plantypplogy

The Seljuk Han of Anatolia

The plan typology for the Seljuk Han

Cats all have the same basic characteristic of fur, paws, claws and fuzzy tongues, but yet there are no two cats alike on earth. The same can be said of the Seljuk han. All share similar construction techniques, architectural elements and structural features, but each one is different. No two hans have the same plan, although they all resemble each other.

Hans comprise similar architectural elements. In general, they all are comprised of two sections: one covered and one open. Art historians call the two sections the covered section and courtyard, or, the shelter section and the services section. The covered and open sections allowed the han to be used in the winter and summer, both very pronounced seasons in Anatolia. Hans were built at specific points along the road, and also had to adapt to the various terrain conditions. The architectural design of hans evolved over time, and, as a result of all of these factors, hans were designed with varying plans, functions and scales, but the covered and open section formula remains the quasi-standard model.

Although many historians have argued for it, there is no chronological evolution of plan types: all types existed at all times of the 13^th century; nor is there a geological priority, except for the hot southern climate which tended to favor the open courtyard plan. Five hans are known as “Sultan Hans” (Evdir, Aksaray Sultan, Alara, Kayseri Sultan and Incir Hans) which means that they were a royal commission. This does not signify a specific building plan type; just that they had a royal patron.

Establishing a plan typology throughout the years

Scholars have long sought to establish a plan typology for hans and the efforts to formulate a typology are still ongoing. The courtyard appeared to be the main section that determined the overall plan of the han, and, for this reason, the early studies of caravanserais focused on the courtyard as the major plan element. Friedrich Sarre was the first one to speak of a plan typology for hans, then H. Ethem, M. F. Ugur, M.M. Koman, S. K. Yetkin, D. Kuban, H. Karamağarli, M. Akok, T. Özguç, R. H. Unal, and the German scholar Kurt Erdmann.

Sarre was the first to mention caravanserais in the late 19th century, and he established his analysis based on a plan comprising a courtyard and a covered section. Sarre (Reise in Kleinasien, 1896 ) visited six hans (Goncali Akhan, Sahipata, Eğirdir, Obruk, Horozlu and the Aksaray Sultan Han) and published the inscription of the the Incir Han. He drew the plans for the Ak, Horozlu, and the Aksaray Sultan Hans. He was the first to classify hans into groups with a “courtyard” and a “covered section”.

The typology proposed by Sarre was taken into consideration in the extensive study of caravanserais made by Kurt Erdmann. The most extensive efforts to establish a typology were done by the German Kurt Erdmann in his master work Das Anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts, published in 1961. Erdmann added a third plan type to Sarre’s classification, which he called “Hans with a courtyard”. The majority of the hans that Erdman studied consisted of a courtyard and a covered section. He studied 59 hans, 40 of which are of this type (68%). 18 did not have courtyard and 5 were what he called “courtyard” hans. He determined that the number of naves (aisles or vaulted galleries) in covered sections ranges from one to five. When the covered section has two parallel vaults, the wall between the vaults is pierced with arches.

The importance of Erdmann’s work cannot be overestimated, for it was he who made the most cogent classification system for hans. The major criterion for Erdmann’s classification is the presence or absence of a courtyard. His second classification criterion is the relationship between the size of the closed section and the courtyard; the third and fourth criteria are the number and direction of the vaults in the closed section. Erdmann then went on to try to establish a chronology according to the dimension of the courtyard in comparison to the covered section. He states that if the width is equal, it belongs to the first quarter of the 13th century; if the courtyard is wider than the covered section, then it belongs to the 1230-1250 period. Alas, there are too many exceptions to this schema to verify its validity, and there is no justification for this assumption.

As wonderful as his classification seems, like everything in life, hans cannot be classified into perfect boxes. Erdmann classified the two exceptional hans, the Alara and Eshab-i Kehf Hans, which do not fit into any of his three categories, as “separately-planned hans” or hans with an "irregular" plan. In addition to these two hans, there are a few other hans which fall out of the neat plan boxes proposed by Erdmann, such as the Kirkgöz, Şarapsa, Evdir, and Kargi Hans. Erdmann didn’t quite know what to do with these oddballs, and stated that they belong to a small group related to Persian buildings that can be traced to the Sasanian Period. With all due respect to the great art historian, this is not a satisfactory response. In the Karahanid, Ghaznavid, Persian and other eastern hans, the courtyard is the starting point of the design with a formal symmetry. As we know now, this is not the case in Anatolian hans.

As an element of response to this issue, the scholar A. T. Yavuz has proposed a new way of looking at hans, one driven by the service areas. Since the publication of Erdmann's work in 1961, much research has been conducted on individual hans, many of which have been the subject of doctoral theses and extensive monographs. This research has revealed additional information concerning construction techniques and water systems, and has led to the new classification proposed by Yavuz based on analysis by function. By services we mean the spaces to accommodate the hammam, mosque, kitchens, rooms, stables, etc. Yavuz rightly points out that the Kirkgöz and Kargi Hans, which were included in the “hans with courtyard group” by Erdmann, actually do have covered sections. She analyzed these hans that do not fit the classification scheme proposed by Erdmann and created yet another building type group to accommodate them: the concentric plan. Here, the courtyard was not the determining factor of the plan. Although hans are generally described in terms of the courtyard and covered section, Yavuz argues that hans were built according to the services they sought to provide and that the needs of passengers and guests were placed first and foremost: Form follows function, as would say the modern architect Louis Sullivan. Yavuz believes that function drove the design concept, and that this main function was to provide safety and shelter. She also believes that the courtyard was not the starting point or the nucleus for the design, and that the covered section was built first. The analysis of the functions of hans has led to her plan typology of "Shelter Only Hans" and "Hans with Shelter and Services". Such a functional analysis shifts the emphasis from the courtyard to the covered section, whether the plan be closed or semi-open. Relative to this "with or without services" typology, Yavuz proposes two design schemes for the plan organization of the service spaces: 1) the spaces are arranged in an additive fashion, either grouped at the entry or placed along the courtyard one next to the other as needed (Sultan Han Aksaray, Ak, Sari, Kirkgöz, Kargi, Ağzikara Hans) or 2) the spaces are arranged in 1-3 rings radiating concentrically around an open courtyard (Esab-i Keyf, Alara). She correctly points out that service spaces were arranged either in an additive fashion side by side or they were arranged concentrically.

To further break from the covered section/courtyard hegemony, she renames the “covered section” of Sarre and Erdmann as the “shelter” section, and the courtyard section as the “services area”. She is right to stress that the services were important, but whether it can be determined that they truly were the driving factor in the determination of the plan is somewhat theoretical. Erdmann believed that the courtyard was the starting point of the construction of the han, but this is rejected by Yavuz, who states that the covered section was built first, then the courtyard with its service areas.

Recent excavations carried out on hans support her opinion. In addition, many hans have come to light since the work of Erdmann, and, taken together, the information gathered allows researchers to have a more comprehensive idea about the construction of hans. Indeed, researchers who have carried out extensive excavation projects have established that all hans were built starting with the covered section. Once the covered section was built, the courtyard was added, perhaps immediately afterwards or perhaps after a few years. This is proven by the various construction joints that have been discovered between the two parts, as well as the difference in building materials and techniques between the two sections. Some 16 hans are known to have construction joints between the closed section and the courtyard, including the Aksaray Sultan, the Kayseri Sultan, Karatay and Ağzikara Hans. This clearly shows that the two sections were built at different times. We also know from the inscription plaques on the Zazadin and Karatay hans that a han could have different construction dates for the courtyard and the covered section. Courtyards were the circulation space for people and animals in the han, but were not the driving factor in the construction of hans: first and foremost came the spaces providing the shelter space for humans, goods and animals. To use a modern day analogy, the barn was built before the corral, or the airport terminal was built before the landing runways. Thus, scholars now concur that the covered sections were built first and were the starting point of the design.

Her argument that hans were designed to respond to service needs is solid, and Erdmann himself would probably not disagree with such an approach. She is right in the sense that the hans were built to serve and that these elements are an important part of the conception of the plan. This plan typology also seeks to remove the need for a hypothesis about tracing the origins of the han, and removes the importance of the presence or absence courtyard as the central design element, as well as the evaluation of the number of side aisles, which is arbitrary for the situation of each han and not dependent of a linear development in time. That hans were built driven by service needs seems to be evident.

In conclusion, on a purely architectural level, it must be said that the division of hans into groups described in terms of the courtyard and covered section remains the most indicative. Although the typologies of Yavuz and Unal add to the discussion on plan typology, the bottom line is that the great majority of hans were built with the covered section and courtyard model and this remains the most useful organizational scheme for understanding the architecture of hans, especially for those new to their study. For this reason, Erdmann's typology will be used in describing the hans on this website, with the addition of the fourth plan type of the concentric plan as proposed by Yavuz. This site will use the terminology of covered section and courtyard, not shelter and services sections, since both sections invariably offered shelter and services at the same time.

The 4 plan types of the Seljuk han are:

1.      Hans built with a covered section only (C)

2.      Hans built with a covered section and a courtyard (COC)

3.      Hans built with a vast courtyard surrounded by cells (OC)

4.      Hans built with a concentric plan (C)

Please click here for a description of each of these plan types.