CC BY
31
www.volsu.ru
DOI: https://doi.Org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2022.6.13
UDC 902(653):726.5 LBC 63.444-427
ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА
Submitted: 01.07.2022 Accepted: 28.10.2022
A SLAB FROM IZMIR WITH TWO PEACOCKS. DEPICTIONS OF PEACOCKS IN BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE OF ASIA MINOR 1
Ergun Lafli
Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Izmir, Turkey
Maurizio Buora
Societa Friulana di Archeologia odv, Udine, Italy
Abstract. This paper presents a marble slab from the Archaeological Museum of Izmir in western Turkey, which was published by Anastasios K. Orlandos in 1937 and its inscription was re-considered by Georg Petzl in 1990. Its epigraphy mentions a formerly unknown bishop, Euethios, who was probably the bishop of Smyrna during the Early Byzantine period. On this occasion, a brief review of the depiction of two peacocks flanking a vase in the marble architectural sculpture of Byzantine Asia Minor is presented, in order to assign a more concise date for the slab from Izmir. An accompanying catalogue with several examples of peacocks' depictions from Asia Minor was made and a marble plate with a peacock depiction from Skopje, Macedonia is also included. Authors' contribution. In this article Ergun Lafli gives a detailed description of this inscribed plate which is a valuable historical document, while Maurizio Buora analyses its inscription and makes its epigraphic assessment as well as a systematic examination of the iconography of peacocks in the marble architectural sculpture of Byzantine Asia Minor through over thirty examples in Turkish museums.
Key words: marble slab, bishop, peacocks, peacocks flanking a vase, Izmir, western Asia Minor, Turkey, Turkish museums, Early Byzantine period, Byzantine architectural sculpture, Byzantine epigraphy.
Citation. Lafli E., Buora M. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks. Depictions of Peacocks in Byzantine Architectural Sculpture of Asia Minor. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations], 2022, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 171-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2022.6.13
УДК 902(653):726.5 Дата поступления статьи: 01.07.2022
ББК 63.444-427 Дата принятия статьи: 28.10.2022
АМВОННАЯ ПЛИТА ИЗ ИЗМИРА С ИЗОБРАЖЕНИЕМ ДВУХ ПАВЛИНОВ.
ИЗОБРАЖЕНИЯ ПАВЛИНОВ В ВИЗАНТИЙСКОЙ АРХИТЕКТУРНОЙ СКУЛЬПТУРЕ МАЛОЙ АЗИИ 1
Эргюн Лафлы
Университет Докуз Эйлюль, г. Измир, Турция
Маурицио Буора
2
g Фриульское социологическое общество, г. Удине, Италия
20
Аннотация. В этой статье представлены изображения мраморной амвонной плиты из Археологического g музея в Измире в западной Турции, которая была впервые опубликована Анастасиосом К. Орландосом в § 1937 г., а надпись на ней была пересмотрена Георгом Петцлем в 1990 году. В ней упоминается ранее неиз-® вестный епископ Евефий, который был, вероятно, епископом Смирны в ранневизантийский период. В работе ® дается краткий обзор изображений павлинов или двух противопоставленных павлинов, фланкирующих вазу, il в мраморной архитектурной скульптуре византийской Малой Азии для того, чтобы уточнить датировку ^ амвонной плиты из Измира. Был составлен сопроводительный каталог с несколькими примерами изображе-
ний павлинов из Малой Азии, а также мраморной плитой с изображением павлина из Скопье, Македония. Вклад авторов. В этой статье Эргюн Лафлы дал подробное описание указанной амвонной плиты, которая представляет собой ценный исторический источник, а Маурицио Буора исследовал надпись на ней и дал ее эпиграфическую оценку, а также провел системный анализ иконографии павлинов в мраморной архитектурной скульптуре византийской Малой Азии на основе свыше 30 подобных примеров из музеев Турции.
ключевые слова: мраморная амвонная плита; епископ; павлины; павлины, фланкирующие вазу; Измир; западная Малая Азия; Турция; музеи Турции; ранневизантийский период; византийская архитектурная скульптура; византийская эпиграфика.
Цитирование. Лафлы Э., Буора М. Амвонная плита из Измира с изображением двух павлинов. Изображения павлинов в византийской архитектурной скульптуре Малой Азии // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. - 2022. -Т. 27, № 6. - С. 171-210. - (На англ. яз.). - DOI: https://doi.Org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2022.6.13
In memoriam Anne Mary Thoen-Weissenborn (1946-f2022)
Introduction. The Archaeological Museum of Izmir curates a marble slab among the marble finds in its garden (Fig. 1, a-g, acc. no. 000.270) which bears a composition with two antithetic peacocks flanking a vase and a dedicatory inscription on its upper part. We do not know where and when the piece was found. The catalogue card in the Museum's office contains no information about its findspot. But, because of a number of reasons, which we explain below, we believe it must once have stood in an Early Byzantine church in Smyrna. (Fig. 2). The slab survived intact until the beginning of the twentieth century, when Josef Keil 2 who was the director of the Austrian excavations at Ephesus, found it in pieces at the Agora of Smyrna and drew in 1910 its sketch (Fig. 3). It remained unappreciated until Georg Petzl's republishing it in his corpus of Smyrnean inscriptions in 1990 with other unpublished inscriptions of uncertain origin copied from Smyrna by Keil [43, pp. 365366, no. 35]. In 1937 the piece was examined by Anastasios K. Orlandos [39, p. 136, fig. 8], a Greek historian of architecture who published the first catalogue of the Byzantine stone monuments in the Museum of Izmir. In this study by Orlandos the slab was broken and its upper left corner was missing. That caused the loss of an important part of the inscription, which was integrated in a not entirely correct way by Orlandos himself. The plate was, however, never photographed in any of these publications.
Since very few Byzantine stone monuments in the Izmir Museum have a known provenance as Smyrna, this plate merits inclusion in the body
of published examples from this city during the Byzantine period where we have only limited surviving literary and archaeological evidence 3.
The marble slab. Material. High-grade large crystalline, light white-gray marble quarried probably from Belevi near Ephesus; fine grained, pale gray to blue gray. The marble is similar to the native one into the area of Ephesus, which was commonly utilized for both architecture and sculpture of the ecclesiastical buildings of western Anatolia during the Early Byzantine period.
Measurements. H. 891 mm (with mouldings), L. 1423 mm, Th. (top) 88 mm, (bottom) 78 mm, L.H. 21-34 mm 4.
State of preservation. Nearly intact slab horizontally broken with the flat top broken off, reassembled from four large fragments with some chips and two large losses at the both upper corners (Fig. 1, a). The main horizontal break runs diagonally through the centre of the scene. The entire scene in the central portion is preserved. Dark gray particulate soiling covers the slab's front and back. Otherwise well-preserved.
The back, which is framed with narrow border mouldings both on top and bottom, is flat, plain, smooth and moderately weathered, with pitted and abraded areas; there is also rasping on the surface (Fig. 1, b). Mouldings on top and bottom are separated by two channels carved with a narrow flat chisel. The top and bottom are smooth and flat, bearing marks of a flat chisel, although no attachment holes or cuttings are seen (Fig. 1, c-d). On the upper right break there are two tiny, pin-size drill holes, possibly for (later) repairment (Fig. 1, e). There are no other holes on both flank fronts which are left with a rough-picked surface created by the pointed chisel
(Fig. 1, e-f). On the back, at the bottom of the left side, a remnant of a certain carving with an unidentified shape remains (Fig. 1, g).
Provenance. As said above, it was supposingly found by Keil in pieces at the Agora of Smyrna in an unknown time period, as many of such pieces may once have been inside the Agora, where there was a collection of ancient sculptures and architectural elements latest in the early 20th century.
Description. This is a rectangular slab with a shallow recessed panel, horizontally placed on the face of the stone, containing figures in low relief of two opposing peacocks in profile flanking a handless amphora-like large vessel measuring 230 mm high, which are the central features of the iconography (Fig. 1, a). Our slab was most probably a part of chancel enclosure of a church. In addition to its shape, its inscription indicates clearly the expression "chancels" which appears in the first line (cf. below).
At both sides of the vessel there are two fat-bodied or plump-bodied birds in a narrative scene, very possibly peacocks or partridges, flanking a large vessel. The animals are represented in low relief and the figures are rendered inaccurately with less facial features. The opposing peacocks are at the same level, but not placed on a groundline; the vessel which has a larger scale in proportion to the peacocks, rests on the lower edge of the relief panel. The flat figures are simple and stiffly carved in a shallow outline technique with little plastic and modeling quality. Feet and legs of peacocks are well modeled, but simply incised. Shallow incisions indicate anatomical features of the birds, such as feet, feathers, wings, eyes and beaks. The facial features are cursorily indicated. The birds have a sharp beak. The straight outline of their tail feathers is superposed over the bend in the wrist. Their tail feathers form a backdrop. The bird's wings are slightly extended. Thus, these birds resemble also a pigeon (genus Columba; Turkish kumru which is very popular in modern Izmir), rather than a peacock. But, low level of detail in the representation makes identification of the species difficult. In any case, the partridge is a species of bird which is not commonly depicted in Byzantine marble iconography.
The vase, most probably an amphora in the middle, is somewhat larger than the peacocks, but still within the size seen in comparable
ecclesiastical iconography. Typologically, the vessel looks also like a cantharus, a type of ancient Greek cup used for drinking.
The scene is framed with the top and bottom border mouldings. Slightly projecting three-part moulding (of a shallow cavetto over a flat ovolo) near the top are separating the finial from the main part of the stone and inscribed with the name of the ecclesiastical dignitaries. The bottom of the plate is also finished with three rows of moulding. The height of the moulding below the design is 165 mm. The crisp carving of the lower mouldings on this fragment indicates that it was a monument of high quality. Both mouldings do not continue around the sides of the block, but on the back (Fig. 1, b).
Inscription. As mentioned above, two narrow epistyles are inscribed with a short inscription which is a dedication of chancel and has a very high value, as epigraphic evidence in Smyrna is extremely limited in the Byzantine period (Fig. 4, a). According to the reading of Keil, which Petzl makes its own, the text is as follows (Fig. 4, b): Transcription.
+ Avsvs©9noav oi KavKs^u sni xou ooiroxaxou smoKonou
2 Eun9iou, oiKovo^owxog 'Ovnoi^ou npsoPuxspou.
Epigraphic comments. Inscription in two lines consists of crudely incised and randomly placed letters, but generally its lettering is good. Alphas have a broken bar. At the beginning of the text there is a cross, as it is customary in sacred texts and also popular in funerary inscriptions from the fifth century AD onwards, both in the East and in the West.
The paleography of the inscription as well the expression avsvs©9noav are not commented here to avoid possible repetition.
Orlandos reconstructed the first word as KaxsoKuao]9noav. In the second line he completely missed the name of the episcopos, even if he should have understood, that it was a couple of ecclesiastical dignitaries and the text only made sense, if the name of the episcopos was followed by that of the oikonomos, the highest authorities of the local ecclesiastical community of Early Byzantine Smyrna.
Dating. The accompanying inscription is difficult to date, but the persons named in this text might be identified (cf. below). With no firm
externally datable context, we have tried to date this piece to a general stylistic milieu. It could thus be assigned to the mid-sixth century AD on the basis of style, subject, inscription and workmanship; but this date should be considered as a rough approximation. Perhaps the inscription was written secondarily.
References (in an chronological order): [23, p. 28; 39, p. 136, fig. 8 (dated into the late sixth-early seventh century AD); 53, p. 57, nos. 20-21; 54, p. 356, pl. 69, fig. 3 (late sixth-early seventh century AD); 43, pp. 365-366, no. 35; 18, p. 604, no. 908 (with transcription); 4, pp. 261-262, no. 50 (with transcription), p. 624, no. 50 (sixth-seventh century AD), pl. 7, no. 50; 21, p. 139, note 248].
A bishop of Smyrna in Early Byzantine period? The letters of the inscription on our slab are not particularly accurate. The fact that the slab is inscribed suggests that it was placed in the centre of a fence.
In fact, the inscription mentions two persons, namely the episcopos (bishop) Euethios and the oikonomos (oeconomus) who was the presbyter, i.e. an elder of the congregation in Early Christianity, Onesimos. In their time, the gates or slabs of the enclosure of the presbytery of a church were renovated, which may have been the cathedral of Smyrna. Already since the Early Christian era in the first century AD Smyrna was an autocephalous archbishopric, but about its location and churches we have almost no information. The succession of the two names is very significant: in the first place the episcopos, then the person responsible for the treasury of the diocese. It is surprising that in reporting this text in her doctoral dissertation, Sabine Hubner, while citing the Petzl's edition, did not realize that not only the npsoPrnspog was mentioned here, as she erroneously writes [21, p. 139, note 248].
The name Euethios, which is of unknown origin, is in particular known in its Latin version, i.e. Euetius (or Vetius) [48, p. 983]. This name was popular in Asia Minor, as there are ten attestations in LGPN (in vols. V.B and V.C); and four in ICG (nos. 229, 914, 943 and 2398). An Eubecius (in Cod. Stuttgart) or Eubuetius (in Cod. Munich) was quoted instead of Euteius in a Late Antique manuscript which includes Eastern bishops who signed at the First Council of Nicaea [36, pp. 142-143, note 17]. Furthermore, Lactantius and Eusebius record anonymously in the list of
martyrs a Christian named as John or Euetius of Nicomedia, executed at Nicomedia in 24 February AD 303 for tearing down the first edict against the Christians [20, 13.2; and 32, 8.5.1]. The name comes from a Syriac martyrology of AD 411 [30, p. 9]. Jacques Moreau regards Euethios as the correct form of the name [37, p. 279]. The text of Eunapius offers in the extra properly corrupt manuscript tradition the name Euetius, which has been unanimous since Valesianus improved in Evagrius [19, p. 38, 6.11.2].
The most significant attestation of Euethios in Asia Minor was the name of the bishop of Ephesus in ca. AD 365-381 [13, p. 280] and could be the same person mentioned in our Smyrnean inscription. We do not, however, know the status of the see of Smyrna before the mid-seventh century AD, as it was an autocephalous archbishopric of the province of Asia; but it is quite possible that in this particular period Smyrna was a suffragan of Ephesus and because of this reason its bishop was mentioned in our inscription.
In contrast to Euetius, Onesimos or Onesimus (ov^oi^og, meaning "useful") was a popular name in Roman and Late Roman Smyrna.
We believe that the slab from the Izmir Museum originates from Smyrna. The local church of Smyrna was organized into a diocese since the second century AD, as an epistle from St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Christians of Smyrna and their bishop Polycarp proves it in AD 107 5. From the fourteenth century, i.e. 1318, it had a series of Western bishops as owners. The list of Greek bishops, with many shortcomings, has been handed down to us by Giorgio Fedalto in his Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis [17] and Michel Le Quien in his Oriens Christianus [29, pp. 741-744]. Here two fixed points appear, a couple of names linked to the rise of the Monophysite movement and to the events of the forties of the sixth century AD, and then other names are attested at the beginning of the ninth century. Our bishop was not mentioned by any Medieval source, but his name was engraved on a stone monument and therefore indisputably attested. Because of this, the span of his episcopate probably fell between the mid-sixth and the beginning of the ninth century.
Furthermore, the Greek equivalent of the Latin term cancelli (or cancellus in the singular; "lattice-work"), i.e. oi KavKsAu; KayKsAAog in
singular, is very common in Byzantine Asia Minor, as Louis Robert has noted it already in 1966 [45, p. 363].
The depiction of peacocks or two antithetic peacocks flanking a vase in the marble architectural sculpture of Byzantine Asia Minor. In zoology peacock or peafowl is a common name for three bird species. Male peafowl is referred to as peacocks, and female peafowl are referred to as peahens, even though peafowl of either sex is often referred to colloquially as "peacocks". Peafowl means forest birds that nest on the ground, but roost in trees.
Already in the third-fourth centuries AD peacocks appeared on mosaic floors in western Anatolia individually or in pairs, such as in the peacock mosaic of the apsidal house at Clazomenae, ca. 40 km west of Smyrna [47, p. 297].
As early as in the Roman period Early Christians adopted the symbol of the peacock, nayrovi in Greek and pavo in Latin, to represent immortality. This came from an ancient legend that the flesh of the peacock did not decay. It is also associated with the resurrection of Christ, because it sheds its old feathers every year and grows, newer, brighter ones each year.
During the Byzantine period various bird species and mythical-biblical birds are represented in marble architectural sculpture. The peafowl is native to Anatolia and significant in its culture. In Anatolia the symbolism with peacock was adopted mainly by Early Christianity, thus some Early Christian marble architectural elements and mosaics as well as frescoes show peacocks in various compositions. The peacock can symbolise the cosmos, if one interprets its tail with its many "eyes" as the vault of heaven dotted by the sun, moon and stars. By Christian adoption of old Persian and Babylonian symbolism, in which the peacock was associated with paradise and the tree of life, the bird is again associated with immortality.
In Byzantine Asia Minor peacocks are placed in a limited range of biblical/ecclesiastical iconographic scenes. The compositions are usually limited either to single peacock depictions, or two opposing peacocks on the sides of a vase in their middle. The depiction of a peacock on architectural elements makes generally a connection with paradise. Especially between the fifth and seventh centuries AD two antithetic
peacocks are portrayed drinking from a vase which symbolizes a Christian drinking the waters of eternal life 6. The scene also recalls one of the central pleasures of life, the symposium, now ended forever for the deceased. In Asia Minor the representation of two peacocks on either side of a cantharus is very common on marble architectural elements so that we can analyze their particularities: generally on such scenes in various combinations the peacock figures are more or less evenly spaced on both sides of a vase which stands in the middle. Most of the time peacocks are larger in comparison to the overall size of the vase in their middle. The peacock is often depicted next to the tree of life as well. It is, however, not clear when and where exactly this scene appears in Anatolia for the first time.
It is longly noticed that compositions with peacocks were popular among the monuments of ecclesiastical architectural sculpture, on the mosaic floors and mural painting as well as several other iconographic media whereas representations on these latter groups are excluded in this article. In Anatolia several varieties of architectural monuments bear peacock depictions, ranging from those with relatively little carving (for example ambo plates) to elaborate architectural structures assembled from parts (such as ciboria; cf. Table 1). This well-known depiction is also common in burial contexts. Depictions of peacocks or two antithetic peacocks flanking a vase have been the subject of much previous discussion (Chronologically e.g. [31; 54; 24; 44; 41, passim; 4, pp. 462-463, no. 249 (from Amorium in Phrygia; fifth century AD), p. 631, no. 249, pl. 33, no. 249, pl. 34, no. 249 (g); 35, pp. 85, 97, figs. 16-17 (in our catalogue, below); 5; 46; 52, passim; 56, passim; 1, pp. 216-217; 55, pp. 144-145; 20, passim; and 38, p. 13, p. 20, fig. 25, pp. 49-53, figs. 115, 123 and 125, p. 81, fig. 212, p. 141, p. 143, figs. 380 and 382, p. 157, fig. 428, p. 158, fig. 431, p. 173, fig. 469]). These depictions are especially common between the fifth and seventh century AD in the marble architectural sculpture of Asia Minor. Peacocks are carved with more plasticity and three-dimensionality in the Early Byzantine period; in later periods, however, details become fewer and are indicated with less plasticity.
The name of the vase between two opposing peacocks is mostly interpreted as "cantharus", a
name based in ancient literary sources. On these depictions there are so many extant examples of the tall and narrow-necked vessels, which are generally called as "cantharoi", but perhaps another and more common vase shape, amphora, is a better candidate for this vase depiction, as the one on our plate from Izmir. It is already recognized that in the Byzantine depiction of such vessels there was a preference to use their forms from the Greek Classical period in the fifth-fourth centuries BC which were treated in a summary fashion.
Catalogue of depictions. The monuments included in this catalogue are from the Early and Middle Byzantine periods (cf. Table 1). Only half of these pieces have already been published previously. As said above, such paradisal scenes with peacock depictions were featured commonly in ecclesiastical architectural plastic in Byzantine Asia Minor and are attested on other contemporary media, such as mosaics, frescoes and ceramics; but this scene at the slab from Izmir did not turn up any monuments with exactly the same composition. For a better understanding of our plate we collected the images of over thirty representations on ecclesiastical architectural plastic, distributed throughout Anatolia (Fig. 2). Below we present a summarized catalogue of these monuments in alphabetical order of the city of their origin, almost all of which are being curated in Turkish local museums. This collection offers, however, only a selected overview of Byzantine peacock representations in Turkey, and we are not concerned here with the whole iconographic aspects of each monuments, as it is beyond the scope of this catalogue. We have narrowed the list of works cited here, focusing on those which have been of the greatest use to us in our research on peacock depictions in Anatolia, and we do not claim that this is a comprehensive accounting.
Peacock depictions from Asia Minor reveal sometimes unique iconography, previously unknown inscriptions and a wide range of monument types that were utilized by residents of Byzantine Anatolia. Although all of our examples in this catalogue are collected from various local museums or sites in Turkey, a marble plate with a peacock depiction from Skopje, Macedonia (Fig. 36) is also included here because of its similarity to our material.
In general all types of this architectural sculpture exhibit qualities that are conservative, formulaic and schematic. While there is an overall uniformity in depictions of peacocks, each representation of peacock in this catalogue does retain a modicum of individuality and specificity. Within the conventions of architectural sculpture, a marble carver would modify the characteristics of each work to satisfy the particular requirements of its ecclesiastical function and setting. Each architectural element with peacock depiction presents a different variant of traditional elements, a unique combination of peacocks and other features. As mentioned above, there are no extant examples of a particular peacock scene being replicated exactly on a second monument. As longly noticed, the uniqueness of each architectural monument suggests that the iconography, even though it appears repetitive and adheres to a set of general norms, was an element of consideration by both the sculptor and the patron, i.e. ecclesiastical institution which once ordered these monuments.
The variations of architectural monuments with peacock depictions - categorized by their monument type, such as ambos, ciboria, sarcophagi or altars - are all included in this catalogue (cf. Table 1) but designated more particularly in the individual catalogue entries.
We have tried to be conservative in this catalogue, including only architectural elements with concretized peacock depictions. In the case of other bird depictions in a poor state of preservation, particularly heads broken from reliefs, identification as peacock is difficult and these material are excluded from this catalogue. Object deterioration, iconographical ambiguity and, of course, the limits of our current knowledge, all hinder the attainment of certainty.
Very few of these monuments in this catalogue are inscribed, like the slab in Izmir and these uninscribed monuments are therefore dated on the basis of style.
1. Repository. Museum of Afyonkarahisar, Figs. 5-7.
In the Museum of Afyonkarahisar there are two examples of peacock depictions on ambos (Figs. 5-6) and a third on a fencing slab (Fig. 7). The trapezoidal panels on Figs. 5 and 6 have edges with a series of sharp- and thick-edged mouldings, which are dated particularly to the first half of the
sixth century. The animals have in common the crests formed by three feathers, the tails decorated with zigzag lines and the thin necks.
Fig. 6. Acc. no. 1399.
Measurements. H. 90 cm, L. 76 cm, Th. 18 cm.
Provenance. It was found in Payamalani district (ancient Eibeos), 7 km north-east of Sivasli (ancient Sebaste), province of U§ak (eastern Lydia) and was brought to the Museum of Afyonkarahisar in 1963.
Description. In the plate neck and body are decorated with engraved circles. The same detail appears on a plate from Grado, in the north-eastern Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia which has been dated to the early sixth century AD [49, p. 348, no. 523].
Reference: [42, pl. 89, fig. 108].
2. Repository. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara.
Measurements. P. H. 60 cm, P.L. 57 cm, Th. 17 cm.
Description. The representation is considerably smaller than the exaggerated width ofthe ambo's frame. Deep engravings on the body, wing and tail.
Dating. Sixth century AD.
Reference: [9, p. 50, fig. 2].
3. Repository Turkish National Forces -Kuva-yi Milliye Museum of Balikesir, Figs. 8-10.
The fragmented slab (of sarcophagus) from the Museum of Balikesir (Fig. 8) shows one of the two peacocks with his head lowered, next to a central circle in which the monogram of Ioannes appears. In this image, the crest which is formed only by two feathers, is highlighted and the wing emphasized by the groove that follows the edge as well as the tail with zigzag motifs. The same monogram in the middle exists on a lead seal kept in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection which is dated to sixth century (Fig. 9) 7.
The performance of the peacock is more summary on a second slab from Balikesir (probably of a later date) in which the pecking peacock is inserted in a circle which is itself included in a lozenge with flattened edges (Fig. 10).
4. Repository. Museum of Bandirma, Fig. 11.
Description. In Bandirma (navop^og in
the Byzantine period), on the coast of the Sea of
Marmara, part of the upper slab of a ciborium (Fig. 11) shows characteristic features of the Middle Byzantine period, such as the shape of the six-pointed leaf, the curved section of the twigs and the characteristic yield wing with the front which is clearly distinctive from a different orientation of the grooves. This detail of the wing appears in all contemporary representations. On this relief, the leaf in the upper left corner takes up an iconography of the sixth century, but is associated with a jagged leaf of a type widespread especially in the eleventh-twelfth century, a period in which the performance of the wings of peacocks is also appropriate. The shape of the ridge is also different. Ba§ak £orakli who examined peacock depictions on pottery, has dated this piece to the eleventh-twelfth or eleventh-thirteenth century. In this image the figures are not only simply flattened, but display, especially in the edges, a hint of volumetric development.
References: [12, p. 13, fig. 12; 55, p. 147, fig. 7; also cf. 2].
5. Repository. Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, Figs. 12-13.
Fig. 12. Acc. no. 25/2022.
Measurements. P.H. 85 cm, L. 110 cm, Th. 27.
Material. A gray-white marble from a local quarry in Caria.
Provenance. By a private collection which is confiscated in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology through the decision of the Bodrum Second Court of First Instance in 2011. It was probably found in Labraunda or Mylasa in Caria.
Description. It is bordered by rounded ribs separated by a large groove. The peacocks are placed vertically to make the most of the space and are located on the sides of a very tall cantharus. The decoration extends on the tail, where circles appear that will be used in sculpture until the eleventh century, and on the wings, decorated with engravings, as on numerous Western monuments of the Romanesque art.
Dating. Eleventh century.
Reference: [40, p. 394, fig. 10].
Fig. 13.
Measurements. H. 35 cm, L. 20 cm, Th. 15.
Description. The second slab, which develops in height (perhaps the frontal part of an altar?), shows two peacocks on the sides of a
cross from whose horizontal arms hang some ivy leaves. The ivy leaf is a popular motif in Byzantine iconographic arts and appears for example on a fragment of a slab, dated to AD 540-560 in the Museo Arcivescovile in Ravenna. Nonetheless, the heraldic position of our two peacocks suggests a dating rather to the Middle Byzantine period, especially to the eleventh century.
Dating. Eleventh century.
References. [58, p. 328,fig. 12; 40, p. 393, fig. 6].
6. Repository. Archaeological Museum of Bursa, Figs. 14-15.
In the Archaeological Museum of Bursa there are two marble slabs with peacock depictions. The first peacock appears within a frame of an ambo plate (Fig. 14). The tail stands out, which soars at the top, following the trend of the frame, the tail which is the only decorated part of the animal. Three-feathered crest and deep furrow to delimit the wing. Sixth-seventh century AD.
On the second one, the only remaining peacock is on the side of a cross, with the ends flanked by two triangles (Fig. 15). The relief is flat with leaves drawn in the shape of a heart. The peacock has a sinuous course and appears almost completely covered by decorative motifs. Middle Byzantine period.
7. Repository. Archaeological Museum of Canakkale, Figs. 16-17.
On the plate on Fig. 16 two rather ungainly peacocks drink from a cantharus. The drawing is very coarse, especially for the legs. The limited decoration on the tail take us to the sixth century.
The marble slab on Fig. 17 is a low-quality artistic product, the only merit is the peacock decoration with typical eleventh-century motifs. If the slab is, as it seems, finished, we notice that it is a single peacock, rather than two. Noteworthy are the ungrammaticals, e.g. in the shape of the wing or in the detail of the legs that do not touch the branch on which they should rest. Ay§e Caylak Turker seems uncertain between a sixth or eleventh century dating [51, pp. 388-389] 8.
8. Repository. Museum ofKir§ehir, Fig. 18, a-b.
Fig. 18, a. Acc. no. 209.
Provenance. It was found in Cifekdagi,
a township at high altitude, c. 65 km north of Kir§ehir and 4 km south of Yerkoy on the
borderline of the province of Yozgat, which is mainly mentioned in literature on the prehistorical period. Donated to the Museum of Kir§ehir on 9 April 1984 and catalogued on 27 April 1987 by Vedat Kanturk (and confirmed by Ziyaettin Ta§?i, the former director).
Material. Local whitish-yellowish marble.
State ofpreservation. Well-preserved except two diagonal cracks on the lower part.
Measurements. H. 176 cm, L. 103 cm, Th. 9 cm, L.H. 2.4-3.1 cm.
Description. A plate-stele with rounded top and stylized figures, motifs as well as an inscription of six lines in a tabula ansata. The edge of the stele has a 10 cm wide frame where floral motifs in the form of extending ivies in spiral form cover the entire stele. In the middle and most visible part of the stele is a large cross dividing the middle field in four smaller parts. There are two medallions with stylized rosettes on the top of the cross; two peacocks on ivy leaves and grape bunches on the bottom. Two birds are depicted beneath the ivy leaves at each angle.
Inscription. Six lines of Greek text in a tabula ansata (Fig. 18, b) 9.
+ ev9a Kaxa-kits ^ ev oci-
OIC Tfi ^V^'fl
^ ^a^TCp(oTdrn) K(ai) suy(svsaTdTn) 5 ^ So£,a tou yevo(u)c
®&Ta ^vn^nc xdpiv +
5: ^ So£,a tou ysvo(u)c : ^ AopdTou yevog after [14, no. 7].
Translation. Here lies among the holy in remembrance the most splendid and pious, the glory of her family, Phota, in remembrance.
Epigraphic description. Alpha has a broken bar; epsilon, sigma and omega are lunate. The middle bar of alpha, epsilon, eta, my and pi are detached. Similarly, the loop of phi (line 6) and the arms of kappa (line 1; 3) and are not attached to the vertical bar. Abbreviation signs are used for ^a^np(oTdTn), K(ai), suo(ysvsoTdTn) (line 4) and yevo(u)c (line 5). An interpunctuation mark is found after the first letter in line 4. Most letters carry small serifs.
Commentary. The phrase ev ooioig is not particularly common 10, and So£,a tou yevoug is hitherto not attested. It is, however, most likely related to the phrase So£,a tou oikou, attested a couple of times in Asia Minor 11. The name o&tq
is very uncommon, and we have found a single parallel in Phrygia 12
Dating. Fifth century AD.
Reference: [14, no. 7].
9. Repository. Archaeological Museum of Izmir, Figs. 19-23.
The Archaeological Museum of Izmir has an extensive collection of Byzantine marble architectural sculpture which is first published by Orlandos and examined in the course ofthree theses at Turkish universities [39; 33; 6; 15]. Among these specimens there are also several plates with various peacock depictions. Below we offer a selection of these depictions kept in the museum.
Fig. 19.
Dating. For the depiction on an ambo on Fig. 19 we consider an Early Byzantine dating because of the elegance of the peacock, whose movement of the head forms a beautiful sinusoid shape of the figure.
Fig. 20. Acc. no. 000.144.
Measurements. H. 85 cm, L. 70 cm, Th. 12 cm.
Description. Only the peacock's tail remains visible, which has a series of empty circles as shown in Romanesque representations of Europe.
Dating. The skin edge recalls the reliefs of the ninth-tenth century AD.
References: [38, p. 132, fig. 382, interpreted as 'flanking ambo slab'].
Fig. 21. Acc. no. 026.511.
Measurements. H. 61.5 cm, L. 77 cm,Th. 11 cm.
Provenance. This slab was discovered at Ba§pinar on Mount Nif, ancient Olympus in the district of Kemalpa§a which is located immediately to the east of Izmir. During the discovery of tomb 16 in the south-west part of the narthex of the Church A, this slab was found in situ.
Description. It is an excellent example of the Middle Byzantine sculpture. The moulded cantharus, the fleshy leaves and the stylized tails of the peacocks are close to the ones dated from the tenth to the twelfth-thirteenth centuries. The work and design of the leaves reminds Constantinopolitan examples, especially the ones of the northern church of the monastery of Lips (AD 907) and of the later decoration of monastery ofPantocrator (AD 1118-1124) [59, p. 52, note 17]. For the Anatolian comparisons, the design of the motives is close to the ones from western Asia Minor such as Izmir, Bergama and Manisa 13.
Dating. As said above, two elaborate peacocks on the sides of a schematic cantharus show all the typical characters of the Middle Byzantine period. The rendering of the wings with the semicircular upper part, the performance of the upper part of the legs and the deep furrows of the wings reveal close similarities with the birds of western sculpture of the eleventh century.
Reference: [59, p. 52, fig. 4].
Fig. 22. Acc. no. 265.
Measurements. H. 71 cm, L. 59 cm, Th. 14 cm.
Description. The peacocks on Fig. 22 have a bent tail and a very thin and elongated cantharus in their middle. The relief seems to acquire a greater consistency and the edges appear rounded rather than being cut.
Dating. The piece has been dated by Orlandos to the sixth century [39, p. 135, fig. 7]. Although the usual three feathers appear on their heads, the unequivocal shape of the wing, with the "shield" decoration and the design of the large feathers takes us once again to the Middle Byzantine period.
Comparandum. For the design of the wing there is a close comparison with a peacock depiction on an edge in the northern church of the monastery of the Pantocrator/Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul, which is dated after the year 1124 [38 , p. 127, fig. 339].
References: [39, p. 135, fig. 7; 6, pp. 65-66, no. 56].
Fig. 23. Acc. no. 142-143.
Measurements. H. 64 cm, L. 150 cm, Th. 17 cm.
Dating. The frame of this plate reveals a similar dating to Fig. 21. On Fig. 23 the cantharus has now disappeared and the carver undertakes to differentiate two peacocks in the rendering of their triangular wings and body. Orlandos believes that this slab cannot be dated, while Ay§egül Andi$ proposes a dating into the thirteenth-fourteenth century, based on the upper ornamented frame.
References [39, p. 140, fig. 15; 6, p. 77, no. 70].
10. Repository. Museum of iznik, Fig. 24.
On this beautiful slab on Fig. 24 all the elements of the eleventh century appear: two vertically placed peacocks, an elongated cantharus, "shield" wings and decoration extended over the whole body. The iconography is typical of some slabs placed in monumental fountains, such as that of Celaliye in U§ak in eastern Lydia which is attributed to the seventh century AD, in which the
peacocks were understood as being placed on the sides of the tree of life [55, pp. 142-143].
11. Repository. Konya, Figs. 25-29.
Fig. 25. Acc. no. 73/728.
Measurements. P.H. 40 cm, P.L. 37 cm, Th. 13.2 cm.
Description. A schematic peacock of Early Byzantine period is depicted on this fragment of a marble ambo. The carver has substantially spared the decoration on his body, replaced by thin engraved lines.
Dating. A high date to the sixth century is offered by the comparison with a peacock depiction of an enclosure in the Basilica of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Grado, north-eastern Italy (Fig. 26) which is probably datable to the fixed chronology of the construction of this basilica by bishop Elias in AD 579.
Dating. Sixth century AD.
References. [3, p. 103; 26, p. 165, fig. 1; 50, p. 214, fig. 392; cf. also 25].
Fig. 27.
Dating. The scarce decoration and in particular the motif of the edge could indicate an early dating, i.e. at least to the sixth century. However, the rendering of the central element (cantharus?) closely resembles a similar slab inserted in the tomb of Karaca Ahmet Sultan, in Karaca Ahmet Village in U§ak, which is dated to the mid-fourteenth century. Thus, sixth century AD.
Reference. [22, p. 160].
Fig. 28.
Measurements. H. 39 cm, L. 170 cm, Th. 27 cm.
Description. Very close to the relief on Fig. 17 from Canakkale is the decoration scheme of the slab on Fig. 28 that is the upper part of an ambo for which the same chronology is proposed.
Dating. These peacocks have the typical appearance of the Middle Byzantine icono-graphic art.
Reference. [50, pp. 214-215, fig. 393; 38, p. 132, fig. 354, interpreted as 'monolithic window'].
Fig. 29.
Measurements. P. H. 63 cm, P.L. 80 cm.
Dating. For this composition Tugfe Karademir proposes a date to the fifth-sixth century which is clearly unthinkable [22, p. 160]. The arrangement of the animals, the shape of the
cantharus and the decoration of the frame lead to a date at least in the eleventh century.
References. [50, pp. 218-219, fig. 405; 22, p. 160].
12. Repository. Kadikalesi (Annaea) near Ku§adasi.
Fig. 30.
Measurements. P. H. 77 cm, P. L. 70.7 cm, Th. 8.3 cm.
Dating. The design of the upper frame appears for the first time towards the end of the eighth century, but remains in use until after the year AD 1000, an era to which this beautiful depiction might also be dated.
References. [8, p. 83, no. 161; 22, p. 160].
13. Repository. Manisa, Figs. 31-32.
In 2008 an essay by Zeynep Mercangoz was published which is dedicated to the sculptural decoration of western Anatolia in the Early Byzantine period. In this paper there are two plates from the province of Manisa in the territories of ancient western Lydia that have an affinity with the representations we have dealed with. Today Manisa is located about thirty kilometers east of Izmir.
These two examples we report below demonstrate once again how the image of the two peacocks facing each other, on either side of a cantharus or the tree of life, has taken firm roots in an area steeped in Byzantine Christianity. This could explain its great fortune over the centuries, also in later Turkish-Islamic periods.
Fig. 31.
Measurements. P.H. 115 cm, L. 53 cm, Th. 5.5 cm.
Description. Within a rich border decorated by semicircles, the slab presents two facing peacocks, which have the usual tripartite crest and decorations on the body, wing and tail that are typical ofthe sixth century AD [35, pp. 86, 97, fig. 16]. They are placed in heraldic position on the sides of a vertical element that does not seem well understood by the stonecutter and which could be a schematic representation of the tree of life.
Note that how in fact the representation is not too far from the one that appears in our plate in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir (Fig. 1). These two peacocks on Manisa slab also seem to have been cut out of a certain modelling.
Fig. 32.
Measurements. H. 61 cm, L. 68 cm.
Provenance. This relief constitutes a reuse of a slab from the Early Byzantine period which is walled during the Ottoman period in a public fountain in the Kirkoluk (literally "forty gutters") Mosque in Tarhala [35, pp. 86, 97, fig. 17] that is recently called as Darkale (literally "narrow castle"), located in the Soma district of the Manisa province. During the Byzantine period Tarhala used to serve as a fortified outpost protecting Pergamum against the threats coming from the east 14.
Description. Although the modern protruding metal tube disfigures the whole plate, it cannot perhaps be denied that the idea of purifying water, which is represented by peacocks drinking, may have retained a sacred value even after centuries.
Here the representation, which is datable to the Middle Byzantine period, is much more articulated and recovers older decorative patterns, such as the central lozenge with round corners, with other more recent ones, such as the three-ply ribbon with its intertwining, to delimit the various set off. The artist did not depict the peacocks as rigidly antithetical, but tried to give them a semblance of naturalness, varying their pose and attitudes.
14. Repository. Museum of Milas.
Fig. 33, a-b. Acc. no. 1786 (Fig. 33, a), acc. no. 3372.
Measurements. Fig. 33, a. P.H. 62 cm, PL. 54 cm, Th. 58 cm; (Fig. 33, b)
Description. Proud of its broad tail is the Milas peacock with its deep furrows. The depiction is placed on the side of a stone staircase (Fig. 33, a).
On the other side of the opposite steps, two peacocks appear, which are drawn only by the furrow that delimits them (Fig. 33, b).
This is an example of an ambo of the Priene type (cf.: [57]), which finds suitable comparisons in the Basilica of Meserias on Kos, in the Castle of Befin (Pefin or Pezona), in the Museum of Miletus and in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir. This particular decoration and the style of carving of the designs is peculiar to the northern part of Caria and southern Ionia.
Dating. This is a richly decorated piece, with edges that recall models of the Classical era. It should thus be dated to the fifth-sixth century AD.
Reference: [34, p. 84, fig. 3].
15. Repository. Museum of Odemi§.
Fig. 34, a. Acc. no. 1786.
Provenance. Found in the village of Konakli
(formerly Adagume) which is located 15 km south of Odemi§ and 119 km south-east of Izmir in the Upper Cayster Valley. The slab indicates most probably existence of a Middle Byzantine church in this area.
Description. The marble slab with the depiction of two peacocks at the Museum of Odemi§ seem to have been drawn by a carver who has lost confidence with figures, even of animals, while expressing all his ability in ornamental and abstract geometric motifs, such as the central (Armenian?) cross, rosettes, interlacings and Catherine wheels (for a similar design on a funerary stele with an Armenian inscription in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir, cf. Fig. 34, b). Bodies of the peacocks are marked by long incised lines as if they have been drawn by a child's hand.
It is noteworthy that a large Armenian community is already attested in Odemi§ in the 19th century.
Dating. Twelfth century AD.
Reference: [38, p. 143, fig. 431].
16. Repository. Museum of Sakarya.
Fig. 35.
Description. This plate belongs to the sarcophagus of a presbyter with the name Ta%a[— who evidently wanted to make use of the usual Early Byzantine iconography for himself.
Dating. Sixth century AD.
17. Repository. Museum of Tekirdag
Fig. 36.
Description. The plate with the peacock depiction in the Museum of Tekirdag in eastern Thrace resumes its vertical position, revealing a search for plasticity both in the body and above all in the rendering of the wing feathers. The tail, however, i.e. the true glory of peacocks, seems somewhat sacrificed.
The use (or reuse?) of Proconnesian marble is noteworthy.
Dating. Sixth century AD.
18. Repository. Museum of Tire, Fig. 37.
Description. Recently a (Middle) Byzantine
group of marble architectural elements with figural scenes came to the Museum of Tire in the Upper
Cayster Valley and remain entirely unpublished. A strong plastic taste is clearly present in one of these fragments where a beautiful branch emerges from a small cornucopia.
Dating. In this case, a dating to the Middle Byzantine period is evident, probably the eleventh or twelfth century. The wide smooth frame, the large thin cross in the centre, the elaborate rendering of the plumage and the ornamented part bring us back to this date.
19. Repository. Museum of U§ak.
Fig. 38.
Dating. Most probably belonging to an ambo carved of Phrygian marble, it reveals a taste for detail which is typical of the Middle Byzantine period.
20. Repository. Skopje in Macedonia.
Fig. 39.
Description. Although Skopje is not located in Turkey, we include this piece in our catalogue for the sake of completeness, as it has a special significance with its similar rendering to the pieces in Asia Minor. It is a part of an ambo in which the peacock is literally immersed in an exorbitant vegetation.
Dating. The two-ply ribbon seems to be a typical production of the eleventh century.
21. Repository. Museum of Yozgat.
Fig. 40. Acc. no. 292.
Description. The triangular-shaped fragment suggests that it is part of an ambo. Like many others, this one is also decorated with the image of a peacock. We are sure that it is indeed a peacock and not a dove due to the presence of the tuft in which the three traditional feathers in the sixth century AD are almost fused together within a crown-like rectangle. The treatment of the neck recalls birds drinking from a cantharus on a relief in the Basilica C in Nea Anchialos, situated southwest of Volos and north of Almyros, which is from the period of Justinian [38, p. 12, fig. 7].
Conclusions. In this paper we have examined 34 examples of Byzantine peacock depictions on marble elements from twenty museums from Turkey and one from Macedonia. Certainly there are numerous others, but we believe that our exemplification through this brief corpus is sufficient to give an idea of the range of this iconography, its related monument types and their
datings in Byzantine Asia Minor. The reliefs we have chosen are far from representing the totality of the specimens present in Asia Minor, however they give an idea of the iconographic and stylistic evolution of peacock depictions from the Early Byzantine to the Late Byzantine period.
As in many other plates, the Izmir relief (Fig. 1) which is the actual focus of this paper, seems to have been cut out of a cardboard. The animals are suspended in space and the one on the right almost seems to fall. The wing is rendered by a simple curved line and the tail by oblique dashes, which fill the spaces outlined by long lines.
There are recognizable elements that modify the rendering of the plumage and often also the position ofthe peacocks. As with the common ambos in Caria and Ionia, it seems possible that some types or characteristics were predominantly regional.
Usually a pair of peacocks are found on either side of a cantharus, which is rendered as an open cup at the top. Here instead we find an evolution, that is a sort of vertical element, with an enlargement in the centre. The peacocks, originally a typical Early Christian motif, have gained an Islamic character up to being welcomed (and reused) in monuments of the Turkish age, such as the fountains of Celaliye and Kirk?e§me and the tomb of Karaca Ahmet in the homonymous village near U§ak. "Peacock depictions are also common in Anatolian Seljuk art. Rufhan Arik, explains the reason of coming across with peacock figure so frequently also on the tiles of Kubad Abad, an Anatolian Seljuk palace, with the influence of Byzantine and Iranian cultures on Seljuk Art" [7, p. 95].
Over the span of almost a millennium, the central vase mostly in shape of a cantharus has progressively transformed into a tree of life, which however still retains some characters, arranged vertically, ofthe original container. The particular, elongated shape of the cantharus that appears in our relief is also present on the examples in Bandirma, Bodrum, Canakkale, Izmir, iznik, Konya and Kadikalesi in Ku§adasi. It therefore appears widespread especially in the central-western part of Anatolia. Probably the Izmir relief that is the main focus of this paper is the first to show this elongation, which in the following centuries is enriched by a kind of variations in the decoration of the stem and cup. If this is correct, then our fence slab of an unknown church
(perhaps the cathedral?) of Smyrna would acquire greater importance, as it shows the start of the transformation of a symbol.
Due to the scarcity of the decoration and the flat rendering ofthe figures, our relief in Izmir seems to date not before the end of the sixth century, most likely during the seventh. The study carried out separately by scholars from different disciplines (epigraphy and history of art) did not allow us to understand the value of this monument for the history of Byzantine Smyrna, of which it attests the previously unknown name of a bishop (of Smyrna), and for the evolution of a very common motif.
NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 For the study of this slab at the Archaeological Museum of Izmir three authorisations have been issued to E. Lafli by the Directorate of the Museum of Izmir on 11 January 2012, 18 January 2012 and 23 February 2012 and numbered as B.16.4.KTM.0.35.14.00-155.99/150, 233 and 604. Documentation was done in 2012 and all the photos were taken by E. Lafli in 2012, if otherwise not indicated.
The rest of the material was studied by E. Lafli with several authorisations that have been issued by directorates of each museum.
Fig. 2 was arranged by Dr Sami Pataci (Ardahan) in 2022 for which we would like to express Dr Pataci our gratitude.
We would like to thank the editors of this journal, especially Pavel Lysikov, who did a thorough and meticulous job. Outside reviewer has a thankless, yet vital role in the publication of this article. We have attempted to incorporate their suggestions in the hope of making this a stronger and more useful paper. We, however, are solely responsible for the final outcome.
Following publication can unfortunately not be considered in this study: Sodini J.-P. A slab with opposed peacocks in the Xanthos eastern Basilica. Asutay-Effenberger N., Daim F., eds. OiXonaxiov,
Spaziergang im Kaiserlichen Garten. Schriften über Byzanz und seinen Nachbarn. Festschrift für A. Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag. Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Schnell & Steiner, 2012, pp. 135-145. (Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Bnd. 106).
2 Cf. [23, p. 28], quoted in [43]. Josef Keil (1878-1963) was the secretary of the Austrian Archaeological Institute of Smyrna and during this post he completed eight volumes of sketches of monuments and inscriptions in western Turkey, including ours.
3 For a brief up-to-date account with numerous references to specialist literature on Smyrna during the Late Antiquity, cf. [27]; and during the Byzantine period, especially through sigillographical aspects, cf. [28].
4 For letter heights, the figure given is that of a typical upright, e.g., iota, tau or epsilon.
5 Ignatius's epistles are particularly interesting in the extent to which they reveal a clear concern to strengthen the position of the established leadership: bishop, presbyters and deacons.
6 A useful source that focuses on the Byzantine iconography of two peacocks flanked a vase is [5].
7 DO acc. no. BZS.1947.2.872.
8 For the most recent studies of Caylak Türker on the architectural sculpture of the region of Canakkale in Byzantine Troad, cf. [51].
9 We thank Dr S0ren Lund S0rensen (Berlin) for his help with the inscription.
10 IG 22 13452 (from Athens; AD 400-450); ICG 3586 (from Edessa, Macedonia; AD 400-450).
11 MAMA 3,112 (from Cilicia; Christian period); cf. [11, pp. 6-7(1) (from Iconium; AD 1068/1069)].
12 MAMA 4,192 (third century AD).
13 For a general review and bibliography, see [10].
14 For Tarhala, cf. among others [16].
EPIGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS
ICG - Inscriptiones christianae graecae IG - Inscriptiones graecae LGPN - Lexicon of Greek Personal Names MAMA - Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua
APPENDIX
Fig. 1, a-g. The plate in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir, acc. no. 000.270 (by E. Lafli, 2010, 2022)
£ s
r>
05 §
£
I
¡k £
I &
§ &
§
1»
N £
BULGARIA
Black Sea
GEORGIA
GREECE'/_ , . , „ Istanbul
yTekirdag® Mannara* Nicomedia Proconnessus* Sea . Sakarya
®Bandirma *Nicaea
__...
®£anakkale
<g>Bahkesir Bergama «Sama,e
11a
(8>Bursa
®Ankara
PHRYGIA CR)
Afyonkarahisar
n^liini
Aegean Mamsa :^fyo
Izmir #Kcmalpa?a siva^Payamalani Clazomenae u * .
KuldSSfadikdesi „ k . ®Konya
, •Pnene KubadAbad
Miletus^ «Labraunda Milas® CAR1A "Be^in Kos® Bodrum
Mediterranean
®Yozgat <8>£i9ekdagi
®Kir§ehir TURKEY
Sami Pataci © 2022
Fig. 2. Map of Byzantine marble monuments with a depiction of peacock or two antithetic peacocks flanking a vase in Asia Minor and other places referred to in the text. Crossed dots indicate museums and sites listed in our catalogue (by S. Pataci, 2022)
>
t
k
to s; o
3 >
et
o hd
cr> p
o o o
Fig. 3. Drawing of the plate (after: [43, pp. 365-366, no. 35])
f 'Avevsco8r|aav oi tcavKeXu erci toij ooicoxaTou ¿tciokojiox) EvTiOicu, oiKovojiovvTo^ 'Ovriaijio-u jipeapu-uepou.
b
Fig. 4, a-b. The inscription as well as its drawing and transcription by G. Petzl (after: [43, pp. 365-366, no. 35])
Fig. 5. A peacock depiction on an ambo, Museum of Afyonkarahisar
Fig. 6. A peacock depiction on an ambo, Fig. 7. A peacock depiction on a fencing slab,
Museum of Afyonkarahisar Museum of Afyonkarahisar
(after: [42, pl. 89, fig. 108])
Fig. 8. The fragmented slab (of a sarcophagus), Museum of Balikesir
Fig. 9. A lead seal in the Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection, acc. no. BZS.1947.2.872
Fig. 10. A peacock depiction on a slab, Museum of Balikesir
Fig. 11. A depiction of two peacocks on a part of the upper slab of a ciborium (after: [12, p. 13, fig. 12])
Fig. 12. A depiction of two peacocks on a gray-white marble slab from a local quarry in Caria, Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology
Fig. 13. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology
(after: [40, p. 415, fig. 6])
Fig. 17. A peacock depiction on a marble slab, Archaeological Museum of Canakkale (after: [50, pp. 388-389, fig. 8])
b
Fig. 18:
a - the funerary stele of Phota from Qifekdag, Museum of Kir^ehir; b - inscription on the funerary stele of Phota from Qifekdag, Museum of Kir^ehir
Fig. 21. Marble slab from the Church A at Ba§pinar on Mountain Nif / Olympus, Archaeological Museum of Izmir
Fig. 22. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Archaeological Museum of Izmir
Fig. 23. A depiction of two peacocks on a plate, Archaeological Museum of Izmir
Fig. 24. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Museum of iznik
Fig. 25. An ambo plate in the A.R. izzet Koyunoglu Private Museum of Konya
Fig. 26. A peacock depiction from the enclosure of the Basilica of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Grado,
north-eastern Italy
Fig. 27. A depiction of two peacocks on a plate (after: [22, p. 174, fig. 10])
Fig. 28. An ambo plate in the Archaeological Museum of Konya
Fig. 29. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab from Konya (after: [49, pp. 218-219, fig. 405])
Fig. 30. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab from Kadikalesi (Annaea) near Ku§adasi (after: [7, p. 83, no. 161])
Fig. 32. A plate walled in a public fountain in the Kirkoluk Mosque in Tarhala (Darkale) (after: [35, pp. 86, 97, fig. 17])
Fig. 33, a-b. Two peacocks depictions, Museum of Milas
b
Fig. 34:
a - a depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Museum of Odemi§; b - a funerary stele with an Armenian inscription in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir
Fig. 35. A plate from the sarcophagus of a presbyter, Museum of Sakarya
Fig. 36. A plate with a peacock depiction, Museum of Tekirdag
Fig. 37. A peacock depiction on a marble slab, Museum of Tire
Fig. 38. A peacock depiction on an ambo (?), Museum of U§ak
Fig. 39. A peacock depiction on an ambo from Skopje in Macedonia
Fig. 40. A part of an ambo (?), Museum of Yozgat
Table 1
Catalogue of depictions of peacocks or two antithetic peacocks flanking a vase in the marble architectural sculpture of Byzantine Asia Minor in this corpus with their monument type and datings
Locations (in an alphabetical order) Sarcophagi Altars Ambos Plates Ciboria Dating
Afyonkarahisar Fig. 7 Early sixth century
Afyonkarahisar Figs. 5-6 Sixth century
Ankara Sixth century
Balikesir Fig. 8 Sixth century
Balikesir Fig. 10 Eighth-ninth century?
Bandirma Fig. 11 Eleventh-twelfth century
Bodrum Fig. 12 Eleventh century
Bodrum Fig. 13 Eleventh century
Bursa Fig. 14 Sixth-seventh century
Bursa Fig. 15 Middle Byzantine
Canakkale Fig. 16 Sixth century
Canakkale Fig. 17 Eleventh century
Kir§ehir Fig. 18, a-b Fifth century
Izmir Fig. 1, a-g Mid sixth-seventh century
Izmir Fig. 19 Early Byzantine
Izmir Fig. 20 Ninth-tenth century
Izmir Fig. 21 Eleventh century or later
Izmir Fig. 22 Middle Byzantine
Izmir Fig. 23 Thirteenth-fourteenth century
iznik Fig. 24 Eleventh century
Konya Fig. 25 Sixth century
Konya Fig. 27 Sixth century
Konya Fig. 28 Eleventh century or later
Konya Fig. 29 Eleventh century
Kadikalesi near Ku§adasi (Annaea) Fig. 30 Eleventh century
Manisa Fig. 31 Sixth century
Tarhala in Manisa Fig. 32 Middle Byzantine
Milas Fig. 33, a-b Fifth-sixth century
Odemiij Fig. 34, a Twelfth century
Sakarya Fig. 35 Sixth century
Tekirdag Fig. 36 Sixth century
Tire Fig. 37 Eleventh-twelfth century
U§ak Fig. 38 Sixth century
Yozgat Fig. 40 Sixth century
Skopje in Macedonia Fig. 39 Eleventh century
REFERENCES
1. Acar T. (U§ak) Karaca Ahmet Sultan Türbesi'ndeki Tavus Ku§u Motifi ve Türbede Gergekle§tirilen Halk inani§lari. Türk Kültürü ve Haci Bekta§ Veli Ara§tirma Dergisi, 2021, vol. 99, pp. 203-243. URL: http://isamveri.org/pdfdrg/ D01093/2021_99/2021_99_ACART.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).
2. Altun F.i. Bandirma Müzesi'nde Bulunan Bizans Dönemine Ait Ta§ Eserler. Elyigit U., ed. Anadolu Cografyasinda Görülen Arkeolojik Sanatsal ve Kültürel Faaliyetler. Konya, Egitim Yayinevi, 2021, pp. 116-163.
3. Anabolu M.U. Bati Anadolu'da Bulunmu§ Olan Yayimlanmami§ Tavus Ku§u Motifli Mimarlik Elemanlari. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi, 1988, vol. 27, pp. 101-112.
4. Anastasiadou A. E choregia stis anatolikes eparchies tesByzantines Autokratorias: aphierömatikes kai ktetorikes epigraphes naön tes M. Asias (4os-15os ai.): didaktorike diatribe [Religious Patronage at the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire: Dedicatory Inscriptions from Churches in Asia Minor (4th - 15th Centuries): Doctoral Thesis]. Vol. II. Thessaloniki, 2005. pp. 207-680, 59 pls., 4 ills. URL: https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/20680 (accessed 1 September 2022).
5. Andelkovic J., Rogic D., Nikolic E. Peacock as a Sign in the Late Antique and Early Christian Art. Archaeology and Science, 2010 (2011), vol. 6, pp. 231-248.
6. Andig A. Izmir Arkeoloji Müzesi 'ndeki Bizans Dönemi Ta§ Eserleri: Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Qanakkale, 2012. xiv, 161 p., 45 p. ills. URL: https://tez.yok.gov. tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=-JU9ubkb8Y GYEc8jjC4pKg&no=ynVT0lU6fZCPvu_fVFGF8Q (accessed 1 September 2022).
7. Arik R. Kubad Abad. Selguklu Saray ve Qinileri. Istanbul, Türkiye i§ Bankasi, 2000. 227 p. (Türkiye i§ Bankasi Kültür Yayinlari Genel Yayin; No. 514 (Sanat Dizisi)). URL: https://www.academia. edu/33243370/ (accessed 1 September 2022).
8. Armagan M.E. Ku§adasi, Kadikalesi 'ndeki Bizans Dönemi Ta§ Eserleri: Doktora Tezi. Izmir, 2010. 290 p. URL: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ tezDetay.jsp?id=FriGvwBsii3WJqxnXfnSoQ&no=C IZ2xNMXZI2NiX-vU9qR2g (accessed 1 September 2022).
9. Aydin A. Ankara Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi'ndeki Bir Kiliseye Ait Mimari Pargalar. Belleten, vol. 56, no. 4, 2002, pp. 50-66. URL: https://belleten.gov.tr/tam-metin-pdf/13/tur (accessed 1 September 2022).
10. Barsanti C. Scultura anatolica di epoca mediobizantina. Barsanti C, Guiglia Guidobaldi A., Iacobini A., eds. Gruppo Nazionale di Coordinamento
C.N.R., "Storia dell'arte e della cultura artistica bizantina ". Atti della giornata di studio Roma, 4 dicembre 1986. Rome, Biblioteca di Storia Patria, 1988, pp. 275306. (Milion. Studi e ricerche d'arte bizantina; vol. 1).
11. Bees N.A. Die Inschriftenaufzeichnung des Kodex Sinaiticus graecus 508 (976) und die Maria-Spiläotissa-Klosterkirche bei Sille (Lykaonien), mit Exkursen zur Geschichte der Seldschukiden-Türken. Wilmersdorf, Berlin, Verlag der "Byzantinischneugriechischen Jahrbücher", 1922. (Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie 1; Byzantinisch-neugriechischen Jahrbücher, Suppl.). 89 S.
12. Çorakli B. Çini ve Seramiklerde Tavus Kuçu Motifi. Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2012, vol. 6, pp. 7-16. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/ article-file/757663 (accessed 1 September 2022).
13. Destephen S. Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. Vol. 3: Diocèse d'Asie (325-641). Paris, Association des ^mis du Centre d'histoire et de civilisation de Byzance, 2008. 1055 p.
14. Dinç S., Efendioglu T. Kirçehir Müzesi'nden Yeni Yazitlar. Eskiçag Yazilari. Vol. 9 (Akron. Vol. 12). Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, 2016, pp. 175-204.
15. Ergil O. Izmir Müzesindeki (Agora) Bizans Parçalari: Lisans Bitirme Tezi. Istanbul, 1970. 114 p.
16. Ermiç Ü.M. Darkale in the Byzantine Period: Settlement and Some Architectural Notes. Turkish Studies, 2016, vol. 11/1, pp. 59-76. URL: https://turkishstudies.net/turkishstudies?mod=tam metin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=586047908_5Er mi%C5%9F%20%C3%9C.%20Melda-trh-59-76. pdf&key=19251 (accessed 1 September 2022).
17. Fedalto G. Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis. Vol. I. Padova, Messaggero, 1988. xx, 571 p.; Vol. II. P. 581-1208; Vol. III. 2006. 560 p. (Series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium).
18. Feissel D. Inscriptions chrétiennes et byzantines. Revue des études grecques, 1990, vol. 103, pp. 598-616. URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ reg_0035-2039_1990_num_103_492_2489 (accessed 1 September 2022).
19. Giangrande J., ed. Eunapii Vitae Sophistarum. Rome, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1956. xlv, 111 p. (Scriptores Graeci et Latini consilio Academiae Lynceorum Editi).
20. Hailes L., ed. On the Deaths ofthe Persecutors: a Translation of De Mortibus Persecutorum by Lucius Cœcilius Firmianus Lactantius. Merchantville, NJ, Evolution Publishing, 2021. 128 p.
21. Hübner S. Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des spätantiken Kleinasiens: Diss. Dr. phil. Jena, 2005. 345 S. URL: https://d-nb.info/975203827/34 (accessed 1 September 2022).
22. Karademir T. Bizans Dönemi Ta§ Eserlerinde Refrigerium Sahneleri. Troy Academy, Mar. 2021, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 158-186. URL: https://dergipark.org. tr/tr/pub/troyacademy/issue/60531/894348 (accessed 1 September 2022).
23. Keil J. Skizzenbuch Smyrna, July 1910. In 8 vols. Vol. 8. Num. p. Kleinasiatischen Kommission zu Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
24. Kramer J. Pfau. Kirschbaum E., ed. Lexikon für christliche Ikonographie. Bd. 3: Allgemeine Ikonographie, Laban - Ruth. Freiburg im Breisgau, Verlag Herder KG, 1971, S. 409-411.
25. Kunduraci O. Konya Müzelerindeki Bizans DevrineAit Tezyinatli Mimari Pargalar: YüksekLisans Tezi. Konya, 1989.
26. Kunduraci O., Mimiroglu i.M. Byzantine Stone Works in The Private Koyunoglu City Museum of Konya Metropolitan Municipality. Öniz H., Aslan E., eds. SOMA 2009: Proceedings of the XIIIth Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology Selguk University of Konya, Turkey, 23-24April 2009. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2011, pp. 165-170. URL: https://www. academia.edu/38203057/ (accessed 1 September 2022).
27. Lafli E., Buora M. Two Figural Marble Plates from a Tetrarchic Honorary Arch in Izmir. Riehle A. et al., eds. Studies in Honour of Albrecht Berger. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2023. (Byzantinische Archive). (forthcoming).
28. Lafli E., Seibt W. 21 Lead Seals from Izmir (Ancient Smyrna). Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2023, Bd. 116. (forthcoming).
29. Le Quien M. Oriens christianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus, in quo exhibentur Ecclesiae patriarchae caeterique praesules totius Orientis. Vol. 1. Paris, Ex Typographia Regia, 1740. viii, 1450, l p. URL: https://archive.org/details/lequienorienschristianus1 (accessed 1 September 2022).
30. Lietzmann H., ed. Die drei ältesten Martyrologien. Bonn, A. Marcus und E. Weber's Verlag, 1911. 18 S. (Kleine Texte für theologische und philologische Vorlesungen und Übungen; Bd. 2).
31. Lother H. Der Pfau in der altchristlichen Kunst. Eine Studie über das Verhältnis von Ornament und Symbol. Leipzig, Dieterich, 1929. 87 S., 6 pls. (Studien über christliche Denkmäler. n. F; Bd. 18).
32. Maier P.L., ed. Eusebius: The Church History; a New Translation with Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel, 1999. 412 p.
33. Mercangöz Z. Izmir ve Manisa Illerinde Bizans Yapilarina Ait Mimari Plastik Pargalarin Saptanmasi ve Degerlendirilmesi: Doktora Tezi. Izmir, 1996.
34. Mercangöz Z. Milas Müzesi'ndeki Bizans Ambon Elemenlari. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 1996, vol. 8, pp. 81-98. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/std/ issue/16511/172394 (accessed 1 September 2022).
35. Mercangöz Z. Réflexions sur le décor sculpté byzantin d'Anatolie occidentale. Pennas Ch., Vanderheyde C., eds. La sculpture byzantine VIIe-XIIe siècles. Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l'École française d'Athènes (6-8 septembre 2000). Athens, École française d'Athènes, 2008, pp. 81-103. (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Supplément; vol. 49).
36. Mordek H. Eine ungedruckte Bischofsliste des 1. ökumenischen Konzils von Nicäa (325) (Cod. Stuttgart HB VI 113 der Collectio Weingartensis). Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1996, Vol. 118, No. 2, pp. 138-150. URL: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/24170247 (accessed 1 September 2022).
37. Moreau J. Lactance. De la mort des persécuteurs. Vol. 2: Commentaire. Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1954. 302 p. (Sources chrétiennes; vol. 39.2).
38. Niewöhner Ph. Byzantine Ornaments in Stone: Architectural Sculpture and Liturgical Furnishings. Berlin; Boston, MA, Walter de Gruyter, 2021. 188 p., 487 ills. and two maps.
39. Orlandos A.K. Christianika glypta tou Mouseiou Smyrnës [Christian Sculptures of the Museum of Izmir]. Orlandos A.K., ed. Archeion tön Byzantinön mnemeiön tes Ellados: eksamëniaion periodikon suggramma [Archive of the Byzantine Monuments of Greece: A Six-Monthly Periodical]. Vol. 3. Athens, Archaiologikë Etaireia Publ., 1937, pp. 128-152.
40. Özyurt Özcan H. Examples of Architectural Sculpture with Figurative and Floral Decoration of the Byzantine Period at Mugla, Bodrum and Milas Archaeological Museums. Olba, May 2011, no. 19, pp. 383-418. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ olba/issue/47201/594316 (accessed 1 September 2022).
41. Parman E. Bizans Sanatinda Tavus Kuçu ikonografisi. Sanat Tarihinde ikonografik Ara§tirmalar. Güner inal'a Armagan. Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 1993, pp. 387-412. (Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayinlari. Armagan Dizisi; vol. 4).
42. Parman E. Ortaçagda Bizans Döneminde Frigya (Phrygia) ve Bölge Müzelerindeki Bizans Ta§ Eserleri. Eskiçehir, Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2002. II, 273, 139 pls., 39 figs (T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayinlari; no. 1347; Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayinlari; no. 11). URL: https://archive.org/details/ebru-parman-bizans-doneminde-phrygia-ve-bolge-muzelerindeki-bizans-tas-eserleri-2002 (accessed 1 September 2022).
43. Petzl G. Die Inschriften von Smyrna. Bd. 2/2: Addenda, Corrigenda und Indices. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1990. vii, S. 339-468, 33 pls. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien; Bd. 24/2).
44. Reimbold E.Th. Der Pfau. Mythologie und Symbolik. Munich, Callwey, 1983. 198 S.
45. Robert J., Robert L. Bulletin épigraphique. Revue des études grecques 1966, vol. 79, pp. 335-449.
URL: www.persee.fr/doc/reg_0035-2039_1966_ num_79_374_3864 (accessed 1 September 2022).
46. Ruggieri A. Sculture di Ravenna fra V e VI secolo. ArcheoArte. Rivista elettronica di Archeologia e Arte, 2012, suppl. 1, pp. 577-590. URL: https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/archeoarte/article/ view/476 (accessed 1 September 2022).
47. Scheibelreiter-Gail V. Die Mosaiken Westkleinasiens: Tesellate des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. bis Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Vienna, Österreiches Archäologisches Institut Wien, 2011. 712 S. (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes; Bd. 46).
48. Seeck O. Euethios. Kroll W., ed. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Bd. 6, Teil 1. Stuttgart, Druckenmüller, 1907. 983 S.
49. Tagliaferri A. Le diocesi di Aquileia e Grado. Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo, 1981. 448 p. (Corpus della scultura altomedievale; vol. 10).
50. Temple N.Q. Konya/Ikonion ve Qevresinde Bulunan Bizans Dönemi Ta§ Eserleri: Doktora Tezi. Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2013. 808 p. URL: http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/ handle/11655/1338 (accessed 1 September 2022).
51. Türker A.Q. Byzantine Carved Marble Slabs from Qanakkale Archaeology Museum. Pensabene P, Gasparini E., eds. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. ASMOSIA X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of ASMOSIA, Association for the Study of Marble & Other Stones in Antiquity, Rome, 21-26 May 2012. Rome, L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2015, pp. 385-392.
52. Türker A.Q. Byzantine Architectural Sculpture in Qanakkale. Ankara, Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayinlari, 2018. 660 p. (Research into the Early Christian and
Byzantine Periods on the Valleys that Reached the Hellespont; vol. 1).
53. Ulbert T. Studien zur dekorativen Reliefplastik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes (Schrankenplatten des 4.-10. Jahrhunderts). München, Institut für Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 1969. 209 S. (Miscellanea Byzantina Monascensia; vol. 10).
54. Ulbert T. Untersuchungen zu denbyzantinischen Reliefplatten des 6. bis 8. Jahrhunderts. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 1969-1970, Bd. 19/20, S. 339-357.
55. Üstünipek S. A Fountain in Celaliye with Depiction of Peacocks and Its Iconographic Analysis. Skrijelj R., Düzgün E., eds. Academic Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Lyon, Livre de Lyon, 2021, pp. 137-160. URL: https:// www.bookchapter.org/kitaplar/AcademicStudies_ inHumanitiesAndSocialSciences.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).
56. Vanderheyde C. La sculpture byzantine du IXe au XVe siècle. Contexte - mise en œuvre - décors. Paris, Éditions A. & J. Picard, 2020. 364 p., 193 figs.
57. Westphalen St. The Byzantine Basilica at Priene. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 2000, vol. 54, pp. 275280. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291846 (accessed 1 September 2022).
58. Yalçin A.B. Sculture bizantine conservate nel Museo del castello di Bodrum. Padovese L., eds. Atti del X Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni apostolo. Rome, Istituto Francescano di Spiritualità; Pontificia Université Antoniano, 2005, pp. 318-330. (Turchia, la Chiesa e la sua storia; vol. 19).
59. Yalçin A.B. The Byzantine complex at Baçpinar. Lafli E., Pataci S., eds. Recent Studies on the Archaeology of Anatolia. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2015, pp. 49-55. (British Archaeological Reports, International Series; no. 2750).
Information About the Authors
ErgOn Lafli, Doctor, Professor, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Edebiyat Fakultesi, Arkeoloji Bolumu, Oda No A 418, Tinaztepe/Kaynaklar Yerle§kesi, Buca, TR-35160 Izmir, Turkey, elafli@yahoo.ca, http:// deu.academia.edu/ErgunLAFLI, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-5018
Maurizio Buora, Doctor, Societa Friulana di Archeologia odv, Via Micesio 2, Torre di Porta Villalta, I 33100 Udine, Italy, mbuora@libero.it, https://independent.academia.edu/mauriziobuora, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5746-8312
Информация об авторах
Dr Эргюн Лафлы, профессор классической археологии, Университет Докуз Эйлюль, факультет литературы, кафедра археологии, OdaNoA-418, Tinaztepe/KaynaklarYerle§kesi, Buca, TR-35160 г. Измир, Турция, elafli@yahoo.ca, http://deu.academia.edu/ErgunLAFLI, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-5018 Dr Маурицио Буора, Фриульское археологическое общество, Via Micesio 2, Torre di Porta Villalta, I-33100 Удине, Италия, mbuora@libero.it, https://independent.academia.edu/mauriziobuora, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5746-8312
