Architectural Decoration from the Konya Kösk (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976.245, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, A.77-1925, 374:1-1906, and 374:42-1906, Los Angeles County Museum, M.2002.1.675 and M.2002.1.683a–h, Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin, I.7632)
Unlike in Iran, where there is little archaeological evidence attesting to the court architecture of the Great Seljuqs, a considerable number of palatine complexes, pavilions, and other courtly monuments survive in parts of Greater Syria, the Jazira, and Anatolia once controlled by the Seljuq successor states. Among the most notable examples is the palace at Konya known as the Alaeddin, or the Konya Köşk. It is the earliest datable court monument in the Rum Seljuq realm, as well as one of the few remaining examples of early Rum Seljuq architecture in Anatolia. The building and its decoration exemplify the aesthetics of Rum Seljuq court architecture in general as well as several of the leitmotifs specific to the Anatolian visual and artistic vocabulary in particular. The köşk further demonstrates how the Rum Seljuqs created a material culture of distinctive hybridity by blending Persianate artistic traditions inherited from Iran and Central Asia with local styles rooted in Byzantium and the ancient eastern Mediterranean. Finally, when considered in a broader context that encompasses the lifestyle of the Rum Seljuqs, the Konya Köşk sheds light on the movable attitude of the Rum Seljuq sultans and their courts.
Konya, known since antiquity as Ikónion or Ikonium, became the capital of the Rum Seljuqs under Sultan Kılıç Arslan I (r. 1092–1107). However, it was only during the reign of Kılıç Arslan II (r. 1156–92) that the city saw a significant increase in its wealth and political influence, a time that coincided with the Rum Seljuqs’ subsummation of other Anatolian principalities. Rum Seljuq territorial expansion reached its height after the sultanate assumed control of several port towns along the Mediterranean and Black seas, including Antalya (1207) in the south and Sinop (1214) in the north. The establishment of Rum Seljuq rule over nearly all of Anatolia led to a commercial, artistic, and cultural golden age that lasted until the mid-thirteenth century, flourishing in particular under ‘Ala’ al-Din Kay Qubad I (r. 1219–37).
As the capital of the sultanate, Konya was at the heart of this efflorescence. The city’s magisterial köşk was built under Kılıç Arslan II in the 1160s–70s, and refurbished by Kay Qubad I in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. Together with a complex that includes the Great Mosque, a tomb, and a madrasa, it is among the earliest surviving Rum Seljuq architectural monuments in Konya and Anatolia. The formerly two-story monument was built halfway down an ancient tell (now called Alaeddin Tepe) atop one of the bastions or towers of the citadel; in the medieval period, such “citadel-palaces” frequently served as royal residences in the eastern Mediterranean and, in the Rum Seljuq realm, were often complemented by garden pavilions in nearby suburbs or rural areas. Indeed, Kay Qubad I was said to have built more palaces and pavilions (saray wa kushk) than could be described. Among those that survive, Kubadabad, built along Lake Beysehir according to a design by the sultan himself, remains the best known and most storied.
Ancient ruins and materials were repurposed for use in the lower levels of the köşk, a not uncommon practice in the Seljuq successor states, particularly in the lands of Rum. At Aspendos, for instance, the ruins of the Roman theater were incorporated into another palace for Kay Qubad I, where figural tiles on the interior of one of the staircase buildings are comparable to those found at Kubadabad, and large fields of red-and-white painted checkerboard or zigzag patterns are painted on the exterior of both staircases, a distinct pattern that the Rum Seljuq ruling elite used to mark the exterior of courtly buildings. Additionally, antique sculptures adorn the Konya city walls, among them an acephalous Hercules at one of the entrance gates, and repeated references to the Hellenistic hero Iskandar (Alexander the Great) appear in the form of his name, inscribed on buildings and state documents, and in his invocation as an ideal and just ruler in the Hadayek al-siyar, a “mirror for princes” composed for Kay Qubad I. All this suggests that the Rum Seljuqs identified themselves with the glory of Antiquity.
By the early twentieth century, the Konya Köşk had fallen largely into ruin, but fragments of tiles (MMA 1976.245) and of stucco reliefs (V&A A.77-1925, 374:1-1906, 374:42-1906, LACMA M.2002.1.675 and M.2002.1.683a–h, Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin, I.7632), as well as opus sectile (cut-stone mosaic) and a monumental stone sculpture of a seated lion, probably one of a pair, speak to its former artistic sophistication and lavish polychrome ornamentation. The upper story was dominated by an iwan, an element typical of Iranian court architecture from as early as the Sasanian palace at Ctesiphon, and which began appearing in Islamic court architecture in the early Islamic period. The iwan of the Konya Köşk had balconies on three sides facing outward over the city, thereby functioning as both a manzara, or belvedere, and a point from which the sultan could consider his dominion. A now lost inscription band, in white naskhi on a dark blue ground, quoting the name and titles of Kılıç Arslan II framed the Persianate arch of the iwan wall, while the spandrels to either side (and possibly other parts of the building as well) were filled with a complex interlace pattern of cross- and star-shaped and polygonal tiles (MMA 1976.245). Thus, these tiles belonged to the first Seljuq construction phase that took place under Kılıç Arslan II. Decorated in mina’i and gold, these tile ensembles are reminiscent of the luxury ceramic vessels developed by potters in Kashan, Iran, but on vessels rather than tiles, from which the technique was probably brought to Konya.
The influence of Iranian artistic media is further evident in the kösk’s numerous molded architectural reliefs in stucco, of which V&A (A.77-1925, 374:1-1906, 374:42-1906), LACMA (M.2002.1.675 and M.2002.1.683a–h), and Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin (I.7632) are key examples. As no archaeological context is known for the reliefs, it is difficult to date them precisely. A fragment in the Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin (I.4263), bears traces of paint, suggesting a broader polychrome program of decoration. In addition to wider parts of the walls, these ornamental relief panels framed openings such as niches and doors (and possibly windows), as suggested by the spandrel-like fragments of V&A (A.77-1925) and LACMA (M.2002.1.683a–h). Remains of figural and epigraphic friezes framed at top and bottom by narrow bands (Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin I.7632 and LACMA M.2002.1.683a–h) confirm that the composition was at least partly compartmentalized in a manner comparable to other media, specifically inlaid metalwork. The imagery of real and fantastic animals—deer, avifauna, felines, sphinxes, and harpies—against vegetal scrolls recalls Iranian examples, as do the scenes of equestrian combat against lions and the several astrological allusions, among them a standing figure holding a fish in each hand, which may refer to the zodiacal sign of Pisces. These predominantly Persianate material, stylistic, and iconographic references represent the koine of imagery that would flourish in both the eastern and western parts of the broader Seljuq realm, but certain themes, such as the knotted dragon, which may symbolize the lunar eclipse; the mounted monarch battling this mythic beast; and the royal and protective double-headed eagle are specific to the material culture of the western region.
The stucco decoration found at Konya also speaks to the development and diffusion during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of an artistic language that spread beyond the Rum Seljuq realm into neighboring Christian territories, forming an interregional “international style.” As a result of this blending of Persianate, eastern Mediterranean, Caucasian, and other traditions, a Seljuq-influenced palace was built in twelfth-century Constantinople, while stucco reliefs that are almost identical to those from Kubadabad and relate closely to those from Konya decorated the thirteenth-century palace of the citadel at Ani, among them a fragment of a spandrel with a peacock. The diffusion to Trebizond and Armenia of Rum Seljuq–style muqarnas (stalactite-like architectural decoration) is likewise the result of this artistic exchange.
Although the original order and locations of the fragments are unknown, their iconographic similarity to portable luxury objects of the elite confirms their purpose: to recreate an earthly paradise, or the ideal life and just dominion of the sovereign, which ultimately extended into the celestial realm. The monarch, distinguished by his headgear, enthroned with attendants, or engaged in falconry while mounted on his steed, fights, hunts, and feasts (bazm wa razm) within a richly populated and abundant landscape. The chasing animals reinforce the dynamics of the hunt, while the birds of prey and peafowl denote nobility and power, an iconographic topos furthered by the sultan’s victory over lions and dragons. The fantastic and hybrid creatures together with the benedictory inscriptions offer otherworldly and magic protection. Decorated as such, the Konya Kösk, although situated in an urban environment, evoked the ideal natural setting awaiting the sultan at his country pavilions, as well as the paradisiacal ideal awaiting him in heaven. Presiding over this cosmos was the monarch, whose authority ensured harmony and order. The rich polychrome palette and figural imagery of the Konya Kösk was not unlike those in eleventh- and twelfth-century monuments of Iran and Central Asia, from which the aesthetic was probably imported to Anatolia.
Remains of opus sectile on the floor indicate a colorful geometric star pattern, perhaps in the context of a fountain. Mosaic-cut stone, inherited from Late Antiquity, is known from Islamic architecture of the Artuqids, Ayyubids, and Mamluks in the Jazira, Syria, and Egypt, specifically in palatine reception areas (qa’a in Arabic) and/or baths or fountains. The pair of stone lions seated in niches on the exterior ground-level facade is further suggestive of an entranceway, for animal guardians often flanked city gates or entrances to buildings in Anatolia and the Jazira. This iconographic program together with the prominence of the iwan might therefore have been conceived in the context of a reception area—an immediate expression of might and majesty to visitors and emissaries to the Rum Seljuq court. The naturalism of the one extant, fragmentary lion betrays not the Seljuq period but Antiquity, from which it was likely repurposed. Nevertheless, the lion remained a potent symbol of royalty and power in the Seljuq era, its name—arslan in Turkish—frequently adopted by Seljuq rulers, among them the patron of the Konya Kösk himself (see cats. 136a–d in this volume). The iconography of this kösk might be seen as a visual expression of a political language, made that much more potent by its location in the Rum Seljuq capital.
While the Konya Kösk was the official palace of the sultans of Rum, the court was highly mobile, and other cities such as Kayseri or Alanya functioned at times as court centers. Konya did, however, maintain its primacy as the “royal city” (civitatem regiam Yconium), “seat of government,” and “home to the throne of the state” (mustaqarr-i sarir-i dawlat), as it is referred to in several sources. That many Rum Seljuq rulers performed the symbolic act of moving the remains of their deceased relatives from elsewhere into the dynastic mausoleum at Konya is further proof of the city’s political importance. Despite the capital’s significance, the Rum Seljuq sultans did not necessarily spend much time there. Indeed they embraced an itinerant lifestyle, the evidence for which is limited to the peregrinations of Kay Qubad I: in winter he enjoyed the milder climate of Alanya or Antalya on the Mediterranean coast and spent spring and summer in the high and often mountainous plains of central Anatolia; Kayseri served as the base for his spring campaigns and thus an important point to assemble the Seljuq army. Konya remained the location of key ceremonial events, such as celebrating the accession of the sultan or receiving foreigner emissaries and dignitaries. In reality, however, these activities could take place elsewhere.
After relocating to a new city, the monarch would continue to travel, this time from the urban palace to his country residences, where he would hunt, play polo, and feast. He was always in the company of courtiers and servants, who would ensure his diversion and comfort. In accounts supported by Ibn Bibi, the sultan’s passage might involve the construction en route of mobile pavilions (kushkha-yi rawan) or tents, the appearance of which we unfortunately do not know. Tents were pitched not only during military campaigns or on the road but also near palaces and pavilions, for the “sultan’s itinerant lifestyle was motivated by politics as well as pleasure, offering the chance of cementing his relationship with the Türkmen, as well as ‘destroying enemies’ (dushman-gudazi), whether these were less pliant nomads or other threats that the sultan sought to avert with nomadic power.” Indeed, growing in direct proportion to the Turkmen population was the risk for plunder, revolt, and other destabilizing factors. To control these nomadic groups, the sultan would to a certain extent follow them as they migrated across the plains of central Anatolia—an area that lies roughly between Konya and Kayseri—to assert his authority and earn the confidence of their chiefs. Lavish banquets at Kubadabad, for instance, helped build alliances and trust with tribal leaders.
At least some of the palatine locations, and specifically the suburban garden complexes such as those around Alanya, confirm the importance of agricultural activity. In addition to serving as leisure centers for the ruling elite and stopping points during hunting season, they were vital year-round to the administrative and economic landscape as functioning agricultural enterprises. In this context the movement of the sultan and his entourage, in addition to reasons of politics and the hunt, may also have been motivated by economic, agricultural, and tax-related incentives.
Deniz Beyazit in [Canby, Beyazit, and Rugiadi 2016]
1. Among the few examples are the reception hall in the citadel of Merv (11th–12th century; see Herrmann, Georgina, with Hugh Kennedy. Monuments of Merv: Traditional Buildings of the Karakum. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 62. London, 1999, pp. 97–98, figs. 116, 117) and the Domed Hall in the citadel of Damascus (11th–12th century; Gardiol, Jean-Blaise.“Le ‘palais Ayyoubide’ de la citadelle de Damas: Premières données archéologiques et nouvelles observations.” In Études et travaux à la
Citadelle de Damas: 2000–2001; un premier bilan, edited by Sophie Berthier, pp. 47–58. Bulletin d’études orientales 53–54 (2002), supplement). Indirect evidence of Iranian court architecture of the Seljuq period is known from stucco figures and relief panels, e.g., cats. 1a–j, 74 in this volume; see also a relief panel (11th–12th century) in the Metropolitan Museum (40.170.166) excavated at the “wart” at Nishapur. According to Redford, Scott. “Thirteenth-Century Rum Seljuq Palaces and Palace Imagery.” Ars Orientalis 23 [Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces] (1993), p. 219 and n. 1, further evidence resides in a group of carved stone fragments, probably from a house, with figural and ornamental motifs relatable in style to the Seljuq period, although one dated example (Metropolitan Museum, 32.15.1) is Ilkhanid (A.H. 703/A.D. 1303–4). Surviving palatine architecture in the Jazira includes the Zangid Qara Saray in Mosul and Qasr al-Banat in Raqqa; and
the Artuqid palaces at Amid, Hisn Kayfa, Mardin, and Harput. For Qara Saray, see figs. 31 and 36 in this volume; and Sarre, Friedrich, and Ernst Herzfeld. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet. Forschungen zur islamischen Kunst, 1. Berlin, 1911–20, vol. 2, pp. 239–49, vol. 4, pl. 136. For Qasr al-Banat, see Toueir, Kassem. “Der Qasr al-Banat in ar-Raqqa: Ausgrabungen, Rekonstruktion und Wiederaufbau (1977–1982).” Damaszener Mitteilungen 2 (1985), pp. 297–319, pls. 72–82. For the Artuqid palaces, see Gabriel, Albert. Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale. 2 vols. Institut Français d’Archeologie de Stamboul. Paris, 1940, vol. 1, pp. 62–63; Aslanapa, Oktay. “Diyarbakır Sarayi Kazısından I˙lk rapor.” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 9, no. 2 (1961), pp. 10–18; Danık, Ertugrul. Ortaçag’da Harput. Ankara, 2001, pp. 50–51; Beyazit, Deniz. “The Baghanı-Complexe: Medieval Pavilions in the Mardin Hinterland, Southeastern Turkey.” Artibus Asiae 58, no. 1 (2008), pp. 145–53; and Beyazit, Deniz. “Le décor architectural artuqide en pierre de Mardin placé dans son contexte régional: Contribution à l’histoire du décor géométrique et végétal du Proche-Orient des XIIe–XVe siècles.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris I Panthéon–Sorbonne, Paris, 2009, vol. 1, chaps. 3.6, 3.7, 3.12, 3.13.
2. For an overview of and further literature on Rum Seljuq palaces, including the Konya Kösk, see Sarre, Friedrich. Der Kiosk von Konia. Berlin, 1936; Erdmann, Kurt. “Seraybauten des dreizehnten und vierzehnten Jahrhunderts in Anatolien.” Ars Orientalis 3 (1959), pp. 77–94, pls. 1–4; Redford 1993 (note 1); Redford, Scott. Landscape and the State in Medieval Anatolia: Seljuk Gardens and Pavilions of Alanya, Turkey. Oxford, 2000; and Arık, Rüçhan. Kubad Abad: Selçuklu Saray ve Çinileri. Istanbul, 2000, pp. 23–41. On tiles found in Rum Seljuq palaces, see Arık, Rüçhan, and Olus¸ Arık. Tiles, Treasure of the Anatolian Soil: Tiles of the Seljuk and Beylik Periods/Anadolu Topragının Hazinesi Çini Selçuklu ve Beylikler Çagı Çinileri. Istanbul, 2008.
3. Dendrochronological analysis of several samples from the building’s muqarnas gave dates of A.D. 1167, 1173, and 1174; see Arık 2000 (note 2), p. 29.
4. Sources mention royal quarters in or near Nicaea, the first Rum Seljuq capital, but material evidence is scarce before the early to mid-twelfth century; see Peacock, A[ndrew] C. S. “Court and Nomadic Life in Saljuq Anatolia.” In Turco-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, edited by David Durand-Guédy, Leiden, 2013, p. 195. For the earliest Rum Seljuq architecture in Konya, see Redford, Scott. “The Alaeddin Mosque in Konya Reconsidered.” Artibus Asiae 51 (1991), pp. 54–74; and Asutay-Effenberger, Neslihan. “Konya Alaeddin Camisi Yapim Evreleri Üzerine Düs¸ ünceler.” Orta Dogu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 2 (2006), pp. 113–22, which provides an
updated chronology and disputes Redford’s assertion that the mosque was a converted Byzantine church.
5. Sources mention that there were several (Qazwini counts twelve) such citadel towers topped with pavilions; see Redford 1993 (note 1), p. 221; Redford 2000b (note 2), pp. 53–85; and Redford, Scott. “Just Landscape in Medieval Anatolia.” Studies in the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes 20, no. 4 (2000), pp. 313–24.
6. For the ongoing excavations at Kubadabad, see Arık 2000 (note 2). See also Redford 2000b (note 2), pp. 69–77; Arık, Rüçhan. “New Information and Perspectives on Seljuk Art Obtained throughout the Kubad Abad Palace Excavations.” In Asutay-Effenberger,
Neslihan, and Falko Daim, eds. Der Doppeladler: Byzanz und die Seldschuken in Anatolien vom späten 11. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert. Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident, 1. Mainz, 2014, pp. 139–51; and Arık and Arık 2008 (note 2), pp. 290–398. Regarding Kay Qubad’s countless pavilions, see Peacock 2013 (note 4), p. 197.
7. See Akok, Mahmut. “Konyada Alâiddin Köskü, Selçuk Sarayve Kösklerı.” Türk Etnografya Dergisi 11 (1968), pp. 47–73, in which the results of the 1941 excavations are published. However, several of the interpretations and restitutions are questionable; see Redford 1993 (note 1) p. 221 n. 16.
8. Redford 1993 (note 1), p. 222; Redford 2000 (note 2), pp. 49–50. The red-and-white checkerboard and zigzag patterns relate specifically
to hunt and battle (see cat. 69 in this volume).
9. See Redford 2000 (note 2), pp. 60–61, 85–87; and Redford, Scott. “The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique.” Muqarnas 10 [Essays in Honor of Oleg Grabar] (1993), pp. 148–56.
10. One lion is now in the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul (inv. unknown). The two opus sectile fragments are in the Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin, with the current inventory numbers Konya 69 and Konya 70.
11. The inscription is transcribed and translated into German in Sarre, Friedrich. Reise in Kleinasien—Sommer 1895: Forschungen zur Seldjukischen Kunst und Geographie des Landes. Berlin, 1896, p. 46; for a photograph of the inscription in situ and a reconstruction, see
Sarre 1936 (note 2), pl. 4. For other tiles from the kösk, see Arık and Arık 2008 (note 2), pp. 234–38; Carine Juvin in Makariou, Sophie, ed. Islamic Art at the Musée du Louvre. Département des Arts de l’Islam. Paris, 2012, p. 173, fig. 115; and Sarre 1936 (note 2), pp. 14–22.
12. In addition to those in the Konya Kösk, comparable tiles were found at Hisn Kayfa; see Arık and Arık 2008 (note 2), pp. 242–43, fig. 187. Those from Konya are the only mina’i examples found in situ and used to decorate a large wall. On the basis of stylistic analysis, it has been
proposed that itinerant craftsmen from Iran produced the tiles locally in Konya; see Meinecke, Michael. Fayencedekorationen seldschukischer Sakralbauten in Kleinasien. 2 vols. Tübingen, 1976, vol. 1, p. 24 n. 56, and Luschey-Schmeisser, Ingeborg. “Einige seldjuqische und mongolische baukeramische Fragmente aus Iran.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 32 (2000), p. 367. Archaeometric analysis on the pigments of these rare mina’i tiles from Konya and their comparison with examples from Kashan would help determine a more precise attribution.
13. As suggested by a piece of wall mortar with embedded fragments of glass in the Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin (I.1379c). It is not clear whether the glass is of the Seljuq or a later period.
14. A striking comparison can be made with several fragments depicting harpies, now in the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul (Sarre 1936 (note 2), pl. 13; Arık 2000 (note 2), p. 38, figs. 17, 19), and with Metropolitan Museum (40.170.166; see note 1 above). On carved stucco and its traditional importance in Iran, see cats. 1a–j in this volume. Many stucco relief fragments from Konya are published; see Sarre 1936 (note 2), pls. 9–16; Arık 2000 (note 2), pp. 37–39; Alâeddin’in Lambası: Anadolu’da Selçuklu Çag˘ı Sanatı ve Alâeddin Keykubâd. Exh. cat., Yapı Kredi Vedat Nedim Tör Museum, Tomtom, 2001. Catalogue by Münevver Eminog˘lu. Istanbul, 2001, pp. 55, 124; and Carine Juvin in Makariou, ed. 2012 (note 11), pp. 172–74. As for the standing figure, three comparable fragmentary figures are in the Ince Minareli Museum, Konya (2512, 2527, 2538; see also Tomtom 2001 [reference above in this note], p. 124), although it is more customary for Pisces to be shown seated. The closest comparison depicts him half-seated, also holding fishes; see Hartner, Willy. “The Pseudoplanetary Nodes of the Moon’s Orbit in Hindu and Islamic Iconographies.” Ars Islamica 5, pt. 2 (1938), pp. 112–54, fig. 14.
15. See a stucco relief spandrel in the Ince Minareli Museum, Konya (1029; see Tomtom 2001 [note 14], p. 55). For the dragonslayer motif and the significance of the knotted tail, see Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600–1600. Exh. cat., Royal Academy of Arts, London, 2005. Catalogue by David J. Roxburgh and others. London, 2005, pp. 114–15, no. 58. For the relief of the doubleheaded eagle, see Öney, Gönül. “Anadolu Selçuk Mımarısınde Avcı Kuslar, Tekve Çift Baslı Kartal.” Malazgirt Armaganı (1972), pp. 139–72, fig. 19. See also cats. 77, 120 (dragon), and 148a, b (eagle) in this volume.
16. Redford, Scott. “Portable Palaces: On the Circulation of Objects and Ideas about Architecture in Medieval Anatolia and Mesopotamia.” Medieval Encounters 18 (2012), pp. 382–412. For the stucco fragment at Ani, see http://www.virtualani.org/citadel/palace.htm (accessed January 6, 2016). For Trebizond, see Eastmond, Antony. Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond. Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 10. Aldershot, Hampshire, 2004.
17. Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600–1600. Exh. cat., Royal Academy of Arts, London, 2005. Catalogue by David J. Roxburgh and others. London, 2005, pp. 114–15.
18. V&A (374:42-1906) likely formed part of one such benedictory inscription. See also Sarre 1936 (note 2), pp. 55–56, pl. 18.
19. See Beyazit 2009 (note 1), chap. 4.2, “Opus Sectile.” For the Artuqid palaces at Amid (early 13th century), see Aslanapa, Oktay. “Diyarbakır Sarayi Kazısından I˙lk rapor.” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 9, no. 2 (1961), pp. 10–18, pl. XII, fig. 5, pl. XIII, fig. 7; and at Mardin, see Beyazit 2009 (note 1), chap. 3.13, “Bayt al-Artuqi, Late 14th–Early 15th Century.” For an Ayyubid palace (early 13th century) from the
Aleppo citadel, see Tabbaa, Yasser. Constructions of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo. University Park, Pa., 1997, fig. 44.
20. Sarre 1936 (note 2), p. 12, fig. 6, pl. 3, shows the lion still in its niche. A pair of lions flanks the inscribed portal of the Çardak caravanserai (1230; Tomtom 2001 [note 14], p. 38), and a relief showing an animal combat adorns the eastern entrance of the Great Mosque in Amid (early 13th century; Gierlichs, Joachim. Mittelalterliche Tierreliefs in Anatolien und Nord-Mesopotamien: Untersuchungen zur figürlichen Baudekoration der Seldschuken, Artuqiden und ihrer Nachfolger bis ins 15. Jahrhundert. Tübingen, 1996, pl. 48). See also the doorknockers in cat. 159 in this volume.
21. In other Rum Seljuq palaces, the most ornate figural decoration found in situ was sometimes located in an iwan, for instance, at Kubadabad (fig. 44 in this volume). See also the Artuqid palace at Amid (early 13th century; Aslanapa 1961 [note 19]); or the
Qara Saray of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ (fig. 36 in this volume).
22. Peacock 2013 (note 4), p. 198.
23. Ibid., p. 199.
24. Ibid., pp. 191–222.
25. Per Ibn Bibi, the sultan “decided to set off for the coast, and all the way making merry and hunting, he pitched his tent by every lake”; see ibid., p. 205.
26. Ibid., p. 213.
27. Redford 2000a (note 5); Redford 2000b (note 2).