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
(Extemal Member)
The thesis of Işık Gürgen
has been approved by:
September 2019
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.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder