historical narratives/ dynastic histories and advice literature –

took nature as a major model of thought and organization along with religion and

legends. The assumed influence of nature on architectural and literary rhetoric of

palaces will be examined based on two different sources on the extraordinary

example of Kubadabad: The first part of the study investigates the archaeological

data gathered from forty years of excavation at Kubadabad. The second part

discusses the work Al-Awamir al-Alaiyya fi’l-umr’ al-Alaiyya written by the

contemporary Seljuk courtier Ibn Bibi regarding architectural references and

rhetorical elements.

v

ÖZET

Selçuklu Anadolu’sunda Saray Mimarisi ve Retoriği:

Kubadabad’ın Kavramsallaştırılması

Beyşehir yakınlarındaki Kubadabad saray külliyesi, iyi korunma durumu sayesinde,

Anadolu Selçuklu Sultanı Alâeddin Keykubad I (r.1219-1237) dönemi saray

mimarisi için ideal bir örnek teşkil etmektedir.

Aşağıdaki tez sarayın iktidar ve hükümdarlığa ilişkin mesajlarını ifade etmek

için kullandığı retorik yöntemleri ve araçları tanımlayarak mevcut çalışmalara yeni

bir bakış açısı sunmaktadır. Tezde bu olağanüstü örnek iki farklı kaynağa dayanarak

tartışmaktadır: Tezin birinci bölümü Kubadabad'da kırk yıl boyunca yapılan kazı

çalışmalarından elde edilen arkeolojik verileri incelemektedir. İkinci bölüm ise İbn

Bibi tarafından yazılmış el-Evâmirü'l-Alâiyye fi'l-umûri'l-Alâiyye adlı eserde verilen

mimari referansları ve kullanılan retorik ögeleri araştırmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar

ışığında, çevre ve/veya doğanın gerek saray mimarisinde gerekse saray edebiyatında

görüldüğü üzere on üçüncü yüzyıl Selçuklu Anadolu’sunda kullanılan ana düşünce

modellerinden biri olduğu öne sürülmektedir.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 KUBADABAD AS A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ENTITY ....... 1

1.1 Period and patron ......................................................................................... 3

1.2 Discovery and excavations ........................................................................ 10

1.3 Literature review ........................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 2 PALACE ARCHITECTURE AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENT .. 25

2.1 Kubadabad and its scope: The palace complex and its environment ......... 25

2.2 Courts, walls, and access: Organization of the complex ........................... 37

2.3 Palace architecture and decoration ............................................................. 47

2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 75

CHAPTER 3 IBN BIBI’S PALATIAL NARRATIVES ..................................... 78

3.1 Author, work, and patron ........................................................................... 79

3.2 Architecture, warfare, and patronage ......................................................... 87

3.3 Government, palaces, and ceremonies ....................................................... 92

3.4 Pleasantness of Kubadabad and sultan’s order to build an edifice there . 104

3.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 117

CHAPTER 4 RHETORIC OF PALACE ........................................................... 121

4.1 Character of Kubadabad: City, caravanserai, or a countryside palace? ... 121

4.2 Tools of rhetoric/ Rhetoric of architecture ............................................... 124

4.3 Rhetoric of renewal .................................................................................. 127

APPENDIX A MAP OF SELJUK CARAVANSERIAS AND SILK ROUTE ...... 131

APPENDIX B VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF AL-AWAMIR ................ 132

APPENDIX C IBN BIBI'S CHAPTER ON KUBADABAD (FACSIMILE) ......... 135

APPENDIX D IBN BIBI'S CHAPTER ON KUBADABAD (TRANSLATION) .. 138

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 140

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the Seljuk Sultanate in Anatolia between 1071-1243 made by the

author ............................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Topographical map of the Kubadabad Palace Complex by Curtis

Campaigne ..................................................................................................... 27

Figure 3. Map showing Kubadabad Complex and the extent of the settlement ........ 30

Figure 4. Detail from the original Seljuk inscription from the mosque of Kubadabad

........................................................................................................................ 32

Figure 5. Map of the Kubadabad Palace Complex showing the different courts,

important buildings, and access ways ............................................................ 39

Figure 6. Plan of the second court with indicated access ways ................................. 44

Figure 7. Plan of the third court with indicated access ways ..................................... 46

Figure 8. Plan of the Great Palace ............................................................................. 51

Figure 9. Ground floor plan of the Small Palace ....................................................... 51

Figure 10. North-south section from the Small Palace .............................................. 53

Figure 11. Combined plan showing the floor coverings of the rooms (I-e, I-g, I-h, I-I,

I-j, I-k) in the Great Palace ............................................................................. 55

Figure 12. Photo of the stucco niches found in-situ in the room (I-h) ....................... 59

Figure 13. Stucco fragment showing a hunting scene ............................................... 59

Figure 14. Tile dado panel in the Great Palace .......................................................... 61

Figure 15. Square tile with a figure on horseback from Konya Kiosk, Konya .......... 63

Figure 16. Star-shaped tile showing a figure with bow and arrow from Kubadabad 63

Figure 17. Reconstruction of a tile panel with depictions of various animals, simurg

and human figures from Great Palace in Kubadabad, Konya Karatay Museum

........................................................................................................................ 65

Figure 18. Star-shaped tiles with duck and peacock motifs surrounded by floral

motifs from Kubadabad ................................................................................. 68

Figure 19. Three tiles in different techniques showing a seated human figure

surrounded by plants from Kubadabad .......................................................... 68

Figure 20. Fragment of a star-shaped luster tile with a human figure working in the

garden from Kubadabad ................................................................................. 68

viii

Figure 21. Illustration from kitab al-diryaq showing a human figure working in the

garden ............................................................................................................. 68

Figure 22. Star-shaped tile showing a human figure working in the garden from

Keykubadiye .................................................................................................. 68

Figure 23. Fragments from square tiles with an inscription band around a central

medallion ........................................................................................................ 70

Figure 24. Star-shaped tiles with epigraphic decorations .......................................... 70

Figure 25. Star-shaped tile showing a double-headed eagle motif with an “al-sultan”

inscription from the Great Palace ................................................................... 71

Figure 26. Fragment of a cross-shaped tile ................................................................ 71

Figure 27. City walls of Konya by Leon de la Borde ............................................... 91

Figure 28. Ibn Bibi, "El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye: (Selçuk Name)

Tıpkıbasım." edited by Adnan Sadık Erzi: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi,

1956, 352. ..................................................................................................... 135

Figure 29. Ibn Bibi, "El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye: (Selçuk Name)

Tıpkıbasım." edited by Adnan Sadık Erzi: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi,

1956, 353. ..................................................................................................... 136

Figure 30. Ibn Bibi, "El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye: (Selçuk Name)

Tıpkıbasım." edited by Adnan Sadık Erzi: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi,

1956, 354. ..................................................................................................... 137

1

CHAPTER 1

KUBADABAD AS A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ENTITY

The historical value of palaces - amongst other royal patronages – lies in the

multiplicity of their functions that go beyond the basic architectural function of

providing shelter for the dynasty and members of ruling classes. Palaces serve as

seats of government that contain spaces for administrative, political, and ceremonial

functions. Finally, palaces take on representative and rhetorical tasks, in displaying

the wealth and power of their patron through their architectural and decorative

qualities. In this sense, it might be very helpful in understanding the historical

context of this period.

Irene Winter has emphasized the importance and role of the palace

architecture in the ancient Near East rhetorical function of the palace was “as

essential as its residential, administrative, productive, and ceremonial functions” as

far as it was constructed

“as a mirror of the king. It is a physical manifestation of the ruler's power

and ability to build; and at the same time, by having built so impressively,

the ruler has further demonstrated his power and ability to command

resources, induce astonishment, and create a fitting seat of government-in

short, to rule.”1

Following this idea, the Seljuk Sultan Ala al-Din Kaykubad I (r. 616–35 H / 1219–37

CE) seem to have named his palatial patronages such as Keykubadiye outside of

Kayseri, Kubadabad near Beyşehir, or the castle in Ala’iyya giving its name to the

today’s city Alanya. The similarities in the names, environments, plans and the

decoration of these palaces reflect the progress of centralization within the growing

1 Winter, "Seat of kingship / A wonder to behold: The palace as construct in the ancient Near East,"

Ars Orientalis 23, no. Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces (1993): 38.

2

and strengthening Sultanate. The growth of the realm in Anatolia and military

successes of the Seljuks was further accompanied by the expansion of the trade

routes and ports that would revive the trade and improve the finances. These

novelties in the structure of the state changed the administrative system; while the

ruler started to move between the different parts of his realm, his throne and palace

followed him. The gathering of power in the hand of the sultan was linked to the

process of centralization, which required a common standardized (visual) language

that would raise the recognition of Seljuk sovereignty in the newly established

palaces and royal projects throughout the Seljuk realm and create an adequate royal

rhetoric defining the image of the sultan and courtly ceremonies. However, the

process of renewal during the reign of Ala al-Din Kaykubad I manifested itself not

only in the architectural projects built but also in the cultural production of the Seljuk

court.

This thesis attempts to define common rhetoric elements and topics in royal

architecture and court literature of Seljuks in the thirteenth century Anatolia. It

further argues that nature (or environment) was a key element of the courtly/royal

rhetoric as far as the palace architecture –i.e. the choice of architectural form,

composition, and materials – and court literature – i.e. historical narratives and

advice literature. The Seljuks took nature as a major model of thought and

organization along with religion and legends.

In this regard, the object of the following thesis will be narrowed down to the

discussion of palace architecture and courtly narratives on palatial structures. The

above-mentioned palace of Kubadabad will hereby serve as an example of the

palaces built during the Seljuk golden age in Anatolia. The Palace Complex of

Kubadabad on the southwestern shore of the Lake Beyşehir plays a significant role in

3

the Seljuk studies since its rediscovery in the 1950s. The palace once built and used

as a hunting and summer estate stands out with its in-situ decoration, offering a great

range of figurative tiles. Therefore, Kubadabad has been a major source and topic for

the Seljuk studies in Anatolia, particularly in the light of the excavation works that

continue since the 1980s.

1.1 Period and patron

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I's reign (r. 1219-1237) marks in the history of Rum Seljuk

Sultanate a special episode; today ʿAlaʾ al-Din's and his brother Izz’ al-Din's rule in

the first half of the thirteenth century are recognized as the golden age of the Seljuk

dominance in Anatolia which took its start already in the eleventh century.

The decisive victory at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 gained by the Great

Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan (1063-1072) against the Byzantine army has led to an

influx from the East giving way to Turkification and Islamization of Anatolia. In the

following periods, Turks and Turkmen tribes showed continuously growing presence

in Anatolia. Among many other Turkmen principalities in Anatolia, the Rum Seljuks

rose to power. Despite the Great Seljuk bloodline of the Rum Seljuk dynasty, sultans

acquired authority and legitimacy by eliminating their rivals, and by building

diplomatic contacts and familial alliances. These early years of the Sultanate

characterized by tribal organization, and continuous warfare ended rulers dedicated

themselves to strengthen and improving Rum-Seljuk in Anatolia.

The victory of Izz’ al-Din Qilich Arslan II (r. 1155-92), the grandson of the

first Rum Seljuk Sultan and bearer of his name, at the Battle of Myriokephalon

(1176) against Byzantine army is considered another milestone in the Seljuk history.

4

The weakening and elimination of rivals and achievement of some stability allowed a

change of focus from warfare to the organization of the Sultanate. This shift marked

the end of the early period and the beginning of a new era with ‘imperial’ ambitions.

In the following years, the Seljuks managed to grow the boundaries of the

Anatolian Seljuk realm towards the seaports in the north and south, taking control the

sea trade in addition to trade routes they held on land. This expansion was

accompanied by a revival or renewal of existing structures in Seljuk Anatolia. This

included the improvement of route networks, (re-) building of facilities for stopovers

such as caravanserais, the revival of larger trade hubs or cities through the foundation

of charitable facilities, and trade treaties with other lands. The sultan - but also

dynasty members and elites - further supported to the improvement of public wealth

by investing into the building of mosques, masjids, madrasas, hospitals, fountains,

baths, and water supply systems.

The expansion and consolidation of power in Anatolia continued and even

intensified at least until their defeat by the Mongols at the Battle of Kösedağ in 1243.

(Figure 1) The first half of the thirteenth century, the reigns of Izz’ al-Din Kayka’us I

(r. 1211- 1219/20) and particularly ʿAlaʾ al- Din Kaykubad I (r. 1219/20-1236/37),

the grandsons of Qilich Arslan II, is therefore considered as the culminating point, or

the zenith of the Rum Seljuk Sultanate. Their successful reforms considering politics

and finances had influences in all parts of life, above all in society and courtly life.

The increased number of artifacts and architectural projects commissioned by the

dynasty and court members during this period provide evidence for these new

reforms, royal rhetoric, as well as for the wealth that came along with the

stabilization of the authority.

5

Figure 1. Map of the Seljuk Sultanate in Anatolia between 1071-1243 made by the author

A special role in this process of renewal - i.e. centralization of the Sultanate and

creation of a new royal image or identity - was ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I. He is today

6

recognized as 'the greatest’ Seljuk Sultan of Anatolia, not only because he was the

last independent ruler of the dynasty before having become a Mongol protectorate.

Kaykubad I was particularly known as one of the most active sultans of this dynasty,

whose legacy survived in the great number of architectural projects patronized by

him that are spread through Anatolia. In Kaykubad I’s architectural patronage, we

might see a certain tendency of representation and glorification of the sultan that

could easily be linked to the attempt of legitimization of his kingship, and thus,

building up the identity of his state.

In regarding this, we might see foundations of a new orientation or hints for a

new role model beginning from the reign of Qilich Arslan II. The names of his

successors, Kayhusraw, Kayka’us, and finally Kaykubad have its origins in the

Persian legends as represented in the Book of Kings (Shahnama). These names, as

the stories of the Shahnama, are products of the attempt to merge two different

cultures; the pre-Islamic Persian and the Islamic cultures. The Persian poet Ferdowsi,

who completed the original work for the Turkish ruler of Ghazna, provided a world

history based on Persian legends and heroes who were integrated to the history as

ancestors of the contemporary eleventh-century Islamic rulers of Iran. The Seljuks of

Anatolia might have seen role models in the deeds of former Turkish-Muslim rulers,

amongst other the sultans of the Great Seljuks. According to Peacock, the names, as

well as, the use and appreciation of Persian language and literature demonstrated the

growing importance of Iranian culture beginning from the late 12th Century. The

interest in the Persian past is visible in various examples from Kaykubad's reign. The

quotations from the Shahnama and Quran on the walls of Konya, examples of

Persianate literature read at the Seljuk court are further indicators for orientation in

7

both Persian and Islamic cultures. The commitment to the Abbasid Caliphate was

part of this new Seljuk approach under both Izz’ al-Din and ʿAlaʾ al-Din.

After the death of Izz’ al-Din, his younger brother ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I

(r.1220-1237) has ascended the throne and become the new sultan. One of the first

authorities to accept his legitimacy and to cooperate with was the caliph al-Nasr al-

Din Allah, who sent him the scholar Shihab al-Din Omar b. Abd Allah al-Suhravardi

with gifts. Protection was not only granted from the religious entities, but Kaykubad

made further arrangements with surrounding rulers to ensure his position facing both

internal and external threats. The Mongol armies approaching from the Eastern lands

required further attention and caution to foreign issues, as well as cooperation

between lands. In the first years of his reign, the Caliph in fearing Mongol attacks to

Bagdad asked Rum-Seljuk ruler for military support of 5000 soldiers, whom

Kaykubad sent to Mosul under the command of Baha al-Din Kutlugça.

Despite such false alerts, the news of the Mongol attacks increased. The reign

of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I was characterized by concerns of the approaching

Mongol invasion from the East. The Mongol threat was more than a foreign issue,

but it affected also the domestic politics and required different strategies in every

aspect of governance.

On the one side, Anatolia went through a continuous influx from Central Asia

that was intensified with the Mongol invasion. People from the Persianate world fled

to Anatolia, the furthest western frontier of the Islamic world seeking for a peaceful

life without Mongol treat. The immigrants were this time not only the Turkic

nomadic tribes but also skillful artisans, religious scholars and well-educated

members of Persian aristocracy and courtiers. They brought important skills and

knowledge for the establishment of a higher culture at the court. Artists and

8

craftsmen worked in different (architectural) projects spread through Anatolia, some

members of Persian elite, such as the family of Ibn Bibi, the author of the main

historical source about Kaykubad's reign, found employment at the Seljuk court, and

scholars established their own Sufi schools and lodges in main cities.2 Their presence

in Anatolia, at the same time, must have been caused a cultural shift towards

Persianate worldview, which probably promoted the tendencies of the Rum Seljuk

dynasty in seeking a new rhetoric. The arrival of large populations must have

affected the existing settlement structures, forcing cities to grow beyond borders and

increasing the need for new infrastructures and public facilities. Similarly, the

integration of immigrants to Anatolia and increasing requirements for natural

resources and their supply must have been some of the greatest concerns of the

Sultan. The building projects of ʿAlaʾ al-Din, which was mentioned earlier in text,

can be seen amongst others as measures in this regard.

On the other side, ʿAlaʾ al-Din started to build walls and towers around many

cities, including the capital city of Konya, Sivas, as well as Kayseri, and to repair or

maintain the existing ones. This sanction ensured the security of the cities from

foreign powers. At the same time, the construction, and financing of these huge

building projects kept amirs, who stood hesitating over the rise of Kaykubad to

power and distrusted him, busy for some time.

The distraction of amirs allowed the new Rum-Seljuk Sultan to eliminate

further problems and to show his military skills by initiating further military

campaigns with powers both on land and on the sea. The most important event for

ʿAlaʾ al-Din’s legitimacy was the conquest of the city, or castle of Kalonoros in

1221, which he converted into Ala’iyya after his own name. Next campaigns were

2 Wolper, Cities and saints: Sufism and the transformation of urban space in medieval Anatolia

(2003).

9

directed to both northern and southern lands since trade routes have become insecure

for merchants after the death of the Armenian king Leon II in 1219 and some years

later Mongol attacks to Kipchak and Crimea. One of the main targets was the trade

city of Sudak, which has been left without control after the Mongols. In doing so, he

would re-establish the security of trade routes. Immediately after these occasions,

Kaykubad was obliged to turn his attention to the problems in the Eastern and

Northeastern lands; ʿAlaʾ al-Din gave great importance to keeping his vassal states

such as Artuqids of Diyarbakir or Empire of Trebizond, which used every occasion

to rebel against the Seljuks by accepting rival Ayyubids', or Harezmshahs' lordship.

Turan argued that this attitude was part of Kaykubad’s anti-Mongol policy,

according to which these states would act as a buffer against any attacks from the

Mongolian site.

Thus, following this idea, Kaykubad's decisions all appear to be influenced

mainly by the approaching threat of Mongols. The strengthening of foreign relations

with neighbor principalities and kingdoms allowed the creation of buffer zones

consisting of vassal and ally states. Annexation to the Abbasid Caliphate to

guarantee the support of Islamic states, too, was part of Sultan's strategy as much as

his deeds in terms of the domestic affairs. While building projects helped to create a

consistent settlement and road networks, greater projects such as building walls and

military facilities provided more security for the Seljuk subjects in Anatolia, and kept

-in addition to his frequent visits - Seljuk governors and amirs on a tight rein.

In the light of these assumptions, it seems that the construction of new

suburban/ rural palaces might have been also part of Kaykubad's strategy;

archeological evidence of many kiosks, gardens, and lastly (garden-) palaces from

this period indicate a certain shift of the royal interest and power away from the

10

existing centers or cities to rural or suburban areas.3 The location and names of the

palace complexes such as Kubadabad near Beyşehir, or Keykubadiye near Kayseri

suggest further that the sultan had a special agenda in patronizing these projects.

Especially Kubadabad stands out from this group of royal projects as the only (-

known) palace to be built in the rural area, remote from the main Seljuk cities.

1.2 Discovery and excavations

It was the Zeki Oral, the former director of Museum of Konya, who has first claimed

to have located the ruins of the former Seljuk palace complex of Kubadabad in a

short report in the journal Anıt in 1949.4 In his later article, “Kubad-Abad nasıl

bulundu?”, Oral he described his trace in different historical sources from the Seljuk

and Ottoman periods to locate lost palaces of the Seljuks.5 He further reported his

visits to sites and villages in the area of Yenişar that consisted of five small villages

(Hoyran, Kuruca Ova, Muma, Kürtler, Bademli, and Yenice).

Among his primary findings were numerous ruins as well as spolia that were

reused in walls, doors of local houses, particularly in the village Gölyaka (Hoyran),

and an inscription on the mosque of Kürtler that was probably once decorated the

original masjid of Kubadabad. The inscription which bore the information about its

patron, the construction date and dedication of the building to the contemporary ruler

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I. The fact that the patron was titled as the governor of

Kubadabad gave the final evidence that this was the right spot. In addition to these,

3 Redford, Beach and Luzzadder-Beach, Landscape and the state in medieval Anatolia: Seljuk

Gardens and pavilions of Alanya, Turkey, vol. 893. (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000).

4 Oral, "Kubadabad bulundu," Anıt I, no. 10 (1949).

5 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," Ankara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi II, no. 2-3

(1953).

11

Oral has suggested that the site called Tol, with ruins of various structures, as well

as, a prehistoric tumulus at a land peak on the lakeshore has been the site of the

original palace. At this site, he spotted around twenty structures/ ruins, which once

formed the palatial complex of Kubadabad.

The first excavation campaigns in Kubadabad began in 1965 thanks to the

German financial supports that covered nearly all the costs. The direction of the

works was given to Katharina Otto-Dorn (1908-1999)6, and her Turkish colleague

Mehmet Önder. In the same year, they published together first introductory reports

that provided an overview of the results of the work made by Oral.7 A later report

about the results of the campaigns 1965-66 was published in cooperation with her

interdisciplinary team.8 Otto-Dorn described in the main part of this report, the

layout of the two main buildings, which are since then denoted as Great and Small

Palaces. Artifacts that were found during these campaigns were discussed separately

according to their location, themes, and materials (glass, ceramic, coins, stucco) with

an emphasis on tile decoration. Short discussions about these groups of artifacts were

written, alongside Otto-Dorn, by Fügen Tunçdag, Gönül Öney, and Janine Sourdel-

Thomine. The report was further accompanied by the first ground plans of these two

6 Katharina Otto-Dorn was a German art historian, who came to Turkey in the 1960s. She established

the Chair for Islamic art at the University of Ankara, where she introduced a new understanding with

origins in the formalist teachings of Josef Strzygowski (1862-1941). The excavations in Kubadabad

were an example of her approach that united the disciplines of archaeology and art history. Amongst

her books on Turkish ceramics, Islamic art, and papers on diverse Islamic and Seljuk motifs and

symbols, the most valuable source for this thesis are her reports about the afore-mentioned

excavations. Otto-Dorn, Türkische Keramik (S.l.: s.n.], 1957). Otto-Dorn, Das islamische

Herrscherbild im frühen Mittelalter (8.-11. Jahrhundert) (Stuttgart). Otto-Dorn, Die menschliche

Figurendarstellung auf den Fliesen von Kobadabad, vol. In Memoriam Kurt Erdmann (Istanbul:

Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1969). Otto-Dorn, Darstellungen des Turco-Chinesischen

Tierzyklus in der islamischen Kunst, vol. In Memoriam Ernst Diez (Istanbul1963).

7 Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad (Oktober 1965)," Archäologischer

Anzeiger 81, no. 2 (1966). Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Kubad-Abad kazıları 1965 yılı ön raporu," Türk

Etnografya Dergisi 14 (1965).

8 Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969).

12

buildings, as well as the site and topographic maps that were drawn by architect

Curtis Campaigne.

Despite the shortness of the working period, these documents, the drawings

have built the basis for the later studies and works around Kubadabad. These

promising works had an abrupt end after Otto-Dorn received a call from an

American university and left for California.

In 1980, the second period of excavation works started after thirteen years of

pause. The new director Rüçhan Arık has been familiar to the project. She was

involved in the first excavation campaigns as a doctoral student of Otto-Dorn.

Kubadabad has become her life work; Rüçhan Arık remained the director of the

annual excavations over thirty-five years, from 1980 to 2017. During this period, she

accomplished that the site and ruins of the Kubadabad Palace became acknowledged

and respected by official and cultural institutions. Because of her attempts the palace

was granted the status of a “National Palace” and became supported by the Turkish

Republic in 2010. According to her accounts, Arik saw Kubadabad as a model for

developing medieval archeology. Her aim by starting the excavation works was to

create a national open-air museum or park.9

The complex placed on a small cape/ point reaching into the marshlands at

the lakeshores southwest of the Lake Beyşehir has become the main excavation.

However, articles written by Oral and Otto-Dorn had remarked the existence of

further sites in the surrounding area, for instance in the nearby villages of Gölyaka

and Pınarbaşı, or on the island of Kız Kalesi. Accordingly, the area of excavation

was enlarged over time, so that Arık and her team started to document some of the

9 Arık, Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri (Türkiye İş Bankası, 2000), 47.

13

surrounding structures and to preserve them by clearing the ruins from plants and

rubbish in short excurses.

During the period between 1981 and 1985, Arık and her team focused on the

ruins of a castle built on the nearby Island of Kız Kalesi (Maiden Castle). The

Maiden Castle was built on the remains of a former, probably Byzantine, castle or

monastery. The buildings are distributed over an area of 3000 square meters, which

include besides the castle, a bathhouse (hammam), and a group of smaller rooms that

were used for storage or as dormitories.

From 1985 onwards, the campaigns were made on the main palatial site that

covers the largest area of around 5200 square meters. Over the years, the excavation

team has found remains of around twenty different structures within this main part of

the complex. Of all these structures, two became particularly central to the

excavations and studies; the Great and Small Palaces were the only ones that were

identified as palatial edifices as their names indicate. In the last years from 2003

onwards, further buildings of the on the western part of the complex have been

surveyed. Totally, Arık’s team has been able to finish the survey of more than five

buildings at the main site. Nevertheless, there are still buildings and parts of the

complex remaining untouched.

1.3 Literature review

In terms of Kubadabad studies, Arık's writings are the leading works of the field.

Arık's annual excavation reports for the excavation results conference held by the

Turkish Ministry of Culture were the main source of information since 1980. These

reports constitute the main body available to public access written on the works in

14

and around the palatial complex (referred to as ‘Kubad-Abad Selçuklu Saray

Külliyesi’ or ‘Sitesi’).10 However, Arık has published three books that offered

readers information about the state of the ongoing excavation works and results.

Kubadabad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri (2001)11 was the first comprehensive

work about Kubadabad after the 1969 published report of Otto-Dorn and her team.

The book offered - in contrast to the reports - an overview to similar, comparable

Seljuk monuments in Anatolia; here, Arık presents Qilich Arslan or Alaeddin

Kiosk12, and the palatial complex of Keykubadiye13 in Kayseri. It further addressed

the history of Kubadabad complex including quotations from Ibn Bibi’s narrative

about the legendary foundation of the site. In the second part of the book, Arık

moves away from the description of the site and buildings to the analysis of artifacts

that had been found in this area, some of them even in situ on walls. Her arguments

basically concern the Turkish and Persianate influence of the architectural and

decorative style.

10 The information is given following the same scheme: The introduction provides insights into the

official status, aims, and the duration of the works, as well as the patrons and supporters of the

campaigns. Each of these articles further document excavation fields during each campaign. These

areas are often denoted with codes of areal divisions and attributed to important artifacts found in

them. The descriptions often are accompanied with photographs of the most important discoveries,

and limited number of illustrations showing their forms and locations on the site.

11 Arık.

12 Qilich Arslan Kiosk is suggested to be a part of the main Seljuk Palace in the former capital Konya,

which probably was built by Qilich Arslan II and restored by his grandson ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I.

Due to its central location, this structure has been described and recorded by visitors of the city in

every period. The first academic surveys began Albert Gabriel, Max von Berchem, Friedrich Sarre,

etc. Sarre and Uzluk, Konya köşkü (1967).

13 Keykubadiye complex, in contrast to Konya and Beyşehir examples, has been less in focus; it has

been examined by Kurt Erdmann, Oktay Aslanapa etc. Erdmann, "Zum Verbogenbau von

Keykubadiye," (1957). Aslanapa, "Kayseri'de Keykubadiye köşkleri kazısı," Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi

13, no. 1 (1964). According to the sources, the palatial complex of Keykubadiye was built by the

same patron ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I some years before Kubadabad. Unfortunately, the Mongols have

destroyed Keykubadiye after its patron, Kaykubad I, was murdered in 1237 at the same spot. There

have been excavation campaigns at the site in the 1960s without continuity. The excavations started

anew in 2014, after the site has been nominated as a public park. Since 2016 the excavations have

been conducted by Ali Bas, and his assistant Şükrü Dursun. Baş and Dursun, "Keykubadiye sarayı

2014 sondaj çalışmaları," (2015), Baş, "Keykubadiye sarayı kazısı 2015," Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

2, no. 38 (2016).

15

However, Arık`s book in comparison to the 1966 excavation report of Otto-

Dorn appears to be less detailed and academic. Beside the anecdotal style of the

text,14 long architectural descriptions details without adequate plans cause confusion

in understanding the positions of objects and render it rather difficult to follow the

arguments of Arık.

Particularly, her attitude towards the use of visual aids seems problematic;

Arık uses only a limited number of maps and plans in small sizes that had been

published by Otto-Dorn so that no newer details about location of discoveries can be

seen. Moreover, we encounter a similar attitude against visual aids in the excavation

reports published in the annual conference proceedings. In contrast to these, the book

includes page-sized views of the surrounding landscape, and, above all, a huge

number of large and colorful photos showing tile artifacts.

Her special interest for tiles becomes visible in the second book of Arık

Anadolu Toprağının Hazinesi: Çini: Selçuklu Ve Beylikler Çağı Çinileri (2007) that

she edited together with her husband Oluş Arık. It consists of different articles

written on all Seljuk tile discoveries made in Anatolia, but again with a focus on

Kubadabad. Like her monography this book contains a great number of illustrations

of these tiles, which makes it very valuable for such a study. However, the

information on Kubadabad is neither detailed, nor does it provides newer

perspectives to the study of the site and to the artifacts.

More to the architectural remains in the surrounding area is presented in the

conference proceedings and books that are published independently. While scholars

such as Rüstem Bozer15, consider the technical features and methods used on the

14 The text contains numerous references to the legends and metaphors, as well as commentaries of the

director about the difficulties of the works and problems raised by new findings.

15 Bozer, "Kubadabad çinilerinde fırınlama sonrası yapılan işlemler ve bazı tespitler" (paper presented

at the I. Uluslararası Selçuklu kültür ve medeniyeti kongresi, 2001), Bozer, Selçuklu devri levha

16

tiles, others focus on the usage of materials that were found during excavation works.

Here, papers of scholars such as Zekiye Uysal16 on glass, Yusuf Acıoğlu17 on stucco

decorations, or Alptekin Yavaş on small metal objects such as jewelry or buckles18

offer insights to the immense number of artifacts fund during the excavation

campaigns and to the thirteenth century courtly taste.

Simultaneously Arık’s students and team colleagues published articles about

Seljuk architecture and specific building types in Kubadabad. Alptekin Yavaş -since

2017 the vize director of the excavations under Muharrem Çeken – published about

various Seljuk kiosks and kiosk types, as well as, wet spaces in Kubadabad.19 Ali

Osman Uysal has similarly wrote articles about the bathhouses and other buildings

found in the complex.20 However, these articles were focused on details and did not

contribute much to the understanding of the complex and its scope.

çinilerinde form, duvar kaplama tasarımlarına yönelik tespitler ve fırınlama sonrası yapılan bazı

işlemler [Forms of Seljuk Tile Panels, Observations on the Designs of Wall Coverings and Some

Processes After Glazing] (Istanbul2007).

16 Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayında Selçuklu cam sanatı (Istanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2013), Uysal,

Kubad Abad sarayı cam buluntuları üzerine genel bir değerlendirme (Konya: Konya Büyükşehir

Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2019).

17 Acıoğlu, Kubad Abad sarayı alçı buluntuları (Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür

Yayınları, 2019), Acıoğlu, "Kubad Abad sarayı alçı buluntuları," Sanat Tarihi Dergisi XXIII (2015).

18 Yavaş, "Kubad-Abad sarayında bulunan kemer ve askı tokaları," [Belt and buckle straps found in

Kubad-Abad Palace.] Turkish Studies 7, no. 3 (2012), Yavaş, "Kubad-Abad sarayı kazılarında

bulunan ziynet eşyaları," [Jewellry found during the excavations of Kubad- Abad Palace.] The Journal

of Academic Social Science Studies 6, no. 1 (2013), Yavaş, Kubad Abad sarayı metal buluntuları

(Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2019).

19 Yavaş, "Günümüze ulaşamayan Anadolu Selçuklu saray ve köşkleri " [The Palaces and Kiosks of

Anatolian Seljuk Period That Have Not Survived.] Akademi Günlüğü Toplumsal Araştırmalar

Dergisi 1, no. 2 (2006), Yavaş, "Anadolu Selçuklu köşklerinin plan tipleri üzerine tespitler," Ankara

Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 47, no. 1 (2007), Yavaş, "Anadolu Selçuklu

mimarisinde tuvalet mekanlarına dair bazı notlar," [Some notes on latrines in the Anatolian Seljuk

Architecture.] TÜBAR 25 (2009), Yavaş, "Anadolu Selçuklu banilerinin politik yaşamlarıyla mimari

faaliyetleri arasındaki ilişkiler," [The Relationships between Political Life and Architectural Activities

of Anatolian Seljuk Patronages.] TÜBAR 28 (2010). Yavaş, "Alanya-Çıplaklı mahallesi'nde

bilinmeyen bir Selçuklu köşkü," Sanat Tarihi Dergisi no. 12 (2016).

20 Uysal, "Kubad-Abad hamamları" (paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Beyşehir ve yöresi

sempoyzumu, Beyşehir, 2006), Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayının göldeki uzantısı: Kız Kalesi (Konya:

Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2019), Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayının uzağındaki bazı

sayfiye yapıları: Hoyran'daki kalıntılar ve Malanda köşkü (Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi

Kültür Yayınları, 2019).

17

In this regard, the 2006 published book of a retired teacher Veli Karaca, who

has stated to visit the sites in company of Zeki Oral, offered insights to the

geography and the history of the region of Yenişar. This book was a less academic

and therefore reliable, like locally maintained websites that provide introductory

short texts to the historical development of each of the villages – and required a

cautious reading. At the end, such text became especially helpful in the

reconstruction of the changes that were made on the names of these villages.

In the last years, following the growing interest of the Turkish government,

and the mature state of the excavations the number of publications on Kubadabad

and Seljuk architecture increased. Amongst others, Arık has published a monography

on Seljuk palaces and kiosks, i.e. Selçuklu Sarayları ve Köşkleri, which provides an

extended description of the results of the archaeological studies in Kubadabad until

2017.21

In the first half of 2019, a group of scholars together brought out a

monography about Kubadabad with articles on these different aspects of the palace

and its artifacts. Despite its rather late publication date for this thesis, the book

Beyşehir Gölü Kıyısında Bir Selçuklu Sitesi: Kubad Abad has become the main

reference book, since it contains most recent results from the excavations, for no new

reports have been published on the excavation campaigns since 2016. Furthermore,

the papers in this book managed to illustrate the various aspects of the site and to

document these with visuals.

Beside these monographies on Kubadabad, further articles and papers have

contributed to the understanding of concepts of kingship, court/palace, or decoration

and methods in analyzing them. In this sense, articles of art historians such as Otto-

21 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri (Ankara: Ankara Universitesi, 2017).

18

Dorn and Gönül Öney on various motifs of decoration have been useful for the

discussion of tiles. The papers published in the Ars Orientalis on Pre-Modern

Islamic Palaces has provided ideas about different elements and organization

principles in palaces and the historical development of palace types.22 The

consultation of the literature about Umayyad23 and Abbasid palaces has shown the

traditions and trends of palace architecture. Furthermore, the inclusion of distant

geographies such as Al-Andalus have been very helpful in understanding the

architectural models of Seljuk palaces.24

The link between Kubadabad and the landscape, cities, state, or royal

patronage were not particularly addressed in any of the above-mentioned studies. In

this case, works of Scott Redford, Andrew Peacock or Suzan Yalman were of help.

These works began in contrast to most Turkish studies to put single objects into their

original historical context focusing on the aims of their patrons and their purpose or

function in Seljuk world. Hence, they started to overcome the gap between art

history and history in terms of their methods and sources. In terms of architectural

patronage, a few works have been published in the first decade of the twenty first

century; amongst other Suzan Yalman's thesis provided an overview about

Kaykubad's deeds as architectural patron.25 Moreover, her work gives an impression

about the changing of Seljuk rhetoric under the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad.

Yalman’s argument about the use of silsile shows that the person of the Sultan and

22 Necipoğlu, ed. Ars Orientalis: Pre-modern Islamic palace, Ars Orientalis (1993).

23 Grabar, "Umayyad palaces reconsidered," ibid.23, no. Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces. Grabar, Studies

in medieval Islamic art, vol. CS51. (London: Variorum Reprints, 1976). Grabar, The formation of

Islamic art (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1987).

24 Grabar and Robinson, Islamic art and literature (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2001).

Alami, "Al-Bayan wa l-Bunyan : meaning, poetics, and politics in early Islamic architecture" (UMI

Dissertation Services, 2005). Anderson, Villa (munya) architecture in Umayyad Cordoba: preliminary

considerations, Anderson, The Islamic villa in early medieval Iberia: Architecture and court culture in

Umayyad Cordoba (Ashgate, 2013).

25 Yalman, "Building the Sultanate of Rum: Memory, urbanism and mysticism in the architectural

patronage of 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad (r. 1220-1237)" (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2011).

19

his blood played a significant role in the choice of rhetorical devices or signs. Ala al-

Din’s strategy of combining the maternal Roman or Anatolian and paternal Turco-

Persian and Islamic cultures into a new visual language explains and demonstrates

the ambiguity as well as the complexity of royal messages. This points to the various

traditions that became source of the new Rum Seljuk rhetoric.

The papers and books of Scott Redford show the variety of application fields

and methods for the communication of this new Seljuk rhetoric. Redford’s

publications on official or public building projects such as city walls offer new

perspectives to the relation between Seljuk art and architecture and state.26 However,

Redford’s articles on palaces, and royal/palatial objects build the basis for this thesis.

27 Particularly his book Landscape and the State in Medieval Anatolia and articles

concerning the royal Seljuk attitude towards landscape and gardens have been very

inspiring and informative.28

In terms of Seljuk history Turan’s Türkiye Selçukluları Hakkında Resmi

Vesikalar is to be considered one of the most valuable works on this topic, which has

built the basis for later historical surveys by gathering different written sources such

as letters, poems, treaties, and many others and summarized them briefly into a

bibliographical work.29 Nevertheless, Turan has reached an international reputation

with books dealing with the archival materials on the ‘Seljuks of Turkey’ and their

26 Redford, City building in Seljuq Rum (Edinburgh University Press, 2011), Redford, "The Seljuqs of

Rum and the Antique," Muqarnas 10, no. Essays in Honor of Oleg Grabar (1993). Redford, Mamalik

and mamalik: Decorative and epigraphic programs of Anatolian

Seljuk citadels (Leuven: Peeters, 2013).

27 Redford, "Seljuk pavilions and enclosures in and around Alanya," Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı

14, Redford, Just landscape in medieval Anatolia, Redford, "Thirteenth-century Rum Seljuq palaces

and palace imagery," Ars Orientalis 23, no. Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces (1993), Redford, "Portable

palaces: On the circulation of objects and ideas about architecture in medieval Anatolia and

Mesopotamia," Medieval Encounters 18 (2012), Redford, Anatolian Seljuk palaces and gardens

(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2015).

28 Redford, Landscape and the state in medieval Anatolia: Seljuk gardens and pavillions of Alanya,

Turkey (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000).

29 Turan, Türkiye Selçukluları hakkında resmi vesikalar : metin, tercüme ve araştırmalar 3ed., Türk

Tarih Kurumu yayınları. VII. dizi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2014).

20

position in the ‘Turkish-Muslim Civilization’ or in ‘Islam’.30 Similarly, the book of

French historian Claude Cahen (1909-1991) on The Pre-Ottoman Turkey (or its

newly edited version Formation of Turkey) dealt with Seljuks within the context of

the medieval Islam and its encounters with Christian crusades, as well as

Islamization and Turkification of Anatolia that began with the arrival of the Seljuks

to Asia Minor.31

More recent are the works written by A.C.S. Peacock32, who has contributed

to the field of Seljuk studies by initiating and editing many interdisciplinary (book)

projects with names such as Sara Nur Yıldız. 33 Yıldız too has provided with her PhD

thesis on Mongol Anatolia a valuable source for the discussion of the work of Ibn

Bibi.34 The works of Julie Scott Meisami, Fairchild Ruggles on poetry have been

valuable for the analysis of Ibn Bibi's text.35

30 Turan, Selçuklu tarihi araştırmaları Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Türk Tarih

Kurumu Yayınları VI. Dizi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014). Turan, Selçuklular zamanında

Türkiye: siyasî tarih Alp Arslan'dan Osman Gazi'ye, 1071-1318 (Ötüken, 2013).

31 Cahen, The formation of Turkey : The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum - eleventh to fourteenth century,

trans. Holt (Pearson Education Limited, 2001).

32 Peacock, "The Islamisation of Anatolia, c. 1100-1500," (The University of St Andrews, 2012-16).

Peacock, "Saljuqs iii. Saljuqs of Rum," in Encyclopædia Iranica (New York2010). Peacock, The great

age of Seljuks, ed. Art (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2016). Peacock, The dargah:

Courts and court life (2015). Peacock, Court and nomadic life in Saljuq Anatolia (Brill, 2013).

Peacock, Advice for the Sultans of Rum: The mirrors for princes of early thirteenth-century Anatolia,

ed. Hillenbrand, Routledge studies in the history of Iran and Turkey (New York: Routledge, 2016).

Peacock, "Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th centuries," Anatolian Studies 56

(2006).

33 Peacock and Yıldız, The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and society in the medieval Middle East, vol.

38 (New York; London: I. B. Tauris, 2013). Peacock, De Nicola and Yıldız, eds., Islam and

Christianity in medieval Anatolia (Ashgate, 2015).

34 Yıldız, "Mongol rule in thirteenth-century Seljuk Anatolia: Politics of conquest and history writing

1243-1282" (University of Chicago, 2006). Yıldız, "Anadolu Kronikleri (4): El-Evâmirü’l-´Alâiyye

fi’l-Umûri’l-´Alâiyye," (Bilim Sanat Vakfı, 2012).

35 Ruggles, "Arabic poetry and architectural memory in al-Andalus," Ars Orientalis 23, no. Pre-Modern

Islamic Palaces (1993), Ruggles, Gardens, landscape & vision in the palaces of Islamic Spain (2003).

21

4. Objectives, methods, and sources

Ibn Bibi is the author of the book Al-Awamir al-ʿAlaʾiyya fi ’l-umūr al-ʿAlaʾiyya

which narrates the dynastic history of Rum-Seljuks between 1192-1280 in Anatolia

and focuses particularly on the reign of the Seljuk Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I.

The book - sometimes also entitled as Seljuknama, or Tarih-i Ibn Bibi –was written

in the last quarter of the thirteenth century (around 1282) when the Rum Seljuk realm

was already under the mandate of Mongols. Thus, it is not quite contemporary to Ala

al-Din Kaykubad’s reign, however it constitutes the only Seljuk source from and

about the thirteenth century Anatolia and the basis for all later historical studies on

Seljuk Anatolia.

The original work was written in Persian prose and enriched with Persian and

Arabic verses and quotations from famous works. Its patron ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik

Juwayni was a diplomat appointed as governor in Mongol Baghdad and a historian.

Hence, the work was both written by and for the Persian speaking elites in Anatolia

and beyond. The book seems to have well appealed to its audience, and copied as a

significant historical source for Rum Seljuk history in following centuries.

Although Ibn Bibi’s work is the basis of Seljuk histories and studies, the text

has not been analyzed adequately for architectural or palatial references and their

role in the narrative. Accordingly, the studies and interpretations of Kubadabad

which owns a separate chapter in the Seljuk history of Ibn Bibi fell short, since the

existing studies only focused on the descriptions of the palace and disregarded its

relation and role to the rest of the narration. These studies also disregard the stylistic

devices through which further information might be acquired about the ideas and

tastes of the Seljuk court during the thirteenth century.

22

Similarly, a great number of the studies on Kubadabad's architecture, and

artifacts ignore the original context of their objects. art historical or archaeological

studies that were dealing with the palace as artistic manifestation, pieces of which

(artifacts) had to be formally analyzed and categorized according to their materials,

techniques, style, and motifs, as well as their artistic development. The problem of

these studies is their failure to ask questions about the actual purpose and role of

artifacts, for instance in relation to the space, or decoration. Moreover, the palace and

courtly life have been rarely related to actual historical events.

However, scholars –amongst other Songül Mecit, Richard McClary - have

shown that many commissioned projects were linked to a political or military event,

to which the patronized object act as a direct response.36 The analysis of the relations

between architecture and historical events, furnishing and functions, could offer new

understanding of the Seljuk culture, as well as Seljuk palaces.

In the light of these problems, this thesis concentrates on the relation between

architecture and purpose to fill in the gaps in Seljuk history of the thirteenth century

by. What does the location, form and decoration indicate about the functions the

palace fulfilled, or the purpose of its construction?

In this regard, this thesis aims in the first line to understand the palace of the

thirteenth century based on the example of Kubadabad. The study of archaeological

remains and artifacts might help to understand the motives and aims of its patron,

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I, in commissioning this palatial complex. In the second line,

the analysis of the contemporary textual source should further help to reconstruct

both the context of this patronage and the message of ʿAlaʾ al-Din, as well as the

36 Mecit, The Rum Seljuqs: Evolution of a dynasty (New York: Routledge, 2014), Mecit, Kingship and

ideology under the Rum Seljuqs, Book, Section vols. (Edinburgh University Press, 2011). McClary,

Rum Seljuq architecture, 1170-1220 : the patronage of sultans (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,

2017).

23

perception and interpretation of Seljuk courtiers. The analysis of Al-Awamir al-

Alaiyya fi’l-umr’ al-Alaiyya written by a Seljuk court member, Ibn Bibi, will provide

information about the historical events. The present study consists of two main

chapters, each dedicated to one of the sources. These chapters present the main data

from the archaeological excavations and from Ibn Bibi's al-Awamir.

In this regard, the following chapter (Chapter 2) is dedicated to the discussion

the of the archaeological evidence and excavation results. It aims to understand the

functional requirements imposed on and met by the palace, as well as principles of

organization and decoration that were used to emphasize different these functions.

The first part of this chapter will address historical and physical settings of the region

around Beyşehir Lake, including insights to the history of settlements, and routes in

this area. For the complex has never been specifically analyzed in relation to the

topography, landscape place in which it was located, neither its role in the settlement

history of the area. However, focus on these (pre-) existing circumstances can help to

understand the motivations that may have played a role in the selection of the site,

but also the importance of the site within the Seljuk realm, and for the Sultan ʿAlaʾ

al-Din Kaykubad I and Rum-Seljuk rule.

The second part will describe the architectural, artistic, and even

technological features of the complex. The discussion of the layout and furnishing

will provide information that can be relevant in the identification of different

functions incorporated in the complex, and the purpose of building it. The analysis of

decorative elements and their composition might further deliver some cultural or

ideological hints about the thirteenth century Rum Seljuk court.

The third chapter provides information about the thirteenth century source al-

Awamir al-Alaiyya fi’l-umr’ al-Alaiyya and its author Ibn Bibi. The chapter offers an

24

insight to political and historical context in Anatolia of the thirteenth century. It

reviews Ibn Bibi’s narrative in the hope of discovering overlooked details about

Kubadabad and palace architecture in three sections; a short introduction provides

information about the author, and his patron, ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik Juvayni (1226-

1283). The following part presents then the structure and contents of the book and

studies descriptions of palaces as well as the words employed by Ibn Bibi to refer to

them. The last part analyzes the episode on Kubadabad with a focus on the

application of rhetorical elements describing the palace. It further addresses the role

of Kubadabad in the narrative.

The fourth and last chapter provides a summary of the findings of the second

and third chapter. It aims to define the main strategies or tools of court rhetoric, as it

is presented in these visual and textual sources. What messages do they give? How

do these sources communicate messages? What specific motifs or methods are used?

Finally, who are the primary addressees of these messages? In the light of these

questions the chapter attempts to reconstruct the policies and strategies of ʿAlaʾ al-

Din Kaykubad I, and the Seljuk concept of kingship, the organization of the Seljuk

state as well as courtly culture and taste.

25

CHAPTER 2

PALACE ARCHITECTURE AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENT

The following chapter inquires the meaning and functions of the thirteenth-century

Seljuk palaces in Anatolia based on the archeological data gathered from the

excavations at Kubadabad. Accordingly, it first analyzes the location and scope of

Kubadabad providing a basic notion about its relation to settlement structures, main

Seljuk cities, and (trade) routes. The focus then moves to the architecture of the

complex, intending to define principles of the spatial organization and elements of

rhetoric such as specific forms, sizes, or elements that were used to distinguish

different buildings or functional spaces. In this regard, further emphasis will be given

to the interior decoration, intending to define materials and techniques and to

reconstruct the decorative program applied in the decoration of different spaces. The

consideration of decoration materials, architectural elements, as well as

environmental factors, will further allow a partial reconstruction of courtly

ceremonies, the court society, and finally, the state of the Seljuk Sultanate.

2.1 Kubadabad and its scope: The palace complex and its environment

The historic site of Kubadabad is located the southwestern coast of Lake Beyşehir,

within the Province of Konya in Turkey. 37 Today, the nearest city Beyşehir - giving

37 In sources from and about the Antiquity, the Beyşehir Lake appears under the name Karalis,

Skleros, or Pousgouse. Karalis was used in the Roman period. Ramsay, The historical geography of

Asia Minor (1890), 389. Özsait, Hellenistik ve Roma Devrinde Pisidya Tarihi, İstanbul Üniversitesi

Edebiyat Fakültesi yayınları (İstanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1985), Özsait and Özsait,

"Arkeolojik verilerin ışığında Beyşehir ve çevresi" (paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Beyşehir ve

yöresi sempoyzumu, Beyşehir, 2006). Byzantine authors such as Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates,

26

the lake and its surroundings its name – is in about 25km distance. Konya (Iconium),

the Seljuk capital, and other main cities of the thirteenth century such as Kayseri and

Sivas, or the critical Mediterranean port towns of Antalya and Alanya are around one

hundred kilometers far away. 38 However, Kubadabad's location some kilometers

from the passages through the Taurus Mountains connecting Mediterranean shores

with Central Anatolian hinterland puts Kubadabad into city and trade networks.

(Appendix A)

The Kubadabad palace complex - the main excavation site –is located on a

small cape at the southwestern coast of Lake Beyşehir known today as Tol Mevkii. 39

The term "Tol" probably refers here to the Bronze Age tumulus of 7-8 meters height,

at the south of the cape. The freshwater spring called Gürlevi next to the lakeshore

further limits the site. Moreover, the complex is separated from the surrounding

alluvial plain by high walls of rubble and stone. This enclosed area of around 5200

square meters is the main site of the excavations today. Within the palatial enclosure,

scholars have found remains of around twenty different building structures that

seemed to be placed without apparent order. These were already visible in the first

maps drawn by the architect Curtis Campaigne showing topographical features of the

site. Although these drawings were made at the very beginning of the excavations

and reflected assumptions based on the visible remains, these maps still maintain

their value. The topographical map of the site, for instance, shows the uneven rock

however, denote the same lake as Pousgouse or Skleros. Pancaroğlu, "Beyşehir," in Encyclopaedia of

Islam, THREE, ed. Kate Fleet (Brill, 2013).

38 Kubadabad palace complex is in circa 100km distance from main Seljuk cities of the thirteenth

century such as Konya, Kayseri, Sivas, or the Mediterranean port towns of Antalya and Alanya. See

Map of Anatolian Silk routes and Seljuk caravanserais (Appendix A)

39 In the dictionary of local Turkish dialects published by the Turkish Language Society from 1978,

the word "Tol" has been attributed to the dialects of Konya, Kayseri, and Isparta. The word “tol” bears

various meanings, including words related to a single construction such as a wall, stable or barn, shed

or hut, as well as a small group of houses. TDK, "Tol," in Türkiye'de Halk Ağzından Derleme

Sözlüğü (Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1978).

27

ground with elevations up to eight meters height, the shorelines according to

changing water levels, the location of the tumulus, and the water source of Gürlevi

that, however, was depicted as a dam.40 (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Topographical map of the Kubadabad Palace Complex by Curtis Campaigne41

40 Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad (Oktober 1965)."

41 Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Kubad-Abad kazıları 1965 yılı ön raporu," 245..

28

The drawings showed at least four sections surrounded by supplementary

walls that separated them from others. Three of them were understood as parts of an

enclosed complex –today the main excavation site covering an area of 5200 square

meters, and an additional court next to it reserved for the hunting ground and garden

of the palace. The image of a palace on a cape consisting of three courts with

irregular plans evoke already at the first visits of Oral the image of a medieval

Topkapı Palace. The comparisons of the complex to the late fifteenth-century

Ottoman Palace are still very often used by the Turkish scholarship.42 Moreover, the

organization of the complex successively from the most public to most private

functions also was another feature of comparison. Indeed, the position of the

buildings and courts within the complex – concerning their relation to the

topography, to one another, and finally, in terms of their size and architectural

characteristics - suggest that the organization followed a certain hierarchy; from

largest to smallest area, and from the most public to most private functions.

According to the excavation team, the outer section - the hunting garden of

the palace – covered a vast area served both as a leisure space, and as a border zone

between the outside world and the secluded palace. According to Arık, the main

entrance to the complex was in the south, somewhere between the Tumulus and

Gürlevi. However, the original gate did not survive.43 The gate led to the next section

located within the enclosed complex. In other words, it connected the garden with

the complex.

42 First comparisons between Kubadabad and Topkapı Palace were made by Oral. His assumption was

particularly linked to the idea that Kubadabad was the center of a city that evolved around the palace.

Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?." His example was followed by Arık and her excavation team until

present day. Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri. Yavaş and Koçyiğit, eds., Beyşehir gölü kıyısında

bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad, Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları (Konya: Konya

Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2019).

43 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri.

29

The area next to the entrance, which is generally denoted as the “First Court”

in similarity to Topkapı, housed multiple buildings with different forms and

functions. In this section was assumed to be the largest and most public area of the

complex, reserved for various workshops and palace services. It further borders on

the other two courts in the east and north directions. The court at the east covers a

smaller area with a central building in the middle and small structures along the side

walls. There is further a shipyard on the shore east of the court which might belong

to this court, or nor. Although Uysal mentions that this part might be the safest due to

the thick walls surrounding it, it has been determined as the “Second Court”. The

“Third Court” at the northern tip of the cape has the smallest area consisting of a

large palace building, a large terrace on the north overlooking the lake, a bathhouse

on the east, and a small courtyard in the south.

Over the years the excavation team has found remains of many other structures

in the surrounding area of Kubadabad Complex spread through alluvial plain

between the Lake and the hills, and additional buildings on the islands. The

following map helps to understand the assumed relationship between the complex

and its surrounding area. (Figure 3) It shows in the close neighborhood of the

excavation site, within which most remains from the Seljuk history were found.

Based on their distance from the complex, the influence or scope of Kubadabad

Complex might be suggested to have reached around three to five kilometers in

minimum.44

44 The modern villages Gölyaka, Pınarbaşı, and Yenice mark approximately the boundaries of the

area. Gölyaka (former Hoyran) is in around three, Pınarbaşı (former Kürtler) around four, and Yenice

nearly five kilometers distance from the Kubadabad Complex. Further structures were also found on

the islands and in the hinterland. Besides of the architectural remains on the islands - above all the

Maiden Castle (Kız Kalesi) in three kilometers distance from the complex at the lakeshore- remains of

a Seljuk kiosk from this period has been found in Malanda at eleven kilometers from the site. Arık has

conducted an excavation campaign in 1992 and argued that the kiosk was somehow connected to

Kubadabad. Arık, "Kubad-Abad /Malanda yüzey araştırması," Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, no. 11

30

Figure 3. Map showing Kubadabad Complex and the extent of the settlement45

These villages belonged historically to the district called Yenişar, which still is the

name given to the area.46 The name Yenişar (or Yenişehir) meaning “new city” was

suggested to derive from the assumed settlement which evolved in the neighborhood

of the complex following its construction, and declined slowly after the death of the

patron ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I in 1237.47 However, it is difficult today to find a lot

(1993), Arık, Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri, Arık, New information and perspectives on

Seljuk art obtained throughout the Kubad Abad palace excavations (2010), Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve

köşkleri.

45 Uysal, Kubad Abad şehri ve kalıntıları, 105.

46 Yenişar was used in historical documents to describe a district, which corresponds mainly to the

Yenişarademli, a municipality in the territory of the Isparta Province today. In his paper on

Kubadabad’s rediscovery, Oral mentioned under the title of Yenişar villages five villages (Hoyran,

Kürtler, Muma, Bademli, and Yenice) around the historic site. He further recorded that the villages of

Yenişar were spread through an alluvial plain of 8km between the Anamas Mountains – a branch of

the Taurus Mountains with the highest point on Dedegöl Tepesi – and the Lake Beyşehir by 10 km

along the lakeshore. Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," 173-174.

47 For the argument about a Seljuk city around Kubadabad see: ibid. ; Uysal, Kubad Abad şehri ve

kalıntıları. Ottoman accounts on Beyşehir as early as from the reign of Beyazid II (1447-1512)

mention Yenişar as one of the eight districts (nahiye) of Beyşehir owning around ten villages in total.

The reconstructed map of Beyşehir from 1530 in the published facsimile of the ledger of the Karaman

and Rum provinces shows all settlements around Lake Beyşehir including the ones named by Oral.

Yıldırım, "1530 Tarihinde Bey-Şehri livası," in Defter-i hâkânî dizisi III, ed. Binark and Başkanlığı

(Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı,

1996). Nevertheless, it seems that the settlement structure has changed, and the villages around seem

31

remains and other evidence for the former city, since most parts of it – so they

argued - were spoliated or flooded by the rising of the water levels of the Lake

Beyşehir.48

Nevertheless, there are remaining structures from this Seljuk period in this

area, which were first recorded by Oral during the early 1950s, as he visited the

region in search for the exact location of Kubadabad.49 Spolia taken from the Seljuk

complex was further used in the construction of various buildings and houses in the

villages - some visibly - such as in the village mosques of Yenice and Pınarbaşı. A

spoliated masjid inscription dated 1236 particularly was very significant, since it

allows the identification of the remains as belonging to Kubadabad, and provided

evidence about the character of Kubadabad in the thirteenth century. (Figure 4)

The inscription was along some other spoliated parts from the Seljuk period

included into the exterior decoration of the simply built sacral building, and verify

the existence of a Seljuk mosque that was built during ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad’s

reign. The inscription was placed above the entrance on the eastern side of the

rectangular plan and two architectural elements with geometrical girih motives. 50

to have changed their names, developed, or abandoned, and to have disappeared. Karaca, Belgelerle

Yenişar (Kardelen Sanat Yayınları, 2005).

48 The changing shorelines constitutes one of the main reasons behind the difficulties in locating, or

finding evidences for early settlement structures in the coastal area of Beyşehir Lake. Historical

surveys, for instance by Hüseyin Muşmal, have shown that the rise of the water level, sometimes in

form of floods, had a negative effect on the on the development of the Lake Beyşehir area. Muşmal,

"XX. Yüzyılın başlarında Beyşehir gölü ve 1910-1911 yılları büyük taşkın hadiseleri," Selçuk

Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, no. 23 (2008). Following these, the rise of the water level

was further related to the absence of further historical remains. Karaca has mentioned that the (urban)

settlement around Kubadabad Palace - referred in historical documents as Kubadabad city, or Yenişar

(meaning “new city”) - was flooded, and remain in some areas visible. Karaca, 132-133.

49 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?."

50 Oral has described the existing structure in his article, and gave detailed notes on Seljuk and earlier

elements of this building. The article includes further photographs and the transcription and

interpretation of the above-mentioned inscription. Oral, "Kubadabad bulundu." Oral, "Kubad-Abad

nasıl bulundu?," 175-176.

32

Figure 4. Detail from the original Seljuk inscription from the mosque of Kubadabad51

The Arabic inscription consists of the following six lines;

“And [He revealed] that the masjids are for Allah, so do not invoke with

Allah anyone.” (72; 18) This masjid was built in the days of the reign of

almighty sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad, the son of Kayhusraw, – may God

perpetuate his sovereignty – by his weak servant Badr al-Din Sutash (or

Savtash), governor of Kubad Abad in Ramadan of the 633 H. (1236).52

The inscription begins with a citation from Surat Al-Jinn (72; 18) about the

dedication of masjids to Allah only. The text further includes a laudatory dedication

of the masjid to ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I, as well as name of its patron Badr al-Din

Sutash, who has built the original structure in (H 633/1236) as the governor of

Kubadabad. This inscription is of crucial importance since it does date the building

to the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Dīn Ḳayḳubad I, and provides its patron’s name and title. The

entitlement of the patron as the governor (vali) of Kubadabad indicates that the area

had become a (semi-autonomous) province (vilayet) centered on the palace.53

Hence, the inscription mentioning title of the patron illustrates not only the

social and administrative system and their attitude towards patronage, but it proves

51 Uysal, Kubad Abad şehri ve kalıntıları, 106.

52 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," 175-176.

53 According to Baykara and Peacock, the areas that were considered as border zones (uc) of the

Sultanate held the same status as province (vilayet). Peacock argues that Seljuks saw the region of

Beysehir as a border zone, not only because of byzantine treat, but because Turkmen tribes established

their dominion in this area. Peacock, Court and nomadic life in Saljuq Anatolia, Baykara, "Türkiye

Selçuklularında idari birim ve bununla ilgili meseleler," Vakıflar Dergisi, no. 19.

33

that the area around Kubadabad complex has been upgraded into a center of an

administrative unit.54 This fact suggests that the settlement density and the

population grew with the building of the palace, supporting the arguments of Oral

and later scholars in regard of a city that was known as Yenişar or Kubadabad.55

Besides, local place names such as “Cam(i)altı”, or “Cami Yeri” indicate that the

original spot of this masjid probably laid just between Pınarbaşı (Kürtler) and the

excavation site. In the close neighborhood of the assumed masjid names of further

religious structures are known today. For instance, the place called “Şarköy

Mezarlığı” suggest that the graveyard of former settlement Şarköy (i.e. Yenişar) once

located here.56 Furthermore, the names such as “Tekke” for a Sufi lodge, the remote

“Kızılkirse” denoting probably the location of a church or monastery –which were

widespread in the Beyşehir region during the medieval period, or “Yörük Mezarlığı”

indicating the existence of nomadic groups here, reflect the multilayered culture

around Kubadabad.

The remains of the Seljuk period were however not limited to the used spolia

or religious spaces. Oral has recorded further settlement remains. The roads and

boundary lines following the remains of former walls of the hunting ground of the

palace complex reached to the place called “Tahtalı” (i.e. Takht-e Ali) within the

village of Gölyaka, where Oral recorded remains of a building that he assumed was a

bath (hammam).57 Moreover, the area called “Emirler” implies that the houses or

villas of Seljuk amirs mentioned in the Ibn Bibi text might have been once located in

54 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," 175-177. In term of administrative unites in the Rum Seljuk

Anatolia, the book, and articles of Tuncer Baykara can be helpful to understand the differences

between grades, functions, and terms of different units. Baykara.

55 However, the denotation of the structure as a “masjid” instead of a “mosque” weakens to argument

of a large city around the palace, but does not fully eliminate the existence of a smaller settlement.

56 Uysal notices that no Seljuk graves with inscriptions were found in this area to prove the history of

the settlement. Uysal, Kubad Abad şehri ve kalıntıları, 108.

57 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," 175. Uysal has doubted the assumption that this was a

bathhouse as Oral and later I.H. Konyalı have argued. Uysal, "Kubad-Abad hamamları," 95-96.

34

the close neighborhood of the palace.58 Similarly, the construction workers and

craftsmen were probably settled outside the complex walls.

These examples show that Kubadabad, in contrast to palaces in cities, should

not be just as an enclosed complex with palatial functions, but as a countryside estate

that required additional areas and structures to meet the comfort of a royal seat.

Redford has stated in relation to this that Anatolian Seljuk palaces “overlap

typologically and functionally with structures like caravanserais, fortification towers,

garden pavilions and tomb towers usually identified with single functions:

commercial, military, domestic and memorial/funereal respectively. “59

In this sense, these place names further allow understanding of the relation

between the Seljuk palace natural resources and the agricultural activities around it.

(Figure 3) The denotations using the terms “spring” (pınar), “creek” (çay) or “well"

(kuyu) indicate the rich water sources in the area. Nevertheless, the remaining

fragments of pipelines leading from Yenice to the complex demonstrate that a pipe

system transported freshwater from the mountains to Kubadabad.60 In relation to the

water supply, further place names on the map including words such as “grapevine”

(e.g. Asmadibi Mevkii), “garden” (e.g. Kırbağlar Mevkii) or “meadow” (Çayır

Mevkii) depict the natural and agricultural environment of the complex that possibly

derived from the Seljuk period.

In addition to these, there were also military structures for security in the

region that has been largely ignored in academic papers. The security issue is often

58 Ibn Bibi, El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye (Tıpkıbasım) (Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi,

1956). In addition to the reports of Ibn Bibi about the building of such villas, there is physical

evidence of kiosks or villas that were built, for instance in Alara, or Obaköy, thus in closer region of

the Sultan’s winter residence in Alanya. The kiosks in the region of Kubadabad, amongst others the

kiosk of Malanda can be similarly attributed to the ruling class. Arık suggests that these belonged

either to the ruler himself, or to the Seljuk elites. Arık, "Kubad-Abad 1992 yılı kazısı," Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı 2, no. 15 (1993): 35.

59 Redford, Anatolian Seljuk palaces and gardens, 231.

60 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," 176.

35

discussed with the emphasis on the hidden location of Kubadabad, as well as the

building remains on various islands that were amongst other assumed to have

fulfilled the purpose of watching posts.61 There is evidence that the islands housed

kiosks, houses, as well as stables and probably stations for security.62 Nevertheless,

Arık indicates that the team has not been able to survey them to determine their

affiliation and purpose. The ruins of the Seljuk castle known as Kız Kalesi (Maiden

Castle), on the nearby island with the same name is an exception. The excavations

under Arık concentrated between 1982-85 on the Kız Kalesi Island63 located around

three kilometers from the Kubadabad complex at the shore.

The castle covers the whole island equaling an area of around 3000 square

meters. It is suggested that the Seljuk castle was built as an annex to the palace

complex on the ruins of a byzantine castle or monastery.64 It is formed as a complex

consisting of various buildings – a kiosk, a bath (hammam), a (byzantine) chapel and

outbuildings. The access to the complex was given through a main gate on the

western shore, which is closer to the main land.65 It was formed as a rectangular hall

with a vaulted ceiling and an annexing iwan probably used by the guards. The small

61 Türker, "Kubad Abad ve Kız Kalesi kazılarında Bizans dönemini temsil eden buluntular" (paper

presented at the I. Uluslararası Beyşehir ve yöresi sempoyzumu, Beyşehir, 2006).

62.Arık, "Kubad-Abad 1992 yılı kazısı." Arık, "Türk Kültürüne yönelik arkeolojik araştırmalar ve

Kubadabad Kız Kalesi kazısı," Ankaran Universitesi Dil ve Tarih Cografya Fakültesi (1987).

63 Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayının uzağındaki bazı sayfiye yapıları: Hoyran'daki kalıntılar ve Malanda

köşkü, 199-201.

64 Arık assumes a Byzantine castle or a Christian monastery at this remote location. Arık, "Kubadabad

1984 yılı çalışmaları," Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, no. 7 (1985). It is questionable in what state –either

as a ruin, or in a functioning state- the Seljuks took over this small building. Moreover, it would be

interesting to know more about the Seljuk approach towards such reused structures. However the only

historical evidence about the Seljuk period of this castle seems to be from the reign of the Seljuk

Sultan Ghiyath al-Din II, was suggested to have sought here shelter from the Babai uprising. Uysal,

Kubad Abad sarayının göldeki uzantısı: Kız Kalesi. Thus, it was meant to provide protection and

seclusion. However, the actual purpose of the castle is still controversial. In reference to studies on the

Seljuk harem and women, Shukurov indicated that the castle might have served partly as a harem,

where Christian women had a small chapel for their religious services. Shukurov, Harem Christianity:

The Byzantine identity of Seljuk princes ( I.B.Tauris, 2013).

65 Another point of entrance to the castle was located in the north. Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayının

göldeki uzantısı: Kız Kalesi, 190.

36

structures next to it were denoted as chapel – identifiable through Christian finds

such as fragments of crosses, coins, or parts of a mosaic floor, and a bath (hammam)

with fragments of the pipe system and in situ tiles from the decoration.66 The main

building built as a two-storied kiosk is in the middle at the highest point of the rocky

island. The kiosk sat on a rectangular plan (11 x 15 m) in the southwest- northeast

axis and mainly formed by a long hall or anteroom and two iwans flanking it on the

northeastern end. The building seems to be covered with cut stone both on the inand

outside. At the south-east, there is further a long structure, which consists of

many small cells aligned along the walls, as if they were used as monks’ dormitory

or as storage place.

In terms of military structures, Veli Karaca’s local history -as the only sourceprovides

a list of ten different castles or towers (kale) within a radius of nearly

twenty kilometers from the palace complex that have been preserved.67 The nearest

and thus the most important of these castles is Mındıras68, which is positioned only at

two kilometers distance from the complex and at 1213 meters height. (Figure 3)

Thus, the Seljuk dominance in the region was ensured through the construction of the

Kubadabad palace as a center of administration and royal seat, as well as network of

military structures such as watchtowers and castles that connected the remote

“border zone” (uc) and hidden area between mountains and the lake to the rest of the

66 Türker.

67 The 2006 published book of a retired teacher Veli Karaca, who has stated to visit the sites in

company of Zeki Oral, offers the most comprehensive material on the history of the region of Yenisar.

He mentions Mındıras, Kestel, Geledos, Kalatepe, Doğdu, Ortatepe, Dede, Maltepe, Aktepe, and

Kocatepe. Karaca, 22-23. These were not specifically identified to be Seljuk structures, on the

contrary, Karaca rather suggested that some them probably originated from the ancient times.

Nevertheless, their survival over centuries suggests that they were in use under the authority of

different cultures including Seljuks. Karaca further illustrated the locations of these buildings and

other sites on a map. However, this map is difficult to read and contains too many locations that are

not related to the Seljuk complex. Ibid. Harita 2

68 Karaca assumes that the castle of Mındıras - owning its name the island or peninsula of Mındıras on

which it was placed – was formerly known as Eğrinas or Akrinas. Ibid. 22-23 Ibn Bibi mentions the

place of Akrinas as the site discovered by Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kayubad I. This topic is discussed in

more detail in Chapter 3.

37

Seljuk realm. The connection was further established through the inclusion of the

area to Seljuk the road and caravanserai network. It has been already implied at the

beginning of the chapter that the southern part of the Beyşehir Lake, and hence

Kubadabad, was on the conjunction point of the roads connecting north and south as

well as east and west. According to the primary surveys of the area by Oral, in the

1950 remains of the road between Kubadabad and Antalya with stone flooring were

still visible near the village of Bademli.69

This demonstrates that Kubadabad - although seemingly remote from the main

cities and routes – was well connected to the Seljuk realm not only by routes, but as

an administrative and military unit (vilayet), a royal seat, and as a settlement. The

analysis of the palatial environment has demonstrated Kubadabad’s sphere of

influence extending over 10 to 15 kilometers into the countryside, with a central

walled palace complex and a settlement within a five-kilometer radius around it.70

Kubadabad fulfilled all kinds of functions ranging from palace and administration, to

settlement and from production to protection in conformity with the given

environmental circumstances within this scope.

2.2 Courts, walls, and access: Organization of the complex

In similarity to the spatial organization as illustrated above, the complex has been

arranged in different areas of control that were organized according to specific

69 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?," 177.

70 The outer limits of Kubadabad’s sphere of influence can be measured based on either the remotest

tower named by Karaca in ca. 15 km distance, or in the Seljuk kiosk of Malanda ca.11 km far from

the palace complex. Karaca, 22-23. Arık, "Kubad-Abad 1992 yılı kazısı." Arık, "Türk Kültürüne

yönelik arkeolojik araştırmalar ve Kubadabad Kız Kalesi kazısı." Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayının

uzağındaki bazı sayfiye yapıları: Hoyran'daki kalıntılar ve Malanda köşkü.

38

functions. Two different parts are visible; the first part entering the palatial area

seems to serve as encampment and leisure spaces and consists of two or more walled

sections. The second, the core living space, was located on a rocky cape at the lake

shore, comparable to a citadel surrounded by walls and topographically raised from

the surrounding plain up to ten meters. The core (i.e. the main site of excavations)

with nearly twenty different structures fulfilled multiple functions on an area of

nearly 5200 square meters, consisting of three or four sections, or courts that have

been separated from one another through secondary walls. Further two or more

courts were added to the complex. (Figure 5)

The organization of the complex in courts was based on principles of hierarchy

and functionality. The courts were arranged from the outside to the innermost

providing gradual security and seclusion as far as the courts at the lakeshore were

isolated from the plain by three prior courts and as many layers of walls. In

accordance with increasing privacy, these sections varied in their size from largest to

smallest area, and in their purpose from the most public to most private functions. In

the following text, the courts will be introduced according to their order from

outermost to the innermost to show the principles of spatial organization.

The complex is arranged in sections leading from southeast towards north

west. The outer part of the complex, hence, is an extension to the elevated core at the

shore to the plain in the south, and serves as a transitional space between the palace

and the settlement.

39

Figure 5. Map of the Kubadabad Palace Complex showing the different courts, important buildings,

and access ways71

71 Map produced by the author based on the plans published by Arık and satellite views.

40

This outer part was suggested to extend over the vast area between the

tumulus in the west towards the place in the village of Gölyaka which locals today

denote as Takht-e Ali. It was probably used as the private hunting ground

(paradeison) as the local place name “Avlak” indicates, or a (zoological) garden of

Kubadabad Palace. The remaining parts of the walls and formations in the landscape

suggest that this garden area of 744’975 square meters was surrounded by a 30cmthick

rubble wall with 1155 meters length and 645 meters depth was formed parallel

to the shoreline. 72 However, it remains unclear whether the access to the complex

given through this garden.

The walls and ruins of some small structures differentiate the area between

the garden and the core enclosure from the rest of the paradeison. Although no clear

statements have been made about the interdependence of these sections, the

topographical map made by Campaign indicate the existence of a separate court from

the hunting ground.73 The map has shown walls going around the source of Gürlevi,

because of which Otto-Dorn mentioned the source as a dam.74 (Figure 2) The course

of these walls is today still visible. In accordance with this the excavation team has

found a structure with a small rectangular plan outside of the walled complex (XV),

which Uysal assumed to be a tower the function of which was somehow linked to the

hunting ground southwest of it.75 (Figure 5) Future excavations around the walls and

the spring of Gürlevi will hopefully provide more information about the function and

outlook of this area, but in regard of the drawings, knowledge about the itineraries of

the Sultan with his entourage, and the narrations about the tradition of

72 Oral, "Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu?."

73 This division is suggested in regard of the differentiation between the inner and outer Peacock and

Yıldız, 38, Redford, Landscape and the state in medieval Anatolia: Seljuk gardens and pavillions of

Alanya, Turkey.

74 Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad (Oktober 1965)." See Figure 2

75 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 112.

41

encampments76, this walled area could be seen as an enclosed garden with some

important structures such as toilets and baths to serve soldiers as a camping ground

in the manner of Umayyad qasrs.77 If so the entrance to the complex might be given

directly from this area.

The excavation team believed that the main gate leading to the enclosed

complex was located somewhere on the walls between the tumulus and Gürlevi. The

gate led from the hunting garden to the first courtyard of the complex, which covered

the largest part of the complex. This “First Court” constitutes the main space

providing access to the different parts of the complex. It was limited from the

southeast with the outer garden enclosure, from the east/northeastern side with the

court housing the “Small Palace” and from the north/northwestern side with the

“Great Palace”. (Figure 5) It housed the remains of various single or double storied

buildings providing space for dormitories, workshops, and a kiln for tile production,

as well as, toilets a cellar, and a well.

The rectangular building (VIII), for instance, had an open ground plan

divided only through a raised platform into two long and narrow spaces. The

simplicity of spatial organization suggested that this building might have functioned

as workshop, especially during the construction of the palace. Arık further assumed

that this building might have then housed dormitory for Seljuk guards. Another

structure (XXXIII) with a rectangular plan formed by the alignment of three rooms

was also identified as workshop. The building was placed between the first court and

76 Ibn Bibi mentions that Ala al-Din Kaykubad sometimes enjoyed to camp with his entourage at

every lake and riverside during his journeys. Ibn Bibi, El-Evamir¸'l-'ala'iyye fi'l-umuri'l-'ala'iyye,

trans. Erzi and Lugal, vol. I (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1957). The anecdotes about the

Sultan’s encampments with the army in palatial surroundings such as Filobad, Aksaray or Mashad

plain near Alanya further illustrates how these encampments functioned. Redford argues that Seljuk

suburban palaces and Kubadabad were constructed like caravanserais on significant passages.

Redford, Beach and Luzzadder-Beach, 893., 67-69, 75.

77 Hillenbrand, Islamic architecture: Form, function and meaning (Edinburgh University Press, 1994).

42

the garden area with door opening towards Gürlevi suggesting suggested that the

function of this building was closely linked to the hunting garden. The existence of

herds in the western (a) and middle (b) rooms further indicated that it might be

formerly used by smiths.78

Amongst these buildings, two kiosks with bathhouses –a combination known

from Umayyad desert palaces - were located here. The Western Kiosk or "Hamamlı

Kösk" (IX) with an integrated bathhouse situated to the northwest of the rectangular

structure (VIII). The entrance to the residential part is given trough a vestibule. It

opens to a central space surrounded by smaller rooms. The bath (hammam) in the

north west of the building consisted of a resting or changing room (apodyterium),

two heated rooms - a warm (tepidarium) and hot (caldarium) - as well as a cistern

and a furnace (külhan) that were arranged in line. The second building (VII) housed

a large hammam, which distinguished itself from the first kiosk through additional

rooms, as well as the organization of these allowing two different accesses. The

existence of vertical pipes, further suggested that this building had an upper level.

The floor of the warm room (tepidarium) was covered with two different tile types;

turquoise glazed hexagonal tiles of 30cm diameters, and rectangular tiles as big as

40x30 cm decorated in cobalt blue and white zigzag pattern, like the examples found

in Alanya Citadel.79

All these buildings stand without a visible order in the landscape, facing

different directions. Despite the differences in their forms and positions, these

buildings form a coherent group. They are connected through small wall sections that

78 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri, 169-170. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 120-

126.

79 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri, 169-175. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 117-

122. On the zigzag pattern see also: Redford, "Portable palaces: On the circulation of objects and

ideas about architecture in medieval Anatolia and Mesopotamia."

43

were built during a later construction phase at the price of destroying small parts of

the buildings. In other words, these structures have been integrated into the wall that

separated the courtyard from the outside and marked an irregular course of the wall

that only survived in remains. The buildings, especially working spaces, have simple

rectangular plans consisting of maximally three separate rooms. The living quarters

and baths, in contrast, have a basic plan with rooms surrounding a central space. This

basic plan was adjusted according to the building site, and was extended through the

repetition of the same layout, if required. These show in sum that the buildings of the

first court had similarities in their planning.

The second courtyard to the northeastern side of the first was surrounded by

walls that separated it from the other courtyards and from the outside. (Figure 6) The

walls on the lakeside reached a depth of one meter and secured it against enemies,

and what is more, from a possible landslide or flood. In this regard, Uysal noted that

this area was the most secure in the whole complex.80 The second courtyard was

accessible through a monumental gate on the southwest (V). The remains of the

structure suggest that the gate was formed as an iwan.81 Nevertheless, there was a

hidden gate and a stairway on the lakeside that provided access to the shipyard (III)

on the shore, which was not clearly identifiable as belonging to any of the aforementioned

courtyards yet.82

80 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 115, 126-127.

81 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri, 176-177.

82 Both Uysal and Arık discussed this shipyard in their latest works as an independent entity outside of

the enclosed complex. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 150-151. Arık, Selçuklu

sarayları ve köşkleri, 187-189.

44

Figure 6. Plan of the second court with indicated access ways83

In contrast to the first, this courtyard housed only one monumental building at its

center, and small structures such as fountains and small pavilions up to two stories

annexed to the walls.84 Despite the main building denoted as Small Palace (II) –

which will be discussed in the next section, the raised platform appears to be a

significant feature of the second court placed as narrow terrace along the western

walls. The platform was accessible through stairs to the north of the monumental

gate and reached to the gate on the northwest that connected the second court directly

with the third. In this regard, it seems to be used as a pathway between the palaces.

The path followed the western wall of the courtyard, proceeding straightforward to

the north, and forking on the same level as the Small Palace.85 After the bend, the

platform towards the Great Palace gives its place to the few steps, so that the

83 Fragment from the Kubadabad Plan published by Uysal. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin

mimarisi.

84 Uysal indicated that the walls between the second and third courts were probably rebuilt. Ibid. 127

85 Ibid. 129-132 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri, 178-182.

45

pathway continuous on the same level as the front courtyard of the Great Palace.

Arık states further that the path might have had a wooden pergola construction on

top.86

The excavation team has found in bend area many artifacts from pre-historic

settlements to Seljuk period, which included graves and traces from third and second

century BCE87, remains of post-Seljuk structures, as well as foundations of fountains

and pipes of Seljuk water distribution system.88 The water pipes run parallel to this

platform and diagonal to the slop towards the lake. In the area where the pathway

(platform) makes a bend, the team has found evidence for a small rectangular

structure with cut stone flooring (?). The discovery of two different pipe systems a

vertical pipe outlet on the southern side bringing fresh water to the spot, and drainage

pipes running close to the surface towards the lake suggest that a fountain may have

been at this spot. The turquoise tiles found in front of this structure indicate further

that the fountain was decorated with tiles 89

The third courtyard on the northern tip of the site stood on an artificial

platform rising above the lake covered an area of 50m by 35m that was supported by

sea walls. Another, smaller yard complemented the palace building from the south.

Hence, the building (I) was placed between two open courtyards; the large L-formed

space on the lakeside functioned probably as a private garden with small pavilions to

enjoy the lake panorama, and provided - in combination with the above-mentioned

86 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri, 179.

87 Arık, Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri, 64.

88 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 132-134.

89 Arık suggested that the fresh water came to this spot probably from Anamas Mountains, and was

taken from the natural source called “Gençlik Pınarı” next to the Great Palace. However, there seems

to be remains of the pipelines on the plain behind the site that once brought fresh water from the

mountains. An additional source of water was Gürlevi, which was turned into a dam. Arık further

rejects the idea that the pipe system was a left over from the former Roman settlements in this area.

She argues that the two copper coins, one from the reign of Kaykaus I and the other form the reign of

Kaykubad I, which were found in the sand and mortar layer underneath the pipe system, prove that

this water system was built by the Seljuks., Arık, Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri, 65-66.

46

path - access between the two palaces. Additionally, a bathhouse placed in the

southeast corner of the L-formed garden. The smaller or front courtyard in the south

was rather formed as an interior space with higher walls, floor coverings, a fountain

as well as many cells opening to it. The access to the court was given through two

different points in the south. The main gate to the northwest of the southern

courtyard granted access to the courtyard.90 A corridor further other connected the

front yard to the bathhouse and the L-formed garden. In the light of this, the main

palace complex seems to be arranged in at least three sections used for different

functions, and characterized by their grades of seclusion and privacy. (Figure 7)

Figure 7. Plan of the third court with indicated access ways91

90 Otto-Dorn recognized that the pipes were built to pass through the opening on the west wall, and

suggested that this was the place of the original gate. However, no further evidence was found to

reconstruct the original form of this gate. Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Kubad-Abad kazıları 1965 yılı ön

raporu," 238. Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966, 438-441.

91 Section from the Kubadabad Plan published by Uysal. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin

mimarisi.

47

At least two important facts about the spatial organization of these courtyards give a

clue about the function of this path. On the one hand, the first courtyard was not

direct separated from the first court by walls, but only by distance and elevations in

the topography. On the other hand, the path started immediately at the entrance of the

second courtyard and provided access to the Small Palace, as well as, to the next

yard.

In consideration of these facts, it can be assumed that the pathway was used

as a ceremonial route. Visitors entered the complex through the gate on the south,

passed the first courtyard - eminent guests probably on horseback. Hereby, they

chose between two roads that run around an elevation of around eight meters in

height. The excavation team has located on top of it a structure with two rectangular

spaces. Concerning its position, asymmetrical organization, and small size, Uysal

suspected here the foundations of a (watch-) tower. Following either the western or

the eastern walls, visitors arrived at the monumental iwan gate opening to the more

secure and private section of the complex. From here, they could reach the Small

Palace through the yard or the pathway. As the ceremonial route, the raised platform

offered beautiful sights of the Small Palace and the vast garden around it that was

equipped with fountains with turquoise tiling, as well as of the Lake Beyşehir. At the

same time, the height of the platform rendered the viewer visible for others.

2.3 Palace architecture and decoration

Of all structures within this enclosure, two edifices were identified as palatial

buildings, and became particularly central to the excavations and studies; these

structures denoted as “Great Palace” and “Small Palace” stand out from the group of

48

other structures by their size. The building called Great Palace (I) covers a

rectangular area of 50 by 35 meters including the southern (i.e. front) courtyard

which as mentioned before - is built as an inner courtyard. The Small Palace (II) in

contrast has a nearly square plan with a side length around 23-24 meters. The

following table shows the measures of some of the larger buildings in the complex.

Table 1. Measures of some buildings in the Kubadabad complex

Building Name No. Size

Great Palace I 50x35m

Small Palace II Ca. 23,5x23,5m

Shipyard III Ca. 25x30m

Bathhouse with Kiosk VII 12,00x28,50m

Rectangular Building VIII 29,06x11,83m

Western Kiosk or Kiosk with Bath IX Ca. 22x22m

Bath of the Great Palace XXXII 8,25x13,05m.

According to this table, the Great Palace (I) is by far the largest building of the

complex, followed by the Shipyard (III) and finally by the Small Palace (II). The

difference between the two palace buildings and the Shipyard or other large-sized

structures such as the Western Kiosk with Bath (IX) can be explained with for

instance the location of these. Each of the palace buildings is located on a high (or

rather elevated?) platform supported by strong sea walls around eight to ten meters

above the lake, as well as the lower situated plain south of them. Thus, the buildings

are constructed on the elevated ground providing a beautiful panorama and enabling

them to oversee everything around them. At the same time, their position at the

greatest distance possible from the main gate of the complex surrounded on one or

two sides with water guarantees security against possible attacks and mark their

49

status of importance. Moreover, these facilities were separated from other buildings

of the complex by walls. The court walls seem primarily not to be constructed

against external attacks or security reasons. However, they function as physical and

visual separators providing seclusion and privacy. Large garden areas or courtyards

around the palaces support this effect of privacy and serve as markers of wealth and

power.

Despite these characteristics, these buildings were formed as typical kiosks

that followed the same basic plan characterized by a central space (soffe) which

constitutes the area for public access, for meetings and other living functions. This

architectural unit was adjustable in size and form to fulfıll the functions and

requirements of each building. Hence, the living space was also extendable through

repetitive use of the same basic unit, as mentioned before. In Kubadabad we see

variations of this basic house plan to create a space for formal, official purposes such

as receptions, audiences, or banquets where high ranked guests from both the Seljuk

court and foreign countries had to be hosted and entertained. The Great Palace (I)

exemplifies the expandability of this basic plan. (Figure 8) The ground plan of the

building constitutes of two such basic that were placed next to one another. The plan

is however not completely symmetrical; the plan of the additional unit (i.e. harem92)

was rotated by 90 degrees so that a small L-formed corridor connected the two

central spaces (I-e) and (I-j).

One of the adjustments was the addition of an entrance structure (i.e.

vestibule) to the basic plan. The entrance part of the Great Palace (I), for instance,

consisted of a hall, or vestibule (I-b), flanked by two rooms (I-a; I-c) where we might

92 Since the second unit was only accessible through the first, Otto-Dorn recognized this second part

as harem, the inner or private part of the building. Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad

1966, 442-446.

50

expect to find the rooms for palace guards or waiting rooms for guests.93 (Figure 8) In

this regard, the vestibule is added to create additional space and that separated inner

life in the building physically and visually from the outside. This effect was

strengthened through a derivation of, on the one hand, the entrance structure from the

axis of the central hall, and, on the other hand, the gates giving access to the central

hall from the main axis in opposite directions. These precautions helped to control

and restrict the access to the central hall (soffa), and hence, to the rest of the building.

The entrance to the Small Palace (II), in great contrast, was located at the

west corner of the southern façade. (Figure 9) The access to the building was given

through a vaulted iwan (II-c) which had over a gate at the back wall of this iwan.

Remains of a stone bordure found on the base of the gate shows that the gate was

framed with braiding motifs.94 The gate opened to the vestibule (II-b) that was

further extended with the addition of a square room on the north side (II-a). The

addition of the iwan (II-c) on the south and the room (II-a) on the north, the vestibule

(II-b) appeared as a large corridor running in the south-north axis that served as a

passageway between different areas. A door on the west wall of the vestibule (II-b)

opened to the central hall (II-e), a small space on the opposite side (i.e. east wall)

provided space for a staircase leading to the upper floor. In this case, the entrance

structure was formed by three sections aligned on the same axis, which again was

placed against the main axis of the building.

93 However, Uysal notes the existence of pipes in the northwest wall of the room (I-a) to the west of

the vestibule, and concludes that this room was in used for service purpose. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray

külliyesinin mimarisi, 144.

94 Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri.

51

Figure 8. Plan of the Great Palace

(Otto-Dorn 1969)

Figure 9. Ground floor plan of

the Small Palace

(Otto-Dorn 1969)

52

Another adjustment on the basic plan was the addition of an iwan to the

central hall (soffe); this addition gave the building a direction and created an axis of

movement and gaze. The placement of this new element on the opposite side of the

entrance made it to the first thing to see by entering the hall. Hence, it re-defined the

center of attention, the iwan was used as throne space to manifest the importance and

centrality of the throne by increasing its visibility both from the in- and outside. This

added a new, formal purpose central hall, which turned into a reception or audience

hall. But, how was the position of the iwan, or the axis of the buildings determined?

In Kubadabad, the palace buildings were built on different axes. The Small

Palace (II) is built in the west-east axis so that the iwan opens towards the lake in the

eastern direction. Both the iwan and the hall are flanked symmetrically with rooms.

Each iwan wall has an opening, but the openings on the northern and southern sides

seem to be doorways that open to smaller rooms, or iwans (II-I, II-j).95 (Figure 9)

The throne hall of the Great Palace (I-e) was extended an iwan in the

northeast-southwest axis. The iwan was added to the north of the central hall, again

towards the lakeside. The second (throne) iwan in the building was according to the

plan of the “harem” section rotated by 90 degrees, however, it again was facing the

lakeside. The plans clearly show each of these iwans had at least one large opening –

either in form of door or a window - at its back wall facing the lake. Hence, it might

95 The openings in the walls have been already discovered and discussed by Otto-Dorn. In the later

excavations under Arık, the team has recognized that the openings on each of the iwan walls were in

the same length, which does not allow any further suggestion about the former function of these as

either a door or a window. In terms of the rooms flanking the iwan (II-l, II-j), Arık states that the high

grade of destruction in the walls of these spaces renders it hard to imagine the former outlook and

function of these. The rooms around the hall are divided into two parts by walls parallel to the western

wall of the building. These walls create large nearly square-formed rooms (II-g, II-h) with direct

access to the throne hall (II-e) at the same level as the threshold to the iwan, and smaller, elongated

rooms (II-d, II-f) behind. These back rooms (II-d, II-f) have no direct access to the hall are only

accessible through the openings in the partition. They further have shafts on the outer (northern /

southern) walls. In the room (II-d) discovery of the remains of a vertical pipe within this shaft

suggested that a pipe system connecting an upper level with the drainage system underneath the

building. Arık, Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri, 59-60.

53

be argued that the positions for the iwan and their openings were chosen in such a

way that the lake view was visible from the inside. At the same time, one might

assume that these originally were doors that provided from the throne space direct

access to the private courtyards.96 Concerning the fact that these iwans were placed

on the only façade walls of these central halls, it might be further assumed that these

openings were the main source of light in these rooms.97 This meant, on the one

hand, that the iwan provided a direct connection to nature outside, both visually and

physically. On the other hand, it was probably the brightest area in the hall.

Furthermore, the excavation team has suggested that the ceilings of the Great

Palace (I) reached up to six meters height.98 The actual height of the walls and the

form of the ceiling is not sure since the roof was collapsed. The team suggested

based on the structure that the ceiling was probably covered with vaults. In the twostoried

Small Palace, the roof and the upper floor were also destroyed. Nevertheless,

the remains provide an impression of how they once might have looked like. (Figure

10)

Figure 10. North-south

section from the Small

Palace

(Otto-Dorn 1969,490)

96 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 144.

97 Since we have no clear evidence about possible openings in the upper wall zones or on the ceiling

itself, we must assume that the main source of light was the sunlight coming in from the back iwan

wall (thus the northern wall of the iwan). The light effect coming from the openings behind the throne

–possibly blending the eyes of the audience, and the rounded forms of the iwan and ceilings evoking

the idea of the heavenly sphere must have been given the sultan a glamorous and even divine

appearance. As mentioned in the introduction, the palace was regarded as a physical manifestation of

the power, skills, and status. The palace should amongst others impress and induce astonishment.

Accordingly, these effects were part of the requirements set by the official or formal functions of

palace buildings.

98 Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966, 438.

54

Thus, the importance and value of the central space and the throne was not

only emphasized through vertical elements such as iwan or dome but also generally

through height in form of the high ceilings or platforms elevated from the ground.

The floor of the iwan (I-e) was raised into a platform of thirty-five centimeters above

the hall floor.99 This distinguished the iwan from the reception hall and created a

physical and mental distance between the ruler seated on the platform and his

audience forced to look up to him. The team has recorded that the “diwan”-room (Ig)

west of the throne room (I-e) had also an elevation in the floor that defined a large

square area that reserved for meetings leaving a lower lying corridor along the

southern and western walls. However, the height of this square platform from the

floor has not been given in any publication. A similar room division is also given in

the room (I-k) in the harem section, where a large square area is differentiated from a

corridor running around it. Here, as in many others, the division of the space is not

emphasized by the elevation of the floor/ a platform, but the division is rather

marked through the differences in the floor covering. (Figure 8)

Two different materials seemed to be used as floor coverings; stone and

brick. Although most parts of the floor were destroyed in the Small Palace, the floors

of the throne iwan and reception hall (II-e) as well as the western room or iwan (II-i)

were covered in brick. Uysal suggest that all rooms were covered in the same

material. In contrast, outside the building (II) the paths were made of cut-stone tiles.

The floors in the Great Palace (I) were more differentiated; brick seems also here to

be the main material to cover room floors in both iwans (I-e and I-j), and in the

rooms (I-a, I-c - I-l).100

99 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi. Arık and Arık, Tiles: treasures of Anatolian soil :

tiles of the Seljuk and Beylik periods (Levent, Istanbul: Kale Group Culture Publications, 2008), 295.

100 Uysal lists further areas such as in the construction of arches or window walls where this material

seems to have no such representative function. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 145.

55

The remaining rooms and areas such as corridors seem to be covered in cutstone

tiles. Nevertheless, the spatial differentiation in some areas is made with the

same material, brick. (Figure 11) The drawings of the ground floor plans published

by Otto-Dorn indicate the existence of various mudbrick forms and sizes and hence

systems. The contrast was given through the application of in the remaining areas of

the Great Palace including the front yard and the paths around the Small Palace.101

Figure 11. Combined plan showing the floor coverings of the rooms (I-e, I-g, I-h, I-I, I-j, I-k) in the

Great Palace

(right: Otto-Dorn 1965, left: from Otto-Dorn 1969)

These materials i.e. stone and brick were at the same time the main materials of

construction. The walls of the palace buildings were primarily built of rubble stone,

sometimes with the addition of brick fragments.102 The constructions seem to be

101 Arık, Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri.

102 The use of brick fragments for filling is seen on the southwestern façade and the northeastern wall

of the vestibule of the Great Palace, as well as on the walls of some buildings located in the First

Court. Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 138.

56

additionally stabilized by frequent wooden slabs that were put on top of brick

braiding.103 Wood was further used for the construction of doors, door frames and of

some window frames.104 The surfaces were generally covered by cut-stone tiles or

blocks. In the façade walls of the palaces – i.e. all exterior walls of the Small Palace

(I) and of the Maiden Castle, as well as the southern façade of the Great Palace (II) –

Seljuk architects used cut stone blocks.105 In the construction of wall openings,

particularly arched doorways, brick was preferred.106 Similarly, the vaulted ceilings

are suggested to be built by this material.107 In this sense, the choice of materials was

primarily based on their constructive qualities of stability, endurance, and flexibility.

Nevertheless, the cost of these materials and the labor required to put into their

finishing were also factors that seem to be considered in their application.108 As a

result, the walls outside/ façade have been covered with cut stone blocks to create the

image of a strong, monumental building adequate for a power and wealthy ruler.109

Apart from the materials used in the construction of the space (i.e. wood,

stone, and brick), the architectural decoration of the palaces consisted of glass, tiles,

and stucco. However, the findings do not always provide reliable or adequate

information about the original state of the decorations in these palace buildings. For

instance, the remaining fragments of materials in and outside the Small Palace - in

contrast to the Great Palace (I) where in situ decorations were found - allow only

103 Ibid. 145

104 Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayı cam buluntuları üzerine genel bir değerlendirme (ibid.).

105 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi (ibid.), 138, 145. Uysal, Kubad Abad sarayının

göldeki uzantısı: Kız Kalesi. Arık, Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri.

106 Uysal, Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi, 145.

107 While the findings in the Great Palace primarily indicate this, some parts of the Small Palace such

as the Iwan gate (V), and the ceilings of the spaces on both side of the throne iwan (II-i and II-j) seem

to be built of stone ibid. 138, 145

108 Wood as a cheap and available material provided a certain grade of stability and flexibility but it

was not endurable. Brick was very flexible in size and form and allowed different combinations but it

was laborious. Stone was also available in large amounts and in various forms, but production and

masonry of large cut stone blocks were much harder that building with rubble stone.

109 See Winter, 384.

57

vague reconstructions of the program. In this respect, the following arguments will

be made based on the findings primarily from different parts of the Great Palace (I)

suggesting that the decorations of the Small Palace were similar.

Valuable information about the decorations in the Great Palace is particularly

found in four richly decorated rooms; the iwan with the reception hall (I-e), the room

denoted as “diwan” (I-g) next to it, the banquet hall with iwan (I-j) in the harem

section, and the room northwest to the banquet hall (I-h). Considering the position of

these spaces within the floor plan, it becomes clear how the spatial organization and

decoration completed one another. It has been already discussed and shown that the

central halls with annexed iwans were the main points of attention, and served not

only living but also representative or formal purposes. (Figure 11)

In the iwan of the Great Palace (I-e) walls and the front of the platform were

covered with colorful tiling. On the east wall of the iwan was further a one-meterlong

marble block with grooves that –according to Otto-Dorn – might have belonged

to a mechanism to hang a curtain.110 The decoration of the walls in the reception hall

(I-e) is not clear, since the archeological reports only describe what must be the inner

structure of the walls, stone with stripes of brickwork beginning at two meters height

and frequently built in wooden slabs.111 Since no other information was given about

the wall decoration in the reception hall we can only assume how they have

originally looked like. In spaces - such as room (I-d) - the walls were adorned with

spoliated elements commonly from Roman or Byzantine culture, which were used as

cheap building materials, but also to underline messages of dominance, victory (or

heritage).112

110 Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad (Oktober 1965)," 173.

111 Ibid.

112 Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966.,Other examples of spolia use in the

Small Palace Koçyiğit, Kubad Abad ve çevresinde Roma dönemi buluntuları (Konya: Konya

58

It is also possible that the dados were covered with stucco niches – like the

ones in the northwest room (I-h).113 The fragments of stucco that were found both in

situ and fallen on the floor belong to a large shelf with niches and decorations

organized in different registers. 114 Acıoğlu suggests that the stucco shelf was part of

the former wall base which originally had a height of 215 cm and a depth of 32cm.115

Two of these stucco niches covering a field of 91,5x83cm have been found in-situ on

the southern wall of the room (I-h). (Figure 12)The single niches were formed as

multifoil arches framed by three different bordures with geometric and floral

ornaments.116 Moreover, each spandrel was decorated with a single peacock motif.

The wall above the niches was decorated with further registers. A fragment

from an upper register depicts a young beardless man with a halo riding on a horse

back holding something -maybe a bird or a weapon- in his hand. He seems to hunt

the animal with the long neck -maybe a dragon. The same, or at least, a similar scene

seems to be repeated on the fields next to it. Between the pointed arches that frame

these hunting scenes, figure of an angel with wings fills the spandrel. Above the

angel a further register with inscriptions was included. However, the text was not

Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2019).About the spolia usage in the medieval Islamic

Architecture Ar, "Spolia usage in Anatolian rulers: A comparison of ideas for Byzantines, Anatolian

Seljuqs and Ottomans," ITU A/Z 12, no. 2 (2015), Gonnella, "Columns and hieroglyphs : Magic

"spolia" in medieval Islamic architecture of northern Syria," Muqarnas 27 (2010).

113 Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966. Although the only stucco decoration in

the building was found in this room, it can be assumed that the stucco was part of the decoration and

furnishing. Beside its major discovery, small fragments of this material with floral and geometric

designs have been found the same room as well as next to the northern wall of the Small Palace. in

Acıoğlu notes that stucco decoration was also found in other Seljuk buildings such as Alaeddin Kiosk

in Konya, Alanya citadel, Felekabad Palace. Acıoğlu, Kubad Abad sarayı alçı buluntuları, 277-278.

114 Stucco seems to be not the only decoration material in this room; the team has found pieces of

turquoise tile mosaic, which they attributed to windows in the upper area of the northern wall. In

addition to this, the room has a chimney on the west wall that was built of brick. Otto-Dorn, Bericht

über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966, 442, 475-479.

115 Acıoğlu, Kubad Abad sarayı alçı buluntuları, 278.

116 The width of these bordures ranges between five and seven centimeters. The outer bordure is

divided by horizontal forms between which rosettes with eight petals. The middle bordure was

decorated with a twelve-pointed star motives and rosettes with twelve petals. The inner bordure shows

a combination of eight-pointed stars and cross forms. Rosettes with eight petals are placed in to the

star forms.

59

readable anymore, except the name “Muhammad” on one small fragment. (Figure

13) Based on the photo taken from the in-situ niches, it can be argued that the

combination of two such scenes with the angel on top constituted a unit that was

placed right on top of a niche.

Figure 12. Photo of the stucco niches found in-situ in the room (I-h)

(Otto-Dorn 1969, 474)

Figure 13. Stucco fragment showing a hunting scene

(Acıoğlu 2019, 280)

60

The more probable alternative is that the walls covered to some height with

tile decorations –as in the banquet hall (I-j) or in the diwan room (I-g). These were

rooms that probably housed the meetings of courtiers and amirs; While the one – as

the name banquet hall (I-j) suggests- had a more private and festive character, the

room at the northwest corner (I-g) was assumed an ideal place for diwan, i.e.

government office.117 Accordingly, the decoration in these rooms were more

splendid, as the in-situ findings demonstrate.

In diwan (I-g), the excavation team discovered three rows of in situ tiles of

2.70 meters length covering the dado of the southern wall and a small part of the

western wall. These - as well as fragmented tiles found in the mound - were formed

as eight-pointed stars and crosses decorated in underglaze polychrome technique.118

In the banquet hall (I-j), in-situ tiles were discovered along the west wall. Two

double rows of star-cross combination were found up to two meters length. In both

cases the tiling followed the same scheme;

At the bottom of the dado was a row of rectangular turquoise tiles (10cm h).

It was followed by at least three rows of star-cross combination in underglaze

polychrome or luster technique. Above these, a narrow field - probably consisting of

one or two rows- of star-cross shaped tiles (23cm h) were placed. The transition

between these registers was probably marked by narrow borders of rectangular

turquoise tiles (3cm h). The top register consists of square tiles (24x24cm) with

117 First, the room is located next to the throne room, and it floor is similarly covered with bricks.

Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Kubad-Abad kazıları 1965 yılı ön raporu." In regarding the high value of the

iwan as the throne room, and restricted access to the building, this location was probably reserved for

similarly important functions and powerful people. In addition to this, the organization of the space in

distinguished areas further renders such a purpose quite possible. The room is divided into two

functional areas; the floor of the greater part of the room is raised into a platform, which probably

served as the sitting and meeting space. The remaining low-leveled part along the west and south

walls forms a corridor surrounding the sitting platform and gives access to the platform as well as to

the door opening to the northern terrace. (Figure 11)

118 Ibid. 239pp For more details about the tiles also see: Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in

Kobadabad 1966, 448pp.

61

medallion decors and inscriptions. Finally, a row of rectangular turquoise tiles with

10cm height complete the tile dado. According to this, the height of the tile dado

must be between 142 cm minimum (in diwan)119 and 179 cm maximum (in banquet

hall).120 Hence, we can assume that the walls in some cases (here: diwan) covered

2/3 or even ½ of the wall size of six meters. It might be said that tile was the most

dominant element of palace decoration.

Figure 14. Tile dado panel in the Great Palace

(Otto-Dorn 1969, 459)

119 Otto-Dorn and Önder, "Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad (Oktober 1965)," 181-182.

120 Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966, 458.

62

In sum, the wall decoration –either in stucco or in tile- is based on the

principle of horizontal division; in the example with stucco, this division is made

through various types of arches in different sizes. These arches act as frames that

define and organize smaller spaces. The continuous repetition (i.e. rapport) of the

arch forms creates a rhythm, which changes in every register according to the size or

for of the arch.121 In the tile decoration, the space is divided into three parts that are

separated from one another by a frame or bordure of turquoise rectangular tiles. They

create fields in which star and cross forms alternate regularly. Thus, the appeal of

this combination is whether the size nor the forms, but in the variety of its content. In

contrast to stucco, the tiles offer bright colors, a glimmering surface, and an openended

motif repertory.

Önder stated that the figurative richness was most remarkable feature of the

Kubadabad tiles.122 Among the tile findings, figural motifs belonged to the main

group of tiles including various stylized animals, mythological creatures, and human

beings. These figures were often depicted singly at the center of a tile on a

white/blank background –i.e. without any architectural setting – and were surrounded

either by entwined flowers and plants, or fields consisting of dots, or small forms.

Contours following the outer form of the star-shaped tile marked further a frame in

contrasting colors. Another commonality between each of these groups was their

relation to topics and aspects of the courtly life and to nature. Considering the

location and the function of the palace, the topic of nature became very central.

121 Nevertheless, it is possible to see in these architectural forms the reflection of actual circumstances

–here the architecture of the palace itself. Redford, "Thirteenth-century Rum Seljuq palaces and

palace imagery." Accordingly, the miniature pointed arches built in stucco, for instance, could be

reflections of the doorways with the same form as used in the Great Palace.

122 Önder, "Selçuklu Kubad-Abad sarayı çinileri," Selçuk Dergisi, no. I. Alaeddin Keykubad Özel

Sayısı (1988): 33. In regard of the general ban, or limitation, for the application of figural motifs to

secular architecture, and the fact that tiles were very expansive as decoration materials, it must be

noted that figural motifs on tiling most commonly indicated a palatial context.

63

Kubadabad as a summer and hunting palace in the countryside provided a

multiplicity of opportunities for open-air events and sports.

Although no decoration with such hunting scenes with hunters on horseback

as shown on the stucco decoration have only been discovered in Kubadabad except

on coins of the Seljuk sultans.123 Similar figures are also fund in the context of other

Seljuk palaces, such as in the Konya Kiosk, which suggests that these were royal or

royal depictions. (Figure 15) On tiles, figures with weapons such as a man with bow

and arrow can be related to the topic of hunting. (Figure 16)

Figure 15. Square tile with a figure on horseback from Konya Kiosk, Konya

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Glazed_Anatolian_Seljuq_tile_Konya_2nd_ha

lf_of_12th_century.jpg

Figure 16. Star-shaped tile showing a figure with bow and

arrow from Kubadabad

(Arık 2019, 260)

123 Uysal, Kubad Abad'da bununan sikkeler. Ibn Bibi’s narrative contains many references to hunting

activities. See. Chapter 3. About Seljuk gardens, hunting and suburban kiosks see Redford, Landscape

and the state in medieval Anatolia: Seljuk gardens and pavillions of Alanya, Turkey. Despite textual

and architectural evidence, illustrations of horse riding rulers and hunting scenes appear in the

decorations such as in Konya and Öney, "Mounted hunting scenes in Anatolian Seljuks in comparison

with Iranian Seljuks," Belleten.

64

Similarly, motif of hunting might be seen also in the single depictions of all

kinds of animals ranging from rabbit to bear that are inhabited in the Kubadabad or

Beyşehir.124 Tiles show depictions of various animals such as lions, dogs,

greyhounds, panthers, foxes, wolfs, wild cats, bears and birds of prey, birds, rabbits,

or fishes125. However, there are some animal motifs that do not well fit into this topic

or category such as domesticated farm animals such as horses, goats, camels,

donkeys. Considering all these animals, the intention in the choice of the motifs seem

unlikely to fit into a hunting concept, but rather a program that was meant to reflect

the idyll nature of the countryside. (Figure 17)

Mythical creatures belonged also to the visual programs of hunting scenes. 126

In the Persian culture, mythical creatures commonly possess supernatural powers

that derive from specific qualities of different animal and human beings. Simurgs

and harpies are creatures with a human head and the body of a bird. Sphinxes have

also a human head on a body of a lion with wings. Griffons appear with a bird’s head

and an animal body improved with a pair of wings. However, this list can be

extended as desire, since any kind of combinations seems to be possible; the figure

of an ostrich that depicts a literary combination of a camel and a bird, for instance,

proves that even misunderstandings encouraged new creations.

124 Due to this fertile nature and prosperity, a great part of the wetland has “protection statues”;

designated as Lake Beyşehir and Kızıldağ National Parks. These areas provide recreation space and

food to nearly hundred fifty bird species, mostly water and visitant birds, while its fresh water houses

around sixteen different fish species that allow fishery and hunting. The hills and mountains on the

shore offer also offer a rich fauna and chances to hunt; in the hinterlands, there are songbirds,

partridges, and birds of prey such as eagles, falcons, or owls, as well as, mammals such as fox, rabbit,

boar, and wolf. For more information see: Turkey Beyşehir Municipality, "Lake Beyşehir and the

Islands," http://www.beysehir.bel.tr/beysehir-golu-ve-adalar.html.; and Turkey General Directorate of

Nature Conservation and National Parks, "Kızıldağ National Park," 2016, no. October 2016 (2014),

http://www.milliparklar.gov.tr/mp/kizildag/sayfa4.htm; "Lake Beyşehir National Park," General

Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks

http://www.milliparklar.gov.tr/mp/beysehirgolu/index.htm.

125 Ibn Bibi indicates that the Seljuk Sultan was “hunting by land and by sea” in his free time already

during his childhood in exile. Ibn Bibi, 58.

126 Öney.

65

Figure 17. Reconstruction of a tile panel with depictions of various animals, simurg and human figures

from Great Palace in Kubadabad, Konya Karatay Museum

(Arık 2019)

66

In other words, these figures are generated out of the existing figural

repertoire, especially from those, which are regarded as powerful or virtuous. The

most common mythical creatures are simurgs, harpies, sphinxes, and griffons. These

creatures unite the rapidity, agility, strength, and power of predators such as lions,

eagles with the ability of flight and of controlling greater territories, or the cleverness

of people. These physical and mental qualities attributed to such creatures render

them ambiguous; the light of their supernatural powers and virtues, mythical motives

were both admired and feared.

In this sense, the motif of dragon is a good example for the ambiguity of

motifs that is partly related to cultural exchange. In the light of their supernatural

powers and virtues, mythical motives became relatable to hunting scenes where they

were depicted as respected opponents. These creatures could further stand for any

difficulties or evil that the figure might face.127 Accordingly, the fight and victory

against such creatures showed the skills and virtues of the opponent as good warrior,

or even as a ruler. Thus, the usage of these motives became also popular in

legitimizing of power in courtly and public contexts. However, meanings attributed

to these figures based on their form and to the combination with further symbols.

According to this, dragons could symbolize beside the fight against the evil and

darkness also motion, harmony, universe, planets, zodiacs, or water.128

The concepts of universe and harmony are also represented through tree (of

life) motive placed in the middle axis between pairs of birds or human.129 At the

same time the use of peacocks is often associated with the idea of paradise and

eternal life. Paradise describes the ideal state of nature, it is a symbol of wealth and

127 Pancaroğlu, "The itinerant dragon-slayer: Forging paths of image and identity in medieval

Anatolia," Gesta 43, no. 2 (2004).

128 Öney, "Dragon figures in Anatolian Seljuk art," Belleten XXXIII. Pancaroğlu.

129 Öney, "Anadolu Selçuklu sanatında hayat ağacı motifi," Belleten XXXII (1968).

67

prosperity.130 Other animals, above all fishes, can be used in the similar war as the

peacock to represent the prosperity and fertility. (Figure 18)

In this context, floral designs, which often appeared as accompanying motifs

such as branches, leaves, twines flanking the central figure, must be seen not just as

decorative room fillers, or literal devices to for natural settings, but as references to

wealth and prosperity. (Figure 19) The prosperity or fertility is also reflected in

motifs such as stems of grain, pomegranates, or poppies and roses held in the hands

of human figures. These motifs indicate to the role of the nature as a source of life, as

far as the nature is considered as a food source.

The decorative program, in this sense, might have reflected the human dependence of

nature as a source. At least, some rare tile findings show the nature also as a work

space for agricultural production. For instance, a tile fragment depicting a man with

tools working on the fields suggesting that he was a gardener or an agricultural

worker. (Figure 20) The remaining lower half of the star-shaped luster tile depicts

shoreline with a trees and plants and in-between them a man holding a tool, probably

a shovel, to dig in the ground.131 Arık notes that the same scene has been shown in

the kitab al-diryaq from Seljuk Iraq.132 (Figure 21) Another tile with a similar topic

has been found during the excavations in Keykubadiye. (Figure 22) It showed a

bearded man with a shovel working on the fields.133 Arık states that such genre

scenes were common in the book illustrations of the Seljuks.134

130 Otto-Dorn, Die menschliche Figurendarstellung auf den Fliesen von Kobadabad, In Memoriam

Kurt Erdmann.

131 Arık, Kubad Abad çinileri (Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2019), 272-273.

132 Ibid. 272 Pancaroǧlu, "Socializing medicine: Illustrations of the Kitāb Al-diryāq," Muqarnas 18

(2001).

133 Baş, "Keykubadiye sarayı kazısında bulunan bahçıvan figürlü çininin öyküsü," Şehir (2017).

134 Arık, Kubad Abad çinileri, 273.

68

Figure 18. Star-shaped tiles with duck and peacock motifs surrounded by floral motifs from

Kubadabad

(Arık 2000)

Figure 19. Three tiles in different techniques showing a seated human figure surrounded by plants

from Kubadabad

(Arık 2019)

Figure 20. Fragment of a star-shaped luster tile with a human

figure working in the garden from Kubadabad

(Arık 2019)

Figure 22. Star-shaped tile showing a human figure

working in the garden from Keykubadiye

(Baş 2017)

Figure 21. Illustration from kitab

al-diryaq showing a human figure

working in the garden

(Arık 2019)

69

In regard of these scenes the question raises whether these tiles illustrated the

sequences of one or more stories, or whether they had a narrative quality. Epigraphic

evidence found on different forms of tiles –i.e. square formed tiles for top wall

registers and some star-shaped tiles with bands of inscription- have suggested that

parts of literary works such as Shahnama were included to the decorative program.135

(Figure 23)

The stories and episodes of the Book of Kings written by Ferdowsi have been

reproduced, and cited in books monumental inscriptions. The surveys of remaining

walls and accounts from this period have shown that along with Quran verses also of

verses from Shahnama were cited in the wall inscriptions in cities such as Konya.136

Generally, epigraphic decoration appears in many different versions on the tiles of

Kubadabad Complex. There are star-shaped tiles with inscriptions as the main motif.

(Figure 24) There are also rectangular epigraphic bordures, and lastly tiles in which

text appears in as an addition to the figural motifs. (Figure 25,Figure 26) This last

category is primarily found in the form of square tiles places on top registers of the

wall panels and on star-shaped tiles with double-headed eagle motifs which are

recognized as Seljuk insignia which were inscribed with mottos such as “al-sultan”

commonly discovered in bath context. (Figure 25) The square tiles on the top

registers, too, used the same repertory of figural motifs. A round band of inscription,

in contrast, surrounded these and created a circle around the central figure and knots

on each corner of the tile, like the knot patterns of the contemporary Islamic textiles.

The inscriptions were written in different styles, in kufi, floral kufi, or the curved

naqshi. Otto-Dorn has argued that these inscriptions quoted verses from Shahnama,

135 Redford, "The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique." Also Otto-Dorn and Arık have tried to reconstruct

the references to literary works based on epigraphic decorations. Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung

in Kobadabad 1966, Arık, Kubad Abad çinileri.

136 Redford, "The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique."

70

and such praising the Sultan, or praying joy and entertainment in the earthly life.137

She also noted that in some cases the inscriptions only were used as decorations, and

did not make any sense.138

Figure 23. Fragments from square tiles with an inscription band around a central medallion

(Arık 2019)

Figure 24. Star-shaped

tiles with epigraphic

decorations

(Arık 2019, 252)

137 Önder, 33.

138 Otto-Dorn, Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966, Arık, Kubad Abad çinileri.

71

Figure 26. Fragment of a cross-shaped tile

(Arık 2019, 232)

In his article on the firing process of tiles, Bozer pursued the cause of problems in

the tile decoration. He noticed that the tiles were produced by hand, one by one

without any templates or masks. This rendered every single piece a unique art object,

but, at the same time, this meant that no tile was equal to another, neither in its form,

nor in its design. However, the in situ finds revealed further problems that went

beyond these small differences. Bozer named amongst other two significant types of

inconsistencies; the first issue was connected to the fail productions in color and

glaze of tiles. Motifs on some pieces were blurred since the colors dissolved. The

second type of inconsistency addressed adjustment problems of two kinds; in regard

of motifs on tiles and in regard of the cut tiles within the defined fields of decoration.

The excavations brought to light some apparently unadjusted motifs, particularly

figures of two headed eagles in black that were placed at the center of the turquoise

glazed cross- formed tiles that were not allotted. In addition to these examples, there

Figure 25. Star-shaped tile showing a double-headed eagle

motif with an “al-sultan” inscription from the Great Palace

(Arık 2019, 230)

72

were inconsistencies in the application of tilling; some star shaped tiles were not

allotted either. Most importantly there were tiles, not only crosses as usual, but also

star shaped tiles, which were cut after brand into pieces to be fitted into the

decoration fields. It was questionable why these pieces were cut out of whole tiles

instead of being produced in adequate forms, as they were required.

Bozer suggested behind these inconsistencies fail production, which was

caused by the hurry in which the tiles were produced and applied on walls. He

supported his suggestion with the hints given in the historical narration of Ibn Bibi

that the architect Sad al-Din Kopek finished the construction works of Kubadabad in

lesser time than originally expected by ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I. In this regard, he

argued that the tile producers used some of the tiles with defaults by cutting out the

defects. They did, however, cut also successful pieces into parts. The slight

differences in tiles led to a derivation from the planned layout and size, so that in

some cases parts of star shaped tiles, instead of cross halves built the last tile row

above the border at the wall base.

A second bordure of rectangular monochrome tiles separated these luster tiles

from the register of polychrome underglaze tiles, which followed the same principles

of organization and composition. Otto-Dorn suggested that this register constituted

of only two instead of three rows. Another alternation of the scheme is recorded at

the top register, which, in contrast to the two registers below it, was formed by a

single row of square tiles. These square tiles were distinguished from the star-and

cross-shaped tiles not only formally, but also stylistically.

The star-shaped tiles - produced either in luster, or in polychrome underglaze

techniques – were decorated with various motifs. The main group of tiles showed

figural motifs; various stylized animals, mythological creatures, and human beings

73

were positioned centrally on a white/blank background -without any setting -

surrounded either by entwined flowers and plants, or fields consisting of dots, or

small forms. The square tiles on the top registers, too, used the same repertory of

figural motifs. A round band of inscription, in contrast, surrounded these and created

a circle around the central figure and knots on each corner of the tile, similar to the

knot patterns of the contemporary Islamic textiles. The inscriptions were written in

different styles, in kufi, floral kufi, or the curved naqshi. As the writing styles

indicate, motifs and technique of the Kubadabad tiles were all attributed to the Syrian

style which at the time was mainly seen on ceramic production. 139

The tiles depict, as mentioned above, single figural motives, and do not tell any

stories. They are designed as two-dimensional illustrations without a background or

any layers that would indicate depth. Individually, they have no narrative value, but

only a symbolic. The most expressive/ significant examples for such an application

are tiles that were primarily found in the bathhouse on Kız Kalesi. These tiles were

decorated with a two-headed eagle figure, which was centrally inscribed.

The eagle has been recognized as the King of the Birds and Air due to its size

and power. Like its counterpart on earth, the lion being the King of Beasts, eagle has

been a common motive in heraldry. Its derivation, two-headed eagle, as a mythical

motive has been used by Byzantines, as well as, by the Rum Seljuks. The two eagles’

heads looking to opposed directions united in one body was interpreted as a symbol

of dominance over both East and West under one rule referring to the two-division of

the Roman Empire.140 The tiles in Kubadabad were further marked with one of the

139 Redford, Anatolian Seljuk palaces and gardens, 236.

140 Çağaptay, "On the wings of the double-headed eagle: Spolia in re and appropriation in medieval

Anatolia and beyond," in Spolia Reincarnated: Second life of spaces, materials, objects in Anatolia from

Antiquity to the Ottoman period, ed. Yalman and Jevtić (Istanbul: Koç University Publications, 2018).

Peker, "The double-headed eagle."

74

titles given to Rum-Seljuk Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kayḳubad I. The Arabic inscription

with the words “al-sultan al-azam” (the great sultan) in this regard marked these as

Muslim or Seljuk, and dated them to the reign of this ruler.

The figure of the sultan, Seljuk courtiers and the courtly life finally is another

topic that in similarity to the nature can be seen in most motifs of decoration. Despite

the human faces used in different contexts, complete human figures are shown in

standing, walking, and sitting positions. Particularly, sitting cross-legged figures are

interpreted as royal illustrations attributed to the sultan himself. This type of seating

became known in the German art historical literature as “Türkensitz”, meaning

Turkish seat.141 The depiction of the enthroned ruler in cross-legged position objects

such as cups, tissues in his hands is a common motive that has been used in

Persianate / Turkic cultures already in early Medieval times. These figures wear

various headgears, long kaftans, or long baggy trousers, as well as further tiraz bands

on their arms as a sign of their royal blood. In the context of Kubadabad, these

figures are also interpreted as symbols of kingship such as cups and tissues, although

some of the figures instead held flowers, pomegranates, or poppies suggesting that

they were figures of lower rank, i.e. courtiers.

Some figures held musical instruments such as lutes in their hand, or writings

in their hands. The figures with a lute, or writings in their hands, were suggested to

depict courtly pastime activities such as music playing or hearing, and writing or

reading. Also standing figures with goats in their hands, as well as hunting topic- as

discussed above – belonged to this category. However, some of these figures

resembled the zodiac and planet iconographies that originated from the ancient time

141 Otto-Dorn, Das islamische Herrscherbild im frühen Mittelalter (8.-11. Jahrhundert). Otto-Dorn, Die

menschliche Figurendarstellung auf den Fliesen von Kobadabad, In Memoriam Kurt Erdmann.

75

and became widespread in the book illustrations from the twelfth century onwards.142

For instance, lute vas a symbol for the planet Venus (zuhra).143 The group of

cosmological representations included also single elements such as the sun masks.

Similar illustrations, especially the zodiacs have been used widespread on small

objects in Seljuk context, but this topic was also used in Europe in palatial

rhetoric.144 Lastly, the star form of the tiles could further be interpreted in this

direction. However, the cosmological references have not been studied and discussed

in the literature.

2.4 Conclusion

This chapter presented the Seljuk palace complex of Kubadabad in the light of latest

results of its long excavation history. Kubadabad was a Seljuk summer/ hunting

palace in rural area which suggests that the nature or landscape around the palace

was an important part of its purpose. Hence, the exterior spaces used for leisurely

activities and sports such as banquets, horse riding, polo games or hunting.

Therefore, the discussion of the palace and its architecture began with the description

of its environment. It has been shown that the Lake Beyşehir area marked by

mountains, plains and lakeside offered beyond fresh water resources and a mild

climate also a great variety of building sites adequate for different purposes and

activities in close neighborhood, as well as space for development of settlements.

142 Pancaroğlu, "Socializing medicine: Illustrations of Kitab al-Diryaq," Muqarnas 18 (2001).

143 Rice, "The seasons and the labors of the months in Islamic art," Ars Orientalis 1 (1954): 11.

144 Ibid.

76

Thus, the area offered the idyll of the countryside combined with plenty of

natural resources, and its position near trade routes and mountain passes allowed at

the same time accessibility and mobility. Kubadabad was a new foundation, a new

project. However, its distance to cities and strategic location further suggested that it

might have been planned as a new point in the existing Seljuk networks of security,

administration, caravanserais, or settlements. The castles and towers within a radius

of nearly fifteen kilometers around the palace showed that the site belonged to a

larger security/ military system. The ruins of the former connection road to Antalya

and the location of the next caravanserai in one-day journey, i.e. around eight hours,

as well as the form of the buildings suggested that Kubadabad, maybe the palace,

was planned to provide accommodation to travelers. The inscriptions of the Seljuk

masjid than showed that the settlement was not as big as a city (with a proper

mosque), but that Kubadabad was the center of a province (vilayet) with the same

name that was governed by a vali.

The discussion of the complex and its architecture further illustrated that the

organization of space in different scales from “urban” to spatial followed a similar

hierarchy; the spaces were organized/ arranged according to their grade of privacy,

importance, and functionality. The most private and important areas were at the same

time the most secure and secluded ones. The palace, and particularly the throne,

being the most sacred space was the center of attention and orientation, the “mecca”.

The main elements of separation were walls, and gardens/ courtyards. The

vertical and horizontal expansion in space were used to mark the significance of

areas. The elevation from the ground increased the visibility, emphasized distance,

and manifested superiority and power since the height gave the chance of overseeing

and control of everything below. The materials were chosen to support this power

77

position. The palaces were given a strong and monumental appearance from the

outside through stone blocks, while on the inside the walls were covered with

expensive and laborious stucco panels and colorful tiles to express wealth and power.

Wealth, fertility, and abundance were reflected in the decorations showing

floral and animal symbols such as pomegranate, or fish. Power similarly expressed

through symbolic animals such as lions and eagles. The hierarchy and the harmony

of the universe was addressed in the illustrations of sun faces, which were

accompanied by many hidden symbols and iconographies of planets, and zodiacs. In

addition, the decorative program recalled courtly traditions depicting elements from

the (social) occasions at the court such as hunting activities or feasts. Traditions were

further followed in the choice of epigraphic elements; mottos from literary works,

verses from Quran and hadiths showed the Seljuk dedication to the Persianate and

Islamic cultures.

Despite the different categories or contexts of interpretation, the figures and

motifs of the decoration was dominated through elements from and referring to

nature. Nature in form of gardens/ courtyards fully integrated to the palace, as well as

the palace was adjusted to the topography and dependent on the natural resources.

78

CHAPTER 3

IBN BIBI’S PALATIAL NARRATIVES

Ibn Bibi's work al-Awāmir al-ʿAlāʾiyya fi ’l-umūr al-ʿAlāʾiyya covering the Rum-

Seljuk history from 1092 to 1280 is the main Seljuk source, particularly for the reign

of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I (r.1219-1237).145 The work - also known as Seljuknamaoffers

its readers primary information about ʿAlaʾ al-Din's period including

administrative concerns and deeds of the sultan. It further provides insight into the

courtly life and taste at that time.

This chapter reviews Ibn Bibi’s narrative in the hope of discovering

overlooked details about Kubadabad and the rhetoric of palace architecture in three

sections; a short introduction provides information about the author, and his patron,

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik Juvayni (1226-1283). The following part is dedicated to the

definition of the role of architecture and architectural patronage within the narrative.

Ibn Bibi’s use of architectural references concerning processes of patronage, his

emphasis on aspects of particularly royal palace architecture, as well as terminology

employed by the author will be discussed in the first line. The final part then

analyzes the episode on Kubadabad with a focus on the application of rhetorical

145 The original text has been dated to 1281/82. Unfortunately, the original manuscript of Seljuknama

has been long lost. However, different copies and versions of the original manuscript are still

available. These build the basis for the reconstruction of the original. Currently, two versions of the

text are considered as a basis for various studies on Rum-Seljuk history. The first is a manuscript

located in the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul (Ayasofya 2985), also known as mufassal, the fulllength

text. It is the earliest and longest version of all and therefore considered as the closest version

to the original text. This thesis is based on the facsimile of it published in 1957. Ibn Bibi.

Furthermore, this thesis made use of different Turkish translations, mostly those made by Mürsel

Öztürk. Ibn Bibi, El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye (Selçuk Name), trans. Öztürk, vol. 1, I.

Cilt (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi, 1996), Ibn Bibi, El Evamir¸'l-ala'iye fi'lumuri'l-

ala'iye : Selçukname, trans. Öztürk, II. Tercüme (Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014). Further

information about different versions and translations of the work is presented in Appendix B.

79

elements describing the palace. It further addresses the role of Kubadabad in the

narrative.

3.1 Author, work, and patron

The author of the source is Husayn b. Muhammad b. Ali al-Jafari al-Rughadi,

generally known as Ibn Bibi. His epithet (nisba) indicates that he originated from

Rughad in the province of Mazandaran, Iran. According to his own statements, Ibn

Bibi came from a Persian aristocratic family; his father, Majd al-Din Muhammad-i

Tarjuman al-Jafari, worked as a munshi and translator (tarjuman), and his mother,

Bibi Khatun to whom he owed his epithet (nisba) Ibn Bibi, was a skilled court

astrologer and fortuneteller (munajjima) at the court of Khwarazmshah, Jalal al-Din

Menguberti. However, his parents left the Khwarazmshah court in the face of the

approaching Mongol invasion and fled to western lands. In the 1230s, the fame of

Bibi Khatun's successful predictions granted the family admission to the Rum-Seljuk

court.146 Thanks to her successful predictions, Bibi Khatun seems to have become a

respected court member under ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I. In contrast, Ibn Bibi’s father

first had to prove himself to rise in rank at the Rum Seljuk court. It seems that Majd

al-Din was employed at first in an uncommon position for him as farrash,

responsible for spreading carpets and cushions at the Rum Seljuk court.147 After a

while at the Rum Seljuk court, Majd al-Din was promoted and served again as

munshi and translator. After his death in 1272, Ibn Bibi took over his father's

offices.148

146 Yıldız, "Mongol Rule In Thirteenth-Century Seljuk Anatolia."

147 Yıldız has compared this position to the European chamberlain with the remark that he had

probably less power. Ibid. 453 Footnote 81

148 Özaydın, “Ibn Bibi” in TVD, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/ibn-bibi

80

Although nothing certain is known about the date of birth of Ibn Bibi, it is

assumed that he was nearly three years old when ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad died in

1237. Thus, he was probably too young to have his own memories of the reign of the

great sultan. In addition to this, Ibn Bibi was mainly bound to the court in Konya all

his life, which made it for him difficult to gather information about other parts of the

Seljuk realm in Anatolia. His employment at the royal chancellery, on the one hand,

gave him access to legal documents, and letters (insha’) that provided him an insight

to governmental issues. Furthermore, Ibn Bibi was an eyewitness to events and

changes at the court starts, at least, from Kaykubad I’s death (1237) until his own

death in the 1280s.149. During this long period, he witnessed the political,

administrative, social, and cultural transition in the Rum Seljuk realm, especially

during the Mongol sovereignty. Finally, his familiarity with court society and his

employment at the Rum-Seljuk court doubtlessly provided him access to different

types of sources, such as oral accounts. 150

In other words, he could gather eyewitness accounts from elder court

members about recent past events that were not necessarily reported in official

documents. Yıldız assumes that particularly his father Majd al-Din was the main oral

source for Ibn Bibi's narrative on the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I through his

early occupation alongside the Rum-Seljuk sultan.151 Ibn Bibi's dependence on

eyewitness accounts had however also a limiting influence on his subject. Ibn Bibi

149 It is believed that he completed his narrative around 1282, during the reign of Mesud II. Yıldız,

"Mongol Rule In Thirteenth-Century Seljuk Anatolia."

150 He further belonged to the educated elite, and as such, he had knowledge about and access to past

and contemporary literary works including chronicles. We learn from the text for instance that Persian

books of advice and history were part of the courtly awareness. Ibn Bibi gives an insight to the library

of the Seljuk court by counting some of the most famous books of the past that were consulted by

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad and courtiers. Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım. Ibn Bibi’s Al-Avamir¸'l-Ala'iye Fi'l-

Umuri'l-Ala'iye Ferdowsi’s Shahnama; Nizam al-Mulk’s, Siyasetname; Ata Malik Juvayni’s Tarih-i

Jahangusha.

151 Yıldız, "Mongol Rule In Thirteenth-Century Seljuk Anatolia." Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 454.pp

81

confesses in the introduction to his work his inability to provide sources and

eyewitness accounts for the times before Qilich Arslan II. Although this statement

might be understood as a part of his humble attitude as the author, it also is a reason

for the lack of reliable information.

Moreover, the close relationship of his parents to the Sultan was probably one

of the main reasons for Ibn Bibi's very positive attitude towards ʿAlaʾ al-Din

Kaykubad I. The author depicted the ruler as the greatest of all Rum-Seljuk sultans,

and characterized him as an ideal Perso-Islamic ruler fulfilling nearly every of the

criteria starting from his royal lineage to a good character and artistic and

architectural patronage.

The influence of the family's past played also an important role in the

commissioning of al-Awamir. Ibn Bibi worked for Shams al-Din Juvayni, who was

the Mongol governor in charge of the control of Anatolia (1265). The brother of

Shams al-Din, ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik Juwayni, was the commissioner of Ibn Bibi’s

work. He, too, was in the service of the Mongol ruler Hulagu, and became governor

of Baghdad and Mesopotamia in 1262. About his successful career, Ibn Bibi

repeatedly calls ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik a “sultan” and enlists some of the good deeds

his patron made in Iraq, Khurasan and Kirman. Amongst others, Ibn Bibi praises him

for various building activities, including the development of a large caravanserai

network, repairing, and maintaining of past monuments such as tombs, as well as the

construction of madrasas and many more. In addition to these, Ibn Bibi points to the

famous historical work Tarīkh-i Jahan-gusha (History of the World Conqueror)

written by ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik Juvayni and emphasizes his dedication and

contributions to society.152 However, the relationship between Ibn Bibi and Juvayni

152 Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1, 23-31.

82

brothers seem to have. Ibn Bibi indicates that the relation between him and his patron

was based on the acquaintance of their families, who served at the Khwarazmshah

court.153 According to the text, the acquaintance and cooperation between their

families began already with Ibn Bibi’s father, who is said to have served Juvayni’s

grandfather and father.

In this regard, he titled his work al-Awāmir al-ʿAlāʾiyya fi ’l-umūr al-

ʿAlāʾiyya in reference to the two great patrons in his life, both bearing the name ʿAlaʾ

al-Din. The first Ala in the title stood for ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik Juwayni the

commissioner and role model for Ibn Bibi and the second Ala was used in honor of

the great Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I, the protector of his family and the central

figure of Ibn Bibi's dynastic history.154

Ibn Bibi admired ʿAlaʾ al-Din Ata Malik Juwayni, not just as a token of his

gratitude for his patron, but as a passionate admirer of the style and quality of

Juwayni's Tarīkh-i Jahan-gusha (History of the World Conqueror). In the

introduction of the text, Ibn Bibi describes his intentions to create a high-cultural

product in writing such a text, which would compete with early Persian works or

with the elaborate style of famous contemporary authors.155 Tarīkh-i Jahan-gusha

was an adequate standard and model for Ibn Bibi to meet, at least to please Juwayni.

Additionally, Ibn Bibi included various quotations from the Qur’an and literary

works in his texts, based on which we can prove his knowledge about other works.

Mürsel Öztürk, who published Turkish translations of al-Awāmir al-ʿAlāʾiyya fi ’lumūr

al-ʿAlāʾiyya, lists some of the cited authors he was able to identify.156 The list

illustrates that the chosen works were mainly in Persian and some Quranic verses in

153 Ibid. 29

154 Ibid. 4 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 11.

155 Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1, 5-8. Yıldız, "Mongol Rule In Thirteenth-Century Seljuk Anatolia."

156 Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1, 5-8.

83

the Arabic language. The addition of Arabic not only showed Islamic dedication but

also his multi-lingual skills as one of the features of his milieu. The text contains

references to authors of different historical periods; eleventh-century Shahnama by

Ferdowsi, for instance, or Khusraw u Shirin by the twelfth-century author Nizami

Ganjavi, or the thirteenth-century Seljuknama of Kani’i Tusi are only some

prominent examples. Especially, Kani’i has been identified as one of the main

sources for Ibn Bibi. The poet is known to have served several decades from 1221

onwards ʿAlaʾ al-Din, and he has written books such as the Seljuknama dealing with

the history of Rum Seljuk history, which might have been a major source for al-

Awamir.157

The consulted repertoire of authors ranged not only in terms of their ages but

also in geographical areas. In addition to Persian writers coming from different parts

of the Persianate world that reach as far as Afghanistan, or Anatolia. Hence, Ibn

Bibi’s aim by referring to various authors and their works amongst others was to

prove and emphasize his proficiency in Persian literature. At the same time, he

became part of the cannon, which linked him and his history to the past.

The Seljuknama of Ibn Bibi describes the reigns of twelve Rum-Seljuk

sultans from the death of Qilich Arslan II in 1192 to the beginning of the reign of

Mas’ud II in 1280. The text follows the chronological order of the Rum Seljuk

sultans and describes the events of their reigns including their struggle with rivals for

the throne, circumstances of their dethronement or death. The focus is on

157 Melville, The early Persian historiography of Anatolia (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006).

Seljuknama of Kani’i was around thirty volumes long, and contained probably significant information

about the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I, and his predecessors. The work was probably written

before 1260. However, it is only known through mentioning in later sources, since it did not survive to

present day. Yıldız, "Mongol Rule In Thirteenth-Century Seljuk Anatolia," 431-432. According to

Öztürk, Ibn Bibi used nearly 1400 couplets of verses of Kani’i in his work. Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1,

5.

84

administrative challenges, political and military rivalries, battles, and sieges. At the

same time, the author reports the memorable deeds of the dynastic members,

activities in and around the court as well as characteristics of each ruler.

Nevertheless, the reigns are not equally covered; their scope and details vary

in each case. The quality of the narrative changes substantially based on the

importance of each ruler, or the role Ibn Bibi gives them. ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad

becomes the central figure and point of reference in the Rum Seljuk history of Ibn

Bibi, whom the author describes as “the greatest of all Seljuk rulers”.158

In this sense, the text is not organized according to the periods of reign, but it

is subdivided into chapters dedicated to a specific episode or event. The copy of the

work from Topkapı (mufassal),159 for instance, has a total of 151 chapters.160 This

structure allows the appearance of historical figures more than once (meaning in their

own history) in changing perspectives and contexts so that a certain development

within each becomes obvious to the readership. The figures of the rulers, for

instance, occur sometimes in the role of a son, sometimes as the rival prince, and

sometimes the father in the same narrative. In each case, Ibn Bibi takes a position for

the actual ruler of the period, showing every ruler as an improvement to the past

ones. ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad represents the peak of this development.

Moreover, this structure also allows the author to vary the emphasis on

certain issues, and to vary the rhythm of the narrative at the same time. For instance,

the events can be described from different perspectives, or simultaneous events can

158 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 238, Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1.

159 See APPENDIX B to find information about the different versions of the texts.

160 The originality of the chapters is questioned, but have been generally accepted as parts of the text.

It seems that this idea of subdivision came not from the author Ibn Bibi. They have been added to the

original text by copyists probably already in the late thirteenth century. Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım. ibid. . In

regard of the different versions see also the catalogue of medieval sources on the database Peacock,

"The Islamisation of Anatolia, C. 1100-1500."

85

be discussed in different chapters equally detailed. It is further interesting that the

quality of the narrative is not bound to the personal knowledge and witness of the

author, as one might expect. On the contrary, as the Seljuk story advances and

approaches the author's time allowing him to report events from his own experiences

as an eyewitness, his narrative becomes blurry. Moreover, some of the evens and

anecdotes in his history seem not to follow a chronological order. The text shows

further discrepancies and distortions of facts. On the one hand, the author seems to

have ignored many significant events and figures. On the other hand, the author

rarely gives dates of events. All these speak against the objectivity and accuracy of

this text.161

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad's centrality for the narrative is reflected also in the

structure of the text so that the narrative of the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I at

least in one-third of all chapters.162 In addition to this, ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I also

appears in the stories of his predecessors, so that his life story from childhood to his

death nearly takes over the first half of the narrative. As a result, the work seems to

consist of three parts; (1) the prehistory or background to the person of ʿAlaʾ al-Din

Kaykubad I, (2) ʿAlaʾ al-Din’s reign, and (3) the gradual decline of the Seljuk

authority in Anatolia after the Sultan's death in 1237 and the defeat of the Seljuk

army at the Battle of Kösedağ in 1243.163

161, Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1, 23-31.

162 The reign of the Sultan is covered in 55 of 151 chapters (from chapter 36 to 90). The figure of

ʿAlaʾ al-Din appears additionally in 9 more chapters (i.e. chapters 4, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 34, and

35)

163 This periodization contradicts with the scholarship, which differentiates mainly four periods in the

Rum Seljuk history; the origins or early years, the rise of the Rum Seljuk dynasty, the zenith of the

Rum Seljuk Sultanate, the decline under the Mongol rule. It contradicts also with the initial idea of the

author to create a complete history of the dynasty as his patron asked him to do. In the introduction to

his work, Ibn Bibi admits that he was asked to write the Rum Seljuk history. It has been argued that it

should probably become an additional chapter or book to complete Juveyni’s TArıkh-i Jahan-gusha

(History of the World Conqueror). Abdülkerim Özaydin, “İbn Bîbî," in TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi

(1999). As mentioned before, Ibn Bibi justifies this lack with the argument that he was unable to find

adequate sources for the period before Qilich Arslan II (1071-1192).

86

Ibn Bibi’s dynastic history, in this sense, was a kind of panegyric for ʿAlaʾ al-

Din Kaykubad I, who clearly was shown as a role model for later generations of

Seljuk rulers. In other words, the work had also a didactic character in similarity to a

mirror for princes such as Siyasatnama.164 Hence, the historical narrative followed a

certain agenda according to which only some parts of the Seljuk history in Anatolia -

particularly political and military conflicts - were regarded as valuable to be

reported. The architecture, therefore, played a secondary role in the narration as other

cultural and artistic themes. The architecture mainly acted as a stage, or as a

reference to the place of certain events.

Since the political concerns are brought to the foreground of the narration,

royal residences (palaces), administrative buildings, or and mobile structures such as

tents constitute main architectural stages. Besides these, castles, towers, and city

walls, and again tents, play a significant role in the description of military events.

Thus, secular architecture with administrative and military functions and

caravanserais appear very frequently in the text.165 The specific functions and

purposes of these structures render them as ideal stages for certain occasions and

events. In this regard, their role in the narration is sometimes reduced to the

indication of their functions, or of directions of movement; the author uses terms (i.e.

dargah, bargah, kışlak) to denote their function, or give their locations. For example,

Ibn Bibi mentions many times that the Sultan moved for the coming winter to

Antalya, or to Alanya meaning not directly the cities, but royal residences built to

spend the winter period, which he denotes in other passages as kışlak.166

164 Nizam al-Mulk, The book of government, or, Rules for kings : the Siyasat-nama or Siyar al-muluk

of Nizam al-mulk, trans. Darke (London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1960). See on this issue also Redford,

Just landscape in medieval Anatolia.

165 In contrast to them, religious buildings such as mosques and madrasas, or public buildings such as

baths are barely mentioned.

166 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 251, 300, 344.

87

3.2 Architecture, warfare, and patronage

Beyond its role as a stage of events, architecture is also shown as subject to royal

patronage. In the secondary literature, ʿAlaʾ al-Din is known as probably one of the

greatest patrons of architecture in Seljuk Anatolia.167 In the narrative, in contrast, Ibn

Bibi mentions only palaces and military structures such as walls and castles. The

narrations of these patronized projects might not appear to be helpful in the

discussion of palaces, however, they provide valuable insights to the processes

behind organization and construction of royal projects. Furthermore, they offer

details about expectations of the Patron, and examples to compare and identify

common principles of design of the buildings, as well as the way they were described

by the author.

After the enthronement ceremonies and celebrations, one of ʿAlaʾ al-Din’s

first deeds was to conquer the castle of Kalonoros (and Alara); Kalonoros "like a

rose with thorns”168 appears to be an attractive target providing access to the

Mediterranean trade but with mountains giving no passage and walls from granite

stone is difficult to take.169 Ibn Bibi reports that the sultan suggested building a castle

on the strong rocks of Kalonoros to thank and honor God, who supported Seljuks.

Furthermore, the plans of the castle should stun God, make the difference between

rulers’ deeds visible for other nations, and lastly, show them Seljuk capabilities. He

continues, "with its grandeur, it should compete with the heavenly circle, or with the

palace with twelve gates." Following the order of the Sultan, master builders,

167 It is reported that nearly 300 caravanserais have been built during his reign. He is further known to

have patronized masjids, mosques (e.g. Alaeddin Mosque, Konya). See for more information Yalman.

168 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 236.

169 Ibn Bibi remarks that the area was not paradisiac as Antalya, but the promise of "taking great taxes

from the Egyptians" was the actual allure for the Seljuk sultan. Ibid. 255

88

workers, and painters came together and build in a short period the edifice on the

rocky hill.170

The conquest of Kalonoros in 1221 is one of the most important events for

ʿAlaʾ al-Din’s legitimacy. In this context, Ibn Bibi shows some of the strategic

methods, by using which Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din ensured and showed his success. First,

the Sultan completes the conquest of this important spot by the reconstruction of the

castle according to the needs and wishes of a "Seljuk style", and by giving his own

name to a place referred in the contemporary sources as an imperial and

unconquerable castle. The new name of the castle and the city Alaiyya (Alanya),

provide evidence for ʿAlaʾ al-Din's orientation towards the tradition of legendary

rulers such as Alexander the Great or the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great and

his adoption of their methods. Secondly, he sent the former administrator Kyr Vart

into exile after taking all his property away. Afterward, he showed his justice and

benevolence in offering him iqtas (fiefs) near Akşehir and obliged him to loyalty.

This helped him in two ways, the confiscation of Kyr Vart's goods and his

withdrawal from his duties, eliminated him as a rival. At the same time, putting him

in charge of iqtas, was a method to use his knowledge and skills for the wealth of the

Seljuk lands.171

At the same time, the narration about the Seljuk castle illustrate the rhetorical

functions of the patronized architecture. The dedication of the structure to God as a

thank for his support as transmitted by Ibn Bibi provides a pious image of the Sultan,

who enjoys the divine support.172 Nonetheless, the requirements for the new structure

170 Ibid. 267

171 Finally, the arrangement of marriages to important families guaranteed support and sympathy of

these people, and increased the power of the Seljuk Sultanate. The daughter of Kyr Vart is identified

as Mahperi or Huand Khatun, the mother of the future Sultan Ghiyath al-Din II. Shukurov.

172 Ibn Bibi emphasizes this aspect of the Sultan in various parts of the narration, through the

mentioning of Sultan’s regular payers, or the close relation to the Abbasid Caliphate. Ibn Bibi,

89

imposed by the Sultan shows that the building was not meant to reflect piety, but to

stand out, impress and astonish the people as well as God with its grandeur

comparable to heavenly circle.

The construction story of the city walls in Konya draws a similar image of the

requirements, and functions of patronized architectural projects. Ibn Bibi reports that

the Seljuk capital Konya was a city with a great population and wealth so that it

extended over an area of a one-day trip. After his return to Konya, Sultan went on a

walk around the city with the court's amirs (umera i dargah) and the servants to visit

the surrounding gardens by vineyards and fruit trees. Ibn Bibi reports that Kaykubad

noticed while looking at it that Konya looked like an “unadorned sword”.173 He

thought about all the people who came from all over the world to live here detached

from the dangers of the time. Consequently, he ordered a wall to be built around it

and Sivas.174

On his order, skilled architects and master painters were brought to him.

Then, Sultan hopped on his horse and he circled around the city with his entourage

and architects without wasting any more time. These draw his command the places

of towers, walls, and gates. Sultan listened carefully to their ideas and thought about

them. Finally, he corrected some of the placements.175 As the locations of the towers

and walls were defined, sultan called his private assistants (nuvvab-i has) and

ordered that the costs of the body, four of the gates (darvazah) and some towers to be

Tıpkıbasım, 227, 243, 267, 285, 286, 316, 400, 405-408. Remaining Seljuk inscriptions, as much as

the titles granted by the Caliphate emphasize the commitment of the Sultan to Islam and evoke the

idea of Ghaza. Yalman remarks that the Qur'anic quote - Victory from God and conquest is near"

(nasr min Allah wafath qarlb) (61:13) - inscribed on the arsenal (Tophane) tower in Alanya was

among others a significant example of the use of the Holy War (ghaza) rhetoric with the "infidels"

(Armenians, Byzantines, Crusaders) at that time, which was one of the Muslim policies to

differentiate and legitimize one's kingship. Yalman, 46.

173 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 253.

174 Ibid. 254-257

175 Ibid. 253, 272

90

paid from the private treasury (hazina i hassa). The amirs should pay the cost of the

remaining parts according to their level of wealth and income. He further added that

in appreciation for this given opportunity, they should do this rash. The same was

ordered per messenger to be done in Sivas.

The construction works began after a short while and continued day and

night. The artisans created relief paintings and sculptures on the silvery rocks and on

soft stones and marble, they inscribed in gold glitter verses from the Quran, some of

the most famous hadiths of the prophet and verses and mottos from the Shahnama,

until no free space was left over. With the help of god and the luck of the sultanate,

Ibn Bibi reports, they managed to finish the construction works after a while. Sultan

visited the walls liked what he saw. As a thank to the engagement, he ordered to

inscribe on the stone walls the names of all involved parties.176 These narrations, on

the one hand, show the direct relationship between patronage of castles and city

walls and victories of the Seljuk armies. They indicate that the costs were, at least

partly covered through booties. In addition, these examples show how the process of

patronage was organized and financed in Seljuk Anatolia. It is an example how the

major works were organized, delegated, and distributed in the ruling hierarchy

during the reign of Kaykubad I. The fact that the same, or at least a similar

construction and decoration program was ordered to be realized in Sivas shows that

such projects were to a great degree standardized.177

In sum, architectural patronage during the reign of Sultan Kaykubad I is

mainly limited to security structures such as walls and castles. The patronage might

be linked to various factors or reasons. successful outcomes of the military event - as

in the conquest of Kalonoros - result in enlargement of the boundaries with the

176 Ibid. 253

177 Redford, City building in Seljuq Rum, 5.

91

addition of new cities of territories, and financial gains in the form of booty.

Although spatial, financial, and demographic growth contributes to the Sultanate’s

stabilization and rise of power, it generally created new requirements for the

extension of security system, infrastructure including routes, water, and food

supplies and construction of public structures for health and education. Fortifications

and other patronized building projects help at the same time to commemorate these

victories, as well as to propagate and legitimize the newly won power.178 In the

absence of contemporary descriptions, the illustrations of the city walls in Konya

from the nineteenth century show that they too were meant to serve as prestige

objects (Figure 27); the figural, and epigraphic decorations of these walls clearly

prove that they represented the Seljuk power and ideology to the visitors.179 Their

outlook meant to impress the viewer with monumentality and with the beauty of its

artistic design. Ibn Bibi’s comparison of the city without walls to “an unadorned

sword”180 indicate this additional purpose of such structures.

Figure 27. City walls of Konya by Leon de la Borde 181

178 Particularly Scott Redford has written many articles concerning the urban design in Seljuk

Anatolia, indicating that the existing structures such as walls and fortifications served often as a basis

for the construction projects. These were also important objects for the discussion of the Seljuk

relation to the Anatolian past and spolia. Ibid. 3 Redford, "The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique," 148-

156.

179 Redford, City building in Seljuq Rum, 3. Yalman.Chapter 1

180 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 253.

181 Konya, view of the city walls, Leon-de-Laborde,-Voyage-de l’Asie- Mineure

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suzan_Yalman/publication/274996239/figure/fig1/AS:64826856

92

3.3 Government, palaces, and ceremonies

The residential and administrative buildings for the Sultan and members of the ruling

elites seem to be patronized for similar reasons; although the standardization of the

organization processes and visual vocabulary indicators of the changing nature of the

gradually growing and centralizing Sultanate, the expansion of the Seljuk realm

required a less (or non-) centralized system of administration.182 The was also

recognizable in the architecture of the new palatial projects.

Ibn Bibi’s narrative indicates that the Rum-Seljuk sultans and their courts

have been continuously on the move within their realms and they attended also

campaigns and travels to neighbor lands. Thus, despite the centralization of the rule,

the Sultan with his entourage was on the move, and remained in the peripheries of

the Sultanate. In other words, the sultan ruled not from one center such as the capital

city, but the center of power moved from place to place with the person of the sultan.

This practice led to the formation of different ephemeral centers. In this

governmental system, ruler was considered as the center of the state, while

architecture took only a secondary role. Despite their reduced role, palaces and other

administrative structures remained still a crucial part of the administrative process.

However, there was no more one single capital city, one main royal residence, or one

major palace, but there were many.

In general, royal, or palatial buildings and complexes are amongst the main

group of buildings mentioned in the narrative. First, not only because of their role as

4406274@1531570678593/Konya-view-of-the-city-walls-Leon-de-Laborde-Voyage-de-lAsie-

Mineure-Paris-Firmin.png

182 The same problems were seen in the Roman Empire; the control of the vast extend of the Roman

world required multiple administrative centers with adequate seats for the rulers. One of the most

famous examples of such power centers was Diocletian's Palace in Split, Croatia that was built for the

Roman emperor Diocletian at the turn of the fourth century. See Curčić, "Late-Antique palaces: The

meaning of urban context," Ars Orientalis 23 no. Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces (1993).

93

centers of power in a historical narrative with emphasis on political and military

events, but also because of their multiple and nuanced functions. Nevertheless, their

role for the Seljuk history is limited to their function as functional spaces, or stages

of action owned by the Sultan. In Ibn Bibi’s narrative palaces are no thrones, seats,

or centers of power from which everything is controlled, this role is taken over by the

sultan. The following descriptions do not describe palaces: "refuge of world" (jahanpanah)

183 or as the "orientation point of nations of the world (qibla-i khilaq-i afaq),

the source of state and welfare, the place of prosperity and greatness"(ja-i iqbal wa

rif’at).184 These rather spatial denotations are attributions for the person of sultan,

emphasizing the value the person of the ruler takes in the (court) society. This is how

the idea “power/throne is there, where the ruler is” manifests itself in the Seljuk

thought. The sultan is in the (new/renewed) Seljuk state the throne, the centers of

power or points of orientation.

In the light of various medieval sources, scholars could identify nearly thirty

bigger or smaller palaces which seem to have been built, or more generally, to have

existed under the Seljuk authority on various locations of Anatolia.185 According to

Merçil, more than half of these structures were built under the direct patronage of the

ruler, while the others were commissioned and built for members of the dynasty such

as princes or wives of sultan. Unfortunately, the evidences are in many cases limited

to no more than one or two references in the written sources, and for most of these

“palace” structures there exists no physical evidences either; whether for their sites,

nor for what they might have looked like.186

183 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 238. “The victory kissed the ground in front of Sultan’s dargah which is

shelter of world to proclaimed its subjectivity.”

184 Ibid. 366 The author hereby describes the palace in Kayseri.

185 Merçil, Selçuklularda saraylar ve saray teşkilatı (Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2011).

186 Ibid. 17-49

94

Ibn Bibi names only a handful of “palaces” in Seljuk Anatolia; Keykubadiye

or Kubadiya Complex near Kayseri 187, the palace Ibn Bibi refers often as dawlatkhana

in the city of Kayseri 188, Kubadabad Complex near Beyşehir189, Filobad near Konya190

are the only ones that are mentioned by their specific names. Nevertheless, the text

provides further places with at least one such palace structure; the palaces in the capital

Konya191, and other major cities such as Ankara, Kayseri, Malatya, Sivas, Antalya,

and Alanya. The textual references indicate that these palaces not only were spread

throughout the different part and geographies of the Seljuk Anatolia, but they also

served various functions indicated by the terminology applied to them.

For instance, the term dawlatkhana is only used to denote the palatial building

at the city center, for instance in Kayseri, primarily used for governmental, or

administrative purposes.192 The text indicates that it serves as a stage for important

political decisions and acts. The dawlatkhana in Kayseri appears in the narrative

mainly as the place for severe decisions or unpleasant events. It is above all, ʿAlaʾ al-

Din Kaykubad I's place of death in 1237, and the place where people of highest ranks,

such as amirs are punished by death.193 However, Peacock and Yıldız draw attention

to the fact that dawlatkhana was the place of “official enthronements and other such

public-oriented activities” including spaces for drinking majlis, or symposia.194

Although, details about its actual form and outlook of this special structure

remains unclear, it can be assumed based on the case of punishment that the

187 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 354,355,367.

188 Ibid. 212,256,283,289,293,300,301,344,352,356,364,366,371,385,415,425,426

189 Ibid. 352-356,358, 361

190 Ibid. 690,692

191 It is today known under the names of Konya, Aladdin or Qilich Arslan II Kiosk.

192 Eravşar, "Anadolu Selçukluları’nda idari mekan olarak devlethane" (paper presented at the I.

Uluslararası Selçuklu kültür ve medeniyeti kongresi, Konya, 2001). Eravşar, Ortaçağ Anadolu kentleri

(Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2002), 339-340.

193Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım. Like dadgah, a devlethane might have existed as single building in the capital

city of Konya.

194 Peacock and Yıldız, Introduction (London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2013), 12-16.

95

dawlatkhana type incorporated also jurisdictive functions. In this sense, it would partly

correspond to the Persian term dadgah (place of justice) as used by Ibn Bibi. Since

dadgah appears rarely, it remains questionable whether it can be described as a single

room, or an independent building as in case of the Arabic term Dar al-Adl (court of

justice).195

The term dargah seems further to have an administrative character parallel to

dawlatkhana. Ibn Bibi uses dargah as a generic term to denote the palace both as a

physical and conceptual entity. For instance, the term is used equal to the word court

to describe “courtly orders" (hokm-i dargah).196 Nevertheless, dargah appears in other

contexts and forms, too. In one chapter, Ibn Bibi describes the daily rituals of the sultan

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I and mentions that the Sultan amongst other prayed in the

“court of God” (dargah-). Despite these rather rare usages, dargah describes the palace

in the capital of Konya, or the throne room in the palatial buildings. Ibn Bibi refers to

the palace in Konya as imperial palace (dargah-e saltanat), which can be translated as

“court" or also "throne of the Sultanate”.197 The term dargah is also used as a

distinguishing title for higher courtly ranks.198

In contrast to the two former terms, the term bargah appears very frequently in

the text, but remains with its versatile character still difficult to define. The Persian

word bar means assembly, or tribunal. In this regard, the term bargah is generally

translated as meeting room, where high ranked officials of the court, or special guest

195 The term is, for instance, used in the case of some tradesmen, who came to dadgah to complain

about the trouble cause by foreign authorities in Antalya, and to ask for sultan Ghiyath al-Din

Kayhusraw’s help. Consequently, Sultan sieged and took Antalya. Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 95, 301.

196 Ibid. 166, 224 The term appears also singly to denote the court/ palace in a more general context.

Ibid. 234,248,275 However, the author also describes the throne room decorated with an iwan with

the same term. Ibid. 201,203,233

198 Redford, City building in Seljuq Rum, 6. Peacock, The dargah: Courts and court life, 156-188.

Peacock and Yıldız, 38.

96

can meet and speak to the sultan.199 The word expresses in some cases the presence or

audience of ruler. In this sense, it is like the term soffe-i bar that also denotes a meeting

place. The descriptions do not clearly inform about the size. Hence, soffe-i bar can

refer to reception (or throne) hall, where public audiences, dinners, and festivities were

occasionally held.200 On the other hand, it might denote a meeting hall (diwan), since

Rum Seljuk ministers (amir) and members of the ruling elite held the meetings in these

spaces. 201

The word bargah appears also in suburban or rural contexts; in encampments,

for instance, the term can be used interchangeably with otag as a place, or a tent

reserved for meetings, or a karargah where decisions were made for military or

administrative issues.202 In this sense, bargah appears to have a residential character

in comparison to other palatial terms dawlatkhana, and dargah. However, Ibn Bibi

denotes the Keykubadiye palace using all three terms - bargah, dargah and

dawlatkhana - while dawlatkhana appears to be part of the bargah.203 Such examples

show that bargah designated a multifunctional building serving governmental as well

as residential and leisurely purposes.

These three terms dawlatkhana, dargah, and bargah, are amongst most

frequently words Ibn Bibi uses to designate palatial structures or complexes.204 These

appear in the text to fulfill different functions of a palace. As an additional difficulty,

they occur under different names and circumstances, which renders the distinction of

199Steingass, "Bar," in A Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary, including the Arabic words and

phrases to be met with in Persian literature (London: Routledge & K.Paul, 1892).

200 According to Ibn Bibi public audiences (bar-i am) were scheduled regularly, in which people could

present their concerns to the Sultan and held solutions to their problems. Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 227, .

201 The term diwan by Ibn Bibi describes a group of people consisting of highest officials of the court,

amirs. Thus, it can both refer to a concept or a room. Ibid.

202 Some examples for the application of bargah as a synonym for a room or tent are present in Ibn

Bibi; ibid. 218-220,270,280,283

203 For the terms bargah and dawlathana ibid. 265, 267

204 It should be stated that the Persian words for palace saray, kakh does not appear in the original

version of the al-Awamir as frequent as it is used in all translated versions of the text.

97

nuances between palatial terms very difficult. Moreover, it seems that some these

terms were used interchangeably, so that they must have been already ambiguous in

the thirteenth century.205

Nevertheless, the close survey on such terms shows different aspects of

palaces, above all, their main functions in the Seljuk Sultanate, according to which

their layout and appearance were planned. Thus, the nuances in the designation of such

facilities indicated the variability of their architecture, as well as their rank and prestige

in Seljuk Anatolia. The common feature of these palaces was that they were all

considered as seats or throne (takht) of the Seljuk ruler, and acted in the presence of

the Sultan as centers of power and government.206 The term throne (takht), the seat of

the ruler, denoted in broadened sense as a space, where the sultan held meetings,

received guests, or made decisions (bargah). In palace buildings, the seat was placed

in an iwan. In Seljuk palaces, the throne was often placed in an iwan as an extension

of the reception hall.207

The place of the throne was emphasized and distinguished from the rest of the

space not only by a higher leveled, but also luxuriously covered floor that was

commonly decorated –like the three walls of a domed iwan with colorful and

205 Similar problems of the architectural terminology have been addressed in many studies on the

medieval Islamic architecture. See Northedge on Samarra Northedge, "An interpretation of the palace

of the caliph at Samarra (Dar al-Khilafa or Jawsaq al-Khaqani)," Ars Orientalis 23, no. Pre-Modern

Islamic Palaces (1993). Northedge, Palaces of the Abbasids at Samarra (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2001). and Anderson on Umayyad Palaces in Cordoba Anderson, "Islamic spaces and

diplomacy in Constantinople (tenth to thirteenth centuries C.E.)," Medieval Encounters 15, no. 1

(2009). Anderson, Villa (munya) architecture in Umayyad Cordoba: preliminary considerations.

Anderson, The Islamic villa in early medieval Iberia: Architecture and court culture in Umayyad

Cordoba.

206 Ibn Bibi mentioned the throne commonly as an insignia of Sultan’s power, calling the ruler

possessor of the throne and the crown. Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 210, 211, 236, 238, 252, 280. In addition

to this it seems that in every palace he owed an actual throne to present the status and power of the

ruler. Ibid. 236, 251, 255, 393, 418

207 Ibid. 258

98

figurative high-quality tiles208. The throne room was, last but not least, visually

separated from the rest by a long curtain. The curtain was used already in early Iran

as part of a court ceremony, according to which the curtains remained close to

emphasize the absence of the ruler on throne. On special occasions, in which a larger

group of people were in the reception hall the sultan took seat on his throne and the

curtains opened dramatically to show his countenance to the audience.209

Daily rituals of the sultan and of the court, as well as the ceremonies held at

the court, as indicated above, determined the needs of the space in palace

architecture. The main functions of government, control, and representation, for

instance were incorporated in the throne room or hall. In Ibn Bibi’s text, we find

descriptions of different occasions and ceremonies, which could have taken place in

such a place. Above all, it seems very possible that in the presence of the sultan

audiences were held regularly in this hall. These audiences were held in relation to

governmental issues, as well as in relation to the problems of the local subjects. They

were held either in courthouse (dadgah), or in a meeting hall/room (soffe-i bar and/or

bargah). According to Ibn Bibi

“during his reign, Sultan sat everyday on his (state) throne in the meeting hall

(soffa-i bar), listened to orators/ complainants to understand their problems

and closed cases by adjudging in the presence of qadis and imams. From his

reign [Ghiyath al-Din Kayhusrav I] until the half of the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din

[Kaykubad I] Rum rulers did fast precisely on Mondays and Thursdays. The

rulers appeared in the courthouse (dadgah) in person, and gave justice to the

oppressed. “210

These quotations about the reign of Ghiyath al-Din Kayhusrav I, the father of ʿAlaʾ

al-Din, show that public meetings were an important part of the daily schedule of the

208 See archaeological results in Palace architecture and decoration 46. Ibn Bibi further mentioned

while describing the palace in Keykubadiye, for instance, that the throne was in an iwan, where the

sultan used to sit on “public” events. Ibid. 239, 255, 258

209 References to such ceremonies are given in ibid. 206, 233, 280

210 Ibid. 93

99

Rum- Seljuk rulers. Bringing justice to subjects and being able to listen to others

were among the important qualities of an ideal ruler, as Ibn Bibi also emphasized in

his narration. It was a tradition, or even a duty of the sultan to listen to people’s

concerns and ideas that continued during the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I.211

However, these public events were only a part of the administrative load of

the ruler. Meetings and audiences were held also in smaller frame; the palace housed

often private meetings with important guests from the ruling elites and high-ranked

officials such as amirs, beys, religious scholars, and artisans, as well as foreign rulers

and ambassadors. For instance, the author reports that the court organized many

feasts (bazm) in honor of important guests such as ambassadors.212

The visit of the caliphal ambassador Ibn al-Jawzi, gives many details about

the course of such receptions. Ibn Bibi reports that the Sultan heard the news about

the arrival of caliphal ambassador Ibn al-Jawzi in Malatya, as he moved to Kayseri

after the completion of the walls in Konya. Kaykubad sent then the high ranked

officials to receive the ambassador in Sivas, followed them with the imperial parasol

(chatr), and welcomed the ambassador in a ceremony.213 Ibn al-Jawzi was brought

from here to the room (visak) reserved for him in Kayseri, while the Sultan returned

to the royal palace (dargah-i saltanat). On the next day, the ambassador was invited

to meet the Sultan at the palace. Ibn Bibi describes that

Sultan sat in the royal palace (bargah-i saltanat) on the four-cushioned throne

(chahar balish-i jahanbani) like Suleiman flanked by amirs on his left and

right side, who stand in their places according to their ranks. The Sultan stood

up when the ambassador went over the threshold, and officials ran over to

211 Beside this general information about such public audiences, Ibn Bibi also reports about actual cases

that were presented to the ruler during these audiences. The importance of these public occasions is

shown in the case of three tradesmen, who according to Ibn Bibi complaint about the unjust treatment

of the Cilician Armenian ruler Leon. Consequently, Kaykubad decided to organize a military campaign

against King Leon. Ibid. 301 Peacock, "The Saljuq campaign against the Crimea and the expansionist

policy of the early reign of ‘Ala' Al-Din Kayqubad " Journal Royal Asiatic Studies (2006): 93.

212 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 265, 267, 270, 281, 284, 293, 298, 300, 310, 313, 330, 354, 375, 382, 408.

213 Ibid. 233, 386, 408, 412

100

welcome him. Then, they took his hand and seated him on a stool (kursi) in

front of the throne. The caliphal gift packages (buhcha) were lined (by

bohchedaran-i dar al hilafa) on the sides of the hall, and sultan's servants

(farrashan- i sultan) took down the colorful curtain from the ceiling.

Kaykubad descended from his throne and kissed his rikab that was sent from

the caliph, put on the robe of honor, the cloak, and the black sharbush. The

ambassador took him by the hand and sat him to his throne, while the servants

took away the curtain, and others brought vessels full of valuable jewels ...214

This passage shows the procession of a ceremony held for caliphal ambassadors. It is

important to note that the throne is placed in a hall, allowing courtiers and servants to

be present during the ceremony. The ceremonies are strictly regulated, so that the

place of every participant is clearly pre-determined. The sultan is hidden behind a

curtain and becomes visible. The curtain was used already in early Iran as part of a

court ceremony, according to which the curtains remained close to emphasize the

absence of the ruler on throne. On special occasions, in which a larger group of

people were in the reception hall the sultan took seat on his throne and the curtains

opened dramatically to show his countenance to the audience.

215

The curtain ceremony appears to be a highly recurrent rhetorical image in Ibn

Bibi’s historical narrative. The end of the two months long siege of Kalonoros, the

Seljuk victory comes in form of following cosmic metaphors:

On the next day, the sun, king of stars and sultan of planets, put his head out

behind the blue curtain (sky) and at the same time, the ears of the earth and

time blew from the voice of nay and the drum of the state toned victory by

every drip. The victory kissed the earth in front of sultan's shelter of the world

and proclaimed his subjection to him.216

After a dream that proclaimed the upcoming victory to Ala al-Din, Ibn Bibi describes

the rise of the new day in great analogy to the curtain ceremony of the Sultan. The

sun representing the Seljuk Sultan Ala al-Din Kaykubad, rises and shows itself in the

blue sky in the manner the Sultan shows his face to his subjects. Such metaphors

214 Ibid. 257 This passage has been translated freely by the author.

215 Ibid. 258, 309, 335, 350

216 Ibid. 237-238 This passage has been translated freely by the author.

101

show that the Seljuk court hierarchy and ceremonies have pendants in nature.

Ibn Bibi uses nature to describe the course of military events, in which the

sun as the king of planets either represents the sultan or the Seljuk army and state. In

one episode, the sultan sends his army (1226) under the command of Amir Çavli

towards the castles Kahta, Hisn-Mansur (Adıyaman) and Çemisgezek as the Artuqid

ruler of Diyarbakir, Mas’ud, chooses Egyptian Ayyubid ruler al-Malik al-Kamil

(1218-1238) as his overlord, instead of Ḳayḳubād I. Ibn Bibi visualizes the severity

of the Artuquid defeat against the Seljuk army in an architectural analogy; he writes

that in the encampments of the rivals "all tents ( ) fell, their ropes and posts broke".

In the light of these bad signs and developments, the inhabitants of the castle decide

to surrender. The author gives here again a foretaste to the upcoming victory through

cosmologic metaphors:

On the next day, as the flag of the king of the planets (of the sun) was visible

in the turning castle of heavens (the sky) the members of the army pulled the

black flag of the sultan to top of the castle with the help of God.217

The sun again represents the Sultan, and foreshadows the Seljuk victory by

appearing in the sky over the surrendering castle like the black banner of the Sultan.

The nature plays a huge role in the description of the palaces.

As the troops start their journey, Sultan rides with his men to Keykubadiye.

Ibn Bibi states the place the Sultan went was "as if God had created the place to

show people how paradise looks like". The site "resembles in beauty the spring of

the spring time" with mild temperatures, odors, and greenery. Hence, environment of

Keykubadiye appears in the manner of paradise; the references particularly to the

wind, odors, and colors evoke the beauty of this place that seems to be house the

source of life. Recreation in the nature is surely linked to the general purpose of such

217 Ibid. 281

102

suburban palaces. Ibn Bibi further describes the palace complex;

there was such a palace, both sun and the moon turned to it

at that place Saturn admired, there was a fountain of water of life

that fountain the gave life to the world

its surrounding was fully covered with rose garden

in front of it was a beautiful green sea

above it the face of the cloudy sky

the fish swam there like the moon

the state seek shelter in the ruler's palace ....

The world stamped the prosperity on this place in the name of Kaykubad218

They created the ideal setting to plan the future conquest, or to read books reminding

of past rulers, and giving advice about religion, administrative issues, happiness, and

pleasure. The verses of Ibn Bibi moreover present the daily routine of the Sultan in

Keykubadiye.

In the morning hours, sultan went out "like the moon from the curtain of

clouds" and rides a while in paradisiac landscape accompanied by his men.

Afterwards, he listens to the men - probably spies - coming from everywhere to

report to Ala al-Din everything they saw and heard. The public audiences in the

palace (bargah) belong to this routine, which allow the Sultan to bring justice, and

order to his realm. Following these public meetings, the Sultan offered everyone who

came as guests to the palace lunch. Ibn Bibi indicates that the number of the

attendants was big, so that the seated stood up without lingering and others sat down

to guarantee everyone has something from the food. Next, the sultan went to another

iwan to meet scholars of religion, strategy, and philosophy and to discuss with them

everything. After the talks, he enjoyed the dinner in the presence of his scholarly

guests. In the evening, the palace (dargah) fills with important people who come to

the to attend festivities accompanied by music. Ibn Bibi states that the sultan in the

absence of his armies spent his day and night like this. Occasionally, he watched

218 Ibid. 308

103

polo games, and went also hunting. 219

These descriptions from the daily routine of the Sultan in Keykubadiye shows

that the palaces were not only seen as seat of kings and as location for official,

diplomatic receptions and gatherings of elites in different events such as dining or

entertainment. In this sense, the palace acts as a platform of social, scientific, and

artistic exchange of newest ideas and knowledge as well as creation of ideals and

ideologies of the authority. The public audiences and dinners show that the palace

meant to address all kinds of people from the farmers to the representatives of other

lands and kings, and serve both public events as well as private ones. The layout and

organization of the spaces must have been created according to the various functions

and needs created by these courtly ceremonies and routines.

Al-Awamir contains references to many different functions and parts of royal

palaces. The palaces housed according to references given by Ibn Bibi amongst

others baths(hamam), wardrobe for cloths (jamakhana) and for textiles

(farrashkhana), various treasuries (khazina), arsenary (zaradkhana), stables, jail

(zindankhana), scullery(tasthane)220, kitchen (matbakh), cellars (sharabkhana),

private rooms or bedrooms (visak, otag, saraparda, dahliz, khalwat, shebistan), and

diverse meeting rooms (bargah, soffa-i bar). These correspond to the basic

requirements for a royal encampment. The references to tents provided for important

guests of the Seljuk palace show the requirements and standards for the traveling

elites of the thirteenth century, including the rulers. 221

219 Ibid. 310

220 Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary, including the Arabic words and phrases to

be met within Persian literature (London: Routledge & K.Paul, 1892), 302.

221 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 389.

104

3.4 Pleasantness of Kubadabad and sultan’s order to build an edifice there

According to the narrative of Ibn Bibi, the great Rum Seljuk sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din

Ḳayḳubād I. (r. 616–35 / 1220–37) discovers a new place on one of his journeys

through the Rum Seljuk realm. On the way from Kayseri to the port cities Antalya

and Alanya, sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Kaykubad I rides with his entourage through various

stations and caravanserais. Ibn Bibi states that he and his men stop at every lake and

every river and built there their tents.

When the Sultan, [departing] from Qaysariyya on the back of pure-blooded

horses, victoriously and joyfully crossed stations and stages in the manner of

Solomon and passed by the Capital, he arrived at the charming places of

Akrinas( 222 .(اکریناس

One of the main topics, or tropes of Ibn Bibi’s chapter on Kubadabad–despite the

narrative of the events that led to the construction of the palace – is the natural

beauty of this place that Ibn Bibi repeatedly compares to paradise. The author points

to the heavenly and nearly utopic character of the palace and its environment into the

foreground by using verse form.

Then he entered such a heavenly garden so that even the gardener of the

Garden of Eden has not been able to grow such a garden.223

The regular usage of verses and poems that support and explicate the narration is a

common element that the author applies. These additions are almost never explicitly

attributed to an author. Hence, they are included into the text so that only people with

knowledge of their origins could identify them as references. This manner can be

further interpreted as an attempt of the author to recreate a Persian(ate) character to

his work. The use of poetry, therefore, is one of the main stylistic elements that Ibn

Bibi uses not only to evoke feelings and ideas, but also to add new qualities to the

narration.

222 Ibid. 352

223 Ibid. 418

105

The beauty of this heavenly nature, and the amazement of the visitors about

the view are conveyed through verses. Additionally, comparisons to well-known

concepts such as the Garden of Eden belong to the stylistic elements the author uses

to create a mental image by his readership. In addition to obvious references and

comparisons to heavenly beauty, Ibn Bibi recreates the atmosphere of this area by

referring to various the natural qualities. He appeals to the human senses of sight,

smell, taste, and hearing.

A mountain base like joyful Paradise (bihisht)

As if the Heaven (charkh) had mixed its soil with ambergris

Its ground from greenery in turquoise (piruza) color

With tulips upon it (like) dots of blood

With wild roses, lilies, and narcissi

It is like the firmament (sipihr) rather than a blooming meadow

On every side, a fountain of seeming rosewater

You would say it was not water but a luminous tear

The air is musk-perfumed, the ground full of beauty

There is every kind of boar to hunt

It is a green sea [i.e. lake] sweet like milk

Full of waves like Chinese silk

In it islands count twenty

Each one full with village and fruits of fruit bearing (trees)

A flowing fountain by the side of the sea [i.e. lake]

Such that from seeing it the old become young

Like cold ice and musk-scented like wine

Its shore ["lip"] is like the cheek on a young man's face224

The site is characterized with its various colorful, perfumed flowers, natural

abundance, and its rich and tasteful resources of fresh water. The fertility of nature is

represented in green and turquoise colors, which is decorated with various flowers in

reverse colors, and populated by wild animals such as boars. The idea of paradise is

brought to minds once more through the existence water springs at each corner. The

water is described as a crystal reflecting the green and the blue tones of the nature.

Its taste is compared to rose water, or wine, cold as ice, and sweet as milk.

224 Ibid. 353

106

The narrative points also to the calming and recreating effect of the nature on

the tired army and ruler. In this sense, one might well link the description of

contrasting colors of the flowers, especially of tulips whose red color is compared to

drops of blood remind the reasons for recreation; battles. Ibn Bibi repeatedly notes

that the great Seljuk Sultan needed long period of recreation after military

campaigns, battles in particular.225

References to the procreative, regenerative, and even the “life prolonging”

effect of the complex are further given through metaphors of water. Water of the lake

is compared to a cheek of a young man, soft as milk, and the source of life and youth

youth which revives the old. The verses included into the prose text further recall the

leisure activities made repeatedly at this palace such as hunting, walking, as well as

banquets and feast with harmonious music.

Once more, he renewed the instrument of joy

The world echoed his fortune

The yearly custom of polo and hunting

The same royal feast in the tulip garden226

The palace fits harmoniously into its environment and even into the cosmos. Even

the planets–although jealous of its beauty- seem to complement the architecture of

the palace, and to contribute to its harmony with their own instruments.

He drew up [plans] at every location for the foundation of a palace (ʿimarat)

in the iwan of which Venus (zuhra) would desire to sing and on the roof of

the iwan of which Saturn (kaywan) would wish to rattle his drum.227

The harmony is reflected in the utopic narration of the nature; it resembles and

surpasses both productivity and beauty of the Paradise. The idea of the paradise is

reflected in the description of cold and clear fresh water. The water elements such as

fountains and pools, in addition to the lake next to the palace further recall the image

225 Ibid. 353,395

226 Ibid. 354

227 Ibid. 353

107

of fertility and abundance. The water further mirroring the colors of the sky and

nature creates a scene, in which the sky, water, and meadows are hardly to be

differentiated from each other. This reminds of the royal iconography showing the

ruler enthroned at the center, just at the merging point “between a body of water and

a luminous sky”.228 The same iconography was used in other medieval palaces in

Anatolia, recalled by the usage of fountains or pools as in case of the Artuqid Citadel

of Diyarbakir.229 The paradisiac scenery here allows further interpretations linked to

the concept of kingship in Islam. The repeated comparison of the building site and

palace gardens to the uppermost heaven, where the throne of God and the center of

the divine power is suggested, points to the cosmic role of the palace as the center of

earthly power and administration.

In addition to these descriptions of the beauty of the nature, these verses also

give some geographical hints about the site, which would allow locating the site.

Akrinas ( اکریناس ), according to the verses above, is located on a mountain base, at the

shore of a large body of water. The statement about the fresh water springs and a

pool created by the drops of their water, suggests that it was probably a fresh water

lake. Ibn Bibi further counts around twenty islands on the lake that seem to be big

enough to be settled. Nevertheless, Ibn Bibi’s descriptions evoke the idea of an

idyllic and untouched paradise like nature. Thus, it can be suggested that Akrinas

was the contemporary name of the area or the site of itself, rather than the name of a

settlement. Ibn Bibi does not give any further information about this name, nor does

he mention it again. If Akrinas was the name of a former settlement that has changed

over time, then the author must have used this denotation again, at some point. On

possible explanation is that names of places in this area have been changed in time.

228 Tabbaa, Construction of power and piety in medieval Aleppo (1997).

229 Ibid. 94

108

However, the author clearly states that he built Kubadabad, and not Akrinas. The

other, and more convincing explanation is that the name Akrinas was the closest

option to give a direction. The author might have given the name of one of the local

watchtowers Mındıras, which was at the closes distance to the site and was

responsible for controlling the area.

Impressed by this natural beauty, Sultan Kaykubad assigns his contemporary

Court Architect and Master of the Royal Hunt (amīr-i s̲h̲ikār ū miʿmār) Saʿd al-Din

Kopek with the construction of an imārat ( عمارت ), which is a Persian word for a

building or structure. The term imārat ( عمارت ) has been translated as ‘palace’, since

the expectations for the appearance were high;230 the structure should be comparable

to the beauty of the Paradise, and surpass legendary palaces in terms of its appeal and

decorum.

To Saʿd al-Din Kopek, who at that time was the amir of hunting and building,

he gave orders to commence and erect there an edifice which in joyfulness

would surpass (?) the harvest of Paradise and which in delight, exaltation and

splendor would put Sadir and Khwarnak to shame.231

The narrative continues with praises for the creativity and architectural skills of ʿAlaʾ

al-Din, who draws a plan of the future palace that he wishes. The text illustrates

Sultan’s attempt to make projects that compete and even surpass the features of

famous monuments of past generations. It indicates or rather proves sultan’s

orientation on traditional values of Perso-Islamic culture. The palace is related to the

pre-Islamic palaces Sadir and Khawarnak from the fifth century, which were built in

the Lakhmid capital Hira, today located southeast of Najaf in Iraq. Although these

buildings probably stood in ruins in the thirteenth century, their names have endured

in the Perso-Islamic culture. Among these two, Khawarnak became particularly

230 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 352.

231 Ibid. 353

109

known for being one of the "30 wonders" of the antique world. Its construction story

was further linked to the legendary architect Sinimmar. According to stories, the

patron of palace, the Lakhmid king Nuʿmān (d. after 418) was shaken by the beauty

of the architecture, and skills of the architect, so that he murdered architect Sinimmar

instead of rewarding him. Hence, this story was known as "the reward of Sinimmar."

There are also versions with the focus on the patron's story (after the death of

Sinimmar). These stories describe renouncement and disappearance of the patron

that are linked to ideas of guilt, or consequences for vanity of power and wealth. In

this sense, the story is a parable indicating that the "grandiose architecture and

luxurious decoration claim to build the Paradise on earth, and that building grandiose

works is an attempt at competing with the might of God, and is therefore a defiance

of Him." 232

The importance of the chapter on Kubadabad can be directly linked to this

small reference to past, namely to the palace of Khwarnak. Its name probably called

up the legendary story in the mind of Ibn Bibi's readers, and functioned as a signal

indicating the continuation of the historical narrative. Based on the different versions

of the story, it can be further suggested that Ibn Bibi tried to indicate the approaching

end of either Kubadabad's architect Sad al-Din Kopek, or of its patron ʿAlaʾ al-Din.

In addition to this historical reference to legendary palaces, Ibn Bibi uses allegories

and personifications of planets to explain the palace that ʿAlaʾ al-Din desired.

He drew up [plans] at every location for the foundation of a palace in the

iwan of which Venus (zuhra) would desire to sing and on the roof of the iwan

of which Saturn (kaywan) would wish to rattle his drum.233

Ibn Bibi emphasizes that the Sultan has personally drawn the first plans of the palace

232 Alami, Alami, Art and architecture in the Islamic tradition: Aesthetics, politics and desire in early

Islam (I.B.Tauris, 2013), 153.

233 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 353.

110

right on site, defining and explaining the use of each part. The author mentions on

many occasions Kaykubad’s interest in architecture and his involvement in the

planning and designing process of such projects. Kaykubad is said to have drawn

iwans on each side, which created a harmony that would let the stars sing and dance.

However, there is no further information about his involvement in the decision of

architectural details such as interior and exterior decoration.

According to these instructions, Kopek builds “a pleasant and life prolonging

palace”. The architect completes the project even faster than expected. Nevertheless,

Ibn Bibi does not give any hints about the exact duration, or phases of the

construction works. The result seems to surpass the ideas and expectations of the

patron. Architect Kopek creates a complex with beautiful sights, “exhilarating

pools”, and paradisiac gardens. Ibn Bibi comments on the palace, and says it was

more spacious and luxurious than “modest spirits need”. He writes that " arched

vault" of the palace was decorated with muqarnas, and the walls were latticed and

variegated

such that its arched vault with muqarnas would contend with the sphere above

it; from the envy of the cheerfulness of the colors of its latticed and

variegated walls disturbance and capriciousness would become manifest in

the kashikhana of the rainbow; from the jealousy of its turquoise and lapis

lazuli furnishings the visage of the turquoise-colored sphere and the figure of

the representative of roof of the blue palace would become tinctured with

saffron and safflower.234

Ibn Bibi provides a general impression of the complex by naming some significant

architectural and decorative elements of the buildings. The architecture of the palace

is reduced to elements that are visible from a far; an open courtyard, arched

balconies and iwans - one on each side – of the building, as well as a dome. The text

particularly draws attention to the colorful decoration of the palace that competed

234 Ibid.

111

with the colors of the surrounding nature. The walls were decorated with lattices and

wall tiles of various colors. Blue tones of the iwans, arches, and dome seem to

overweight the general appearance. Ibn Bibi states that the dome and balconies

compete with the sky/heaven not only in terms of their color, but also in terms of

their height.

The competition with the beauty and fertility of the Paradise, with the bright

colors of the nature, or with the heavenly bodies shows that the Ibn Bibi refers to the

known and popular measures of his period. He recalls these predetermined analogies

and iconographies to explain the uniqueness of Kubadabad palace complex. The

unique architecture in unseen form is common trope of the medieval literature both

in the east and west, parallel to the paradisiac environment addressed in various

ways. Here, Ibn Bibi emphasizes the beauty of the palace and the site around it by

including the impressions of the heavenly bodies and of natural phenomena in

personified form.235

the spectacles of Jupiter (barjis) and Venus (nahid) would perish from

mimicking the balconies of that coveted matter...

If the shining sun sees the exalted palaces

It would stop turning around the heavens

At every place, a flowing stream of pure water

Such that in describing it the tongue of the intellect would become

ruby/inflamed

In front of it is a garden like Paradise

The form of which no sight had seen236

The sight of the palace not only impresses, but even surprises the planets. Venus,

Jupiter, and the Sun stop their continuous movement and stand still as if they were

part of the palace. According to this, Venus and Saturn were standing on top of the

palace. The sun spotlights the palace, and stops its movement. The time stops to flow

and

235 Ibid.

236 Ibid.

112

the north wind would slow down to repose for months and years in the

heavenly blue open courtyards; and if the thought of a promenade in its

courtyard comes to mind to those with long lives, crossing its courtyards of

Paradise-like gardens would not come to an end; the inhabitants of the

ascending seven heavenly palaces would at every moment recite the " in

yakad" verse;237

In other words, the sight of the palace architecture brings the whole sphere, and the

time to stop. The idea of time is further related to the concepts of past and memory.

Memory is a particularly important feature of the medieval oral culture, which

generates experience and knowledge. Moreover, memory of the past is a further

element of culture and identity. Thus, memory of the past is also an important topic

of Ibn Bibi’s narrative, although the references are inconspicuous but branched, and

at times hardly recognizable for untrained eyes of the modern reader. For instance,

the author compares the movement of the Sultan on the horseback to the great past

(pre-Islamic) rulers such as Solomon (or Alexander the Great) or the architecture of

the palace to (riqwat) Khawarnak and Sadir.

In addition, Ibn Bibi describes the palace as surrounded by heavenly gardens,

which invite visitors to walk and spend time. Ibn Bibi points out that visitors enjoy

and admire the gardens so much that the inhabitants see themselves forced to pray

for protection against the envy of the people and planets. He compares Kubadabad to

the seven heavenly palaces. He remarks that “the inhabitants of the ascending seven

heavenly palaces”, meaning the inhabitants of Kubadabad, continuously recite the

"Wa In Yakād (68: 51;52) verse form the Quran, which should protect from evil

eyes/envy of the people who would wish to the have this paradisiac palace for their

own. 238

Thus, the palace surpassing all past measures becomes the object of jealousy,

237 Ibid.

238 Ibid. 354

113

and hence, center of attraction. The chapter ends with the information that the Sultan

spent some time there before he then continued his journey to the port cities in the

south, and probably also on his way back.

After refining and adorning it, the Sultan ordered the blessed reins in the

direction of Antalya and Ala'iyya as was his custom.239

Ibn Bibi emphasizes in the text that ʿAlaʾ al-Din was a Sultan who often needed such

recreation phases both in winter as in summer time.240 Although the author does not

criticize the sultan directly, he explains these breaks up to one-month length with the

youthfulness of the Sultan, who liked to hunt or play polo during the daytime, and to

celebrate feasts by night. This must be one of the reasons why the newly built

palaces, above all Kubadabad, were mainly known and denoted as hunting and

recreation spots for the summer. During the travels through his realm, the Sultan

seemed to have resided in city-palaces, and kiosks of different sizes and furnishing.

It seems that the sultans moved from one place to another, generally to the

change of the seasons from autumn to winter, or from winter to spring time. Spring

and summer, thereby, were considered as the most welcoming seasons providing

ideal weather conditions for military campaigns, for audits of local rulers, to show

presence and to regulate state affairs. During these seasons, hiding from the heat at

the Mediterranean coast, the sultans generally moved towards the central lands that

were preferred for their milder climate.

Ibn Bībī seems to have given some hints about the duration of these travels and

about the architectural structures at each stop. The text rarely provides the names of

the palaces since the author prefers to give directions in form of city names. It seems

that the sultans moved from one place to another, generally to the change of the seasons

239 Ibid.

240 Ibid.

114

from autumn to winter, or from winter to spring time, which are often introduced with

a poetic language and poems. These poems vividly describe the colors, moods, and

odors of the nature and justify the change of location.

Spring and summer, thereby, were considered as the most welcoming seasons

providing ideal weather conditions for military campaigns, for audits of local rulers,

to show presence and to regulate state affairs. During these seasons, hiding from the

heat at the Mediterranean coast, the sultans generally moved towards the central

lands that were preferred for their milder climate. However, they did not remain at

one place for longer than one month, but moved from one city to another, and from

one place to another. The palaces patronized by and named after ʿAlaʾ al-Din

Kaykubad I, for that matter, were always portrayed within the divine beauty of the

natural environment recalling the image of paradise. In this regard, the literary

depiction of the two particularly named palaces -Kubadabad and Keykubadiye–

express through these details a hidden message of the aesthetic appreciation for these

structures. In contrast to Kubadabad and Keykubadiye, the winter palaces (kışlak) in

the coastal areas, especially between Antalya and Alanya, with dry and warm climate

are depicted in the text in a less welcoming, and less detailed manner. One reason for

the author’s limited interest in these structures was probably their pre-existence, and

the fact that they were only restored, but not newly constructed. Furthermore, they

did not act as bases or stopovers for the court, and were therefore uninteresting for

the narration of political and military history. Accordingly, their role as spaces for

physical and mental recovery after military campaigns and battles, as well as for

strategic planning, and leisurely activities was surely another reason for their general

ignorance within the text.

115

In any case, these intervals, especially during the warm period, seem not to

have been welcomed by the elites. Ibn Bībī emphasizes in the text that ʿAlaʾ al-Din

was a Sultan who often needed such recreation phases both in winter as in summer

time. Although the author does not criticize the sultan directly, he explains these

breaks up to one-month length with the youthfulness of the Sultan, who liked to hunt

or play polo during the daytime, and to celebrate feasts by night. This must be one of

the reasons why the newly built palaces, above all Kubadabad, were mainly known

and denoted as hunting and recreation spots for the summer.241 During the travels

through his realm, the Sultan seemed to have resided in so-called City-palaces, and

kiosks of different sizes and furnishing. These (walled) facilities probably resembled

Umayyad palaces in offering space for the army, royal guards, administrative

officers, and other court members that were commonly described in the original text

as havas, the closest companions.

However, the sultan sometimes also stayed in the areas without royal facilities,

and camped in tents as the rest of his entourage. In such cases, huge tents served him

and his courtiers as provisory palaces, which fulfilled specific purposes. His personal

tent was named otag, while further tents were reserved for state affairs, receptions,

and administrative meetings of the diwan. References to tents exist also for important

visitors in palatial context. Whenever the sultan himself, or high officials visit a

foreign palace, they seem to Camp at the specific place near but not within the palace

that was shown to them by their hosts. These visits seemed to endure for around a

week at least, providing the guests some days to re-create themselves after a long

journey, to be entertained and to be hosted before they could see the Sultan himself.

241 Ibid. 293

116

In some cases, these guests were further invited to stay within the palace for some

more days.242

Although the caravanserais are argued to have fulfilled palatial purposes, the

text provides no mentioning of any royal stopovers in any of them. In other words,

royal or courtly travelers preferred to stay in places other than caravanserais, which

provided travelers (merchants, ambassadors, etc.) a secure space to lodge and eat

where they can store their possessions, loadings, or gifts such as animals and

products. Beside this common use, caravanserais fulfilled military or administrative

function either as check points and frontiers that marked the borders of a district, or

places to welcome official guests. Since caravanserais were built at regular distances

from each other, they allowed controlling and keeping track of approaching visitors.

Their position on specific routes further facilitated the control of the borders. The

repeated reference to the same caravanserai at Obruk illustrates that the routes and

hence the spots did not change. Obruk has been the last stop on the way from

Aksaray towards the capital Konya. This place has therefore witnessed many

important events, especially processions of new sultans on their way to capital to

attend the official ritual of enthronement. Izz’ al-Din Kayka'us I, as well as ʿAlaʾ al-

Din Kaykubad I have been received in Obruk by the high-ranked officials and elites

as well as people on their way to their enthronement.243

242 There were many examples for such meetings during the reign of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I. Kaykubad

should have invited the ruler of Erzincan, Emir ʿAlaʾ al-Din Davudshah to Kayseri to confront him with

some accusations of his subjects that were made against him. Davudshah has been welcomed at the

border of Kayseri and brought to Keykubadiye, where he has spent three days in a tent at a nearby place

that has been provided by the officials. According to Ibn Bibi he has received ritual costumes from the

Sultan that gave him the approval to meet the sultan personally. They had a ride around Mashhad and

enjoyed together a majlis, after which he has been allowed to stay another ten days at the palace. On the

eleventh day, the emir has received an ahidname that would prove the support of the Sultan for the emir.

Ibid. 351-352; A similar reception has happened some time later in Alanya. The ambassador has been

entertained for around five days from his arrival onwards with music, dancers, and food at some distance

for the castle. After that, he has been upgraded to a lodge for another seven days, until he has received

the allowance to attend the majlis and to meet the Sultan. Ibid. 146

243 Ibid. 215;

117

3.5 Conclusion

As mentioned at the beginning, Ibn Bibi provides little information about the palaces

–their locations, names, sizes, functions, or the total number of such structures. The

author mentions only a handful of the palaces by name. The palaces of Kubadabad

and Keykubadiye enjoy here a special prominence. Kubadabad enjoys a chapter of

its own, and beside this it is mentioned not more than three times.

Keykubadiye, too, is subject to one chapter, in which the Sultan spends his

days in the palace, while his troops are fighting in three different fronts. The

closeness of this complex to Kayseri, which seems to be the informal capital at that

time, and the longer existence in contrast to the unfinished construction of

Kubadabad provides the possibility to learn more about this complex and the life in

it.

The prominence and role of these two complexes within the Seljuk dynastic

history therefore, should be regarded as an exceptional. It suggests that the author

followed a specific agenda in including them into the text. Moreover, a closer look to

the descriptions of these palaces proves that they share many elements, which can

not only be attributed to their common patron and idea behind their construction, but

also to rhetoric and style of Ibn Bibi.

In regard of their different stages of construction and development,

commonalities between their descriptions concern palatial environments and

landscape. In terms of architecture, Ibn Bibi ascribes in both cases a throne placed in

an iwan connected to a larger room or hall. The references to heavenly bodies above

the seat suggests either a large dome above it resembling the firmament or large

openings towards outside. Pools and fountains are in both cases part of the

architecture, as the large gardens around the palatial buildings with paradisiac beauty

118

and prosperity Ibn Bibi’s description of Keykubadiye at his arrival from Sivas recalls

the descriptions of Kubadabad.

From there [Sivas] he rode to Kubadiye and by spreading seeds of joy there

He saw there a city, such, not seen by the sun and moon

The creek flew from the mountain clear as rose water, pleasant and delicious

like milk and wine

It flew to the door of the palace (bargah) and spread from there to

everywhere

many beautifully built kiosks created hills above the lake,

the trees were full of fruits in the garden never seen by the gardener of

paradise

World ruler stayed at that comforting place some days.244

The idea of nature or gardens with qualities such as water springs, lakes, meadows,

and threes, in various green and blue tones and a seemingly eternal spring with

colorful blooming flowers and various odors promise paradise on earth.

In consideration of the results of the second chapter, it might be well assumed

that the typo of the eternal spring and paradise on earth were rhetorical elements that

were used Ibn Bibi (and most probably by ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I) to communicate

and emphasize their messages. In case of Ibn Bibi, it has been already indicated that

it was his aim to depict the period of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I as the ideal model, for

all future rulers of Seljuk Anatolia, whose authority was weakened under the Mongol

protectorate. The creation of idyllic images probably should help to transfer this

message, to express and raise hope for better futures.

In regard of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I, it is difficult to say whether the images

drawn by the author reflected the actual image of the Sultan, or they were part of Ibn

Bibi’s “fiction”. In any case, the itineraries of the Sultan in the peripheries of his

realm was part of an administrative system of “itinerant kingship” (Reisekönigtum),

which was based on the past models (e.g. the Roman Empire during the Tetrarchy, or

244 Ibid.

119

Umayyad Caliphate).

It has been also practiced in Medieval Europe beginning with the Holy

Roman emperor Charlemagne. According to this system, the ruler did not rule from

any permanent central residence or capital city, but he travelled with his family and

court between the royal palaces (Königspfalz) built in different areas of his realm.

Thereby the king unified all administrative and representational functions of a

government in his person, so that the power was there, where the king was.

The mobility of the court required the establishment of multiple

administrative centers and stopovers (or royal residences) for this purpose. The

establishment of palace complexes such as Kubadabad and Keykubadiye in rather

rural areas were, in this sense, part of this administrative system. Their construction

was bound to the financial, political, and military state of the Sultanate. The

conquests and victories won against enemies surely delivered financial support to the

Seljuk treasury and enabled - in similarity to the military projects patronized by the

Sultan. The stability of the state further encouraged and enabled the continuity of

these itineraries according to the seasonal changes. The evidence for this is given in

the lack of seasonal movements of the ruler and the court both in the period before

Ala al-Din’s predecessor Izz al-Din and successor Giyath al-Din II.

The visits and stays in Keykubadiye and particularly in Kubadabad seasonal

was part of a royal ceremony - or was shown in the text as such- that was established

in accordance with the rise of the Seljuk power. The new and strengthened state

required new administrative, financial, and infrastructural solutions in facing the

expansion of the Seljuk lands, the growth of population under the Mongol treat. The

growing size and power further led to the reformulation courtly aims and ideas and

recreation of royal image. The analogies drawn between god, sun, lion or eagle and

120

sultan were helpful tools to visualize this change of mind. The ruler, deputy of God

on earth, rose every day in the manner of the sun and enlightened and pleased his

subjects. His actions at the court was followed or mirrored by the sun, or vice versa.

His person was accordingly idealized and raised to a divine status, which

reflected itself in the architecture of Kubadabad. The image of the sun, mighty,

visible but distant was cultivated through new ceremonials. The military power

supported through the construction of fortresses made granted him power, journeys

allowed him to be ubiquitous, the palaces in the rural landscape and their architecture

gave him the possibility to seclude, disappear and reappear.

121

CHAPTER 4

RHETORIC OF PALACE

4.1 Character of Kubadabad: City, caravanserai, or a countryside palace?

Since its rediscovery, Kubadabad has been a mystery which scholars attempt to solve

to learn more about the Seljuk history, architecture, and culture in general. The

limited information about the Seljuk palaces and court culture provided in the

historical narrative of Ibn Bibi have been very insufficient to reconstruct an adequate

image of their former glory and role for the Seljuk Sultanate. As a result, many

different arguments about Kubadabad’s past have been made. Given its exceptional

status in regard of the name after the Sultan, the location remote -instead of near –

large cities, Kubadabad was argued to be a palace-city, or a caravanserai-like

structure for sultan’s stopovers.

The analysis of the site based on the information from archaeological surveys

showed that a settlement around the palace developed gradually during the

construction works, however the size of this settlement –despite its name Yenişar –

i.e. new city- was probably not dense enough to be an actual city. The evidence for

this was particularly given through the central element of an Islamic city – the

mosque- and its size. The original inscription of the religious structure indicated that

Kubadabad, the center of the province with the same name has only a masjid a small

quartier mosque instead of a congregational mosque as found in the main Seljuk

cities.

The location of the Kubadabad and the architectural forms evoked further the

idea that it was planned as a stopover or a caravanserai instead of a palace that was

122

only meant to provide essential functions along with beautiful gardens and views of a

pavilion.245 The position near to the mountain passes, and distance to the existing

caravanserais supported this argument. Furthermore, researches on Seljuk

caravanserai networks illustrate that there was a lack around the palace, which either

signalized that Kubadabad had such a function. Osman Kunduracı has found the next

known caravanserai, Tol Han near Göynem, Derebucak ca.46 km south from the site.

The distance of nearly 46 km, according to Google, would take 9-10 hours to walk.

Osman Kunduracı discovered it along with two other Tol Hans in Ortapayam and

Eynif in 2001-02. The average distance between caravanserais commonly required a

one-day trip for caravans. 246

Ibn Bibi’s narrative indicates that the Rum-Seljuk sultans and their courts have

been continuously on the move within their realms and they attended also campaigns

and travels to neighbor lands. Thus, despite the centralization of the rule, the Sultan

with his entourage was on the move, and remained in the peripheries of the

Sultanate. In this governmental system, ruler was considered as the center of the

state, while architecture took only a secondary role. Despite their reduced role,

palaces and other administrative structures remained still a crucial part of the

administrative process. In other words, the sultan ruled not from one center such as

the capital city, but the center of power moved from place to place with the person of

the sultan. This practice led to the formation of different ephemeral centers.

Suburban or rural palaces such as Kubadabad offered the travelling Sultan and his

245 Ibid.

246 This caravanserai was built by Sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I on the route between Konya and

Alanya. Kunduracı, "Kubadabad çevresindeki hanlar," (2007).; Kunduracı, "Konya-Alanya

güzergahındaki Selçuklu kervansaraylarının Eşrefoğlu Beyliği'ne sunduğu katkılar," Selçuk

Üniversitesi Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi 6 (2018). Kunduracı, "Kubadabad-Alanya Selçuklu

kervan yolu güzergâhı üzerine yeni araştırmalar-I" (paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Selçuklu

semineri bildirileri, Konya, 2001).

123

entourage space and supplies to recreate like a caravanserai. However, the palace

was never mentioned as a caravanserai, but as an imarat.

The term imarat generally describes a place to stopover with food to consume

and facilities to spend the night. These complexes embodied residential spaces for

the Sultan and his family, rooms for meetings and halls for larger events, a harem

part, and many utility rooms to store gifts, treasures and jewels, cloths, rugs, and

textiles, as well as baths, kitchens, and many more. However, there was no more one

single capital city, one main royal residence, or one major palace, but there were

many. Accordingly, these imarets or palaces fulfilled also basic functions of a palace

in a compact form. In other words, these complexes must have embodied also

administrative functions. These functions were further indicated in the text of Ibn

Bibi through references to such places as dargah and/or bargahs.

These terms denoted different functions of the palace, and generally stood for

the palace. While the term bargah (from bar meaning audience) described rather

private meeting rooms and sometimes the presence of the sultan.247 Dargah in

contrast, was used more as a generic term to describe more public addressed parts of

the palace, or the palace itself. Peacock and Yıldız indicate that the inner court, or

bargah, was the space for sultan's household at the palace, “including his harem and

entourage of extended family members, servants, favorites (khawau), military

retainers (sarwaran-i bargah), young nobles in attendance (mulazim) and household

staff of ghulams.”248 Indeed, Ibn Bibi tells us specifically that it was from the bargah

or inner court that the sultan mounted his horse to tour the city with his

commanders.249 According to these descriptions the bargah of Kubadabad was to be

247 Peacock and Yıldız, 14.

248 Ibid.

249 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım, 253.

124

located in the third court, and maybe also in the second court. The first court

however belonged to the dargah, were many different functions were housed.

4.2 Tools of rhetoric/ Rhetoric of architecture

The position of the palace on a peninsula evokes the idea that the place was

intentionally chosen to ensure security, and to evoke the feeling of a certain grade of

seclusion or isolation. The architecture and organization of the complex was used to

emphasize the centrality and importance of the ruler. The centrality with in the

palace buildings was emphasized through the location on the throne that was placed

on the one end of the building’s axis annexed to the central hall that was the main

area of living providing connection to ever part of the building. The bargah -

including the private rooms of the ruler as well as the throne was similarly positioned

on one extreme of the enclosed complex, in the greatest possible distance from the

main entrance gate of the complex. The walls and courts in between the palace and

the entrance underlined the seclusion, even sacredness of it.

Access to the object of curiosity or admiration was mainly given through a

sequence of enclosed courtyards arranged from public to private areas. Gates enabled

the contact between the secluded palace, the courts, and finally the outside world.

They were important spots for security and control, since the gates regulated the

access between different parts of the complex. The derivation of the doors and gates

from main axes in the complex and within single buildings illustrated the security

concern of the courtiers. Similarly, multiplicity of gates guaranteed the restricted

access. For example, the throne- or reception hall of the Greet Palace (I-e) was

accessible through a gate opening to the front yard of the palace, and then, over the

125

doors of the vestibule. Their positions hardened the entrance of unwelcomed guests

into the hall, and restrained the sight of the interior spaces and of the Sultan.

It can be argued so far that these new palatial structures were a solution for

Kaykubad to establish and mark his own legacy as many leaders before him.

Secondly, these offered him also an opportunity to deal with the security problems

that have been experienced before; ʿAlaʾ al-Din himself has witnessed on his own

many times, how rulers were forced to give up and surrender to save the lives of the

subjects of the sieged city they were in. In this sense, the concept of the suburban

palatial complex presented him opportunity of being isolated and independence from

the crowded cities, which offered security for both sides for him and the subjects. It

further had advantages as platform of propaganda, and as a tool for the development

of economy and urban networks. Finally, these places offered space for many

leisurely activities during the short periods of non-action (often before and after

important military campaigns), and for social gatherings and events, especially for

the army.

In the eyes of Ibn Bibi, architecture was also linked to the concerns, policies,

and success of the Seljuk Sultanate. The placement of architectural descriptions and

references, indicate that the building activity of the Seljuk sultan ʿAlaʾ al-Din

Kaykubad I followed great victories and conquests. In some cases, the author implies

the reason for the conquest was directly related to the productivity and profitability

of places, as well as their financial resources. In other cases, the conquests were

symbols of military power and success, so that the architectural projects following

these meant to emphasize or commemorate this power. The description of palaces in

contrast had no political or military messages. On the contrary, they emphasized the

beauty of nature and architecture, and described leisure activities, particularly

126

banquets and feasts. These in contrast to politic and military events were articulated

in verse form. They functioned within the narrative as pleasant and entertaining

intermissions to make the narrative less monotonous.

In the chapter on Kubadabad - but also in other chapters on sultan’s building

projects, the sultan appears as the main decision maker in architectural projects;

ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad is the one who sees the advantages and disadvantages of a

place, and recognizes the needs for the site. He alone decides about the form and

organization of the complex. He is at the same time the initiator, the patron, and

designer of the project. The costs and the construction works are under the

responsibility of his subjects – i.e. the amirs and beys- which offers them the

possibility to proof their dedication and admiration for the Sultan. It is even regarded

as a privilege given to those officials. These projects are marks/ imprints of the

Sultan which he leaves in the Seljuk landscape which is further demonstrated or

emphasized through the renaming of the surroundings after the sultan.

In this sense, his patronage was a form of creating memory, or tool guarantee

to be remembered eternally. The ruler as a deputy of God on earth, and hence, the

owner of the world overseeing its order. Sultan having more power than all other

rulers was supposed to show greater generosity, goodness, presents and his deeds

equal to his grade of power and greater than that of all the other rulers.250 He was

considered to have similar responsibilities and roles as God who was considered the

architect of the world. The patronage of architecture was a way to show his status. At

the same time, Ibn Bibi clearly indicates a relation between victories or successes of

Kaykubad and his architectural projects, since the patronage seemed to follow the

250 Nizam al-Mulk states that the tables were representative for the sultan’s power, so that his other

deeds should reflect his status equally. Nizam al-Mulk, Siyasetnâme : (Siyeru'l-mülûk), trans.

Bayburtlugil (Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2003), 154. Nizam al-Mulk, The book of government, or,

Rules for kings : the Siyasat-nama or Siyar al-muluk of Nizam al-mulk, 122, 123, 128.

127

victories. Thus, the architectural projects commemorations of these events, and were

probably financiered through them. In similarity to the role of the architect on earth,

there were also spatial comparisons; sultan’s throne and palace were compared to the

highest sphere of heaven where the God’s throne was assumed.251

The location of Kubadabad in a suburban area stood in great contrast to the

traditional urban palaces. In consideration of the similarities between Ibn Bibi's

descriptions of Keykubadiye and Kubadabad, it might be argued that the lake, the

natural fresh water springs such as Gürlevi, or creeks and a nature covered in various

tones of green and blue colors belong to the characteristic features of these suburban

palaces. These elements are relevant and vital for evoking the epic, nearly paradisiac

aura of imperial palaces both in architecture and in literature. The concept of

paradise was linked to the ideals. Paradise, and with that the garden, represented the

opposite of worldly chaos. Paradise was green and fertile with water flowing through

it, from all sides.252

4.3 Rhetoric of renewal

The nature further is inspiration source for ceremonies and arts. The ceremony is

particularly at the center of the court architecture and literature. The narrative of Ibn

Bibi acts as a narrative of ceremonials that are reappearing in different episodes and

contexts. These ceremonies are bound to the daily schedule of the Sultan, defining in

251 Nizam al-Mulk, The book of government, or, Rules for kings : the Siyasat-nama or Siyar al-muluk

of Nizam al-mulk., 2. Hasan b. Ali b. Ishak Tusi (1018-1092), who is better known as Nizamü’l-mülk,

the famous vizier of Alparslan ve Malikshah and the builder of the Nizamiye madrasas in Baghdad, has

precisely described different characteristics / attributes of an ideal (Seljuk) sultan in his Siyasetname or

Siyar al-mulk, that has been a guide for princes propagated over centuries.

252 In regard of the hot climate and water shortage in main parts of the Islamic lands, it was an image of

the ideal. Yet, Anatolia was already green and fruitful.

128

what periods of time he will present himself to the public, and which image he will

create in doing this. In addition, arrival of state guests at the palace official

ceremonies for important occasions such as enthronement of a new ruler, marriages

of the ruler and military victories give opportunity for entertainments, and feasts.

Hunting and polo game are also part of the palatial life both for entertaining and

training for warfare. Outside of the palatial context, the sultan, and his entourage of

amirs and servants live in encampments using tents for their needs. The text

emphasizes the existence of following functional spaces as basic needs. These either

in form of architectural spaces or tents is treasury, wardrobe, cellar, hammam,

private spaces for living and for meetings and kitchens. These functions are also

required for ceremonies such as gift exchange and celebrations. In the light of this, it

is possible to argue that the time spend in hammams were also recognized by the

Rum Seljuks as ceremonial as in former Umayyad palaces. Thus, all these functions,

and more, should be part of the palatial plans.

Architecture and decor are due to their relation to ceremonials similarly

inspired by the nature. Nature is on the one hand reflected in the architecture, in the

context of planning. The architecture the location and more importantly the position

of buildings and rooms must be determined in relation to the course of the sun, the

directions of the wind as well as in relation to bodies of water and other topography

of the landscape. In terms of Kubadabad, the ceremonial spaces in the complex, the

audience halls, thrones, and meeting spaces are directed towards the lake, in different

angles and directions. In the small palace that was reserved for audiences and state

issues, the audience hall, and the throne (II-e) are placed on an East-West axis, so

that the morning sun enters the hall from the windows of the throne iwan. The throne

is enlightened from behind during morning hours. The throne in the Great palace (I129

e), in contrast, is positioned together with the reception hall on a north - south (or

northwest-southeast) axis, which let the light particularly during the afternoon and

evening hours.

The nature further is inspiration source for ceremonies and arts. The

ceremony is particularly at the center of the court architecture and literature. The

narrative of Ibn Bibi acts as a narrative of ceremonials that are reappearing in

different episodes and contexts. These ceremonies are bound to the daily schedule of

the Sultan, defining in what periods of time he will present himself to the public, and

which image he will create in doing this. In addition, arrival of state guests at the

palace official ceremonies for important occasions such as enthronement of a new

ruler, marriages of the ruler and military victories give opportunity for

entertainments, and feasts. Hunting and polo game are also part of the palatial life

both for entertaining and training for warfare. Outside of the palatial context, the

sultan, and his entourage of amirs and servants live in encampments using tents for

their needs. The text emphasizes the existence of following functional spaces as

basic needs. These either in form of architectural spaces or tents is treasury,

wardrobe, cellar, hammam, private spaces for living and for meetings and kitchens.

These functions are also required for ceremonies such as gift exchange and

celebrations. In the light of this, it is possible to argue that the time spend in

hammams were also recognized by the Rum Seljuks as ceremonial as in former

Umayyad palaces. Thus, all these functions and more must have been part of the

palatial plans.

Architecture and decor are due to their relation to ceremonials similarly

inspired by the nature. Nature is on the one hand reflected in the architecture, in the

context of planning. The architecture the location and more importantly the position

130

of buildings and rooms were determined in relation to the course of the sun, the

directions of the wind as well as in relation to bodies of water and other topography

of the landscape. In terms of Kubadabad, the ceremonial spaces in the complex, the

audience halls, thrones, and meeting spaces are directed towards the lake, in different

angles and directions. In the small palace that was reserved for audiences and state

issues, the audience hall, and the throne (II-e) are placed on an East-West axis, so

that the morning sun enters the hall from the windows of the throne iwan. The throne

is enlightened from behind during morning hours. The throne in the Great palace (Ie),

in contrast, is positioned together with the reception hall on a north (-west) south

(-east) axis, which let the light particularly during the afternoon and evening hours.

In this sense, the movement direction of the court implied by the gates of

each courtyard and by the ceremonial route beginning at the entrance of the second

court and ended the third court was reflected in the inner spatial and the ceremonial

organization at the palace.

131

APPENDIX A

MAP OF SELJUK CARAVANSERIAS AND SILK ROUTE

Section from the Çekül Map of Silk Route

132

APPENDIX B

VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF AL-AWAMIR

Unfortunately, the original manuscript of Seljuknama has been long lost. However,

different copies and versions of the original manuscript are still available. These

build the basis for the reconstruction of the original. Currently, two versions of the

text are considered as basis for various studies on Rum-Seljuk history. The first is a

manuscript located in the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul (Ayasofya 2985), also

known as mufassal, full-length text.253 It is the earliest and longest version of all and

therefore considered as the closest version to the original text. The second is a

abridged version (muk̲h̲taṣar) of the original, which is attributed to an anonymous

author.254 This version is sometimes denoted as Anonymous Seljuknama. The main

manuscript with the abridged version is held today in Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris

(Suppl. Persan 1536).

Although this fifteenth-century copy was obviously a later and reduced

version of the original, it has become the main reference work for studies. On the one

253 The original text has been dated to 1281/82. Yıldız names another copy of the full-length text

preserved in the Ali Emiri Efendi collection housed in Istanbul, Beyazid Library. This early-twentieth

century manuscript contains three volumes denoted as Farsça 819-820-821. Yıldız, "Mongol Rule In

Thirteenth-Century Seljuk Anatolia." 433-434 In regard of the different versions see also the

catalogue of medieval sources on the database The Islamisation of Anatolia Peacock, "The

Islamisation of Anatolia, c. 1100-1500."

254 In comparison to the original work of Ibn Bibi the abridged version has been produced a little later,

around 1284. The production of the shorter version closely after the original has been indicator for

historians to argue that the language of the original work was not well accepted by the audience. See:

Duda, "Ibn Bibi'nin Selçuk tarihi," Şarkiyat Mecmuası 2 (1958).;Küçükhüseyin, Selbst- und

Fremdwahrnehmung im Prozess kultureller Transformation : anatolische Quellen über Muslime,

Christen und Türken (13.-15. Jahrhundert), ed. Klasse), vol. 825, Sitzungsberichte (Österreichische

Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse) (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2011). However, Yıldız has argued that many of the early scholars

such as Claude Cahen, and Osman Turan have overlooked the differences between the two versions of

the text that left out more than just the superfluous rhetoric. Yıldız, "Mongol Rule In Thirteenth-

Century Seljuk Anatolia," 433-436. This abridged version is sometimes referred as the Anonymous

Seljuknama.

133

hand, this was due to its early accessibility. On the other hand, it offered the same

core information in a much simpler language. Houtsma published a facsimile of this

abridged version (mukhtasar) already in 1902.255 M. Nuri Gencosman, who made the

earliest translation of the mukhtasar into Turkish, stated that the only difference

between these manuscripts was the additional literary accessory of the longer

Ayasofya manuscript. Gencosman’s Turkish translation was published in 1941 with

commentaries of Feridun N. Uzluk.256 A later translation written by in Herbert Duda

1959 - this time in to German257 - has become the source for further studies, such as

Kurt Erdmann’s study limited to art historical references in the original text, or the

literary analysis of Anatolian sources by Sevket Küçükhüseyin.258

In contrast, a facsimile of the Ayasofya manuscript was published as late as in

1956.259 Only a year after the facsimile Adnan Sadik Erzi and Necati Lugal started to

publish the Turkish translations of the mufassal.260 However, they only managed to

publish the first part of the book from the death of Qilich Arslan Arslan II to the

enthronement of ʿAlaʾ al-Din Kaykubad I (1957). The first comprehensive

translation into Turkish has been published in 1996 by Mürsel Öztürk in two

volumes.261 The same author has recently published the second version of his

translation in 2014.262 There are also Persian editions of the mufassil such as the

255 Ibn Bibi, Histoire des Seldjoucides d'Asie Mineure d'apres Ibn Bibi: Texte Turc (E.J. Brill, 1902).

256 Ibn Bibi, Anadolu Selçuki devleti tarihi. Ibn Bibi'nin Farsça Muhtasar Selçuknamesinden, trans.

Gençosman (Ankara: Uzluk Basimevi, 1941). According to his argument, the long descriptions and

statements were a result of the stylistic manner that was preferred back then, and they had no further

use for the reader except their literary value.

257 Ibn Bibi, Die Seltschukengeschichte des Ibn Bibi, ed. Duda, trans. Duda (Kopenhagen:

Munksgaard, 1959).

258 Erdmann, Ibn Bibi als kunsthistorische Quelle (Istanbul: Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch

Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1962).; Küçükhüseyin, 825.

259 Ibn Bibi, Tıpkıbasım.

260 Ibn Bibi, I.

261 Ibn Bibi, Selçuk Name, 1.

262 Ibn Bibi, 2. Tercüme.

134

version published by Zhale Motaheddin in 2011.263

There are further reproductions of this text that have been has been partly

transferred and interpreted in the works of later historians. Thereby, some of them

consisted only of small parts that have been included into later books on Turkish

history focusing on a larger historical context. For example, Müsâmeretü'l-Ahbâr

(1323) by Kerimüddin Mahmud-i Aksarayî that covers the history of a longer period

starting from the period of the Rashidun caliphate and reaching to the reign of

Kayhusrav II. Additionally, two further Seljuknamas preserved from the fifteenth

century; the first one named Tevârih-i Âl-i Selçuk was written by the Ottoman

historian Yazıcızade Ali in Ottoman Turkish includes a chapter that is a Seljuknama.

The other is a unique manuscript written by an anonymous author preserved in the

National Library of France. It has been argued to be an incomplete copy of

Yazıcızade Ali’s translation.264

263 Ibn Bibi, Al-Avamir al-`alaiyah fi al-umur al-`alaiyah, ma`ruf bih, Tarikh-i Ibn Bibi (Tehran:

Pizhuhishgah-i `Ulum-i Insani va Mutala`at-i Farhangi, 2011).

264 Gencosman states that the first Turkish translation belonged to Yazicizade Ali. Ibn Bibi, Anadolu

Selçuklu devleti tarihi: İbni Bibi'nin farsça muhtasar Selçuknamesinden ed. Uzluk, trans. Gençosman

(Ankara: Uzluk Basımevi, 1941).

135

APPENDIX C

IBN BIBI'S CHAPTER ON KUBADABAD (FACSIMILE)

Figure 28. Ibn Bibi, "El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye: (Selçuk Name) Tıpkıbasım."

edited by Adnan Sadık Erzi: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi, 1956, 352.

136

Figure 29. Ibn Bibi, "El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye: (Selçuk Name) Tıpkıbasım."

edited by Adnan Sadık Erzi: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi, 1956, 353.

137

Figure 30. Ibn Bibi, "El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye: (Selçuk Name) Tıpkıbasım."

edited by Adnan Sadık Erzi: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi, 1956, 354.

138

APPENDIX D

IBN BIBI'S CHAPTER ON KUBADABAD (TRANSLATION)

[352] 265

15 When the Sultan, [departing] from Qaysariyya on the back of high-blooded

horses, victoriously and joyfully crossed stations and stages in the manner of

Solomon and passed by the Capital, he arrived at the charming places of Akrinas. He

saw a place, which, if Ridwan were to reach it, he could not imagine leaving it and,

from the abundance of its trees full of fruit, he would carry cuttings for grafting to

Paradise.

20 A mountain base like joyful Paradise

As if Heaven had mixed its soil with ambergris

[353]

1 Its ground from greenery is turquoise in color

With tulips upon it (like) dots of blood

2 With wild roses, lilies, and narcissi

It is like the firmament rather than a blooming meadow

3 On every side, a fountain of seeming rosewater

You would say it was not water but a luminous tear

4 The air is musk-perfumed, the ground full of beauty

There is every kind of boar to hunt

5 It is a green sea [i.e. lake] sweet like milk

Full of waves like Chinese silk

6 In it islands count twenty

Each one full with village and fruits of fruit bearing (trees)

7 A flowing fountain by the side of the sea [i.e. lake]

Such that from seeing it the old become young

8 Like cold ice and musk-scented like wine

Its shore ["lip"] is like the cheek on a young man's face

9 To Sa'd al-Din Kopak, who at that time was the amir of hunting and building,

he gave orders to commence and erect there an edifice which in joyfulness would

surpass (?) the harvest of Paradise and which in delight, exaltation and splendor

265 English translation was made by the author with the kind help of Oya Pancaroğlu. The translation

is based on the facsimile version of (Ayasofya 2985), also known as mufassal published by Erzi. See

Appendix C.

139

would put Sadir and Khwarnaq to shame. In accordance with his own enlightened

mind, the Sultan first transcribed the particulars, and form of that edifice. He drew up

[plans] at every location for the foundation of a palace in the iwan of which Venus

would desire to sing and on the roof of the iwan of which Saturn would wish to rattle

his drum. Sa'd al-Din Kopak [built] beautiful belvederes, exhilarating pools and

pleasant and life-prolonging palaces such that its arched vault with muqarnas would

contend with the sphere above it; from the envy of the cheerfulness of the colors of

its latticed and variegated walls disturbance and capriciousness would become

manifest in the kashikhana of the rainbow; from the jealousy of its turquoise and

lapis lazuli furnishings the visage of the turquoise-colored sphere and the figure of

the representative of roof of the blue palace would become tinctured with saffron and

safflower; the north wind would slow down to repose for months and years in the

heavenly blue open courtyards; and if the thought of a promenade in its courtyard

comes to mind to those with long lives, crossing its courtyards of Paradise-like

gardens would not come to an end; [354] the inhabitants of the ascending seven

heavenly palaces would at every moment recite the "in yakad" verse; the spectacles

of Jupiter and Venus would perish from mimicking the balconies of that coveted

matter...

3 If the shining sun sees the exalted palaces

It would stop turning around the heavens

4 At every place a flowing stream of pure water

Such that in describing it the tongue of the intellect would become

ruby/inflamed

5 In front of it is a garden like Paradise

The form of which no sight had seen

6 He [Sa'd al-Din Kopak] brought to completion the royal order as requested

more splendid than the spirits of the chaste and more spacious than the plains of

tranquility in the shortest time possible. After refining and adorning it, the Sultan

ordered the blessed reins in the direction of Antalya and Ala'iyya as was his custom.

10 Once more he renewed the instrument of joy

The world echoed his fortune

11 The yearly custom of polo and hunting

The same royal feast in the tulip garden

140

REFERENCES

Acıoğlu, Y. (2015). Kubad Abad sarayı alçı buluntuları. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, XXIII,

1-11.

Acıoğlu, Y. (2019). Kubad Abad sarayı alçı buluntuları. In A. Yavaş and O. Koçyiğit

(Eds.), Beyşehir Gölü Kıyısında Bir Selçuklu Sitesi Kubad Abad (pp. 271-

288). Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Alami, M. H. (2005). Al-Bayan wa l-Bunyan : meaning, poetics, and politics in early

Islamic architecture. UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Alami, M. H. (2013). Art and architecture in the Islamic tradition: Aesthetics,

politics and desire in early Islam: I.B.Tauris.

Anderson, G. (2009). Islamic spaces and diplomacy in Constantinople (tenth to

thirteenth centuries C.E.). Medieval Encounters, 15(1), 86-113.

doi:10.1163/138078508x286860

Anderson, G. D. (2007). Villa (munya) architecture in Umayyad Cordoba:

preliminary considerations. In G. D. Anderson and M. Rosser-Owen (Eds.),

Revisiting Al-Andalus Perspectives on the Material Culture of Islamic Iberia

and Beyond (pp. 53-).

Anderson, G. D. (2013). The Islamic villa in early medieval Iberia: Architecture and

court culture in Umayyad Cordoba: Ashgate.

Ar, B. (2015). Spolia usage in Anatolian rulers: A comparison of ideas for

Byzantines, Anatolian Seljuqs and Ottomans. ITU A/Z, 12(2), 3-17.

Arık, R. (1985). Kubadabad 1984 yılı çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı(7).

Arık, R. (1987). Türk Kültürüne yönelik arkeolojik araştırmalar ve Kubadabad Kız

Kalesi kazısı. Ankaran Universitesi Dil ve Tarih Cografya Fakültesi.

Arık, R. (1993). Kubad-Abad 1992 yılı kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2(15).

Arık, R. (1993). Kubad-Abad /Malanda yüzey araştırması. Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı(11), 35-42.

Arık, R. (2000). Kubad Abad: Selçuklu saray ve çinileri: Türkiye İş Bankası.

Arık, R. (2010). New information and perspectives on Seljuk art obtained throughout

the Kubad Abad palace excavations. In N. Asutay-Effenberger (Ed.), Der

Doppeladler (pp. 139-151).

Arık, R. (2017). Selçuklu sarayları ve köşkleri. Ankara: Ankara Universitesi.

Arık, R. (2019). Kubad Abad çinileri. In A. Yavaş and O. Koçyiğit (Eds.), Beyşehir

gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp. 225-274). Konya: Konya

Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

141

Arık, R. and Arık, M. O. (2008). Tiles: treasures of Anatolian soil : tiles of the Seljuk

and Beylik periods. Levent, Istanbul: Kale Group Culture Publications.

Aslanapa, O. (1964). Kayseri'de Keykubadiye köşkleri kazısı. Türk Arkeoloji

Dergisi, 13(1).

Baş, A. (2016). Keykubadiye sarayı kazısı 2015. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2(38).

Baş, A. (2017). Keykubadiye sarayı kazısında bulunan bahçıvan figürlü çininin

öyküsü. Şehir, 8-11.

Baş, A. and Dursun, Ş. (2015). Keykubadiye sarayı 2014 sondaj çalışmaları.

Baykara, T. (1985). Türkiye Selçuklularında idari birim ve bununla ilgili meseleler.

Vakıflar Dergisi(19), 49-60.

Bozer, R. (2001). Kubadabad çinilerinde fırınlama sonrası yapılan işlemler ve bazı

tespitler. Paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Selçuklu kültür ve medeniyeti

kongresi.

Bozer, R. (2007). Selçuklu devri levha çinilerinde form, duvar kaplama tasarımlarına

yönelik tespitler ve fırınlama sonrası yapılan bazı işlemler. In O. Arık and R.

Arık (Eds.), Anadolu Toprağının Hazinesi: Çini, Selçuklu ve Beylikler Çağı

Çinileri (pp. 191-207). Istanbul.

Çağaptay, S. (2018). On the wings of the double-headed eagle: Spolia in re and

appropriation in medieval Anatolia and beyond. Paper presented at the Spolia

Reincarnated: Second life of spaces, materials, objects in Anatolia from

Antiquity to the Ottoman period, Istanbul.

Cahen, C. (2001). The formation of Turkey : The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum -

eleventh to fourteenth century (P. M. Holt, Trans. P. M. Holt Ed.): Pearson

Education Limited.

Curčić, S. (1993). Late-Antique palaces: The meaning of urban context. Ars

Orientalis, 23 (Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces), 67-90.

Duda, H. W. (1958). Ibn Bibi'nin Selçuk tarihi. Şarkiyat Mecmuası, 2, 1-10.

Eravşar, O. (2001). Anadolu Selçukluları’nda idari mekan olarak devlethane. Paper

presented at the I. Uluslararası Selçuklu kültür ve medeniyeti kongresi,

Konya.

Eravşar, O. (2002). Ortaçağ Anadolu kentleri. In Türkler (pp. 333–343): Yeni

Türkiye Yayınları.

Erdmann, K. (1957). Zum Verbogenbau von Keykubadiye.

Erdmann, K. (1962). Ibn Bibi als kunsthistorische Quelle. Istanbul: Nederlands

historisch-archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten.

142

Gonnella, J. (2010). Columns and hieroglyphs : Magic "spolia" in medieval Islamic

architecture of northern Syria. Muqarnas, 27, 103-120.

Grabar, O. (1976). Studies in medieval Islamic art (Vol. CS51.). London: Variorum

Reprints.

Grabar, O. (1987). The formation of Islamic art. New Haven; London: Yale

University Press.

Grabar, O. (1993). Umayyad palaces reconsidered. Ars Orientalis, 23(Pre-Modern

Islamic Palaces), 93-108.

Grabar, O. and Robinson, C. (2001). Islamic art and literature. Princeton: Markus

Wiener Publishers.

Hillenbrand, R. (1994). Islamic architecture: Form, function and meaning:

Edinburgh University Press.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. a.-H. e. M. (1941). Anadolu Selçuklu devleti tarihi: İbni Bibi'nin

farsça muhtasar Selçuknamesinden (M. N. Gençosman, Trans. F. N. Uzluk

Ed.). Ankara: Uzluk Basımevi.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. a.-H. e. M. (1957). El-Evamir¸'l-'ala'iyye fi'l-umuri'l-'ala'iyye (A.

S. Erzi and N. Lugal, Trans. A. S. Erzi and N. Lugal Eds. Vol. I). Ankara:

Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (1902). Histoire des Seldjoucides d'Asie Mineure d'apres

Ibn Bibi: Texte Turc (M. T. Houtsma Ed.): E.J. Brill.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (1941). Anadolu Selçuki devleti tarihi. Ibn Bibi'nin Farsça

Muhtasar Selçuknamesinden (M. N. Gençosman, Trans. F. N. Uzluk Ed.).

Ankara: Uzluk Basimevi.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (1956). El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye

(Tıpkıbasım) (A. S. Erzi Ed.): Türk Tarih Kurumu Basınevi.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (1959). Die Seltschukengeschichte des Ibn Bibi (H. W.

Duda, Trans.). Kopenhagen: Munksgaard.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (1996). El Evamirü'l - Ala'iye Fi'l - Umuri'l - Ala'iye

(Selçuk Name) (M. Öztürk, Trans. M. Öztürk Ed. Vol. 1). Ankara: Kültür

Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (2011). Al-Avamir al-`alaiyah fi al-umur al-`alaiyah,

ma`ruf bih, Tarikh-i Ibn Bibi (Z. Muttahidin Ed.). Tehran: Pizhuhishgah-i

`Ulum-i Insani va Mutala`at-i Farhangi.

Ibn Bibi, N. a.-D. H. i. M. (2014). El Evamir¸'l-ala'iye fi'l-umuri'l-ala'iye :

Selçukname (M. Öztürk, Trans. M. Öztürk Ed.): Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Karaca, V. (2005). Belgelerle Yenişar: Kardelen Sanat Yayınları.

143

Koçyiğit, O. (2019). Kubad Abad ve çevresinde Roma dönemi buluntuları. In A.

Yavaş and O. Koçyiğit (Eds.), Beyşehir gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi:

Kubad Abad (pp. 43-60). Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür

Yayınları.

Küçükhüseyin, Ş. (2011). Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmung im Prozess kultureller

Transformation : anatolische Quellen über Muslime, Christen und Türken

(13.-15. Jahrhundert) (Vol. 825). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kunduracı, O. (2001). Kubadabad-Alanya Selçuklu kervan yolu güzergâhı üzerine

yeni araştırmalar-I. Paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Selçuklu semineri

bildirileri, Konya.

Kunduracı, O. (2018). Konya-Alanya güzergahındaki Selçuklu kervansaraylarının

Eşrefoğlu Beyliği'ne sunduğu katkılar. Selçuk Üniversitesi Selçuklu

Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6, 181-208.

McClary, R. P. (2017). Rum Seljuq architecture, 1170-1220 : the patronage of

sultans Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Mecit, S. (2011). Kingship and ideology under the Rum Seljuqs. In: Edinburgh

University Press.

Mecit, S. (2014). The Rum Seljuqs: Evolution of a dynasty. New York: Routledge.

Melville, C. (2006). The early Persian historiography of Anatolia. In J. E. Woods, J.

Pfeiffer and S. A. Quinn (Eds.), History and historiography of post-Mongol

Central Asia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Merçil, E. (2011). Selçuklularda saraylar ve saray teşkilatı Bilge Kültür Sanat.

Muşmal, H. (2008). XX. Yüzyılın başlarında Beyşehir gölü ve 1910-1911 yılları

büyük taşkın hadiseleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları

Dergisi(23), 219-262.

Necipoğlu, G. (Ed.) (1993). Ars Orientalis: Pre-modern Islamic palace.

Nizam al-Mulk. (1960). The book of government, or, Rules for kings : the Siyasatnama

or Siyar al-muluk of Nizam al-mulk (H. Darke, Trans.). London:

Routledge & K. Paul.

Nizam al-Mulk. (2003). Siyasetnâme : (Siyeru'l-mülûk) (N. Bayburtlugil, Trans.).

Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları.

Northedge, A. (1993). An interpretation of the palace of the caliph at Samarra (Dar

al-Khilafa or Jawsaq al-Khaqani). Ars Orientalis, 23(Pre-Modern Islamic

Palaces), 143-170.

Northedge, A. (2001). Palaces of the Abbasids at Samarra. In C. F. Robinson (Ed.), A

medieval Islamic city reconsidered : an interdisciplinary approach to

Samarra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

144

Önder, M. (1988). Selçuklu Kubad-Abad sarayı çinileri. Selçuk Dergisi(I. Alaeddin

Keykubad Özel Sayısı), 31-39.

Öney, G. (1968). Anadolu Selçuklu sanatında hayat ağacı motifi. Belleten, XXXII,

25-36.

Öney, G. (1970). Mounted hunting scenes in Anatolian Seljuks in comparison with

Iranian Seljuks. Belleten, 139-159.

Öney, G. (1973). Dragon figures in Anatolian Seljuk art. Belleten, XXXIII, 193-216.

Oral, Z. M. (1949). Kubadabad bulundu. Anıt, I(10), 2.

Oral, Z. M. (1953). Kubad-Abad nasıl bulundu? Ankara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat

Fakültesi Dergisi, II(2-3), 171-209.

Otto-Dorn, K. (1957). Türkische Keramik. S.l.: s.n.].

Otto-Dorn, K. (1963). Darstellungen des Turco-Chinesischen Tierzyklus in der

islamischen Kunst. In O. Aslanapa (Ed.), Beitraege zur Kunstgeschichte

Asiens (Vol. In Memoriam Ernst Diez, pp. 131-165). Istanbul.

Otto-Dorn, K. (1969). Die menschliche Figurendarstellung auf den Fliesen von

Kobadabad. In O. Aslanapa and R. Naumann (Eds.), Forschungen zur Kunst

Asiens (Vol. In Memoriam Kurt Erdmann, pp. 111-139). Istanbul: Istanbul

Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi.

Otto-Dorn, K. (1969). Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad 1966. Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter.

Otto-Dorn, K. (1990). Das islamische Herrscherbild im frühen Mittelalter (8.-11.

Jahrhundert). In M. Kraatz, J. z. C. Meyer and D. Seckel (Eds.), Das Bildnis

in der Kunst des Orients (pp. 61-71). Stuttgart.

Otto-Dorn, K. and Önder, M. (1965). Kubad-Abad kazıları 1965 yılı ön raporu. Türk

Etnografya Dergisi, 14.

Otto-Dorn, K. and Önder, M. (1966). Bericht über die Grabung in Kobadabad

(Oktober 1965). Archäologischer Anzeiger, 81(2), 170-183.

Özsait, M. (1985). Hellenistik ve Roma Devrinde Pisidya Tarihi. İstanbul: Edebiyat

Fakültesi Basımevi.

Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. (2006). Arkeolojik verilerin ışığında Beyşehir ve çevresi.

Paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Beyşehir ve yöresi sempoyzumu,

Beyşehir.

Pancaroğlu, O. (2001). Socializing medicine: Illustrations of Kitab al-Diryaq.

Muqarnas, 18, 155-172.

Pancaroğlu, O. (2004). The itinerant dragon-slayer: Forging paths of image and

identity in medieval Anatolia. Gesta, 43(2), 151-164.

145

Pancaroǧlu, O. (2001). Socializing medicine: Illustrations of the Kitāb Al-diryāq.

Muqarnas, 18, 155-172.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2006). The Saljuq campaign against the Crimea and the

expansionist policy of the early reign of ‘Ala' Al-Din Kayqubad Journal

Royal Asiatic Studies, 133-149.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2006). Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th

centuries. Anatolian Studies, 56, 127-146.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2013). Court and nomadic life in Saljuq Anatolia. In Turco-

Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life (pp. 191-222): Brill.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2015). The dargah: Courts and court life. In The Great Seljuk

Empire.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2016). The great age of Seljuks. In S. Canby (Ed.), Court and

cosmos: The great age of the Seljuqs (pp. 2-35). New Haven, London: Yale

University Press.

Peacock, A. C. S. (2016). Advice for the Sultans of Rum: The mirrors for princes of

early thirteenth-century Anatolia. In G. Leiser and B. Hickman (Eds.),

Turkish Language, Literature, and History: Travelers's tales, sultans, and

scholars since the eight century (pp. 276-307). New York: Routledge.

Peacock, A. C. S. and Yıldız, S. N. (2013). The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and

society in the medieval Middle East (Vol. 38). New York; London: I. B.

Tauris.

Peacock, A. C. S. and Yıldız, S. N. (2013). Introduction. In A. C. S. Peacock and S.

N. Yıldız (Eds.), The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and society in the medieval

Middle East (pp. 1-22). London, New York: I.B. Tauris.

Peacock, A. C. S., De Nicola, B. and Yıldız, S. N. (Eds.). (2015). Islam and

Christianity in medieval Anatolia: Ashgate.

Peker, A. U. (1989). The double-headed eagle.

Ramsay, W. M. (1890). The historical geography of Asia Minor.

Redford, S. (1993). The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique. Muqarnas, 10(Essays in

Honor of Oleg Grabar), 148-156.

Redford, S. (1993). Thirteenth-century Rum Seljuq palaces and palace imagery. Ars

Orientalis, 23(Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces), 219-236.

Redford, S. (1997). Seljuk pavilions and enclosures in and around Alanya. Araştırma

Sonuçları Toplantısı 14, 453-467.

Redford, S. (2000). Landscape and the state in medieval Anatolia: Seljuk gardens

and pavillions of Alanya, Turkey. Oxford: Archaeopress.

146

Redford, S. (2000). Just landscape in medieval Anatolia. In Studies in the history of

gardens and designed landscapes (pp. 313-324).

Redford, S. (2011). City building in Seljuq Rum. In (pp. 1-45): Edinburgh University

Press.

Redford, S. (2012). Portable palaces: On the circulation of objects and ideas about

architecture in medieval Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Medieval Encounters,

18, 382-412.

Redford, S. (2013). Mamalik and mamalik: Decorative and epigraphic programs of

Anatolian

Seljuk citadels. In S. Redford and N. Ergin (Eds.), Cities and Citadels in Turkey:

Fron the Iron Age to the Seljuks. Leuven: Peeters.

Redford, S. (2015). Anatolian Seljuk palaces and gardens. In M. Featherstone, J.-M.

Spieser, G. Tanman and U. Wulf-Rheidt (Eds.), The emperor's house:

Palaces from Augustus to the age of Absolutism (pp. 231-242). Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Redford, S., Beach, T. P. and Luzzadder-Beach, S. (2000). Landscape and the state

in medieval Anatolia: Seljuk Gardens and pavilions of Alanya, Turkey (Vol.

893.). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Rice, D. S. (1954). The seasons and the labors of the months in Islamic art. Ars

Orientalis, 1, 1-39.

Ruggles, D. F. (1993). Arabic poetry and architectural memory in al-Andalus. Ars

Orientalis, 23(Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces), 171-178.

Ruggles, D. F. (2003). Gardens, landscape & vision in the palaces of Islamic Spain.

Sarre, F. and Uzluk, S. (1967). Konya köşkü (S. Uzluk Ed.).

Shukurov, R. (2013). Harem Christianity: The Byzantine identity of Seljuk princes.

In A. Peacock and S. N. Yildiz (Eds.), The Seljuks of Anatolia: court and

society in the medieval Middle East (pp. 115-150): I.B.Tauris.

Steingass, F. J. (1892). A Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary, including the

Arabic words and phrases to be met within Persian literature. London:

Routledge & K.Paul.

Steingass, F. J. (Ed.) (1892) A Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary, including

the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in Persian literature. London:

Routledge & K.Paul.

Tabbaa, Y. (1997). Construction of power and piety in medieval Aleppo.

Turan, O. (2013). Selçuklular zamanında Türkiye: siyasî tarih Alp Arslan'dan Osman

Gazi'ye, 1071-1318: Ötüken.

147

Turan, O. (2014). Selçuklu tarihi araştırmaları (A. Çetin and B. Koç Eds.). Ankara:

Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Turan, O. (2014). Türkiye Selçukluları hakkında resmi vesikalar : metin, tercüme ve

araştırmalar (3 ed.). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Türker, A. Ç. (2006). Kubad Abad ve Kız Kalesi kazılarında Bizans dönemini temsil

eden buluntular. Paper presented at the I. Uluslararası Beyşehir ve yöresi

sempoyzumu, Beyşehir.

Uysal, O. A. (2006). Kubad-Abad hamamları. Paper presented at the I. Uluslararası

Beyşehir ve yöresi sempoyzumu, Beyşehir.

Uysal, O. A. (2019). Kubad Abad'da bununan sikkeler. In A. Yavaş and O. Koçyiğit

(Eds.), Beyşehir gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp. 353-

367). Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Uysal, O. A. (2019). Kubad Abad şehri ve kalıntıları. In A. Yavaş (Ed.), Beyşehir

gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp. 103-111). Konya: Konya

Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Uysal, O. A. (2019). Kubad Abad sarayının göldeki uzantısı: Kız Kalesi. In A. Yavaş

and O. Koçyiğit (Eds.), Beyşehir gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad

Abad (pp. 189-197). Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Uysal, O. A. (2019). Kubad Abad saray külliyesinin mimarisi. In A. Yavaş and O.

Koçyiğit (Eds.), Beyşehir gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp.

111-154). Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Uysal, O. A. (2019). Kubad Abad sarayının uzağındaki bazı sayfiye yapıları:

Hoyran'daki kalıntılar ve Malanda köşkü. In A. Yavaş and O. Koçyiğit (Eds.),

Beyşehir gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp. 199-205).

Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Uysal, Z. (2013). Kubad Abad sarayında Selçuklu cam sanatı. Istanbul: Türk Tarih

Kurumu.

Uysal, Z. (2019). Kubad Abad sarayı cam buluntuları üzerine genel bir

değerlendirme. In A. Yavaş and O. Koçyiğit (Eds.), Beyşehir gölü kıyısında

bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp. 335-350). Konya: Konya Büyükşehir

Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Winter, I. J. (1993). Seat of kingship / A wonder to behold: The palace as construct

in the ancient Near East. Ars Orientalis, 23(Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces), 27-

55.

Wolper, S. (2003). Cities and saints: Sufism and the transformation of urban space

in medieval Anatolia.

Yalman, S. A. (2011). Building the Sultanate of Rum: Memory, urbanism and

mysticism in the architectural patronage of 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad (r. 1220-

1237). (Dissertation/Thesis), ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,

148

Yavaş, A. (2006). Günümüze ulaşamayan Anadolu Selçuklu saray ve köşkleri [The

Palaces and Kiosks of Anatolian Seljuk Period That Have Not Survived].

Akademi Günlüğü Toplumsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(2), 115-129.

Yavaş, A. (2007). Anadolu Selçuklu köşklerinin plan tipleri üzerine tespitler. Ankara

Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(1), 203-227.

Yavaş, A. (2009). Anadolu Selçuklu mimarisinde tuvalet mekanlarına dair bazı

notlar. [Some notes on latrines in the Anatolian Seljuk Architecture]. TÜBAR,

25, 215-241.

Yavaş, A. (2010). Anadolu Selçuklu banilerinin politik yaşamlarıyla mimari

faaliyetleri arasındaki ilişkiler. [The Relationships between Political Life and

Architectural Activities of Anatolian Seljuk Patronages]. TÜBAR, 28, 409-

417.

Yavaş, A. (2012). Kubad-Abad sarayında bulunan kemer ve askı tokaları. [Belt and

buckle straps found in Kubad-Abad Palace]. Turkish Studies, 7(3), 2635-

2648.

Yavaş, A. (2013). Kubad-Abad sarayı kazılarında bulunan ziynet eşyaları. [Jewellry

found during the excavations of Kubad- Abad Palace]. The Journal of

Academic Social Science Studies, 6(1), 1543-1566.

Yavaş, A. (2016). Alanya-Çıplaklı mahallesi'nde bilinmeyen bir Selçuklu köşkü.

Sanat Tarihi Dergisi (12).

Yavaş, A. (2019). Kubad Abad sarayı metal buluntuları. In A. Yavaş (Ed.), Beyşehir

gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu sitesi: Kubad Abad (pp. 369-420). Konya: Konya

Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Yavaş, A. and Koçyiğit, O. (Eds.). (2019). Beyşehir gölü kıyısında bir Selçuklu

sitesi: Kubad Abad. Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.

Yıldız, S. N. (2006). Mongol rule in thirteenth-century Seljuk Anatolia: Politics of

conquest and history writing 1243-1282. (Doctor of Philosophy), University

of Chicago, Chicago, Illinios.