SELJUK CARAVANSERAIS IN THE VICINITY OF DENIZLI:
Ocak 2009
Denizli yakınlarındaki Selçuklu kervansarayları üzerine olan bu çalısma, yerel tarihi
ve sosyo-ekonomik faktörlere özel olarak odaklanmaktadır. Birinci amaç,
kervansarayların islevleri hakkında sekilsel özellikler ve mimari planları temel alan
önerilerin sınanmasıdır. Han-abad ve Akhan’ın islevsel yönlerini daha iyi incelemek
için yeni bir yaklasım, yerel bağlamda değerlendirme, denenmistir. Selçuklu yüksek
bürokrasisinde yeralan yerel bir ailenin faaliyetleri ve yerel ekonomi sözkonusu
kervansarayların tasarım ve islevleri hakkında önemli ipuçları vermektedir. Đkinci
amaç, yerel faktörlerin etkilerini değerlendirmek için mimari özellikler ve bezeme
programlarının analizidir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Selçuklu Kervansarayları, Denizli, Han-abad (Çardakhan),
Akhan, Yerel Bağlamda Değerlendirme,
v
TABLE OF CO TE TS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii
ÖZET........................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER II: THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE
DENĐZLĐ REGION (1070-1308) ................................................................................. 8
2.1 Anatolia before 1071 .......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Anatolia after 1071 ........................................................................................... 11
2.3 The Battle of Myriokephalon ........................................................................... 13
2.4 The Conquest of Laodicea (Denizli) in 1196 ................................................... 14
2.5 The Mongol Invasion and afterwards .............................................................. 17
2.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER III : HAN-ABAD CARAVANSERAI (ÇARDAKHAN) ...................... 23
3.1 Location............................................................................................................ 24
3.2 History .............................................................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Inscription ................................................................................................. 26
3.2.2 Patron ........................................................................................................ 27
3.3 Architectural Features ...................................................................................... 29
3.3.1 The Courtyard ........................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 The Shelter ................................................................................................ 32
3.3.3 Construction Techniques and Material ..................................................... 35
3.4 Ornamentation .................................................................................................. 36
3.4.1 Geometric Ornamentation ......................................................................... 36
3.4.2 Figural Ornamentation .............................................................................. 37
CHAPTER IV: AKHAN CARAVANSERAI ........................................................... 40
4.1 Location............................................................................................................ 41
4.2 History .............................................................................................................. 41
4.2.1 Inscriptions ................................................................................................ 43
4.3 Architectural Features ...................................................................................... 44
4.3.1 The Courtyard ........................................................................................... 45
4.3.2 The Shelter ................................................................................................ 48
4.3.3 Construction techniques and material ....................................................... 51
4.4 Ornamentation .................................................................................................. 52
4.4.1 Geometric Ornamentation ......................................................................... 53
4.4.2 Floral Ornamentation ................................................................................ 54
4.4.3 Figural Ornamentation .............................................................................. 55
4.4.3.1 Figures on the right side of the main portal (from top to bottom) ..... 57
4.4.3.2 Figures on the left side of the main portal (from top to bottom) ....... 60
vi
4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 68
FIGURES ................................................................................................................... 76
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. The Limits of Seljuk Province of Ladik (Denizli) [after Vryonis 1971, 14-
15]…………………………………………………………………………………...76
Fig. 2. The Location of Akhan and Han-abad within the Network of the Seljuk
Caravanserais in Western Anatolia (after Bektas 1999, Map VI).………………….77
Fig. 3. The Byzantine and Seljuk Borders during the 12th century (after Kazhdan
1991: 355).…………………………………………………………………………..77
Fig. 4. Western Anatolia after 1204 (after Kazhdan 1991: 357).…………………...78
Fig. 5. Anatolia Before the Mongols (after Cahen 1968: Map III)…………………78
Fig. 6. Ancient Roman Roads and Çardak Castle (after Barnes and Whittow 1998
Fig. 27.1).……………….…………………………………………………………...79
Fig. 7. Çardak Castle and Maymundağı from Han-abad (from the South)…….…...79
Fig. 8. The Foundation Inscription of Han-abad and Two Lion Figures (Pektas
2007: Fig. 11)………………………………………………………………………..80
Fig. 9. Architectural Plan of Han-abad (after Pektas 2007: Illustration 1)…………80
Fig. 10. Han-abad’s Location Sloping Down. View of the South Wall and the
Triangular Buttress of the Courtyard (from the South)……….…………………….81
Fig. 11. The Spaces or Rooms around the Courtyard (Pektas 2007: Fig. 3)………..81
Fig. 12. Outer Water Reservoir [F, in the plan] (Pektas 2007: Fig. 6)……………...82
Fig. 13. The Brick Squinch from Room C……………………………….………….82
Fig. 14. Room A from the Courtyard (from the West)………….………….……….83
viii
Fig. 15. The Passage from Room A to Room B…………………………………….83
Fig. 16. Room D from the Courtyard (from the South)……………………….…….84
Fig. 17. Room G and D from the Southwest (Pektas 2007: Fig. 4)………………....84
Fig. 18. Room H from the Courtyard (from the South)……………………………..85
Fig. 19. Room I from the Courtyard (from the South)…………………………...…85
Fig. 20. Room J from the Courtyard (from the South)……………………………...86
Fig. 21. The Southern Part of the Courtyard (Pektas 2007: Fig. 8)…………………86
Fig. 22. Room L from the Courtyard (from the North)……………………………..87
Fig. 23. The Stone Footing in the Southern Part of the Courtyard………………….87
Fig. 24. The Portal of the Shelter and Two Cylindrical Buttresses (Pektas 2007: Fig.
1)…………………………………………………………………………………….88
Fig. 25. The Octagonal Buttress on the Southern Outer Wall of the Shelter……….88
Fig. 26. The Hexagonal Buttress on the Southern Outer Wall of the Shelter……….89
Fig. 27. The Waterspout 1…………………………………………………………..89
Fig. 28. The Waterspout 2…………………………………………………………..89
Fig. 29. The Portal of the Shelter (Pamukkale 2002: 73)…………………………...90
Fig. 30. Central Nave of the Shelter (Pektas 2007: Fig. 13)………………………...90
Fig. 31. The Southern Side Nave of the Shelter and Its Platforms
(www.pamukkale.gov.tr)……………………………………………………………91
Fig. 32. Mortar with Pebbles and Cobbles (from the Northeastern Corner of the
Courtyard)……………………………………………………………………….…..91
Fig. 33. The Variation in the Stone Block Sizes (from the Western Outer Wall of the
Shelter)………………………………………………………………………………92
Fig. 34. Spolia Blocks from the Western Outer Wall of the Shelter………………..92
Fig. 35. Spolia Blocks from the Western Outer Wall of the Shelter………………..92
ix
Fig. 36. Detail of Geometric Ornamentation (Pektas 2007: Fig. 12)……………….92
Fig. 37. The Bullhead Figure………………………………………………………..93
Fig. 38. The Fish Figures and a Mason Mark (Pektas 2007: Fig. 14)………………93
Fig. 39. The Fish Figure on the Enclosure Wall of Çınar Mosque, at Çardak……...93
Fig. 40. The Figure of Human Head or Chimpanzee Head…………………………94
Fig. 41. Architectural Plan of Akhan (after Bayhan 2006: 290, Illustration 1)……..94
Fig. 42. Akhan is on the Denizli-Dinar –Afyonkarahisar Highway (Bayhan 2007:
Fig.1)………………………………………………………………………………...95
Fig. 43. The Portal of Akhan’s Shelter and Its Inscription………………………….95
Fig. 44. Akhan’s Main Portal and Its Inscription…………………………………...96
Fig. 45. The Courtyard of Akhan……………………………………………………96
Fig. 46. Left Mihrabiya of the Main Portal…………………………………………97
Fig. 47. Right Mihrabiya of the Main Portal………………………………………..97
Fig. 48. The Cylindrical Buttresses of Akhan………………………………………97
Fig. 49. Space or Room A, B, and C………………………………………………..98
Fig. 50. Room A and B (Inner Bath Facilities)…………………...…………………98
Fig. 51. The Portico of Akhan’s Courtyard (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 11)………………..99
Fig. 52. The Windows of Room F (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 12)…………………………99
Fig. 53. Room F from Outside and Its Roof…………………..…………………...100
Fig. 54. The Polygonal Buttresses on the Eastern Outer Wall of the Shelter……...100
Fig. 55. The Polygonal Buttresses on the Western Outer Wall of the Shelter…….101
Fig. 56. The Pointed Arches and Barrel Vaults in the Shelter (Bayhan 2007: Fig.
14)………………………………………………………………………………….101
Fig. 57. The Well-cut Stone Blocks on the Outer Walls of the Courtyard………...102
Fig. 58. The Re-used Stone Block with Medusa Head Depiction…………………102
x
Fig. 59. Detail of Geometric Ornamentation of Akhan’s Main Portal (Erdmann 1976:
Tafel [129])………………………………………………………………………...103
Fig. 60. The Re-used Stone Block with Geometric Ornamentation Flanking the
Portal of Akhan’s Shelter (Erdem 2006: Fig. 2)
………………………………………...103
Fig. 61. The Floral Ornamentation Detail of the Main Portal (Erdem 2006: Fig.
1)…………………………………………………………..………..……….……..104
Fig. 62. The Mihrabiya (a Niche on the Side Wall) of the Main Portal with
Geometric Ornamentation (Gabriel Khan 1988: 41) ……………………………...104
Fig. 63. Detail of Geometric Ornamentation on the Side Walls of the Main Portal
(Erdmann 1976: Tafel [130]) ………………………………………………….…..105
Fig. 64. A Bull Figure ……………………………………………………………. 105
Fig. 65. A Wheel of Fortune Design ………………………………………………106
Fig. 66. A Human Figure in Toga (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 8)………………………....106
Fig. 67. A Running Dog-like Animal Figure..……………………………………..106
Fig. 68. An Eagle Figure (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 5) ………………………………….107
Fig. 69. A Griffon Figure (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 5) …………………………………107
Fig. 70. A Walking Winged Feline Figure ………………………………………..107
Fig. 71. A Bull Figure with a Crescent ……………………………………………107
Fig. 72. The Dragon Figure ……………………………………………………….107
Fig. 73. Palmette Design.…………………………………………………………..107
Fig. 74. Rosette Design ……………………………………………………………108
Fig. 75. A Wheel of Fortune Design ………………………………………………108
Fig. 76. A Human Figure in Toga …………………………………………………108
Fig. 77. A Bird Figure……………………………………………………………...108
xi
Fig. 78. A Walking Dog Figure..…………………………………………………..108
Fig. 79. A Bird Figure with a Branch ……………………………………………..108
Fig. 80. A Winged, Mixed Creature Figure.……………………………………….109
Fig. 81. A Running Animal Figure.………………………………………………..109
Fig. 82. A Mountain Goat Figure.…………………………………………………109
Fig. 83. A Walking Lion Figure.…………………………………………………..109
Fig. 84. A Deer or Gazelle Figure (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 6).………………………..109
Fig. 85: A Rosette Design ………………………………………………………...109
1
CHAPTER I
I TRODUCTIO
The Seljuks built many caravanserais all around Anatolia during the 12th and
13th centuries. Most of them are located densely in Central Anatolia around the
Seljuk capital, Konya, but some of them are located in the border zones such as Hanabad
and Akhan in the western frontier, near Denizli.
Studies on caravanserais have generally been focused on the formalistic
features but there are also some studies on their functional aspects. Most studies on
functional aspects are based on the architectural plans and space-function analyses
but they do not pay enough attention to the local socio-economic and historical
context. This study aims to investigate the functional aspects of the Han-abad and
Akhan caravanserais with a special interest in evaluating the influence of socioeconomic
and historical factors on the architectural and decorative features of the
two buildings.
In this study, the Denizli (Laodicea, Ladik) region is defined according to the
socio-economic, cultural, and historical conditions of the area during the Seljuk
period. The region comprises the Seljuk frontier province of Ladik. The name Ladik
derives from Laodicea (Laodicea ad Lycum), the prominent local city of classical
times. Ancient and Byzantine Laodicea became Seljuk Ladik, then Ottoman and
today’s Denizli. After the Seljuk conquest, a Turkish settlement was founded 7 km
2
southwest of Laodicea (Eskihisar); it was called Ladik during the Seljuk and early
Ottoman periods because of the fame of Laodicea.1 The name Denizli is derived
from the name of a Turkmen tribe, Denizli, settled in the region. The Seljuk province
of Ladik had its western border from Antiochia (near Nazilli) to Caria (Afrodisias,
Geyre) and Dalaman. The southern border stretches from Dalaman to Fethiye
(Makri) and Kas. The eastern border is from Kas to Burdur, and Sozopolis
(Uluborlu). The Meander River defines the northern border from Tripolis (Denizli-
Yenicekent) to Choma (Denizli-Gümüssu) [Fig. 1].
Located in western Anatolia, the Denizli (Laodicea, Ladik) region has
benefited from its position between the fertile Meander valley and the central
Anatolian steppe and controls important roads. This region is mostly mountainous
with some plains such as Baklan, Hambat (Hanbat)2, Tavas, Acıpayam, and
Sarayköy between the mountains. Its important rivers are the Meander and the Lycus
(Çürüksu).
The strategic importance of the area favored the development of prosperous
towns throughout history. Laodicea (Eskihisar3), Hierapolis (Pamukkale), Tripolis
(Yenicekent) and Colossae (later Chonae, Honaz) are the best-known ancient
1 After the 6th and 7th century earthquakes, people of Laodicea mostly moved and settled in their
orchards about 6 km from Laodicea but the settlement pattern was not centralized. According to
Khoniates (1995: 85) there were village-like separate small settlements on a few hills at Laodicea.
After the Seljuk conquest, Turkish settlement was founded near the Castle (today Kaleiçi) and
centralized around it. Laodicea became Ladik in Seljuk official documents but Turkmens who settled
in the city and the region named it Denizli, which was centralized around the Castle (Kaleiçi). The
contemporary Georgian and Syrian sources referred to the city as Thongouzala or Tongazlu (Baykara,
1969: 44). A 14th century traveler Ibn Battuta used Ladhik and Dun Ghuzluh, which means “town of
swine” (Gibb, 1962: 425). In the early 15th century, Timurid records referred to it as Tenguzluğ
(Baykara, 1969: 44). In early Ottoman sources such as Mehmed Nesri and Asıkpasazade the city was
referred to as Tonuzlu. In the 15th and 16th centur’es Ottoman records used both Ladik and Tonuzlu. In
the 17th century Ottoman records used both Lazıkkiye and Denizli. After the 17th century, Ottoman
records used only Denizli to refer to the city (Gökçe, 2000: 16-19). There is a controversy on the
origin of the word, Denizli. First, the word derived from Tonguzlu “town of swine”. Second, the city
was called Denizli because of abundant springs. Third, a Turkmen tribe, Cemaat-ı Dengizlü, which
settled in the region, was recorded in Ottoman official documents from the 15th century (Türkay,
1979: 319). In addition, the local tales correlate Cemaat-i Dengizlü with the word Denizli (Gözaydın,
1977: 8071). It is highly probable that Cemaat-i Dengizlü named the region and the city.
2 Hambat or Hanbatkırı plain derived its name from Han-abad caravanserai.
3 It was a village but now it is a part of Denizli Bütünsehir Municipality’s urban area.
3
examples. These were mostly Hellenistic foundations and were active during the
Roman imperial and early Byzantine periods. Turks appeared in the region after the
Battle of Manzikert, 1071. Then the area witnessed the struggles between the
Byzantines and the Seljuks for a long while. The region was very important for the
Byzantines because of security in western Anatolia in general.
Between the 11th and 14th centuries, the Denizli region followed a different
history from the central and eastern parts of Anatolia. From 1071 to 1206, the area
was politically and socially unstable as compared to the central and eastern parts of
Anatolia. During the first three Crusades, western and central Anatolia became a
battlefield, which caused instability in these regions. In contrast, the Fourth Crusade
against Constantinople helped to complete and make permanent the Seljuk conquest
of Denizli (1196) in 12064. Until the battle of Kösedağ (1243), in which the Mongols
defeated the Seljuks, the entire Seljuk state prospered. Following the disruptions
caused by the Mongol invasion, however, the region of Denizli became preferable
for Turkmens to central and eastern Anatolia because of Denizli’s distant location
west of Konya far from Mongol pressure. Therefore, Turkmens and others not happy
with the Mongol invasion and pressure migrated to Denizli. In these very different
political contexts of the 13th century, the two caravanserais examined here were built.
Han-abad was built in 1230 before the Mongol invasion but Akhan was built in 1253
after the Mongol invasion.
Long distance trade and caravans have a long history in the Islamic world and
beyond. Thus there were probably several types of institutions or stations on the
trade routes to serve the caravans throughout history. In Islamic societies,
caravanserais are related to ribats, which were initially built as guarding posts or
4 Laodicea (Ladik) was captured in 1196. When the castle of Ipsili Hisar was captured in 1206, the
conquest of Laodicea and its immediate environs was completed by the Seljuks.
4
stations in the border zones. With the expansion of the borders their functions
changed to social, religious, and commercial services (Yiğit, 2008: 76-78). After the
conquest of Anatolia, the Seljuks built many caravanserais on the important roads.
Their foundation inscriptions, written in Arabic, used one of two words, either han or
ribat, but not caravanserai (meaning “house of caravan” in Persian) [Akalın, 2002:
299-302). In contrast, the term “caravanserai” was used in Persian texts by such
writers as Ibn Bibi, Eflaki, and Aksarayi.5 The term probably became more popular
in Anatolia during the Ottoman period. Caravanserais served caravans but they were
also used for many other functions, such as military purposes, royal guesthouses for
visiting sovereigns, government offices or statehouses, post stations, places of
refuge, prisons, and dervish lodges (Yavuz, 1997: 80-81).
Studies on caravanserais have mostly focused on formal aspects of
architecture and decoration. The first architectural descriptions of Anatolian
caravanserais were done by Frederic Sarre, a 19th century traveler and scholar. He
described Aksaray Sultan Han as having a closed section and a courtyard and
Horozlu Han as entirely closed (Sarre, 1896: 71-89). Many scholars such as Edhem,
Uğur, Koman, Kuban, and Karamağaralı have used his descriptions as a basis for
typology (Yavuz, 1997: 81). The architectural studies were generally limited to
documenting the plan and measurements of the structures and to the understanding or
reconstructing of the complete plans. In a major study published in 1961, Kurt
Erdmann undertook a comprehensive examination of Anatolian Seljuk caravanserais.
He proposed a classification system for caravanserais based on the presence or
absence of a courtyard. He suggested three types: hans with a closed section and a
courtyard, hans with only a closed section, and court hans (Erdmann, 1961: 21-24).
5 The Seljuk Sultanate of Rum used Persian in official records but the foundation inscriptions were
written in Arabic. Therefore, we see the word “han” in the foundation inscriptions and the word
“caravanserai” in official texts.
5
In a different approach to the study of caravanserais, Aysıl Tükel Yavuz
investigated the use of space to understand or analyze the functions of these
buildings (Yavuz, 1992: 253-284). Moreover, she challenged Erdmann in suggesting
that using the courtyard as the principal criterion of classification is questionable
because it is not the starting point of the caravanserai design. By establishing
different criteria based on the functional analysis of shelter and the courtyard, she
presented a dual classification: “shelter only hans” and “hans with shelter and
services”. She also proposed another classification according to the organization of
the spaces: hans in additive plan and hans in concentric plan (Yavuz, 1997: 88).
As a result of these studies, the formal aspects of the architecture of Seljuk
caravanserais have been established. However, there is still a need to analyze
individual caravanserais in their local context. Each region had different historical,
socio-economic, and political conditions and experiences but these formalist studies
ignore such aspects. For this reason, generalizing concepts and ideas about Anatolian
Seljuk caravanserais should be supplemented by a new approach: regional
contextualization and their individual history.
The Denizli region has two surviving Seljuk caravanserais: Han-abad and
Akhan. A third example was the Hacı Eyüplü Han, built by Seyfeddin Karasungur in
1235, but no visible remains of it exist and its exact location is unknown. Its
foundation inscription, found in 1931, is now kept in the Pamukkale Museum
(Beyazıt, 2007: 152-153).
These caravanserais were located in the border zone; they mark the
westernmost points in the network of Anatolian Seljuk caravanserais (Fig. 2). The
Han-abad (Çardakhan) caravanserai, 55 km to the east of Denizli, is now located in
the town of Çardak. It was built by Esedüddin Ayaz bin Abdullah es-Sihabi in 1230
6
(627) during the reign of Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad I. Ayaz was a mirahur (a keeper
of the Sultan’s horses) of Alaeddin Keykubad I.
The later Akhan caravanserai is located 7 km east of the city center of Denizli
on the Denizli-Dinar-Afyon road. It was commissioned by Seljuk governor
Seyfeddin Karasungur bin Abdullah between the years 1252 (650) and 1254 (652)
during the reign of Sultan Izzeddin Keykavus II.
Previous studies on Han-abad and Akhan, such as Erdmann’s work, consist of
general descriptions of architectural plans and ornamentation programs. Two
master’s theses, which documented the architectural plans with a view toward
restoring the buildings, were written by Đ. Ahsen Mocan, on Akhan (1972), and by
Nur A. Fersan, on Han-abad (1974), for the Department of Architecture at METU.
These theses emphasized the architectural plans and details but said little about the
ornamentations and the socio-economic background. Mustafa Beyazıt’s 2002 M.A.
thesis for Pamukkale University examined the ornamentations and architectural
details but did not include a functional analysis. In addition, the architectural plan of
Han-abad is incomplete in his study because the courtyard part was not yet
excavated. Thanks to excavations carried out between 2006 and 2008 by the Denizli
Museum, the spaces of the courtyard were unearthed and their plans became clear. In
2006, Yavuz (2007) undertook a functional analysis of Akhan and suggested that
Akhan had all the criteria to be a local administrative center. In 2007, the studies
published in Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemi Kervansarayları presented up-to-date
summaries of the buildings. Kadir Pektas writing on Han-abad published the new
architectural plans that resulted from the excavations. Ahmet Ali Bayhan’s study on
Akhan covered general architectural features and ornamentations. The functional
analysis was not emphasized.
7
These studies examined the architectural features and decoration of Han-abad
and Akhan but they did not pay enough attention to the local context and factors,
which help to explain some features and functions that cannot be reached by only
examining the plan and formalistic aspects. But I aim to emphasize the local context
as much as the architectural features, to better understand Han-abad and Akhan and
their functions.
This study on the caravanserais in the vicinity of Denizli will consider the
role of local factors within the general socio-economic and historical context of
Seljuk Anatolia. The presence and activities of a local high ranking family deserve
attention, the Maurozomes family whose members such as Manuel Maurozomes,
Seyfeddin Karasungur (patron of Akhan), Celaleddin Karatay, Kemaleddin Rumtas,
and Mehmed Bey of Denizli occupied high positions in the Seljuk state. In addition,
the local industry and economy should be evaluated. Taking the local context into
consideration will give new insight into the design and function of the two
caravanserais. The designs and functions of Seljuk caravanserais are fairly uniform
throughout Anatolia; to what extent local factors affected these standard features is
an important question that this thesis will aim to answer.
8
CHAPTER II
THE SOCIO-ECO OMIC A D POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE
DE ĐZLĐ REGIO (1070-1308)
Before examining the functional, architectural, and decorative aspects of Hanabad
and Akhan, the framework of the local contextualization is defined through an
investigation of local history. In this chapter, in order to understand the social,
economic, military and administrative roles of the caravanserais of Han-abad and
Akhan, a general picture of the Denizli region in later medieval times is presented,
within its larger Anatolian context.
From early times, the Denizli region has had significance because of its
geographical location between western and central Anatolia. During classical times,
cities such as Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae, and Tripolis emerged here. Like the
other western Anatolian classical sites, Laodicea and other centers of the region were
negatively affected by the change of the road network after Constantinople became
the capital of Roman Empire. Roads now targeted Constantinople. Urban centers in
the region continued to decline until the Seljuk occupation in Anatolia following the
Battle of Manzikert in 1071. After the First Crusade (1096), a frontier between the
Seljuks and the Byzantines was established around the Denizli region. A centurylong
struggle between the Byzantines and the Seljuks continued until the Latin
capture of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and the resultant Seljuk
9
conquest of the region. After the Seljuk conquest, Byzantine Laodicea became Seljuk
Ladik (Denizli), the center of the Seljuk west. Seljuk institutions were built in the
region, such mosques as Denizli Ulu Camii and such caravanserais at Han-abad
(1230), Hacı Eyüplü (1235) and Akhan (1253).
Studying the socio-economic and cultural aspects of Seljuk Anatolia has
several difficulties: first of all the primary sources are scarce and have few references
to socio-economic and cultural details. Secondly, the Seljuk period shows the
characteristics of a transitional period from the Byzantine to the early Ottoman socioeconomic
and cultural structures. Therefore the Byzantine background should be
considered in order to understand the picture of Seljuk Anatolia. The Byzantine
lands, already multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, received new cultural and religious
groups after the battle of Manzikert. Byzantine Anatolia was faced not only with
Turks as a new ethnicity and their culture but also with Islam and its social,
economic, and cultural patterns. If the Crusades are added to this picture, the
unstable complexity of the period can be understood. When the Mongol invasion
took place, the multi-ethnic and cultural atmosphere of Anatolia became even more
complex and heterogeneous. To deal with these limitations and problems, both the
Byzantine and the early Ottoman sources must be used together with the Seljuk
sources.
2.1 Anatolia before 1071
During the Middle Byzantine period, there was a provincial bureaucracy
under the tutelage of the military aristocracy. The high military officials and the
aristocrats had power and magnates with extensive lands emerged. In contrast, the
peasants lost their lands and decreased in number (Vryonis, 1971: 2). To deal with
10
the decrease of the peasantry, Slavs and some Turkic tribes such as Kipchaqs
(Kumans) and Pechenegs were resettled from the Balkans into Anatolia (Koç, 2006a:
241).
The formerly large and populous cities of Roman Asia Minor became smaller
and depopulated. The Arab raids had had important effects on them so they had
shifted their locations to more strategic and defendable positions on high places
(Vryonis, 1971: 6-7). They became castle-cities and inhabited by a very limited
number of people. With no agricultural production of their own, a town or a cluster
of villages was needed to supply them (Baykara, 2000: 30-33). To integrate the cities
and to have easier accessibility for their administrative, commercial, and military
concerns, the road network was emphasized.
During that time, the Byzantine provincial economy was strongly dependent
on the military apparatus. Salaries were paid out in gold to the soldiers and officials;
their spending then sustained local industry, commerce and agriculture (Vryonis,
1971: 4-6). Local industry was well developed in Anatolia, for silk, cotton, linen, and
wool brocades and textiles were produced as well as glassware, pottery, weaponry,
nails, and ropes. Silver, lead, copper, iron, gold, marble, and alum were also
produced from the mines and quarries (Vryonis, 1971: 23).
There were good trade contacts between the towns and villages. The towns
had both local and foreign craftsmen and merchants. For instance, Ephesus was a
very busy town during the 11th century. The presence of Saracens, Venetians, Jews,
Rus’, and Georgians indicates the international commercial activity. The other cities
on the Aegean coasts such as Smyrna, Miletus, and Clazomenae were also active in
trade. Furthermore, Attalia was a commercial station, a post station, and a base of the
navy. Armenian, Italian, Saracen, and Jewish merchants were active there.
11
Nicomedia and Prusa were also active commercial centers (Vryonis, 1971: 9-14).
Chonae (Honaz) and Laodicea (Denizli) were urban centers on the traffic
passing from the Meander valley to Iconium (Konya). The lands were productive and
well watered. The agricultural products were liquorice, cardamom, myrtle, figs, and
other fruits. There were lakes well stocked with fish and livestock raised in the
valleys near Laodicea. Its textile products were famous. Chonae was a wealthy town
and hosted the international fair and festival of Archangel Michael. Merchants came
there from long distances for trade and many people visited it for pilgrimage
(Vryonis, 1971: 20).
2.2 Anatolia after 1071
The victory at Manzikert caused a vital change in Anatolia, for Turks
conquered most of Anatolia (Baykara, 1969: 13). Theoretically, Manzikert was not a
great military disaster for the Byzantines who had insignificant losses and signed an
honorable peace, but it caused political uncertainty, which led to the rapid occupation
of Anatolia by Turks. The Seljuk prince, Kutulmusoğlu Süleyman (r. 1077-1086),
marched across Anatolia (Cahen, 2000:9). Following some service to the Byzantines,
he was allowed to be base at Nicaea where he founded the Anatolian Seljuk state in
1080 (Turan, 1965: 198-199). At this time, the Denizli region was also conquered
(Baykara, 1969: 13).
After that population movements took place in the Denizli region and
Anatolia in general. Especially Turks entered as a new ethnicity, migrating between
the 11th and the 15th century, but their number is not clear. During the conquest, some
of the local people migrated and the battles and massacres caused a loss of
population for both sides. It was highly probable that the Turkish population was
12
lower than the total population of the locals who formed many ethnic and religious
groups. Eventually, Turks spread all around Anatolia (Cahen, 2000: 99).
Information about the demography and population is limited in the Byzantine
records. The probable population of Anatolia could have been about 6,000,000 at the
beginning of the 12th century. The population was dense in the towns, which were on
the trade routes and in the village clusters near the towns and cities. The probable
population of a city varied between 5,000 and 35,000 (Vryonis, 1971: 25-29). There
is no reference about the populations of the cities in the Denizli region.
Alexius Comnenus I (r. 1081- 1118) became emperor and then he called for
help from the pope to stop the Turkish attacks. This effort resulted in the First
Crusade in 1096 (Turan, 1965: 199-200). The Crusaders, marching into Central
Anatolia in order to pass into Syria, encountered the Seljuk army. At a battle near
Dorylaeon (near Eskisehir) the Seljuk army was defeated. The Crusaders then
crossed Anatolia to Syria (Runciman, 1991, I: 180-193).
The First Crusade caused instability in Anatolia. Alexius I tried to benefit
from this and aimed to recover lost lands. Thus the Byzantines retook Laodicea
(Denizli), Chonae (Honaz), and Charax (Çardak) in 1097 (A. Komnena, 1996: 336-
339). Seljuks had ruled Denizli for only 20 years (Ibn Bibi, 1941: 101). The area
changed hands several times until 1119 and then was in Byzantine hands for 80 years
(Baykara, 1969: 14-15) [Fig. 3].
In 1144, important events took place in Syria where Imadeddin Zengi (r.
1127-1146), Atabek of Mosul, captured the Crusader county of Edessa. As a result,
the German emperor Conrad III (r. 1138-1150) and the French king Louis VII (r.
1131-1180) launched the Second Crusade (Turan, 1965: 206). The Crusaders reached
Ephesus in 1147 (Runciman, 1991, II: 267-271), and followed the Meander valley
13
inland (N. Khoniates, 1995: 45-47), heading for Laodicea (Denizli). They then
headed south to Antalya but when crossing the high Kazıkbeli pass, they suffered
great losses because of Seljuk attack (Baykara, 1969: 15-19). Those who survived
continued to Antalya and eventually Cilicia and Antioch (Runciman, 1991, II: 272-
274).
In the Denizli region, Turkmens were looking for pastures for their sheep,
both for the summer and winter. Consequently they raided into the Byzantine lands
(Baykara, 2000: 35). These raids eventually led to a war between the Byzantines and
the Seljuks (N. Khoniates, 1995: 121-123).
2.3 The Battle of Myriokephalon
The victory of the Seljuks over the Byzantines at the Battle of Myriokephalon
(Denizli-Çivril)6 (1176) had decisive effects for the Denizli region. When, in late
summer, 1176, Manuel Comnenus I (r. 1143-1180) marched from Laodicea to Konya
seeking a decisive victory (Turan, 1971: 208), at the pass of Myriokephalon his army
encountered the Seljuks (N. Khoniates, 1995: 123). Defeated, the Byzantines lost
supremacy over the Seljuks and their frontier was weakened. Manuel I accepted to
destroy the fortresses of Soublaion (near Denizli-Çivril) and Dorylaeon (Eskisehir)
(N. Khoniates, 1995: 131). Although he destroyed Soublaion, he did not demolish
the walls of Dorylaeon. Therefore, Kılıçarslan II (r. 1156-1192) sent an army to force
him to obey the treaty (Turan, 1971: 214). In reaction, Manuel I marched around
Denizli-Çal and attacked the Turkmens near Charax (Çardak), but had to retreat.
6 There is a controversy in order to locate Myriokephalon. Some scholars as M.A. Çay suggested
Karamıkbeli near Afyon-Sultandağı. The other suggestions are Kumdanlı (Osman Turan), Konya-
Düzbel (F. Dirimtekin), Denizli-Çivril (K. Ayiter), and Yalvaç (E. Eickhoff)[Çay, 1984: 76-83].
According to Khoniates (1995: 124) the battle took place very close to Choma (Denizli-Çivril-
Gümüssu) therefore one of the canyons of Akdağ near Çivril could be Myriokephalon.
14
Turkmens occupied permanently the eastern and the southern parts of the Denizli
region (Baykara, 1969: 20-21).
Seljuk pressure increased over the Meander valley and Sozopolis (Uluborlu)
was conquered in 1182 (Turan, 1971: 214). Uluborlu briefly served as the Seljuk
provincial center of the southwestern Anatolia until the Seljuks captured Laodicea
(Denizli) fourteen years later (Cahen, 2000: 44).
Meanwhile, the Denizli region was about to experience a new wave of
Crusaders. The Third Crusade began in 1189, a reaction to Saladin’s capture of
Jerusalem two year earlier. By late April 1190, the Crusaders reached Philadelphia
and Laodicea (Runciman, 1991, III: 14). They went east, passing near Chonae
(Honaz) and Acıgöl (Baykara, 1969: 22) and reached Sozopolis (Uluborlu) and
Philomelion [Aksehir] (Runciman, 1991, III: 14). Then they captured the Seljuk
capital, Konya. After that their leader, Frederick Barbarossa I (r. 1152-1190), was
drowned when he was crossing the Calycadnus (Göksu) (Turan, 1971: 222-224).
Some of the Crusaders returned to Europe, whereas others continued to Antioch and
Syria (Runciman, 1991, III: 15-17).
With the Third Crusade, the Western sources started to refer to parts of
Anatolia as “Turchia”. The Islamization and Turkification had important roles on
this situation (Cahen, 2000: 99-104).
2.4 The Conquest of Laodicea (Denizli) in 1196
Gıyaseddin Keyhusrev I (r. 1192-1196 and 1205-1211) aimed to benefit from
the weakness of the Byzantine frontier, especially in the Denizli region. He marched
on Aphrodisias (Geyre) and Antiochia [near Nazilli] (Cahen, 2000: 59-60). Then his
army retreated eastward (Baykara, 1997: 18) and attacked Laodicea (Baykara, 1969:
15
23-24). After this victory, the Seljuks resettled the locals of Laodicea (Denizli) in the
region of Aksehir. By giving them new land, free grain, and agricultural equipment
such as ploughs, the Seljuk aimed to establish stability in agricultural production
(Koç, 2006a: 242-243).
In 1197, Gıyaseddin Keyhusrev I lost the throne to his brother, Rükneddin
Süleymansah (r. 1196-1204). While in exile in Byzantine lands, his brother
Rukneddin Süleymansah died and he arranged for Byzantine support to retake the
Seljuk throne. After a move to Ladik (Denizli) to secure Turkmen support, he
captured Konya in 1205. However, because his sons were held hostage in
Constantinople, he agreed to give Laodicea back to the Byzantines (Ibn Bibi, 1941:
40). But when his sons escaped from Constantinople, he decided not to keep his
promise and Ladik (Laodicea) was not returned to the Byzantines (Cahen, 2000: 57-
60) but was given to Manuel Maurozomes, his father-in-law, a member of the family
of Comnenus (Wittek, 1935: 508-513), as a buffer state between the Seljuks and the
Byzantines (Turan, 1971: 281-282). In 1206, this buffer state of Ladik (Denizli) was
annexed by the Seljuks without resistance (Baykara, 1997: 35) [Fig. 4]. Ladik
(Denizli) became the provincial center of the Seljuk west (Baykara, 1969: 25).
Although Esedüddin Ayaz became the governor of the region, Maurozomes did not
lose his status but served the Seljuk court until his death in 1225.
After the Latin invasion of Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantine state
survived at Nicaea with Theodore Lascaris I (r. 1205-1221) as emperor there
(Baykara, 1969: 25). After some conflict with the Seljuks, during which Gıyaseddin
Keyhusrev I was killed in 1212, a period of peaceful relations developed between the
Byzantine state at Nicaea and the Seljuks. The period of peace in the region allowed
for the establishment of Seljuk institutions such as caravanserais. For example,
16
Esedüddin Ayaz commissioned Han-abad in 1230 (Baykara, 1969: 25-27).
In the early 13th century, the Seljuks expanded to the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean, capturing important ports. The conquest of these ports stimulated the
development of trade in Anatolia (Cahen, 2000: 68-69). First, Antalya was
conquered in 1207 then Sinop was taken in 1214 (Ibn Bibi, 1941: 63) and Kalonoros
(Alaiye, Alanya) in 1221 (Cahen, 2000: 73) [Fig. 5]. After that Sugdak, a Crimean
port, where the Seljuk merchants had interests, was conquered in 1225 (Ibn Bibi,
1941: 120-127). East-West trade was flourishing in general, with treaties of trade and
amity between Seljuks and other states. In 1204, the Seljuks signed a treaty with the
Venetians and in 1208 with the Latin Kingdom of Cyprus. The merchants of Pisa,
Provence, and other Latin states benefited from the treaties. The Seljuk merchants in
Venetian territories also enjoyed the same conditions. Alum, wool, silk, silk fabric,
cotton, and carpets were exported to Cyprus and wool fabric, linen, glue, and wine
were imported. The other commercial commodities were leather, fur, spices, mohair,
nutgall, saffron, and sesame. There was also a slave trade with Crimea and Egypt
(Polat, 2006: 372-376).
Although the important commercial centers were usually on the coasts
because of sea trade, the inland cities such as Denizli, Konya, Kayseri, Sivas, and
Malatya were also active; a road network connected ports and inlands cities. Markets
were found near the cities or the castles and international fairs were held (Polat,
2006: 369-377). According to Baykara (2007: 278-279), the markets in the Denizli
region were located mostly on the important fords of the rivers such as the markets of
Ezine (Çarsamba), Kayı, Çıtak, and Kavak. Alameddin Pazarı, near Tripolis, was an
international fair, which lasted one month. Grain, wax, dried vegetables,
leatherworking, and horses were the main trade commodities (Erdem, 2006: 367).
17
Alum was traded in Kayı Pazarı, near Sapçılar village.
During this period, Denizli became a very important center of Ahis
(Çiftcioğlu, 2007: 68). Ahis were mostly artisans and merchants. Ahi is an Arabic
word and means my brother but there is another suggestion that it is a Turkish word
(Akı) meaning “brave” and “generous” (Kazıcı, 1988: 540-542). Based on the
Muslim ideals of brotherhood, social unity, and hospitality, the Ahi movement had
originated in eastern Iran in the 10th and 11th centuries. After Izzeddin Keykavus I (r.
1211-1220) and Alaeddin Keykubad I (r. 1220-1237) were accepted as members, it
spread in Anatolia. The leader of the movement in Anatolia was Ahi Evren (Sahin,
2006: 299-303). According to Bayram (2001: 33), he is actually Hace Nasirüddin
Mahmud el-Hoyi, better known as Nasreddin Hoca. When Ibn Battuta visited Denizli
in the early 1330s, the Ahi movement was still influential (Gibb, 1962: 424-428).
2.5 The Mongol Invasion and afterwards
The Mongol invasion of Anatolia in 1243 brought major change to the Seljuk
state, with repercussions felt in the Denizli region (Ibn Bibi, 1941: 213-214). After
the Mongol victory at Kösedağ (1243), the Seljuk sultan Gıyaseddin Keyhusrev II (r.
1237-1246) fled westward to Tripolis near Denizli. Quickly the Seljuks made a
settlement with the Mongols, accepting to pay tribute. During this new political
climate, the Akhan caravanserai was built, commissioned by Seyfeddin Karasungur
in 1253-4 (Baykara, 1969: 27). He was a son of Maurozomes and a brother-in-law of
Gıyaseddin Keyhusrev I (Baykara, 1994: 157). Celaleddin Karatay, who was
Karasungur’s brother, became the highest official in the state (Ibn Bibi, 1941: 244-
247). His other brother, Kemaleddin Rumtas, also had important roles in the state
(Cahen, 2000: 235-238).
18
In 1256, Hulagu (r. 1218-1265), the Mongol Ilkhan, sent an army to Anatolia.
The Mongols defeated the Seljuks a second time and Izzeddin Keykavus II (r. 1246-
1260) fled to Constantinople (Cahen, 2000: 239-242). Then his brother Rükneddin
Kılıçarslan IV (r. 1248-1265) became the sultan in 1257 (Ibn Bibi, 1941: 259-260)
but Izzeddin II returned to Konya again with the support of the Byzantines because
he gave Laodicea (Ladik) to Laskaris (K.M.Aksarayi, 2000: 39). The Turkmens,
angry with him, took back Ladik (Denizli) in 1258. (Cahen, 2000: 243). Their leader
was Mehmed Bey who was a grandson of Manuel Maurozomes and nephew of
Seyfeddin Karasungur. Mehmed Bey was in the Ahi movement and in 1260 he
commissioned the copies of Ahi Evren’s three books in Ladik (Denizli). One of his
titles was Serhazin7 and he was probably responsible for the treasury of Izzeddin
Keykavus II (Bayram, 2002: 294-297). During the reign of Izzeddin II, the Mongols
decided to divide the Seljuk territory between Izzeddin II and his brother Rukneddin.
Izzeddin II, who was not on good relations with the Mongols, was given lands west
of Konya to rule. If we recall that Ladik (Denizli) was the provincial center of the
Seljuk west and its governor Seyfeddin Karasungur was a member of the family of
Maurozomes (Wittek, 1937: 210-211) like Mehmed Bey, we might imagine that the
Akhan caravanserai served as a local administrative center. In addition, as will be
shown in Chapter 4 below, the services and features of Akhan were enough to be a
local administrative center (Yavuz, 2007: 141).
Because relations worsened between Mehmed Bey and Izzeddin II, a battle
took place in 1260 between the Turkmens and the army of Izzeddin II in the Taurus
Mountains. The Turkmens defeated his army and by 1260 were able to control all the
southwestern Anatolia (K.M.Aksarayi, 2000: 50). Mehmed Bey requested from
7 The word means “head of treasury” and it was one of the highest officials of the Seljuk bureaucracy,
who was responsible for the Sultan’s treasury or the state treasury.
19
Hulagu that Turkmen territory be freed from Seljuk control. When Hulagu accepted
their request, the Turkmens of Denizli obtained independence from the Seljuks and
established direct relations with the Mongols. This was the first Turkmen emirate in
Anatolia. Then Hulagu wanted Mehmed Bey to come to visit him in Tabriz but he
refused this order (Cahen, 2000: 249). In reaction, the Mongols attacked, defeating
him in the plain of Dalaman and killing him in Uluborlu (K.M.Aksarayi, 2000: 53).
His son-in-law, Ali Bey, accepted the Seljuk authority in 1262 (Cahen, 2000: 249).
Continuing unrest between 1277 and 1279 led to further Mongol attacks in
western Anatolia. After invading Konya, they attacked Ladik (Denizli) and Uluborlu
(Cahen, 2000: 270-272). The Turkmens of Denizli were defeated and their leader Ali
Bey was hanged in Karahisar (K.M.Aksarayi, 2000: 89-103). Mongol dominance in
the Seljuk state now became complete, with the Mongols taking most of the high
offices in the government (Cahen, 2000: 273-286).
Disputes between Turkish tribes in western Anatolia continued throughout
this period. The Pechenegs had been settled by the Byzantines in the regions of Usak
and Kütahya. To the south, the tribes of Salur and Kayı were settled in the Denizli
region after the Seljuk conquest. The Pechenegs and the tribes of Salur and Kayı
were in conflict even in Central Asia. Seeing an advantage in this old antagonism,
the Germiyans, a powerful family based in Kütahya, tried to take control over the
Denizli region. The Salur and Kayı resisted and for over a century tried to stop them
(Baykara, 2007: 372-377).
There were differences in both tribal and social aspects among the Turks who
migrated to Anatolia not only before and after Manzikert, but also before and after
the Mongol invasion. (Cahen, 2000: 104-107). The organization of Turkish tribes is
not easy to understand but they probably continued their old organizational system.
20
They could also adapt themselves to the conditions of Anatolia. They showed strong
loyalty; so today many villages have the names of their tribes. For example,
according to 16th century Ottoman records, at least fourteen Oghuz tribes were
settled in the Denizli region and they were attested from the village names8 (Baykara,
2007: 397-415).
By the 13th century before the Mongols arrived, the number of villages
increased because of the better socio-political and economic conditions. Individual
land holdings averaged between 25-30 acres. Agricultural productivity was small and
the varieties of crops were limited. Generally, wheat, barley, oat, millet, and common
vetch were produced (Koç, 2006b: 293-297). Fruits were apricots, peaches, almonds,
pears, grapes, and plums (Erdem, 2006: 366). According to Baykara (2007: 240-243)
barley, wheat, millet, vetch, cowpea, sesame, and rice were produced in Denizli. The
significant fruits were pomegranates, figs and grapes. Vegetables were produced in
the gardens, which were close to the rivers or streams (Koç, 2006b: 293-294).
After the Mongol invasion, efficiency in agricultural production decreased
and the scarcity of grain caused high inflation so the prices went up (Erdem, 2006:
367). Grain demand increased and it was mostly supplied by the Byzantines from the
Meander and Hermus river valleys. Therefore, the trade in Denizli developed
(Baykara, 2007: 77), and it became the biggest city of western Anatolia during the
14th century, when Ibn Battuta visited there (Gibb, 1962: 425).
2.6 Conclusion
In short, between the 11th and 14th centuries, the region of Denizli followed a
different history from the central and eastern parts of Anatolia. In the years between
8 Such as, Kayı, Kayıyayla, Kayıhan, Kayı-abad (Tutluca) , Kınıklı, Kınıkyeri, Yüregil, Afsar, Yazır,
Yazırlu, Đgdir, Dodurga, Dodurgalar, Bayat, Bayındır, Yıva, Çavdur, Bügdüz, Salur, and Karkın.
21
1071 and 1206, the region of Denizli was insecure and unstable as compared to the
central and eastern parts of Anatolia in both political and social terms. With the
Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, the Seljuk conquest of the region became
permanent9. After that all parts of the Seljuk territories developed and prospered until
the Mongols invaded in 1243. A secure road network was established and the
caravanserais were built. Both maritime and inland trade developed and good trade
contacts were established with Latin states. In contrast, the Mongol invasion caused
instability and big population movements. Then Seljuk authority lost its legitimacy
among the Turkmens and Ahis. After 1243, the Denizli region became a more
attractive place to live, in contrast with central and eastern Anatolia, because of its
distance from Konya and from Mongol pressure. Therefore, Turkmens, Ahis and
other people who were not happy with the Mongols migrated to the region and other
border zones.
Important military movements happened before the construction of Han-abad
and Akhan, which were built during the period of peace (1212-1261) between the
Seljuks and the state of Nicaea (Vryonis, 1971: 132-133). Therefore, although the
Han-abad and Akhan did serve to guard the road, their main functions were
commercial. Akhan probably had the additional function of a local administrative
center. Mehmed Bey and Seyfeddin Karasungur were Muslim members of the family
of Maurozomes. Their close relationship as relatives and one of the titles of Mehmed
Bey, serhazin, who is responsible for the state treasury, support the idea that Akhan
served as a local administrative center.
The international fairs of Alameddin and Archangel Michael show the
presence of international merchants in the region. Because of the Mongol invasion,
9 Except for a brief period in 1257-1258. See Cahen, 2000: 243.
22
the density of population increased in the frontier regions like Denizli and it caused
increase in demand and trade. Especially, the demand of grain increased because of
drought in central Anatolia. The Byzantines from the valleys of Meander and
Hermus where irrigation was available supplied the demand. As a result of trade,
Denizli became active in trade traffic during the 13th century when the caravanserais
of Han-abad and Akhan were built. These details can illustrate the commercial
activity in the caravanserais in the region.
Furthermore, the establishment of the buffer emirate (1204-1206) of Manuel
Maurozomes in Ladik (Denizli) tied the destiny of the region with the members of
his family. His sons took part in Seljuk high bureaucracy. His son Seyfeddin
Karasungur became the governor of Ladik, the center of Seljuk west, and
commissioned Akhan (1253-1254) caravanserai. Maurozomes’s grandson Mehmed
Bey founded the earliest Turkmen emirate (1260-1261) in Ladik. After the Seljuk
state collapsed in the early years of the 14th century, the members of Maurozomes
family again had important roles and founded the emirate of Ladik (Denizli) or
Đnançoğulları. The activities of the Maurozomes family and the politics in region
influenced the construction of Akhan and its functional use. In the following
chapters, these regional factors and their influences are examined and questioned in
the architectural and ornamentation programs of Han-abad and Akhan.
23
CHAPTER III
HA -ABAD CARAVA SERAI (ÇARDAKHA )
The Seljuk viceroy (Sahib) Esedüddin Ayaz bin Abdullah Es-Sihabi (d. 1231)
commissioned Han-abad in 1230 during the reign of Alaeddin Keykubad. It shows
most of the characteristics of a typical 13th century Seljuk caravanserai. It was the
westernmost caravanserai of the Seljuks until 1253 when Akhan was constructed
(Fig. 3). Local people call it Hanbat10, the caravanserai (Uzunçarsılı, 1929: 210), but
its foundation inscription calls it a ribat (see below, n. 14). Han-abad has two main
units: a courtyard and a shelter. The courtyard is entered through a portal and a
number of spaces are distributed around the courtyard. These spaces functioned as
the service facilities, such as bath, masjid, and bakery. The shelter is a roofed
structure that provided lodging. It has five naves created by four rows of five piers.
Interestingly, Han-abad’s figural ornamentations are found only in the shelter, on the
capitals of the piers, with some floral and geometric ornamentation on the portal.
Han-abad has been examined in several studies. Firstly Erdmann (1961)
studied the general architectural features and plan of Han-abad. Secondly, Fersan’s
(1974) M.Arch. thesis for METU documented the architectural plan and
measurements with a view towards the restoration of the building. In 2002,
Beyazıt’s M.A. thesis for Pamukkale University examined ornamentations and
10 During the Ottoman period, Hanbat was a district center. Today, local people call it Hambat. This
region covers about 600 km2 of land in the environs around Çardak.
24
architectural details of Han-abad to compare and contrast them with those of Akhan.
Recently, Pektas (2007) published a complete architectural plan of Han-abad after
the excavations of the Denizli Museum in the courtyard area. These studies did not
focus on the functional aspects of Han-abad and they did not examine local factors
that could have had effects on Han-abad.
In this chapter, Han-abad’s location, history, inscription, patron, and
architectural features are examined. Local factors and their influences in architecture
and ornamentation of Han-abad are investigated. In contrast to the previous studies,
which have mainly descriptions and measurements, in this chapter some questions
are asked and examined: To what degree are the local features important to
understand and interpret the architectural details and ornamentations of Han-abad?
To what extent do the general concepts and trends of the Seljuk art and architecture
explain the architectural and decorative features of Han-abad?
3.1 Location
The Seljuk caravanserais were generally located strategically near the crucial
passes and bridges on important roads. Han-abad’s location agrees with the usual
practice. It is located in Çardak c. 300 m to the north of the Denizli-Afyon highway.
It is 55 km to the east of the city center of Denizli (Pektas, 2007: 161). The ancient
Roman road from Ephesus to Pamphylia (Ercenk, 1993: 16-21) and the Byzantine
road from Konya, Beysehir, and Eğirdir to Laodicea (Erdmann, 1961: 61) and
Ayasuluk (Ephesus) met near Han-abad (Yavuz, 2007: 134-135) [Fig. 6]. Han-abad
controlled an important pass between the western Anatolian coasts and the central
Anatolian plain, a narrow pass between the mountains of Maymun and Söğüt, with
Lake Acıgöl also lying between these mountains. Because of its importance, the
25
Byzantines built a castle, which was a simple promontory fortress and built as a lookout
point against the Arabs between the 7th and 9th centuries (Fig. 6, 7). It was
reoccupied in the 12th century against the Turks (Barnes and Whittow, 1998: 355-
358). According to the survey and the pottery assemblage, there was no occupation
during the Seljuk and Ottoman periods on the castle hill. On the slopes of the castle
hill, several occupations belonging to the Roman and Byzantine periods were found.
One of them extended down to Çardak. The spolia that were used in the construction
of Han-abad could have been taken from this site (Whittow, 1995: 23-25). Belke and
Mersich (1990: 213-214), identified it with the castle of Bonita where the iconophile
dissident, Theodore the Studite, was imprisoned by Leo V between 816 and 821. In
my opinion, Bonita could be the earlier castle occupation. The later one should be
Charax, which is located near the site of today’s Çardak by Vryonis (1971: 14-15)
[Fig. 1]. The name of Çardak could be derived from Charax.
3.2 History
The foundation inscription, which is set on the portal of the shelter (Fig. 9), is
the starting point for the history for Han-abad. According to the inscription, Hanabad
was built in 1230 during the reign of Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad I and was
commissioned by Esedüddin Ayaz bin Abdullah Es-Sihabi in Ramadan 627 [July-
August 1230] (Pektas, 2007: 162). Esedüddin Ayaz was the governor of the western
frontier centered on Denizli and also mir-ahur11 of Alaeddin Keykubad (Baykara,
1969: 50). There is no reference to the architects or masons (Beyazıt, 2002: 38) but
the mason marks are visible on the stone blocks of the buildings.
After the Seljuk period, Han-abad continued to serve during the Beylik and
11 A high official who was responsible for the horses of the sultan. Devellioğlu, Osmanlıca-Türkçe
Sözlük, 2001, p. 651.
26
Ottoman periods; a derbent 12 was located at Han-abad for the security of the pass.
Hanbat was a sub-district of the district of Dinar. Han-abad was in use for cereal
storage during World War I (1914-1918) and the Turkish War of Independence
(1920-1922). Shortly after that the local people used it as a sheepfold (Uzunçarsılı,
1929: 210). In the 1920s it was repaired and restored. When Erdmann visited Hanabad
in 1953 it was still in use for grain storage (Erdmann, 1961: 59). Then the
caravanserai was freed from these kinds of functions in the 1950s. A program of
cleaning and excavation was carried out by the Denizli Museum in the summers of
2006-2008 (Pektas, 2007: 161).
3.2.1 Inscription
The inscription was set on the portal of the shelter. It is in Arabic and consists
of seven lines. It was written in the Seljuk sülüs style of calligraphy on a marble
block in the shape of a pointed arch measuring 1.46 m by 0.90 m (Beyazıt, 2002: 38)
[Fig. 8].
“Sultanic (Royal) 13
12 A military station based near a pass. Devellioğlu, Osmanlıca-Türkçe Sözlük, 2001, p. 175.
13 This word, which means belonging to the sultan in Arabic, was used on the inscriptions of the
27
This ribat14 was ordered to be built during the reign of our master (mawlana)
and our lord (sayyidna), the just sultan 'Ala al-Dunya wa al-Din Abu al-Fath
Kayqubad b. Kaykhusraw, the victor [for] the Commander of the Faithful, by
the least servant of our most exalted and noble master (mawlana) the
rightly-guided [one] of the nation, the state and religion Ayaz b. 'Abdullah
al-Shihabi in the great month of Ramadan of the year 627.”
Han-abad is described as a ribat in its foundation inscription and this could be
related with the patron, Esedüddin Ayaz, who was from Syria. The masons and
craftsmen of Han-abad were probably from Syria. There is no evidence and reference
about Han-abad’s religious or social function, features usually related with the term
ribat. The contemporary Seljuk sources like Aksarayi and Ibn Bibi, who wrote in
Persian, mostly referred to this type of building as a caravanserai.
3.2.2 Patron
Esedüddin Ayaz bin Abdullah Es-Sihabi was the Atabeg and Sahib (Viceroy)
of the western frontier. He was also known as Atabek Ayaz. According to Arab
historians such as Ibn al-Athir and Abu al-Fida, before he entered the Seljuk court, he
served the Artukid Sultan Kutbeddin Sökmen (Sönmez, 1989: 125-127). He had a
conspicuous career in the Artukid court, becoming one of the influential bureaucrats
and marrying one of the sisters of the Sultan. The Sultan Kutbeddin even declared
him as the heir to the Artukid throne. When the Sultan died in c. 1200, he became
Seljuk sultans as a title.
14 This term refers to guarding bases or stations on the borders of early Islamic states. By the
expansion of the borders, the function of ribats gained social and religious character. Some of them
served as dervish lodges and some for other social purposes such as serving caravans. The term is not
commonly used in Seljuk caravanserais except for Han-abad (Çardakhan), Kuruçesme Han, Hekim
Han, Dokuzunderbent Han and Kırkgöz Han (Akalın, 2002: 299-300).
28
the Artukid Sultan. However, high officials dethroned him after a short period of
time, replacing him with Salih Mahmud, the brother of Sultan Kutbeddin that put the
life of Ayaz in danger. Fortunately he had an invitation from the Seljuk Sultan
Rükneddin II, and came to Konya in c. 1202 to serve the Seljuks. He served the
Seljuks for thirty years (Sönmez, 1998: 5-6).
The reason for the Seljuk Sultan’s invitation was to supervise important
building projects. While active in the Artukid court, Ayaz had taken an interest in
major building projects, especially in the repair of the fortresses of Diyarbakır. He
was particularly in close contact with the craftsmen, masons, and architects of Syria
(Sönmez, 1998: 7).
The early years of his service to the Seljuks are undocumented. His name is
first attested in the sources in 1215 for his participation in the military campaign with
Izzeddin Keykavus I at Sinop (Turan, 1971: 290). He is mentioned as the Sahib
(Viceroy) of the western frontier centered at Honaz and Laodicea (Baykara, 1969:
51). In addition, his earliest building project for the Seljuks was the repair of the
fortress of Sinop in 1215 (H.612). His name is mentioned in the foundation
inscriptions on the buttresses of Sinop Castle as the governor of Honaz and its
environs (Sönmez, 1998: 7-8).
Ayaz’s second building project was the repair and renovation of the main
congregational mosque of Konya, known as the Alaeddin Camii. The project started
in 1219 (H. 616) during the reign of Izzeddin Keykavus I and finished in 1220 (H.
617) during the reign of Alaeddin Keykubad I (Sönmez 1998: 8-9). His name is
attested on the inscriptions as the mütevelli (supervisor) [Konyalı, 1964: 299-302].
In 1221, Ayaz was involved in the conquest of Alaiye (Kalonoros) with
Mübarizüddin Ertokus, the governor of Antalya (Turan, 1971: 335). This was
29
followed by his third building project, supervision in the construction of the walls of
Konya. Hence, one of the gates of Konya was called Ayaz Kapı at the southeast of
the city. The project was finished in 1222 (Sönmez, 1998: 9). He is named on the
construction inscription as the patron bani (building patron) and mütevelli
(supervisor, superintendent) [Konyalı, 1964: 151].
In 1226, Ayaz commanded a military expedition against the Artukids in the
region of the Upper Euphrates, conquering the castle of Çemiskezek (Turan, 1971:
348). Then he took charge of the repairs and renovations of the walls of Antalya.
This project was completed in 1228 (Sönmez, 1998: 9-10). The construction
inscription in Antalya names both him and the Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad I (Önge,
1993: 70-79). He had power at the Seljuk capital but his last years are unknown
(Vryonis, 2001: 101). He is thought to have died in 1231. Therefore Han-abad
caravanserai may have been his last project.
In his building projects, Ayaz employed the architects from Syria such as Abu
Ali bin Abu Raha al-Kettani el-Halebi and Muhammed bin Havlan el- Dımıski
worked for the Seljuks. He employed not only Muslim but also non-Muslim
craftsmen and architects such as, from Kayseri, Mubarizüddin Mesud bin Artug el-
Kayserevi, a Muslim, and Sebastos Kayserevi, a Cristian (Sönmez, 1998: 11). His
activities and connections can explain the Syrian influences in Anatolian architecture
during the Seljuk age.
3.3 Architectural Features
The architectural features of Han-abad show the typical characteristics of the
Seljuk caravanserais. It has two parts: a courtyard and a shelter. The courtyard and
surrounding spaces form the courtyard area (Fig. 9). The spaces around the courtyard
30
served as the services of the caravanserai such as bakery, kitchen, masjid, and bath
facilities. The shelter is the roofed part of the caravanserai but it is much bigger in
proportion to the courtyard than is usually the case. Shelters of similar large
proportions are also found in some of the Seljuk caravanserais such as Mut Bel Hanı,
Zazadin Han, Durak Hanı, and Kesik Köprü Hanı (Kunduracı, 2002: 541-544).
Han-abad is oriented east to west and built on ground sloping down from
north to south (Fig. 10). The shelter is better preserved than the courtyard, with the
side walls of the courtyard in a damaged condition (Pektas, 2007: 164). The actual
features of the courtyard were not clearly known until the excavation project of the
Denizli Museum in 2006 and 2007. The southern sidewall of the courtyard is built of
gray limestone blocks and has a triangular buttress on the exterior. The northern
sidewall of the courtyard was built of low quality stone and has survived only in the
foundation courses. There is no buttress on the exterior (Pektas, 2007: 164) [Fig. 9].
3.3.1 The Courtyard
The courtyard area15 includes the entrance portal, an inner portal and
surrounding spaces (Fig. 9, 11). The entrance portal is c. 6.50 m wide and projects
1.20 m. It has an iwan leading into the courtyard. The portal is not in the middle of
the eastern wall of the courtyard (Fig. 9), but is placed somewhat to the north of
center. Only its foundations and a few lower courses remain (Beyazıt, 2002: 40).
The spaces on the northern part of the courtyard functioned for services (Fig.
9). The terracotta water pipes were located here and a water reservoir (F) outside the
northern wall is visible (Fig. 9, 12). The plan of the rooms also indicates the features
15 For the measurements, see Beyazıt, 2002: 40.
31
related with the bath (Pektas, 2007: 164-165). The bath facilities were usually located
on the right side of the main portal, as in such Seljuk caravanserais as Sultan Hanı,
Karatay Han, Ağzıkara Han, Sarıhan, and Akhan (Yavuz, 1995: 186).
The Rooms A, B, C, and D were barrel vaulted and covered with a domed
roof. The upper parts of their walls had squinches (Fig. 9, 13, 16). Room A (Fig. 14)
is a tepidarium in a rectangular plan. It has a door leading from the courtyard.
Moreover, another door at the eastern wall of the tepidarium (Room A) leads into a
narrow space, which is Room B (Fig. 15). It has a square plan and leads into Room
C having squinches and a dome (Fig. 13). It is a caldarium having a door, which
leads into Room D where a furnace and its cauldron were located, on its
southwestern corner (Fig. 16). The inner water reservoir (E) is located on the north of
Room D. Furthermore another water reservoir (F) is outside the caravanserai (Fig. 9,
12). Terracotta pipes led to the caldarium and furnace from the water reservoirs
(Pektas, 2007: 165).
The Rooms G (Fig. 17), H (Fig. 18), I (Fig. 19), J (Fig. 20), and K are on the
north side of the courtyard located between the shelter and the bath (Fig. 9). They
opened into the inner courtyard by three doors. The Rooms I, J, and K are close to
the shelter. They share a single door into the courtyard (Fig. 9). Similarly featured
rooms are found at Tuz Hisarı Sultanhan, Zazadin Han, and Ağzıkara Han (Erdmann,
1961: 90-107). There are some traces of arches oriented north-south on the wall of
the shelter. These traces show that these rooms were barrel-vaulted. During the
excavation by the Denizli Museum, many potsherds and layers of burning and ash
were revealed in these three rooms. They may have served as kitchen facilities.
Moreover, layers of ash, burned wooden fragments, and burned wooden planks were
found in Rooms G and H (Fig. 9, 17, 18). Their actual and earlier functions are
32
unknown but they may have served as a bakery (Pektas, 2007: 165-166).
The southern wall of the courtyard is built of regular well-cut stone blocks16.
On the exterior, it has a triangular buttress (Beyazıt, 2002: 41) [Fig. 9, 10]. The
southern part of the courtyard has porticoed spaces, which often characterize
caravanserai courtyards. Such a feature can be seen at Aksaray Sultanhan, Ağzıkara
Han, Sarıhan, Karatay Han, Kargı Han, and Akhan (Yavuz, 1995: 189-191). In front
of the porticos some stone blocks are set in a line. It is thought that these blocks
indicate the typical colonnaded porticos of Seljuk caravanserais. The blocks are
equidistant and regularly spaced at intervals. In addition, during the museum
excavations, some stone bases were found on the southern part of the courtyard (Fig.
9, 21, 23). There are smaller and irregular stone blocks, remnants of the second line
of the piers. The traces of arches on the walls indicate that arches connected these
piers and barrel vaults roofed the porticos (Fig. 9, 21). After the collapse of the
porticos and piers, some small stone blocks were used for repairs during the later
periods (Pektas, 2007: 166-168).
The Room L on the left side of the main portal is a masjid (Fig. 9, 22). This
feature is common among other caravanserais, such as Altınapa Han, Kızılören Han,
and Kuruçesme Han (Erdmann, 1961: 29-31, 33-35, 45-48, 184-186). It is oriented
north south and rectangular in plan. Moreover, some traces of a barrel-vaulted roof
are evident. There is a mihrab niche in the middle of the southern wall (Pektas, 2007:
167).
3.3.2 The Shelter
The shelter17 is the roofed part of the caravanserai. It has five barrel vaulted
16 See Fersan, 1974: 7.
17 For its measurements: see Pektas, 2007: 168-169.
33
aisles. It is located at the west of the courtyard and built of well cut stone blocks
with good craftsmanship (Fersan, 1974: 9-10) [Fig. 9, 24]. Six buttresses support its
outer walls. Two of them are cylindrical buttresses flanking the portal leading into
the shelter (Fig. 24). A second pair of the triangular buttresses is on the exterior of
the northern wall (Pektas, 2007: 168) [Fig. 9].
As noted, the buttresses of Han-abad are located asymmetrically (Fig. 9). Like
Han-abad, asymmetrical buttresses can be seen at Zazadin Han (Yavuz, 1992: 256).
Similar triangular buttresses are also evident at Alara Han, Ertokus Han, Sarıhan, and
Sarafsa Han (Yavuz, 1969: 445). A third pair consists of two polygonal buttresses,
one hexagonal and the other octagonal, on the exterior of the southern wall (Pektas,
2007: 168) [Fig. 9]. The octagonal one projects 0.65 m from the wall and has a
projecting rectangular base (Fersan, 1974:13) [Fig. 9, 25]. The hexagonal one has
also a rectangular base (Beyazıt, 2002: 41) [Fig. 9, 26]. There are also three
waterspouts at the upper parts of both the southern and northern walls (Pektas, 2007:
168-169) [Fig. 27, 28].
Two cylindrical buttresses flank the portal, which has a flat arched opening
(Beyazıt, 2002: 42) [Fig. 24]. The cylinder buttresses, flanking the door opening, are
unusual in Seljuk architecture. These buttresses have been seen as one of the
indicators of two different construction stages at Han-abad. Erdmann thought that the
shelter was built earlier than the courtyard (Erdmann, 1961: 59-60). I agree with him.
For one, the construction material of the shelter and the courtyard is quite dissimilar.
In addition, the compensation joints on the walls can be interpreted as two stages of
the construction.
The portal is located in the middle of the eastern wall of the shelter and on the
same axis as the main portal (Beyazıt, 2002: 42) [Fig. 9, 24, 29]. The portal is
34
projected and designed as a niche with a pointed arch [Fig, 24, 29] (Ünal, 1982: 35,
47, 53). In addition, the foundation inscription of Han-abad is set on the portal, above
the flat arched door opening. Unfortunately, the upper parts of the portal have
collapsed. The portal also has geometric ornamentations and two lion consoles with
muqarnas ornamentations flanking the inscription (Fersan, 1974:10) [Fig. 29].
The shelter was roofed with barrel vaults (Fersan, 1974: 5-6). The
superstructure of the shelter is carried by twenty piers (Beyazıt, 2002: 42-43). They
are four lines of five piers, which are connected by flat arches, oriented east west.
Every pair of piers carried a stone rib (Fersan, 1974: 15-16) [Fig. 30, 31]. The ribs
are oriented north south. (Fersan, 1974: 33) The barrel vaults are also in the same
orientation.
The shelter has five aisles and the central nave is wider than the other aisles,
4.40 m in width in contrast to 3.50 m (Beyazıt, 2002: 42-43) [Fig. 30, 31]. The barrel
vaults roofed them. Between the vaults there are nineteen square openings18 to
illuminate the inside of the shelter (Pektas, 2007: 169-170). There are no slit
windows at Han-abad, which does not have windows on its exterior walls like
Sarıhan, Elikesik Han, Đshaklı Han, and Evdir Han, etc. (Beyazıt, 2002: 75).
Platforms lie between the piers (Fig. 31). They are 0.35 m in height now but
their actual height was 0.70 m, the original ground floor being located 0.30-0.35 m
below the 20th century concrete floor. The piers that were set on the platform bands
were connected with each other and the walls by pointed arches (Pektas, 2007: 170).
A staircase leads to the roof at the southeast corner of the shelter (Beyazıt, 2002: 43)
[Fig. 9].
18 See Fersan, 1974: 36.
35
3.3.3 Construction Techniques and Material
The construction techniques and material have various features in different
parts of Han-abad. The construction technique of the caravanserais features the use
of both well-cut stone blocks and roughly shaped stones with a mortar that is made of
brick dust and lime (Fig. 17). In addition, cobbles and rubble were used to fill
between the facing stone blocks (Beyazıt, 2002: 43). The domed roofs and squinches
of the bath facilities are built of brick (Pektas, 2007: 165) [Fig. 13].
The construction material is not the same through the building. The eastern
and the southern walls of the caravanserai are built of well-cut stone blocks. These
walls are built of yellowish stone blocks (Beyazıt, 2002: 43) [Fig. 25, 26]. Because
the caravan road passed on the south of the caravanserai, the southern and eastern
walls were visible from the road. In contrast, the northern and western walls of the
caravanserai, not easily visible from the road, are built of low quality sedimentary
porous limestone (Fersan, 1974: 9).
In addition, the quality of material differs between the courtyard and the
shelter. The shelter part is built of better quality stone blocks than the courtyard.
Especially, the inner walls of the courtyard are built of roughly shaped stones that are
in irregular courses and mortared (Fig. 32). This feature has been thought as one of
the indications for two different stages of construction at Han-abad (Pektas, 2007:
165). Besides the differences in the construction material, there are compensation
joints on the walls (Fersan, 1974: 8). These compensation joints have been noted as
another indication of two different construction stages. As noted above, the shelter
must have been built first and then the courtyard was added to it (Pektas, 2007: 163).
Moreover, the sizes of the blocks vary (Fig. 33). Bigger stone blocks were
used in the lower courses than in the upper parts of the walls. The thickness of the
36
walls19 also differs. In addition, some spolia were used in the walls of the
caravanserai. Some of them are carved stone pipes and architectural blocks, probably
from the Byzantine period (Fig. 33, 34, 35). The site from which the spolia came is
probably nearby Charax (Çardak).
3.4 Ornamentation
As at most Seljuk caravanserais, geometric and figural ornamentations are
found at Han-abad. The portal of the shelter is the main source for the ornamentation
at Han-abad. In addition, the capitals of the piers from the hall of the shelter have
some figural representations. Unfortunately, the main portal of Han-abad is
completely destroyed. Thus the actual ornamentation of Han-abad is not fully
available.
3.4.1 Geometric Ornamentation
Geometric ornamentations are on the portal of the shelter (Fig. 29). Two
borders were carved on each side of the portal. The first border, 0.26 m wide, has
motifs of four-knots (Pektas, 2007: 169). The second border, 0.34 m wide, has
triangles. These borders are symmetrically designed (Beyazıt, 2002, 42, 44) [Fig.
37]. The four knot motifs of Han-abad’s portal are also attested at Ribat-ı Mahi of the
Gaznavids (Aslanapa, 1984: 157). Octagonal moldings of Han-abad’s portal can be
seen on the portal of Alay Han. Triangular moldings can be seen at Evdir Han and
Alay Han (Beyazıt, 2002: 82) [Fig. 29, 36].
19 See Fersan, 1974: 31.
37
3.4.2 Figural Ornamentation
Figural representations are common on Seljuk buildings in several forms,
such as sculpture, relief representation, consoles, representations on tile decoration,
etc. However,Figural representation at Han-abad is not numerous. They consist of
relief representations in a linear style. Uzunçarsılı (1929: 210) and Demir (1989: 21)
have claimed that the figural representations of Han-abad are spolia. Considering the
features and characteristics of the stone blocks, however, it may be noted that the
carving styles are same. Therefore, these figural representations probably belong to
the same date as the caravanserai.
Two lion relief sculptures are the most elaborate images. They flank the
foundation inscription on the portal of the shelter (Fig. 8, 29). The lion on the left is
in better condition than the other. They project 0.36 m and are depicted frontally.
Therefore, their whole bodies were not represented. The lions are standing on two
consoles having muqarnas ornamentation. Their mouths are open and their tongues
are visible. They have full cheeks and almond eyes (Beyazıt, 2002: 44). Their heads
are not depicted in detail. The name of Han-abad’s patron, Esedüddin (Asad al-Din),
means “the lion of religion” in Arabic. Is it a personal message or choice? It is not
clear because the lion figures are very common in Seljuk art and architecture. The
same type of lion heads is evident at Sarıhan, Çesnigirhan, and Dokuzunderbent Han
(Öney, 1969b: 1-3).
The other three figural representations are on the capitals of the piers in the
central nave of the shelter. The first figure is a relief sculpture of a bullhead on the
capital of the second pier (Fig. 30, 37). The bullhead is represented frontally and in
high relief. The horns are pointed and its nostrils are emphasized (Beyazıt, 2002: 44-
45). The facial features including almond eyes, full cheeks and long, flat nose
38
resemble a human face. It has pointed ears between the horns (Öney, 1970: 98). Bull
figures are very common in Seljuk art and they generally are depicted with lion,
eagle, dragon and human figures. However, bull figures with human figures are very
few in Seljuk art (Öney, 1970: 83). Öney (1970: 98) relates the bull figure of Hanabad
to the Zodiac sign of Taurus and the old Turkish calendar, which originated
from the Chinese calendar and has twelve animals for each year of the twelve-year
cycle. Actually there is no clue or evidence that supports Öney’s interpretation.
A relief sculpture of two symmetrically placed fish decorates the capital of
the third pier (Beyazıt, 2002: 45) [Fig. 38]. Between the figures there is a mason
mark on the capital. The fish are placed with heads at the top. Two curving lines
show their necklines. Circular eyes and open mouths were represented. Fish have
three pointed fins on the sides (Pektas, 2007: 171). There is another fish figure (Fig.
39) on a re-used block on the enclosure wall of a modern mosque, Çınar Camii, at
Çardak. It is much bigger and elaborate than the fish figures on the capitals of the
piers but it has the same stylistic features. It has a more detailed depiction.
Unfortunately, it is whitewashed and spray painted. I think that it is contemporary
with Han-abad and could belong to the ornamentation design of Han-abad’s main
portal. Its stylistic features and dimensions support this idea. The Seljuks carved
many fish figures on their buildings (Öney, 1968: 142). Among Seljuk caravanserais,
Aksaray Sultanhan has a fish figure on its inner portal (Beyazıt, 2002: 88).
A human head or an animal head is carved on the capital of the fourth pier
(Fig. 40). It is bearded and has big ears. It is stylized and in high relief. Its left eye is
big and has an almond shape. A mouth and nose are also visible. The left and right
ears are not aligned; therefore the figure is not proportional (Beyazıt, 2002: 45). It
has also been interpreted as a sheep’s head (Fersan, 1974: 38). According to
39
Erdmann, the figure is a human head (Erdmann, 1961:61). Aslanapa and Beyazıt
agree with him (Beyazıt, 2002: 87-89). It could perhaps be a monkey head because
the shape of the head, the big ears and visual features recall a monkey. It is obviously
not a sheep head but could be either a monkey head or a human head figure.
The figures of bullhead and fish may represent the fauna of the region around
Han-abad. Vryonis mentioned that the lakes near Laodicea were well stocked with
fish (Vryonis, 1971: 20). The climate of the region was different than today. Until the
1970s the lakes of Sazköy, Beylerli, and Çaltı had not dried up. Therefore, the region
had had large meadows that were available for cattle and sheep. However, the
destroyed condition of the main portal, which probably had the figural
representations, limits the interpretation and understanding of the figural
representations of Han-abad.
To what degree are the local features important to understand and interpret
the architectural aspects and ornamentation of Han-abad? Han-abad’s architectural
features follow the general Seljuk architectural trend and conceptions for
caravanserais. Therefore, the local features are not very important for the
architecture. However, possible relationships between the figural representations and
local fauna and the meaning of the patron’s Arabic name “lion” indicate that the local
features may have had some significance in Han-abad’s ornamentation program. To
conclude, the general trends and concepts of Seljuk art and architecture are very
important to explain the architectural aspects and the ornamentation program of this
caravanserai. In contrast, the local features are only moderately important to
understand and interpret its architecture and ornamentation.
40
CHAPTER IV
AKHA CARAVA SERAI
Like Han-abad, Akhan is a typical Seljuk caravanserai of the 13th century.
The Seljuk governor Seyfeddin Karasungur commissioned it in 1253 as the
westernmost caravanserai of the Seljuks (Fig. 2). Like most of the Seljuk
caravanserais, Akhan has two principal parts: courtyard and shelter. The courtyard is
surrounded by a number of spaces and leads into the shelter (Fig. 41), which is a
roofed structure and has a number of naves and platforms to lodge caravans and their
goods. Akhan’s spectacular geometric, floral and especially figural ornamentations
make it remarkable among the Seljuk caravanserais. In this chapter, Akhan’s
location, history, architectural features, and ornamentations are examined within
their local context. The main objective is investigating the importance of the
historical figures, geography, trade, and politics in order to understand and interpret
the architectural, functional, and decorative features of Akhan. To what extent are the
local factors important in architecture and ornamentation at Akhan? To what degree
were the general concepts of Seljuk architecture and art followed at Akhan? How do
the design and decoration at Akhan compare with those at Han-abad, the earlier
caravanserai in the same region?
41
4.1 Location
This caravanserai is located in the town of Akkale20 by the Gökpınar or
Emirsultan Çayı. It is near the Denizli-Dinar-Afyonkarahisar highway and 8 km
northeast of the city center of Denizli (Fig. 42). In terms of the old road network,
Akhan is located on the roads from Laodicea and Hierapolis to Chonae (Tuncer,
2006: 425) [Fig. 6]. A number of Western travelers visited and made references to it
(Eyice, 1989: 236). Some of them referred to Akhan as Goncalı Hanı (Sarre, 1896:
10-11) and Bozhan (Arundell, 1975: 161-162).
4.2 History
The caravanserai has two inscriptions on its portals. The inscriptions are
eroded and not easily readable. When Sarre visited the caravanserai in 1895, he
described the inscriptions as illegible (Sarre, 1998: 14). However, Erdmann and
Uzunçarsılı tried to read the inscriptions, and they estimated or guessed the dates on
them. Today, Erdmann’s dating is generally accepted (Bayhan, 2007: 288).
According to the inscription on the inner portal, Seyfeddin Karasungur bin Abdullah
commissioned the caravanserai on 30 Rajab 651 (25 September 1253) during the
reign of Izzeddin Keykavus II (r. 1246-1262). The other inscription on the main
portal gives another date, 1 Jumada II 652 (19 July 1254) (Uzunçarsılı, 1929:193-
194). Scholars such as Eyice have interpreted the two dates as two construction
stages: the beginning and end of the construction. Eyice also noted that the courtyard
was built earlier than the shelter but many scholars thought that the shelter was built
earlier than the courtyard (Eyice, 1989: 236). I disagree with Eyice on the basis of
20 The villages of Akhan and Kale unified to establish a town called Akkale in 1998. (Resmi Gazete,
22 August 1998, 23441:4.) It will join Denizli Bütünsehir Municipality in 2009.
42
the courtyard’s foundation inscription, which is later in date than the foundation
inscription located on the portal of the shelter.
Seyfeddin Karasungur bin Abdullah was one of six Seljuk governors who
commissioned more than one building project. As noted in Chapter II, above, he was
the son of Manuel Maurozomes, a Byzantine Greek courtier who served the Seljuk
Sultanate. His name first appeared on the reconstruction inscription of the walls of
Antalya, where he was provincial governor between the years 1225-1226 (Beyazıt,
2007:152). Then he became the Seljuk governor of Ladik (Denizli) during the reigns
of Alaeddin Keykubad I and Izzeddin Keyhüsrev II. One of his brothers was the
Seljuk vizier Celaleddin Karatay (Uzunçarsılı, 1929: 195). Karasungur’s titles in the
waqfiya of Karatay are Büyük Emir, Sipehsalar21 and Büyük Sipehsalar, Adil,
Emirlerin Meliki22; they illustrate how high his status or rank in the Seljuk state
hierarchy was. He is the builder of the earliest Seljuk monuments in Ladik (Denizli);
in total he commissioned nine building projects there. The important ones are Denizli
Kalesi (now Kaleiçi), Hacı Eyüplü caravanserai, and Denizli Ulu Camii (1247), a
fountain, Yenihan (Vakıfhanı), and Akhan (Sahin, 2002: 679-694). After 1254 there
is no evidence about his building activities. He was sent to the regions close to
Damascus by the Seljuk vizier Pervane Süleyman in 1268 (Uzunçarsılı, 1929: 195-
196). He was one of the Seljuk high officials captured and freed by the Mamluk ruler
Baybars near Elbistan in 1276 (Yaltkaya, 2000, 86, 157). There is little certainty
about his last years. He may have become the provincial governor again at Ladik
(Denizli) during the reign of Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev III. He probably died soon after
1276.
21 In Karatay’s Kervansaray waqfiya; See Turan, 1948: 119.
22 In Karatay’s Madrasa wakfiya; See Turan, 1948: 142.
43
4.2.1 Inscriptions 23
The inscription of the inner portal is 1.00 x 0.70 m in dimension and has five
lines of text. The arched portal on which has the inscription was designed and
decorated in a harmonious way with the inscription (Fig. 43). Its transcription and
translation are below:
“Sultanic
This blessed khan was built during the reign of the great sultan ‘Izz al-Dunya
wa’l-Din Abu’l-Fath Kaykavus b. Kaykhusraw, the partner (or helper) of the
Commander of the Faithful in the last days of Rajab of the year 651 by
Qarasungur b. ‘Abdallah, the weak slave who is need of the mercy of the
Almighty God.”
The inscription of the outer portal is four lines in a panel measuring 1.02 x
0.72 m. It was written in sülüs. Two columns that have floral rosette ornamentations
on their capitals and spiral decoration on their body flank the inscription (Fig. 44).
Its transcription and translation are below:
23 The Arabic texts are taken from Bayhan (2007: 289) and the translations were provided by Oya
Pancaroğlu.
44
“…..
This khan was built during the reign of the great sultan, the shadow of God on
earth, ‘Izz al-Dunya wal-Din Abu’l-Fath Kaykavus b. Kaykhusraw, the
partner (or helper) of the Commander of the Faithful in the beginning of
Jumada II of the year 652 by Qarasungur b. ‘Abdallah, the weak slave who is
in need of the mercy of the Almighty God.”
4.3 Architectural Features
Both Akhan and Han-abad are are the type of caravanserais described as
“Sultan Hanı” (Altun, 2002: 826). However, this type of caravanserai is typically
bigger than Han-abad and much bigger than Akhan. Akhan has two principal
architectural units: the courtyard and shelter (Fig. 41). The dimensions of the
courtyard and the shelter are not proportional.24 The shelter is modest in its services
and facilities but the courtyard has extensive facilities, such as a bath and a masjid
(Bayhan, 2007: 290).
There are compensation joints between the walls of the courtyard and the
shelter. They indicate two construction stages at Akhan. According to the foundation
24 The courtyard measures 28.60 x 28.30 m on the outside and 25.00 x 25.00 m on the inside. The
shelter measures 19.10 x 18.31 m on the outside and 16.00 x 17.00 m on the inside.
45
inscriptions, which give two dates (1253 and 1254), the shelter was built earlier than
the courtyard. In addition, the construction material differs on the walls of the shelter
and courtyard. Whereas the shelter is built of many porous stone blocks, the
courtyard has many whitish marble blocks. This must be one of the indicators of two
construction stages.
4.3.1 The Courtyard
The courtyard part of Akhan consists of a courtyard surrounded by a number
of spaces (Fig. 41). Entrance is through the main portal in the middle of the
southeastern outer wall of the courtyard or the façade. It is a typical portal gate,
projecting 1.50 m. It also has a niche with a pointed arch (Fig. 44). It is not in the
same axis with the portal of the shelter. In contrast the portals of Han-abad are in
same axis (Beyazıt, 2002: 77-78).
The elaborate decorations of Akhan, mostly coming from the main portal,
have several geometric and floral ornamentations. Especially, the surrounding border
of intersecting meander motives form swastikas and have small squares, 0.12 x 0.12
m, and several animal figures (Bayhan, 2007: 291). The ornamentation borders of the
portal should be continued above the intrados (Durukan, 1993: 145). Two hobnails
are on the upper part of the main portal. According to Ünal, they have had geometric
ornamentations (Ünal, 1982: 81-82) [Fig. 44]. Unfortunately the insides of the
hobnails are blank now. Similar hobnails are visible at Susuz Han (Beyazıt, 2002:
78). Most of the portals at Seljuk caravanserais have corner columns. However, they
are visible on some of the Great Seljuk caravanserais (Beyazıt, 2002: 77). There are
niches on the sidewalls and they are typically designed as the small model of the
46
portals but Akhan’s niches do not confirm to this model (Fig. 46, 47). The columns
of the niches at the sidewalls of Akhan’s main portal have similarities at Hatun
(Pazar) Han in Tokat (Beyazıt, 2002: 80).
At each end of the wall with the main portal, there is a cylindrical buttress
(Fig. 48). They are built of well cut stone and each has a molded cornice (Mocan,
1972: 44-45). Moreover, the side walls of the courtyard are also supported by
polygonal buttresses (Fig. 41).
The main portal opens to a rectangular courtyard. Its ground level is not flat
because of sloping topography. The courtyard was paved with stones to allow the
drainage of the rain. There are a number of spaces surrounding the courtyard and
opening onto it (Fig. 41, 45). These spaces had many services and facilities. The ones
to the left side are 1.00 m wider than the spaces on the right (Yavuz, 2007: 137-138).
An iwan (Room C) [Fig. 41] lies at the center of the right side; it is flanked by four
rooms. Akhan has one iwan in its plan. This feature is also found at Kırkgöz Han
(Beyazıt, 2002: 70-71). The iwan is barrel-vaulted and has facing consoles (Fig. 49).
Rooms A and B located to the right of the main portal functioned as inner
bath facilities (Figure: 41, 50). They are two storied structures but most of their walls
and roofs were destroyed (Bayhan, 2007: 294). Room B is a water reservoir. It had a
window and an arched opening to the iwan. There are also some traces of a water
tank that was built of brick. Besides, the terracotta water pipes are still visible in the
wall. They were used to supply water into the building, probably from the Emirsultan
stream (Beyazıt, 2002: 58).
Room A has a domed roof that is supported by squinches. It has a passage
leading to the water reservoir. The plan suggests that there is a space in front of the
water reservoir that functioned as a dressing room and tepidarium. Furthermore, an
47
elongated space close to the tepidarium has been identified as a toilet. In addition,
Room A served as a caldarium and tepidarium (Bayhan, 2007: 294-295). A similar
type of bath is also evident at Han-abad and many Seljuk caravanserais. However,
Akhan’s bath complex has one more space than does Han-abad’s (Yavuz, 2006:
442). Moreover, there is a terracotta water pipe on the wall of the iwan and the
tepidarium and it was assumed to be an indication of a fountain on the wall facing
the courtyard. A similar example is seen in the Karatay Han (Bayhan, 2007: 295).
On the second floor of the bath there are two rectangular spaces and each is
barrel vaulted. There must have been a stair that led to the second floor but it is not
visible because of destruction. Both have a window in the outer wall. The sloping
nature of the land may be the reason for the two storied spaces (Yavuz, 2007: 138).
Rooms D and E are barrel-vaulted and each has a door that leads to the
second floor (Fig. 41, 45). The consoles carry the staircase, which has muqarnas
decoration. The same type of stairs is found at several caravanserais such as
Ağzıkara Han, Kesikköprü Han, Zazadin Han, and Karatay Han (Beyazıt, 2002: 72).
Akhan’s portico is a typical one and similar porticos are seen at Altınapa Han,
Aksaray Sultanhan, Kayseri Sultanhan, Zazadin Han, Karatay Han, and Hatun Han
etc (Beyazıt, 2002. 68).
In the pictures of Erdmann, the left side of the courtyard had collapsed. Only
the outer walls and the beginning of the vaults remained (Erdmann, 1961: 68-69).
During the 1970s, the Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü made a restoration project,
unfortunately inappropriately done (Bayhan, 2007: 296-297) [Fig. 51]. The structures
of this part can be considered as an open-air shelter. Two vaults above three arches
lie parallel to the outer wall (Erdmann, 1961: 68-69).
Room F, a two storied space, is on the left side of the courtyard. In addition, a
48
door, leading into a rectangular space, is at the lower floor. An L shaped staircase
leads to a narrow platform opening to a small square space on the second floor (Fig.
41). The space has a rectangular door that is well profiled by re-used stone blocks.
Two windows25 in the shape of pointed arches on the inside and rectangular on the
outside are for illumination (Bayhan, 2007: 297) [Fig. 52]. The space was roofed
probably by a dome set on triangular squinches. There could be a pyramidal
superstructure on the outside (Fig. 52, 53). The axis of the space differed from the
axis of the courtyard by 5 degrees (Bayhan, 2007: 297). A similar space, which
functioned as a masjid, is evident at Altınapa Han (Erdmann, 1961: 69). The slit
windows of Akhan’s masjid probably functioned for looking out.
Generally, the design and dimension of the caravanserais and the number and
complexity of their services indicate some of their functions (Yavuz, 1996: 25-38).
Acording to Yavuz (1999: 756-765), with its service facilities, Akhan could well
have functioned as a statehouse (local administrative center, devlethane in Turkish).
In her analysis of its functional aspects, Yavuz suggested that because of its facilities
and services, such as water related services baths and fountain, and large rooms or
spaces, Akhan qualified as a local administrative center. In any case, Denizli was at
this time the provincial center of the western regions in the border with the
Byzantines. Moreover, the lives of the patron, Seyfeddin Karasungur, and other
members of his family suggest their active use of the complex (Yavuz, 2007: 141).
4.3.2 The Shelter
Shelters in Seljuk caravanserais appear in three forms. First, the width of the
25 For the measurements, see Mocan, 1972: 50.
49
shelter is narrower than the width of the courtyard, as seen here at Akhan and Hanabad,
also at Karatay Han, Ağzıkara Han, and Hatun Han. Second, the width of the
shelter is wider than the width of the courtyard, like Kargı Han and Kırkgöz Han.
Third the widths of the shelter and the courtyard are the same, as at Kuruçesme Han,
Dokuzunderbent Han, and Altınapa Han (Ersoy, 1996: 18).
The earlier Seljuk caravanserais have three naves but later five naves became
common (Özbek, 1970: 32). Han-abad has five naves, as do Karatay Han, Kayseri
Sultanhan, Aksaray Sultanhan, and Ağzıkara Han. In these caravanserais the
platforms are U-shaped (Yavuz, 1992: 263). However, the later caravanserais have
three naves again. Akhan has three naves and does not have U-shaped platforms
(Beyazıt, 2002: 73). Akhan has a stable-platform-stable plan (Yavuz, 1995: 185).
The shelter is the enclosed and roofed part of the caravanserai northwest of
the courtyard. Its ground level is higher than the courtyard (Fig. 45). Its outer walls
have two polygonal buttresses on the eastern (Fig. 54) and western walls (Fig. 55)
but there is no buttress on the northern wall because of the sloping land (Bayhan,
2007: 298). All the polygonal buttresses have square footings and are built of low
quality stone (Mocan, 1972: 45) [Fig. 55]. The façade of the shelter forms also the
northwestern wall of the inner courtyard. The portal is projected and it leads into the
shelter. The construction inscription was set above the opening of the portal. Two reused
blocks flank the portal and have ornamentations such as the motives of
intersecting meanders and swastikas with rosettes (Bayhan, 2007: 299) [Fig. 43]. I
think that these re-used blocks could have given inspiration in the ornamentation
program with intersecting meander motifs of the main portal.
The shelter is divided into three naves by two lines of three piers. These six
square piers support the three vaults in the hall. Each pier supports two arches, which
50
are oriented southeast northwest, and two ribs, oriented southwest northeast. The
arches were set directly on the piers whereas the ribs were set on projected imposts.
The arches are lower than the ribs (Mocan, 1972: 44) [Fig. 56].
The arches carry the vaults and they are perpendicular to the walls. The
central nave is wider and a bit higher than the naves at the sides (Bayhan, 2007: 299).
Erdmann also noted that the central nave is higher than the side naves (Erdmann,
1961: 68). In the hall, there are square bases carrying the pointed arches. The lighting
of the shelter is provided by three windows, two of them in the eastern wall and the
other in the northern wall (Bayhan, 2007: 299-300) [Fig. 56]. Like Ağzıkara Han,
Alara Han and Karatay Han, big windows are not used on the superstructure of
Akhan but unlike Han-abad, Akhan has six slit windows (Beyazıt, 2002: 75). Two of
them are in the masjid (F) and the others are on the walls of the shelter.
Furthermore Yavuz, agreeing with Erdmann, states that the side naves
functioned as stables. She suggested a plan of stable-platform-stable for the shelter
(Yavuz, 1995: 185). In contrast, Demir disagreeing with Erdmann, thinks that the
central nave does not have a platform (Demir, 1989: 12). There is a cleaning hole at
the southeastern corner of the shelter but there is no indication for air circulation
holes at Akhan (Bayhan, 2007: 300).
Uzunçarsılı referred to an outer bath close to the shelter (Uzunçarsılı, 1929:
193) [Fig. 41]. In contrast, Erdmann mentioned that there was no remain of a bath
structure around the caravanserai (Erdmann, 1961: 71). The outer bath was not
mentioned by the travelers such as Arundell (1826), Hamilton (1842) and Sarre
(1895). Therefore it has been thought to be a later additional structure (Beyazıt,
2002: 71). During the cleaning work of the Denizli Museum, the remains of an outer
bath have been uncovered in recent years (Yavuz, 2007: 135). The bath is located to
51
the east of the courtyard (Bayhan, 2007: 300-301).
4.3.3 Construction techniques and material
The construction techniques of Akhan are varied. They basically depend on
the width of the walls. Indeed, the widths of the walls change in different parts of the
caravanserai.26 The technique of opus caementium was mostly applied in the
construction of the walls, which were faced with well cut stones. Rubble and horasan
mortar made of brick dust and lime was used between the stone blocks (Mocan,
1972: 42-44).
Three types of roof structure are evident at Akhan: barrel vault, flat roof, and
dome. Barrel vaults were extensively used, especially on the superstructure of the
shelter. There are three parallel vaults at the hall, in the orientation of southeastnorthwest.
The widest and the tallest is the central vault (Mocan, 1972: 47-48) [Fig.
56]. The barrel vaulted superstructure of Akhan has close parallels with Hekimhan,
Kesikköprü Han, and Durakhan (Beyazıt, 2002: 74).
Domes were used for such spaces as the masjid and the bath. The masjid has
the first course of the dome on the cornices. Well cut stone blocks were used here
and the dome27 has a semi-spherical profile. The second dome28 is located on Room
A and is built of stone rubble. It also has a semi-spherical profile (Mocan, 1972: 48)
[Fig. 53, 55].
The flat roof technique was applied by the use of flat lintel stones, which
were put in a tilted position according to the angle of the staircase. The lintels are
monolithic and well cut. It was applied on the lower sections of the spaces where the
26 For details see Mocan, 1972: 43-44.
27 For the measurements and details see Mocan, 1972: 48.
28 For the details see Mocan, 1972: 48.
52
staircase leads to the masjid (Mocan, 1972: 48). The roof of Akhan is covered with
earth but the earth has been removed in some sections, leaving visible the rubble
stone structure of the roof. Whether it originally covered by earth is unknown. Some
parts of the roof have collapsed. There is no evidence about the rain water draining
facilities on the roof and for the top cornice on the walls (Mocan, 1972: 48).
The size and quality of the blocks vary in several parts of Akhan. Usually on
the facing of the exterior, well cut blocks were used (Mocan, 1972: 42-43) [Fig. 57].
For instance, well cut whitish re-used marble blocks are on the facade of the
caravanserai, the masjid, and the western side of the courtyard. The numerous reused
blocks were surely taken from Laodicea (Sarre, 1998: 12-14), only one km
away. These blocks are visible in every part of Akhan. Some of them are ornamented
and inscribed (Bayhan, 2007: 301) [Fig. 58]. At least half of the construction
material is spolia at Akhan, whereas at Han-abad, spolia comprise about 25% of the
construction material.
In addition, rough stones and rubble were used in the construction of the
building (Fig. 49). Porous stone blocks were used extensively on the exterior walls
of the shelter (Fig. 54, 55). Therefore, the shelter is brown in color, whereas the
courtyard is whitish. In addition, limestone blocks were used on the arches and upper
structures of the caravanserai. Furthermore, the use of brick is evident. Bricks were
used on the inner face of the niche at the masjid and the spaces called the inner bath
(Mocan, 1972: 42-44).
4.4 Ornamentation
Akhan has geometric, floral and figural ornamentations placed mostly on the
portals. The ornamentations of the main portal are more elaborate than those on the
53
portal of the shelter. Especially the figural representations of the main portal make
Akhan remarkable among the Seljuk caravanserais. These figures are mostly animal
figures but also a few human figures are evident. The floral and geometric
ornamentations of Akhan show the general characteristics of Seljuk era. In addition,
some re-used ornamented blocks (less than 1% of spolia) were used on the
caravanserai for a purpose of decoration, such as a medusa head, consoles on the
iwan, etc (Fig. 49, 58, 60).
4.4.1 Geometric Ornamentation
The geometric ornamentation in Seljuk architecture is a synthesis of Central
Asian, Anatolian, and Middle Eastern features and techniques (Mülayim, 1982: 18-
20). Like Akhan, geometric ornamentations are visible on most Seljuk buildings.
These ornamentations were mostly applied on the portals. Geometric ornamentation
of Seljuk caravanserais, especially on the portals could illustrate an evolution. The
portals of the earlier caravanserais have only simple geometric ornamentation
borders but later ornamentation is more complex (Ünal, 1982: 94). Akhan also has
geometric ornamentations on its portals, especially on the main portal. The geometric
ornamentation of Akhan is more complex than that of Han-abad.
The first border of the main portal has the motif of eight pointed stars
intersecting each other; they define the ornamented frame (Fig. 44, 59). The second
border was formed by meander designs that are intersecting and forming some
swastika designs. Between the meander motives there are small squares, 0.12 x 0.12
m. The squares have figural representations (Eyice, 1989: 236) [Fig. 59]. The third
border of the main portal has the motive of six pointed stars that were shaped by the
54
combinations of bigger and smaller triangles. In the fourth border, the motives of
intersecting octagons and rosette designs are used (Beyazıt, 2002: 58) [Fig. 44, 59].
The octagonal border has some similarity to that of Evdir Han and Aksaray
Sultanhan (Beyazıt, 2002: 83) and parallels with Karatay Han and Sırçalı Madrasah
(Aslanapa, 1984: 105).
According to Durukan, the geometric ornamentations as a whole on the
portals represent eternity and universe. The four knots motives of Han-abad’s portal
and the star motives in the geometric ornamentations of Akhan’s main portal have
been interpreted in the same way (Beyazıt, 2002: 79) but there is no evidence to
prove the idea.
The niches on the sidewalls of the portals are typical of the Seljuk
caravanserais. Furthermore, the geometric ornamented borders of the portals at
Seljuk caravanserais are narrower than the other caravanserais (Beyazıt, 2002: 77).
The portal of the shelter has plainer ornamentation than the main portal. Two
spolia blocks symmetrically flank the portal of the shelter (Fig. 43, 60). They have
the motives of meander and squares between the meander designs. The intersecting
meander designs form swastikas. The squares were decorated with floral and
geometric ornamentations. The spolia block on the left of the portal has three rosette
and a Seal of Solomon designs (Fig. 60). The spolia block on the right has similar
types of ornamentations but here, a Seal of Solomon, a wheel of fortune design and
rectangular spaces were carved on the block. The squares have rosette designs. Both
ends of these blocks are unfinished (Beyazıt, 2002: 58-59) [Fig. 43, 60].
4.4.2 Floral Ornamentation
Floral ornamentations were applied abundantly on all Seljuk buildings. The
55
earlier floral ornamentations were simple but the later ones are more complex (Ünal,
1982: 94). Thus, as expected, Akhan also has floral ornamentations, especially on the
main portal. Viewed from the outside, the fourth border, intricate with geometric
intersections, has asymmetrically located rosette designs. Furthermore, the floral
ornamentations such as palmette and rumi motives with floral branches were applied
in the squares located between the meander designs (Beyazıt, 2002: 59) [Fig. 61].
Symmetrical floral decoration is also visible on ornamented niche on the side
wall of the main portal. Stylized floral ornamentations are evident in the high relief,
which has distinctive drop designs. Especially, a rosette is in the middle and
surrounded by floral ornamentations of branches, palmette and rumi motives
(Beyazıt, 2002: 59) [Fig. 62, 63]. The drop motives are on the niche of the portal’s
sidewall. They are high relief sculpted and stylized ornamentations. Mainly they
have the floral branch ornamentations with palmette and rumi motives (Beyazıt,
2002: 85) [Fig. 63].
4.4.3 Figural Ornamentation
The figural ornamentations have an important place in Seljuk art. They were
applied not only on the buildings but also on the tiles and ceramics. Therefore to find
figural representations at Akhan is not unusual. However, the number and features of
the figural representations of the main portal put Akhan in a special place in Seljuk
art. These figures are small in size and not easy to identify (Durukan, 1993: 144-
145). Roux (1972: 395-396) suggested that Akhan has sixteen animal and two human
figures. Most of the figures come from the main portal. There are few re-used
ornamented blocks.
56
Ögel suggests that the figural ornamentations of Ghaznavid art had influenced
Seljuk art. She interpreted the figural representations in Seljuk art in cosmologic and
symbolic ways (Ögel, 1964: 197-198, 204-205). According to Mülayim (1984: 326),
the animal figures are generally related with Persian-Sassanid culture, the Central
Asian animal style, and Anatolian cultures. Furthermore, Öney noted that the figural
representations of Akhan are related with the Chinese calendar, used by Turks in
Central Asia. However, she stated that all the animals of the calendar are not
depicted at Akhan (Öney, 1988: 58). According to Öney, in order to interpret and
understand the figural representations of Akhan, the Chinese calendar is by itself not
enough. Especially two human portrait-like figures make this statement clear. She
thinks that direct connection with Central Asia is not enough to explain the figural
and geometric ornamentations of Akhan (Öney, 1993: 148-149).
Similar figural ornamentations are evident only at Karatay Han (1240) among
other Seljuk caravanserais. The interest in this comparison is heightened becuase the
patrons are brothers. The figural representations at Karatay Han are not on the portal
but above the fountain iwan’s arch. Like Akhan, Karatay Han has the running lion,
dragon, rabbit, bird, and antelope figures (Erdmann, 1961: 122). However, the
figures have been defined differently by the scholars (Akalın, 1989: 54). Moreover,
the stylistic features and craftsmanship at Akhan and Karatay Han are not similar.
Especially Akhan’s figures are depicted in motion and with floral ornamentations
such as leaves and branches around the figures. In contrast, the figures at Karatay
Han are depicted mostly motionless. In addition, Akalın (1989: 60) thought that
Celaleddin Karatay could have made some personal suggestions about the figural
representations at Karatay Han. Although Celaleddin Karatay was the brother of
Seyfeddin Karasungur, the patron of Akhan, there is no parallelism between the
57
ornamentation programs of the two caravanserais.
Firstly, let us examine the figures on the main portal, which has several
geometric ornamentation borders. The second border contains figural representations
in the squares between the swastika motives, formed by intersecting meander
designs. Squares, 0.12 x 0.12 m, have several figural representations in various
compositions (Beyazıt, 2002: 59-60) [Fig. 59]. The squares between the intersecting
meanders have not only figural but also floral ornamentations, fortune wheels, and
rosette motives. This is very unusual in Seljuk art (Durukan, 1993: 146). The
intersecting meander motives and the figural representations between them have
been interpreted as several species having their place in the order of harmony
(Durukan, 1993: 151-152). Generally, the heads of the figures are turned backwards.
This feature is seen the influence and continuation of the Central Asian animal style
(Beyazıt, 2002: 100).
These figures, listed on the right side from top to bottom, are: a bull, a wheel
of fortune, a human figure in toga, a running animal, an eagle, a griffon, a winged
lion, a bull, a dog. The figures on the left side from top to bottom are: a human in
toga figure, a bird figure with floral ornamentation, an eagle-like, a winged animal, a
running rabbit, a goat, a lion, and a deer.
4.4.3.1 Figures on the right side of the main portal (from top to bottom)
Let us examine these figures more closely. The first figure on the right side is
a bull (Fig. 64). The bull’s head and horns are depicted in profile and its whole body
is emphasized in detail. A leaf-like floral decoration appears above the back of the
bull. The depictions of the bull’s legs are quite realistic. The bull is found in Turkish
58
mythology (Ögel, 1995: 536-538). It is thought to be the symbol of darkness and the
moon. The horoscope sign and the symbol of power are other interpretations for it
(Öney, 1970: 83).
The square below the bull figure is blank. The third square, below the blank
square, has a design of the wheel of fortune turning to the right (Fig. 65). The fortune
wheel motives, complex floral ornamentations and star motives have been interpreted
as a represention of eternity (Beyazıt, 2002: 83). The fortune wheel figures are also
related with the sun (Esin, 1972: 314-327). These claims are speculation; there is no
proof.
The square below the wheel of fortune has a human figure in a toga (Fig. 66).
The human figure illustrates portrait-like features: a frontal head with a round face
and big eyes, defined eyebrows, and a mouth. The human figures represent classical
characters and images rather than Central Asian character (Durukan, 1993: 150-151).
This feature can be one of the indicators of the non-Muslim or Anatolian craftsmen
employed at the construction and ornamentation projects of Akhan (Beyazıt, 2002:
91). The figures are depicted frontally and unusual for Seljuk art (Durukan, 1993:
144-145).
The square below the human figure has a running dog-like animal with a
short, thick tail and pointed ears (Fig. 67). There is a leaf like floral decoration is
above the body of the figure (Beyazıt, 2002: 60). According to Turkish tradition and
mythology, the dog represents the west (Arseven, 1975: 506); however, there is no
evidence to confirm this.
The next square below has an eagle (Fig. 68). Its body and legs are
represented frontally but its head is depicted in profile while opening its wings
(Durukan, 1993: 146). Above its wings there are two volutes elements (Öney, 1993:
59
157). The wide opened wings of the eagle figure are described as “heraldic pose”
(Kuban, 1999: 73). The eagle figure is very common in Seljuk architecture. Doubleheaded
eagle figures are also common. The castles of Konya and Diyarbakir, and the
tiles of Kubad-abad have such eagle figures (Öney, 1993: 139-172). The eagle figure
is interpreted as a symbol of power and protector of souls (Durukan, 1993: 150).
Beyazıt mentions Central Asian links with the eagle figure (Beyazıt, 2002: 92), but
the eagle has been used by several societies and dynasties as their symbols. For
instance, the Byzantines also used the eagle as their symbol.
The square below the eagle figure has a griffon with wide wings and pointed
ears (Fig. 69). It is depicted in profile while raising its forefeet. Its mouth is open.
The square below is heavily damaged so it is impossible to say anything about the
figure in it or if indeed there was a figure. The next square contains a running winged
feline (Fig. 70). It looks like a tiger rather than a lion. It is illustrated in profile and
had small pointed ears. Its thick tail is curling above the body. Floral decorations are
placed between the legs and around its tail. It is depicted in motion (Beyazıt, 2002:
61).
The tenth square illustrates a bull or a deer with big horns (Fig. 71). In my
opinion, it resembles a deer. Aslanapa identified the figure as deer. Öney and Beyazıt
disagree with him (Beyazıt, 2002: 99). It is represented in profile with its eyes and
nostrils emphasized. Some ornamentation, especially floral ornamentations, is placed
above its body and between its legs (Beyazıt, 2002: 61). In the upper right, a design
like a crescent is seen (Gündoğdu, 1979: 231). The deer has a very special place in
Turkish mythology and Central Asian art. It was considered a sacred or religious
creature by Central Asian tribes. They believed that the deer carries the souls of the
dead people to heaven (Ögel, 1995: 101-109). Mülayim (1984: 334-336) relates the
60
deer with mysticism. However, these claims and interpretations do not have solid
evidence and proofs.
The square below the bull contains a dragon figure (Fig. 72). It is depicted in
motion with its head turned backwards. It has a long neck and nose with slim body.
Its mouth is open. There are floral ornamentations around the figure. Dragon figures
are common in Seljuk art. They are seen mostly on the stone and plaster reliefs.
These figures are seen at the walls of Konya, Alaeddin Palace or Kiosk, Kubad-abad,
Kayseri Sultan Hanı, Kayseri Karatay Han, and Burdur Susuz Han (Öney, 1969a:
172-178). Like Akhan, Karatay Han has dragon, antelope, and elephant figures.
Durukan disagrees with this interpretation (Durukan, 1993: 148). The dragon figures
are interpreted in several ways, such as harmony and motion in Universe, symbol of
darkness and underworld, struggle with darkness and evil, and symbol of a planet or
the sign of Chinese calendar (Öney, 1969a: 189-192).
The square below the dragon figure is blank. The following square below the
blank square has a floral palmette design (Fig. 73). It has nine leaves. The lowest
square below the palmette design has a rosette design. It is a flower with six leaves
(Beyazıt, 2002: 61) [Fig. 74].
4.4.3.2 Figures on the left side of the main portal (from top to bottom)
The first square has a design of circle. The next square has a wheel of fortune
turning to the left (Fig. 75). The third square shows another wheel of fortune turning
to the right. In the fourth square a human figure is shown in a toga (Fig. 76). He is
frontally depicted and has portrait-like features. The figure has a rounded face, big
eyes, and wavy hair. It is depicted in low relief but has damage on the right part of its
61
head. There is a rectangle rather than a square below the human figure, depicts a bird
with an upright tail (Fig. 77). Some stylized floral designs are placed around it
(Beyazıt, 2002: 62).
The sixth square, below the bird, depicts a dog with pointed ears and short tail
(Fig. 78). Its head is turned backward. It is shown in profile and there is a branch-like
floral ornamentation above it. The following square, illustrates also a bird (Fig. 79).
Regarding its legs and the features of wings and tail, it looks like an eagle, but its
short bill, head and neck are similar to a pigeon (Beyazıt, 2002: 62-63). A branchlike
floral design was applied around the bird, perhaps the symbol of a horoscope
sign or a planet (Öney, 1993: 157). There is a blank rectangle below it.
The square below the blank rectangle has a winged animal, a mixed creature,
shown in profile (Fig. 80). It is depicted in motion. It seems having a lion-head, an
eagle head on its chest and an elephant head on its back. The upper parts of the figure
have been damaged. The next square has a running animal, shown in profile (Fig.
81). Erdmann suggested it may be a rabbit (Erdmann, 1961: 70), but it could be a
gazelle without horns. Its head is turned backwards. Floral ornamentations surround
the figure (Beyazıt, 2002: 63). Like Akhan, Karatay Han has a rabbit figure on its
fountain iwan (Akalın, 1989: 55) but there are stylistic differences.
The tenth square, below the running animal, illustrates a chamois or mountain
goat figure with its pointed horns and short tail (Fig. 82). It is depicted in low relief.
There is a floral branch design ending with a palmette design around it. Its right
foreleg is raised and body is emphasized. Its mouth is damaged (Beyazıt, 2002: 63).
The goat figure was common in Central Asian art from the times of Huns. Beyazıt
tried to relate the figure with Central Asian tradition. I disagree with him. I think the
mountain goat figure could represent fauna of the region. Until the 1970s mountain
62
goats were living in the region, especially at Maymun Mountain and Honaz
Mountain. They are still not extinct in Çivril Akdağ.
The following square has a lion in a proud manner, with pointed ears and
upright head (Fig. 83). Its mouth and eyes are not emphasized, but it has pointed ears
(Öney, 1969b: 30). Its tail is curved above the body and ends with a palmette design.
The lower part of the depiction is unknown because of damage and the junction of
the stone blocks. The lion figures are also evident at Karatay Han and Erzurum
Yakutiye madrasah (Beyazıt, 2002: 93).
The next square shows a deer or gazelle (Fig. 84). It is depicted on the floral
ornamented background. The figure is heavily damaged and shown in profile. It has
long horns and is depicted in motion. The lowest square, below the deer or gazelle,
has a circle (Fig. 85). It is divided into nine parts; with a rosette in each part (Beyazıt,
2002: 63).
The column capitals of the pointed arch on the main portal have two pigeon
figures, looking at each other (Durukan, 1993: 146) [Fig. 61]. Their features of
wings, tail and chest resemble a falcon (Öney, 1993: 142), but the features of a short
pointed bill, round eyes and the shape of head suggest a pigeon (Gündoğdu, 1979:
235). The wings and tails of the birds are shown like a fan (Beyazıt, 2002: 63-64).
Öney has suggested that these birds might represent the emblem of Karasungur, an
eagle or white falcon (Öney, 1993: 142). Different kinds of birds have different
meanings in Turkish mythology (Ögel, 1995: 556-560). It has even been claimed that
the figures of the birds could represent horoscope signs or the symbol of the planets
(Öney, 1993: 157). I think it is an exaggeration to relate everything with celestial
bodies or horoscope signs because there is no evidence that proves the claim.
63
4.5 Conclusion
To conclude, this chapter aimed to investigate the questions: to what extent
are the local factors crucial to understand and interpret the architectural, functional
and decorative aspects of Akhan? To what degree are the general concepts of Seljuk
art and architecture important to explain the architectural and decorative aspects at
Akhan and Han-abad?
First, the local features are very important in the functional aspects of Akhan.
Regional history and geography and the historical figures played significant roles in
determining the administrative and commercial functions of Akhan. At Han-abad, in
contrast, the local factors are only moderately important in its functional roles.
Second, the architectural features of Akhan and Han-abad mostly followed
the general concepts of Seljuk caravanserai architecture. The local factors that had
limited effects in architecture are not important.
Third, the decorative aspects of Akhan and Han-abad were influenced by
local factors and their effects are moderately important in ornamentation. For
example, the design of geometric ornamentation on the main portal of Akhan took
inspiration for the intersecting meanders from the ornamented re-used blocks
flanking the portal of the shelter. In decorative aspects, Akhan is more elaborate
than Han-abad. When Han-abad had simpler geometric and figural ornamentations,
Akhan had more complex geometric ornamentation and figural representations, and
both in greater numbers.
64
CHAPTER V
CO CLUSIO
This study has investigated Han-abad and Akhan, two Seljuk caravanserais in
the vicinity of Denizli. Han-abad and Akhan were built twenty-three years apart.
Han-abad (1230) belongs to the golden era of the Seljuks during the reign of
Alaeddin Keykubad I, but Akhan was built after the Mongol invasion in 1253. There
are important differences between Han-abad and Akhan in architecture, function, and
ornamentation. After the description of the architecture of the caravanserais, the
functional analyses of the buildings have been presented. These analyses are
generally based on the formalistic features or the architectural plans. This study
offers a new approach to functional analysis by considering local context in detail.
One of the main objectives of this study has been to provide a survey of the socioeconomic
and historical background of the Denizli region in order to analyze these
two caravanserais in their local contexts. Local contextualization is needed as a new
approach to analyze the functions of the caravanserais alongside the formalistic
features and plans. The second main objective has been to investigate the influences
of local factors on the architectural and decorative aspects of Han-abad and Akhan.
In contrast with the architectural techniques, the ornamentation programs of Hanabad
and Akhan were inspired or affected to some degree by local features.
Han-abad and Akhan were the westernmost caravanserais of the Seljuks. Both
65
were built after the conquest of the Denizli region (in 1196) and during the period of
peace, between 1212 and 1261, with the Byzantine state of Nicaea. Consequently,
Han-abad and Akhan were not used for significant military purposes: Han-abad did
serve to control and guard the caravans, especially the pass which is between
Maymundağı and Acıgöl. Akhan had the same function, to guard the nearby bridge.
The most significant function of Han-abad and Akhan was commercial, to
serve caravans. They not only sheltered and protected the caravans but also acted as
the local markets. Agricultural products, textiles, alum, leatherwork, and livestock
were traded in the Denizli region. The increase in demand for grain after the Mongol
invasion resulted in an especially active trade traffic. There was drought in central
Anatolia and the demand was supplied by the Byzantines, so Ladik (Denizli)
benefitted from the grain trade. International fairs, such as Alameddin Pazarı,
indicated the international character of trade in the region. Kayı Pazarı had also an
international character because of the alum trade.
The destiny of Ladik (Denizli) in the 13th century was marked by the
important roles played by Manuel Maurozomes, a Byzantine courtier, and his family.
Manuel Maurozomes (d. 1226) ruled a buffer state centered in Laodicea (Ladik,
Denizli) between 1204 and 1206 until the Seljuk annexation of the buffer state. After
that, Esedüddin Ayaz became the Seljuk governor of Honaz (Chonae) and Ladik
(Denizli) but Maurozomes did not lose his status as Melik in the Seljuk state. Ayaz
commissioned Han-abad in 1230 and died in 1231. After him, Maurozomes’s son
Seyfeddin Karasungur became the Seljuk governor of Ladik and later commissioned
many building projects in Ladik (Denizli). One of them was Akhan, in 1253.
Maurozomes’s other sons were the Seljuk vizier Celaleddin Karatay, and the Seljuk
governor Kemaleddin Rumtas. His daughter was the wife of Sultan Gıyaseddin
66
Keyhusrev I. Contemporary with Karasungur was Mehmed Bey, the leader of the
Turkmens of Denizli and founder of the earliest Turkmen emirate in (Ladik) Denizli
in 1260. He too, was a member of same family (grandson of M. Maurozomes).
The activities and connections of a local family ranking high in the Seljuk
government and the architectural plan of Akhan, which is in the Sultanhan type,
suggest that it functioned as a local administrative center. According to Yavuz,
Akhan had sufficient features, such as water related services, baths and fountain, and
large rooms or spaces, to be a local administrative center. The obvious differences in
the design of the inner and outer baths could mean that the inner bath served for the
high bureaucrats or statesmen. In addition, the historical background when Akhan
was built gives some clues about its function: When the Seljuk lands were shared
between Izzeddin Keykavus II, Alaeddin Keykubad II and Rükneddin Kılıçarslan IV,
Izzeddin II ruled in the western lands until 1260. Akhan could have been used by
him as his local administrative center or palace because it was near Ladik (Denizli),
the center of the Seljuk west. No other 13th century buildings from Denizli or its
immediate environs have been identified as serving these functions.
When the architectural features of Han-abad and Akhan are examined, local
influences are not clearly attested. In contrast, the ornamentation programs of the two
caravanserais may show some local elements. For instance, the figural
ornamentations of Han-abad such as fish figures may represent the fauna of the
region at that time. The lakes, which were close to Han-abad, were well stocked with
fish until the 1970s.
The figural representations at Akhan of such animals as rabbit, deer, and
mountain goats also could represent the fauna of Denizli in that time. Rabbits are still
alive in most of the Denizli region. Mountain goats lived in the mountains of
67
Maymun and Honaz until the 1970s but they have now become extinct there.
Fortunately, both the mountain goats and deers still survive in Tokalı Canyon at
Çivril-Akdağ of Denizli.
Although representations of animals are frequent in Seljuk art, the local fauna
cannot have been completely ignored when the ornamentation programs were
designed. For instance, some animal figures such as bird, dragon, and antelope or
gazelle are depicted at both Karatay Han and Akhan but there is no parallelism and
relationship between the two. The stylistic features and craftsmanship at Akhan are
very different than those of Karatay Han. Although the patrons of the two
caravanserais were brothers, Celaleddin Karatay and Seyfeddin Karasungur, there is
no resemblance in the architecture and ornamentation of the two buildings.
In conclusion, local factors played significant roles on function of Han-abad
and Akhan. First of all, the geography or geostrategic importance of the Denizli
region defined the character of the area’s commercial and political activities, which
generally go together. Secondly, the activities of a local family ranking high in the
Seljuk government were crucial in determining Akhan’s function as a local
administrative center. Seyfeddin Karasungur, a member of that family,
commissioned almost all the Seljuk building projects in Ladik (Denizli). It indicates
the defining effects of the personal action and choice of Karasungur and his family
on the destiny of the region. The final result from this study is that the design and
function of Han-abad and Akhan are dependent not only on the regional history and
geography but also on the personalities and actions of the contemporary historical
figures. These caravanserais were not just architectural building complexes but also
the lives, memories, homes, and history of individuals whose actions and choices
were decisive.
68
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmed Eflaki, 1959. Menakıbu’l Arifin. trans. Tahsin Yazıcı, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu.
Ali Vehbi. 1951. Acıpayam: Garbikaraağaç Halkının Asırlık Tarihçesi. Ankara:
Çankaya Matbaası.
Akalın, Sebnem. 1989. “Karatay Han’ın Çesme Eyvanını Kusatan Hayvan Figürleri
Đle Đlgili Bazı Yorumlar.” Sanat Tarihi Arastırmaları Dergisi 5: 54-61.
-----. 2002. “Kervansaray” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, XXV: 299-302.
Akça, F.A. 1937. Laodikya (Laodiceia). Denizli: Çatalçesme.
-----. 1945. Küçük Denizli Tarihi. Denizli: Salih Kitapçıoğlu.
Altun, Ara. 2002. “Türkiye Selçuklu Mimarlığı.” in Türkler. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye
Yayınları, vol. 7: 820-827.
Anna Komnena. 1996. Alexiad-Malazgirt Sonrası. trans. B. Umar, Istanbul: Đnkılap
Kitabevi.
Arseven, Celal Esad. 1975. “Efsanevi Hayvanlar” in Sanat Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul:
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. I: 506.
Arundell, F. V. J. 1975. Discoveries in Asia Minor. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
Aslanapa, Oktay. 1984. Türk Sanatı. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Barnes, H. and Whittow M. 1998. “The Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia
(1992-1996) : the Meander Region.” in Roger Matthews ed., Ancient
Anatolia. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 347-358.
Bayhan, Ahmet Ali. 2007. “Akhan (Goncalı Han)” in Hakkı Acun, ed. Anadolu
Selçuklu Dönemi Kervansarayları. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı,
287-303.
Baykara, Tuncer. 1969. Denizli Tarihi, Đkinci Kısım (1070-1429). Istanbul: Fakülteler
Matbaası.
69
-----. 1997. I. Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev (1164-1211) Gazi – Sehit. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu.
-----. 2000a. “Đnançoğulları.” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul:
XXII: 263-264.
-----. 2000b. Türkiye’nin Sosyal ve Đktisadi Tarihi (XI-XIV. Yüzyıllar). Ankara:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
-----. 2006. “Türkiye Selçuklularında Sehir/Kent ve Sehirliler/Kentliler.” in Anadolu
Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. Ahmet Yasar Ocak, Ankara:
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 275-291.
-----. 2007. Selçuklular ve Beylikler Çağında Denizli (1070-1520). Istanbul: IQ
Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık.
Bayram, Mikail. 1991. Ahi Evren ve Ahi Teskilatının Kurulusu. Konya.
-----. 2001. Tarihin Isığında Fasreddin Hoca ve Ahi Evren. Istanbul:
Bayrak Matbaası.
-----. 2002. “Türkiye Selçukluları Uç Beyi Denizlili Mehmet Bey.” in Türkler. eds.
H.C. Güzel, K. Çiçek and S. Koca, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, VI: 294-
298.
-----. 2003. Türkiye Selçukluları Üzerine Arastırmalar. Konya: KömenYayınları.
Bektas, Cengiz. 1999. Selçuklu Kervansarayları Korumaları Üzerine Bir Öneri.
Istanbul: Yem Yayınları.
Belke, K. and Mersich, N.1990. Phrygien und Pisidien (Tabula Imperii Byzantinii
7). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Beyazıt, Mustafa. 2002. “Denizli’de Çardak Han ve Ak Han.” Unpublished master’s
thesis. Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
-----. 2007. “Seyfeddin Kara Sungur: Anadolu Selçuklu Ucunda bir Vali ve Đmar
Faaliyetleri.” in Uluslararası Denizli ve Çevresi Tarih ve Kültür Sempozyumu
Bildiriler 2. eds. A. Özçelik, M.Y. Ertas, Y. Kılıç, Y. Avcı, S. Đnan and
S.Parlaz, Isparta: Fakülte Kitabevi, 151-158.
Cahen, Claude. 1968. Pre-Ottoman Turkey. trans. J. Jones-Williams, London:
Sidgwick & Jackson.
-----. 2000. Osmanlılardan Önce Anadolu. trans. E. Üyepazarcı, Istanbul: Tarih
Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Çay, M.A. 1984. Anadolu’nun Türklesmesinde Dönüm Foktası: Sultan II. Kılıç
Arslan ve Karamıkbeli (Myriokefalon) Zaferi. Istanbul: Orkun Yayınevi.
70
Çiftcioğlu, Đsmail. 2007. “XIV. Yüzyılda Denizli ve Yöresinde Ahilik ve
Mevlevilik.” in Ayfer Özçelik, M.Yasar Ertas, Yusuf Kılıç, Yasemin Avcı,
Süleyman Đnan and Selim Parlaz, eds., Uluslararası Denizli ve Çevresi Tarih
ve Kültür Sempozyumu Bildiriler I. Isparta: Fakülte Kitabevi, 67-75.
Demir, Ataman. 1989. “Anadolu Selçuklu Hanları, Ak Han” Đlgi Dergisi 57: 9-13.
Demirkent, Isın.1996. Türkiye Selçuklu Hükümdarı Sultan I. Kılıçarslan. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Devellioğlu, Ferit. 2001. Osmanlıca Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lugat. Ankara: Aydın
Kitabevi Yayınları.
Durukan, Aynur. 1993. “Ak Han’ın Süsleme Programı” in Sanat Tarihi’nde
Đkonografik Arastırmalar, Güner Đnal’a Armağan. Ankara: Hacettepe
Üniversitesi.
Ercenk, G. 1993. “Living Proof of the History of Pamphylia: Ancient Roads.”
Image of Türkiye 160: 16-21.
Erdem, Đlhan. 2006. “Selçuklular ve Anadolu Beylikleri Dönemlerinde Tarım ve
Çiftçilik.” in Ahmet Yasar Ocak, ed., Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler
Dönemi Uygarlığı I. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları,
363-367.
Erdmann, Kurt. 1961. Das Anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts. Vol: I,
Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.
-----. 1976. Das Anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts. Vol: II, Berlin:
Verlag Gebr. Mann.
Ersoy, Bozkurt. 1996. “Anadolu Selçuklu Kervansarayları.” Kültür ve Sanat 31: 16-
20.
Esin, Emel. 1972. “ Kün-ay (Ay-yıldız) Motifinin Proto-Türk Devirden Hakanlılara
Kadar Đkonografisi.” in VII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Kongreye Sunulan
Bildiriler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 313-359.
Eyice, Semavi. 1989. “Akhan” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi.
Istanbul: Güzel Sanatlar Matbaası, II: 236.
Fersan, Nur A. 1974. “The Çardak Kervansarayı in Denizli.” Unpublished master’s
thesis. Ankara: Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Gibb, H.A.R. 1962. The Travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325-1354. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gökçe, Turan. 2000. XVI ve XVII. Yüzyıllarda Lazıkıyye (Denizli) Kazası. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu.
71
Gözaydın, Nevzat. 1977. “Denizli Adının Doğusu Efsanesi.” Türk Folklor
Arastırmaları XVII: 8071.
Gündoğdu, Hamza. 1979. “Türk Mimarisinde Figürlü Tas Plastik” Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Istanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi, Istanbul.
Gündüz, Tufan. 2006. “Anadolu Selçukluları ve Türkmenler.” in Anadolu
Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y. Ocak, Ankara: T.C.
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 265-273.
Đbn Bibi. 1941. Anadolu Selçuki Devleti Tarihi: Đbn Bibi’nin Farsca Muhtasar
Selçuknamesinden. trans. M. N. Gençosman, Ankara: Uzluk Matbaası.
-----. 1996. El Evamirü’l-Ala’iye Fi’l-Umuri’l-Ala’iye (Selçuk Fame). ed. M. Öztürk,
Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Đoannes Kinnamos. 2001 Đoannes Kinnamos Historia’sı (1118-1176). ed. Isın
Demirkent, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Kallimci, Hasan. 2007. Denizli Ahileri. Ankara: Denizli Ticaret Odası.
Kayhan, Hüseyin. 2002. “Ladik Beyliği (1261-1403).” in Türkler. eds. H. C. Güzel,
K. Çiçek and S. Koca, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, VI: 763-769.
Kazhdan, A.P. 1991. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. ed. A.P. Kazhdan,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kazıcı, Ziya. 1988. “Ahilik.” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, I: 540-542.
Kerimüddin Mahmud-i Aksarayi. 2000. Müsameretü’l-Ahbar. trans. M. Öztürk,
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Koca, Salim. 1997. Sultan I. Đzzeddin Keykavus (1211-1220). Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu.
Koç, Yunus. 2006a. “Anadolu Selçukluları Döneminde Türkiye’de Yerlesme ve
Nüfus.” in Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y.
Ocak, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 241-247.
-----. 2006b. “Selçuklular Döneminde Anadolu’da Köyler ve Köylüler.” in
Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. A. Y. Ocak,
Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 293-297.
Konyalı, Đ. Hakkı. 1964. Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi. Konya:
Yeni Kitap Basımevi.
Kuban, Doğan. 1999. Divriği Mucizesi. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür SanatYayıncılık.
72
Kunduracı, Osman. 2002. “Kubadabad-Alanya Arasındaki Selçuklu Kervan Yolu
Üzerine Yeni Arastırmalar-II.” in VI.Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı Sonuçları
ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu, Bildiriler. eds. M. Denktas, Y. Özbek and A.
Arslan, Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Matbaası, 537-550.
Mocan, Đ. Ahsen. 1972. “The Akhan Caravanserai in Denizli.” Unpublished master’s
thesis, Ankara: Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Mülayim, Selçuk. 1982. Anadolu Türk Mimarisinde Geometrik Süslemeler: Selçuklu
Çağı. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları.
-----. 1984. “Anadolu’da Hayvan Üslubunun Bir Örneği.” in Folklor ve Etnografya
Arastırmaları. eds. Đ. Aslanoğlu and Đ.G. Kayaoğlu, Istanbul: Anadolu Sanat
Yayınları, 325-345.
Niketas Khoniates. 1995. Historia (Ioannes ve Manuel Komnenos Devirleri). trans.
Isın Demirkent, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Ocak, Ahmet Yasar. 2006. “XIII.-XVI. Yüzyıllarda Anadolu Sehirlerinde Dini-
Sosyal Hayat.” in Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed.
A.Y. Ocak, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm BakanlığıYayınları, 249-263.
Ögel, Bahaeddin. 1995. Türk Mitolojisi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Ögel, Semra. 1964. “Anadolu Selçuklu San’atının Önemli Bir Kaynağı: Gazne
San’atı.” Türk Kültürü Arastırmaları 2: 197-205.
Öney, Gönül. 1968. “Anadolu Selçuklu Sanatında Balık Figürü” in Sanat Tarihi
Yıllığı 1966-1968., Istanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Sanat
Tarihi Enstitüsü, Istanbul, 142-168.
-----. 1969a. “Anadolu Selçuk Sanatında Ejder Figürleri” Belleten 33: 171-192.
-----. 1969b. “Anadolu Selçuk Mimarisinde Aslan Figürü.” Anadolu 13: 1-41.
-----. 1970. “Anadolu Selçuk Mimarisinde Boğa Kabartmaları.” Belleten 34: 83-100.
-----. 1988. Anadolu Selçuklu Mimari Süslemesi ve El Sanatları. Ankara: Türkiye Đs
Bankası Yayınları.
-----. 1993. “Anadolu Selçuklu Mimarisinde Avcı Kuslar, Tek ve Çift Baslı Kartal.”
in Malazgirt Armağanı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 139-172.
Önge, Yılmaz. 1993. “Antalya’daki Selçuklu Çesmeleri Hakkında Bazı Görüsler” in
Antalya IV. Selçuklu Semineri Bildirileri. Antalya: Antalya Valiliği.
Özbek, Süleyman. 1970. “Güney Batı Anadolu Selçuklu Kervansarayları.”
Unpublished Bachelor’s degree thesis, Istanbul: Đstanbul Üniversitesi,
Edebiyat Fakültesi, Sanat Tarihi Bölümü, Istanbul.
73
Pektas, Kadir. 2007 “Çardak Han” in Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemi Kervansarayları. ed.
H. Acun, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 161-173.
Polat, M. Sait. 2006. “Selçuklular ve Beylikler Dönemi Türkiyesi’nde Ticaret.” in
Anadolu Selçuklular ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y. Ocak, Ankara:
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 369-377.
Runciman, Steven. 1991. A History of the Crusades. London: Penguin Books.
Sarre, F. P. Theodor. 1896. Reise in Kleinasien –Summer 1895-. Berlin:
Geographische Verlagshandlung Dietrich Reimer.
-----. 1998. Küçük Asya Seyahati 1895 Yazı: Selçuklu Sanatı ve
Ülkenin Cografyası Üzerine Arastırmalar. trans. D. Çolakoğlu, Istanbul: Pera
Turizm ve Ticaret A.S.
Sönmez, Zeki. 1989. Anadolu Türk-Đslam Mimarisinde Sanatçılar. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu.
-----. 1998. “Anadolu Selçuklularında Atabeylik, Atabey Esededdin Ayaz ve 13.
Yüzyıl Mimarisine Katkıları., in 5. Antalya Selçuklu Semineri. Antalya:
Antalya Đl Kültür Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 4-11.
Sahin, Hasim. 2006. “Selçuklular Döneminde Ahiler.” in Anadolu Selçukluları ve
Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y. Ocak, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlığı Yayınları, 299-307.
Sahin, M. Kemal. 2002. “Denizli/Pamukkale (Hierapolis) Müzesi’nde Bulunan
Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemine Ait Yazıtlar” in VI. Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi
Kazı Sonuçları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu Bildiriler. eds. M. Denktas, Y.
Özbek and A. Arslan, Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Matbaası, 679-694.
Tanyeli, Uğur. 1989. “Denizli Kentinin Yapısal Evrimi (11-15. yy).” in Türk Kültür
Tarihinde Denizli Sempozyumu Bildiriler, Denizli, 341-348.
Toker, Tarhan. 1968. Denizli Tarihi. Denizli: Yenigün Matbaası.
Tuncer, O.C. 2006. “Kervan Yolları.” in Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi
Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y. Ocak, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
Yayınları, 419-434.
Turan, Osman. 1948. “Selçuklu Devri Vakfiyeleri III, Celaleddin Karatay, Vakıfları
ve Vakfiyeleri.” Belleten 45: 17-171.
-----. 1965. Selçuklular Tarihi ve Türk-Đslam Medeniyeti. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü
Arastırma Enstitüsü.
-----. 1971. Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye., Istanbul: Turan Nesriyat Yurdu.
-----. 1985. Türkiye Selçukluları Hakkında Resmi Vesikalar. Ankara: Türk Tarih
74
Kurumu.
Türkay, Cevdet. 1979. Basbakanlık Arsivi Belgelerine Göre Osmanlı
Đmparatorluğu’nda Oymak, Asiret ve Cemaatler. Đstanbul: Tercüman
Yayınları.
Uyumaz, Emine. 2006. “Anadolu Selçukluları Kronolojisi” in Anadolu Selçukluları
ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y. Ocak, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve
Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 547-560.
Uzluk, F. Nafiz. 1952. Anonim Selçukname, Anadolu Selçukluları Devleti Tarihi III.
Ankara.
Uzunçarsılı, Đ. Hakkı. 1929. Afyon Karahisar, Sandıklı, Bolvadin, Çay, Đsaklı,
Manisa, Birgi, Muğla, Milas, Peçin, Denizli, Isparta, Atabey ve Egirdir’deki
Kitabeler ve Sahip, Saruhan,Aydın, Mentese, Đnanç, Hamit Oğulları
Hakkında Malumat., Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.
Ünal, Rahmi Hüseyin. 1982. Osmanlı Öncesi Anadolu-Türk Mimarisinde Taç
Kapılar. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
Vryonis, Speros. 1971. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor.
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
-----. 2001. “Selçuklu Gulamları ve Osmanlı Devsirmeleri.” Cogito 29: 93-119.
Whittow, Mark. 1995. “Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia: Çardak Kalesi”.
Anatolian Archaeology 1: 23-25.
Wittek, Paul. 1935. “L’épitaphe d’un Comnénea a Konia.” Byzantion 10: 505-515.
-----. 1937. “Encore L’épitaphe d’un Comnéne a Konia.” Byzantion: 12: 207-211.
-----. 1999. Mentese Beyliği. trans. O.S. Gökyay, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Yaltkaya, M.S. 2000. Baypars Tarihi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Yavuz, Aysıl Tükel. 1969. “Alara Han’ın Tanıtılması ve Değerlendirilmesi.” Belleten
33: 429-459.
-----. 1992. “Anadolu Selçuklu Kervansaraylarında Mekan-Đslev Đliskisi Đçinde
Savunma ve Barınma.” in IX. Vakıf Haftası Kitabı. eds. Đ. Ates, S. Bayram
and M. Narince, Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 253-284.
-----. 1995. “Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemi Kervansaraylarının Tipolojisi” in
IV. Milli Selçuklu ve Kültür Medeniyeti Semineri Bildirileri. Konya: Selçuk
Üniversitesi, Selçuklu Arastırmaları Merkezi, 183-195.
-----. 1996. “Anadolu Selçuklu Dönemi Hanları ve Posta-Menzil-Derbent
Teskilatları.” in Prof. Doğan Kuban’a Armağan. eds. Z. Ahunbay,
75
D. Mazlum and K. Eyüpgiller, Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık.
-----. 1997. “The Concepts that Shape Anatolian Seljuq Caravanserais” in Muqarnas
14: 80-95.
-----. 1999. “Anatolian Seljuk Caravanserais and Their Use as Statehouses.” in
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Turkish Art. eds. F.
Déroche, C. Genequand, G. Renda, and M. Rogers, Genéve: Foundation Max
Berchem, 756-765.
-----. 2006. “Kervansaraylar.” in Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi
Uygarlığı I. ed. A.Y. Ocak, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
Yayınları. II: 435-446.
-----. 2007. “Akhan” in Uluslararası Denizli ve Çevresi Tarih ve Kültür Sempozyumu
Bildiriler 2. eds. A. Özçelik, M.Y. Ertas, Y. Kılıç, Y. Avcı, S. Đnan and
S.Parlaz, Isparta: Fakülte Kitabevi, 131-144.
Yiğit, Đsmail. 2008. “Ribat” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Đslam Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, XXXV: 76-79.
76
FIGURES
Fig. 1: The Limits of Seljuk Province of Ladik (Denizli) [after Vryonis 1971, 14-15]
Mentese
Acıpayam
Çal
Çivril
Fethiye
Kas
Burdur
Sarayköy
Kayı Pazarı
an
Dalaman
BYZANTĐNE EMPIRE
SELJUK PROVINCE
OF LADIK (DENĐZLĐ)
SELJUK
SULTANATE
OF RUM
.Akhan
.Han-abad
77
Fig. 2: The Location of Akhan and Han-abad within the Network of the Seljuk
Caravanserais in Western Anatolia (after Bektas 1999, Map VI)
Fig. 3: The Byzantine and Seljuk Borders during the 12th century (after Kazhdan
1991: 355)
78
Fig. 4: Western Anatolia after 1204 (after Kazhdan 1991: 357)
Fig. 5: Anatolia Before the Mongols (after Cahen 1968: Map III)
79
Fig. 6: Ancient Roman Roads and Çardak Castle (after Barnes and Whittow 1998
Fig. 27.1)
Fig. 7: Çardak Castle and Maymundağı from Han-abad (from the South)
80
Fig. 8: The Foundation Inscription of Han-abad and Two Lion Figures (Pektas 2007:
Fig. 11)
Fig. 9: Architectural Plan of Han-abad (after Pektas 2007: Illustration 1)
81
Fig. 10: Han-abad’s Location Sloping Down. View of the South Wall and the
Triangular Buttress of the Courtyard (from the South)
Fig. 11: The Spaces or Rooms around the Courtyard (Pektas 2007: Fig. 3)
82
Fig. 12: Outer Water Reservoir [F, in the plan] (Pektas 2007: Fig. 6)
Fig. 13: The Brick Squinch from Room C
83
Fig. 14: Room A from the Courtyard (from the West)
Fig. 15: The Passage from Room A to Room B of Han-abad
84
Fig. 16: Room D from the Courtyard (from the South)
Fig. 17: Rooms G, D and C from the Southwest (Pektas 2007: Fig. 4)
85
Fig. 18: Room H from the Courtyard (from the South)
Fig. 19: Room I from the Courtyard (from the South)
86
Fig. 20: Room J from the Courtyard (from the South)
Fig. 21: The Southern Part of the Courtyard (Pektas 2007: Fig. 8)
87
Fig. 22: Room L from the Courtyard (from the North)
Fig. 23: The Stone Footing in the Southern Part of the Courtyard
88
Fig 24: The Portal of the Shelter and Two Cylindrical Buttresses (Pektas 2007: Fig.
1)
Fig. 25: The Octagonal Buttress on the Southern Outer Wall of the Shelter
89
Fig. 26: The Hexagonal Buttress on the Southern Outer Wall of the Shelter
Fig. 27: The Waterspout 1 Fig. 28: The Waterspout 2
90
Fig. 29: The Portal of the Shelter (Pamukkale 2002: 73)
Fig. 30: Central Nave of the Shelter (Pektas 2007: Fig. 13)
91
Fig. 31: The Southern Side Nave of the Shelter and Its Platforms
(www.pamukkale.gov.tr)
Fig. 32: Mortar with Pebbles and Cobbles (the Northeastern Corner of the
Courtyard)
92
Fig. 33: The Variation in the Stone Block Sizes (the Western Outer Wall of the
Shelter)
Fig. 34 and 35: Spolia Blocks from the Western Outer Wall of the Shelter
Fig. 36: Detail of Geometric Ornamentation (Pektas 2007: Fig. 12)
93
Fig. 37: The Bullhead Figure
Fig. 38: The Fish Figures and a Mason Mark (Pektas 2007: Fig. 14)
Fig. 39: The Fish Figure on the Enclosure Wall of Çınar Camii, at Çardak
94
Fig. 40: The Figure of Human Head or
Chimpanzee Head
Fig. 41:
Architectural Plan
of Akhan (after
Bayhan 2006: 290
Illustration 1)
95
Fig. 42: Akhan is on the Denizli-Dinar –Afyonkarahisar Highway (Bayhan 2007:
Fig.1)
Fig. 43: The Portal of Akhan’s Shelter and Its Inscription
96
Fig. 44: Akhan’s Main Portal and Its Inscription
Fig. 45: The Courtyard of Akhan
97
Fig. 46: Left Mihrabiya Fig. 47: Right Mihrabiya
Fig. 48: The Cylindrical Buttresses of Akhan
98
Fig. 49: Space or Room A, B, and C
Fig. 50: Room A and B (Inner Bath Facilities)
99
Fig. 51: The Portico of Akhan’s Courtyard (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 11)
Fig. 52: The Windows of Room F (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 12)
100
Fig. 53: Room F from Outside and Its Roof
Fig: 54: The Polygonal Buttresses on the Eastern Outer Wall of the Shelter
101
Fig. 55: The Polygonal Buttresses on the Western Outer Wall of the Shelter
Fig. 56: The Pointed Arches and Barrel Vaults in the Shelter (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 14)
102
Fig. 57: The Well-cut Stone Blocks on the Outer Walls of the Courtyard
Fig. 58: The Re-used Stone Block with Medusa Head Depiction
103
Fig. 59: Detail of Geometric Ornamentation of Akhan’s Main Portal (Erdmann 1976:
[Tafel. 129])
Fig. 60: The Re-used Stone Block with Geometric Ornamentation Flanking the
Portal of Akhan’s Shelter (Erdem 2006: Fig. 2)
104
Fig. 61: The Floral Ornamentation Detail of the Main Portal (Erdem 2006: Fig. 1)
Fig. 62: The Mihrabiya (a Niche on the Side
Wall) of the Main Portal with Geometric
Ornamentation (Gabriel Khan 1988: 41)
105
Fig. 63: Detail of Geometric Ornamentation on the Side Walls of the Main Portal
(Erdmann 1976: Tafel 130)
Fig. 64: A Bull Figure
106
Fig. 65: A Wheel of Fortune Design
Fig. 66: A Human Figure in Toga
(Bayhan 2007: Fig. 8)
Fig. 67: A Running Dog-like Animal
Figure
107
Fig. 68: An Eagle Figure Fig. 69: A Griffon Figure
(Bayhan 2007: Fig. 5) (Bayhan 2007: Fig. 5)
Fig. 70: A Walking Winged Feline Fig. 71: A Bull Figure with a Crescent
Fig. 72: A Dragon Figure Fig. 73: Palmette Design
108
Fig. 74: Rosette Design Fig. 75: A Wheel of Fortune Design
Fig. 76: A Human Figure in Toga Fig. 77: A Bird Figure
Fig. 78: A Walking Dog Figure Fig. 79: A Bird Figure with a Branch
109
Fig. 80: A Winged, Mixed Creature Figure Fig. 81: A Running Animal Figure
Fig. 82: A Mountain Goat Figure Fig. 83: A Walking Lion Figure
Fig. 84: A Deer or Gazelle Figure Fig. 85: A Rosette Design
(Bayhan 2007: Fig. 6)
Sayfalar
- ANA SAYFA
- HAKKIMIZDA
- İLETİŞİM
- GALERİ
- YAZARLAR
- BÜYÜK SELÇUKLU DEVLETİ
- ANADOLU SELÇUKLU DEVLETİ
- SELÇUKLU TARİHİ
- SELÇUKLU TEŞKİLATI
- SELÇUKLU MİMARİ
- SELÇUKLU KÜLTÜRÜ
- SELÇUKLULARDA EDEBİYAT
- TOPLUM VE EĞİTİM
- SELÇUKLU BİLİM
- SELÇUKLU EKONOMİSİ
- TEZLER VE KİTAPLAR
- SELÇUKLU KRONOLOJİSİ
- KAYNAKLAR
- SELÇUKLU HARİTALARI
- HUN İMPARATORLUĞU
- OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU
- GÖKTÜRKLER
- ÖZ TÜRÇE KIZ İSİMLERİ
- ÖZ TÜRKÇE ERKEK İSİMLERİ
- MÜZELERİMİZ
- GÖKTÜRKÇE
- SELÇUKLU FİLMLERİ
- SELÇUKLU DİZİLERİ
- KÜTÜPHANELERİMİZ
3 Ağustos 2024 Cumartesi
385
Kaydol:
Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder