Ala al-Din Kayqubad I, who was considered the most successful sultan of the Anatolian Seljuk State, appointed his younger son Izz al-Din Kilij Arslan as the heir before his death. However, after his death, his eldest son Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II, who was the malik of Erzincan, was declared sultan with the efforts of prominent statesmen. In his early years, Kaykhusraw II tended to continue his father’s policies and to this end he engaged in diplomatic relations with other states as his father had done. Accordingly, he received the ambassadors of foreign countries who had come to Kayseri during his father’s lifetime and sent an envoy to Mongolia. Afterwards, he renewed the treaties of allegiance with the Ayyubid rulers of Damascus and Aleppo, which had been concluded during his father’s reign. Soon other Ayyubid kings and Artuqid emirs also became his subjects. Thus, he formed a strong front against the Ayyubid dynastry of Egypt. However, in the same years, he remained under the influence of Sâdeddin Köpek and his negative attitude towards significant statesmen who had served for years caused the state to be in a difficult situation in overcoming the challenges in the following years. During this period, the elimination of experienced statesmen such as Kayırhan, Kemâleddin Kâmyâr, Şemseddin Altun-aba, Hüsâmeddin Kaymerî, and Tâceddin Pervâne paved the way for the emergence of the Baba Ishak rebellion. Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II, who lost power after the rebellion, suffered a heavy defeat in the Battle of Köse Dağ when the Mongols arrived in Anatolia while he was striving to ensure political unity in Anatolia. The plundering of important cities by the Mongols after the battle caused the Seljuks to lose their sovereignty in Anatolia. While efforts were being made to reestablish sovereignty, the sudden death of the sultan at a young age increased the chaos within the Seljuk State, contributing to its collapse. 

Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II’s private life has been the subject of controversy among historians. His marriages, fondness for women, alcohol, and entertainment have been emphasized, focusing on his failures in state governance. It is even suggested that the sultan died as a result of an attack by one of the wild animals he kept. Despite these controversies, architectural works during this period are noteworthy. It is seen that the commercial, religious and social structures built in parallel with the development of the state during the reign of his father Ala al-Din Kay-Qubad I continued uninterruptedly during the reign of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II. The Sultan’s works in the field of art are also observed through the coins he minted. Particularly, the intensive minting of coins featuring the composition known as the lion and sunface is an example of this situation.

By our study, 99 coins belonging to the period of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II have been identified in the inventory of the Bursa Archaeology Museum. Excluding duplicates, a catalogue has been created from 46 pieces. Although there are tarnishes and abrasions on the surfaces of the coins, they have survived to the present day in their general condition. However, it is not possible to say the same for the copper-based coins. The coins were minted between 634 AH (1237 AD) and 644 AH (1246–47 AD). The years 639 and 640 AH are the most common, appearing on half of the works. In 18 works, the date could not be determined. However, 10 of them could be dated according to the caliph’s name and order in the front inscription lines. All coins were produced using the minting technique. The coins were produced using silver and copper metals. Silver material was more commonly preferred compared to copper. An example of gold material, which is known to have been used in the coins of this period through publications, is not found in the inventory of the Bursa Archaeology Museum. The average weight of silver coins is 2.84 grams, while copper pieces weigh 3.65 grams on average. The average diameter of silver coins is 22.2 mm, while for copper pieces, it is 22.9 mm. Among the coins, 55 were minted in Sivas, 33 in Konya, and 1 in Ankara. The minting location of 10 coins could not be determined. Kufic calligraphy was used in the inscriptions of 80 coins, while Seljuk cursive script was used in 19 coins.

The ornamentation program of the coins includes geometric, botanical, and figural elements. Among these, the pearl series border, one of the most common geometric decorative elements, is used in almost all coins. Additionally, stars, circles, three dots, reverse S, crescents, and knot motifs are other geometric ornamentation elements. Botanical elements consist of curved branches, rumi, and tulip motifs. The most frequently used curved branch motif is created by extending the last letter of the inscription lines. 

The lion and sun-face elements are seen as figural ornamental elements. The composition, typically supported by geometric elements such as stars, circles, and S-curves, repeats itself with minor variations. Religious and astrological approaches play an important role in the composition. The sun cult, adopted by many societies for thousands of years, has created richness in its depictions over time. At times, the composition is depicted in a purely abstract form, while at other times it is represented anthropomorphically or directly in the form of a human figure. The lion, on the other hand, is associated with astrology or depicted as an element of power. The earliest examples of compositions bringing together the two most powerful elements of earth and sky can be found in the Persian and Mesopotamian regions. Influenced by Zoroastrian beliefs, the composition developed in these regions has been shaped within the framework of different symbolic narratives over time. In Turkish art, the composition is found before and after Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II. There are different views on the symbolic expression in the lion and sun-face composition. The most prominent of these is the symbolism of love, based on the identification of the sun with the woman and the lion with the man. The other view is related to the astrological symbolism that Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II was the symbol of rulership. In another view, the composition is interpreted as a representation of the victory won as a result of the Babai Rebellion during the reign of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II. Similarly, the composition has also been associated with the conquest of Samsat and Diyarbakır and the suppression of the Babai Rebellion. These views are interrupted by the composition’s depiction of a double lion. The fact that the usage of lion and sun elements to symbolize power and dominance in artistic depictions and societal narratives for thousands of years makes it a valid and reasonable interpretation for the artworks of this period. Additionally, the moustache detail seen in the depiction of the sun-face on the coins of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II suggests that it symbolizes a man. Therefore, it is likely that the sun-face figure symbolizes Sultan Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II or the Islamic caliph of that period mentioned just above the depiction. This interpretation is supported by the lion or lions standing just in front of the sun-face, representing the army (military power). In addition, when the radial arms of the sun in the sunface figure in the composition and the points between them are examined, 3 different types are seen. It is understood that the die of type A was used in Konya and Sivas, the die of type B was used only in Sivas, and the die of type C was used only in Konya. Therefore, the types must indicate the place of minting of the coin.

The ornamentation and inscription elements in the coins that constitute our subject have 4 different arrangements. The date of minting is determined in this grouping. The 1st Type belongs to the years 634-636 AH, the 2nd Type to 638-641 AH, the 3rd Type to 641 AH, and the 4th Type to 642-644 AH. While the 1st group has a simpler arrangement, in the 2nd Type, where more than half of the coins are seen, the obverse is decorated with a lion and sun-face composition. The place of printing on the reverse causes the group to be divided into sub-groups. The years 638 AH (1240 AD) and 641 AH (1243 AD), which constitute the date range of the 2nd Type, are significant due to the occurrences of the Baba İshak Rebellion and the Battle of Köse Dağ. The 3rd Type can be considered as a transition between the 2nd and 4th Types. While the obverse repeats the 2nd Type, the reverse is a preparatory frame for the pearl-strung square frame seen in the 4th Type. The 4th Type repeats almost the same layout on the obverse and reverse. The absence of figural decoration and the increased use of religious expressions in the inscriptions on this group’s coins are noteworthy. This situation can be associated with the transition of the caliphate from Mustansır-Billâh to Musta‘sım-Billâh, and thus, the personal attitude of the new caliph. 

The coins from the reign of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II period, which we examined within the scope of our study, are important in terms of representing continuity in Turkish art as well as constituting a distinctive group with examples featuring the lion and sun-face compositions.