Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Tınaztepe

 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА www.volsu.ru DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2022.6.13 UDC 902(653):726.5 Submitted: 01.07.2022 LBC 63.444-427 Accepted: 28.10.2022 A SLAB FROM IZMIR WITH TWO PEACOCKS. DEPICTIONS OF PEACOCKS IN BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE OF ASIA MINOR 1 Ergün Laflı Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Izmir, Turkey Maurizio Buora Società 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 In this article Ergün Laflı gives a detailed description of this inscribed plate which is a valuable historical document, while Maurizio Buora analyses its inscription and makes its epigraphic assessment as well as a systematic examination of the iconography of peacocks in the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. Laflı 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  Laflı E., Buora M., 2022 Фриульское социологическое общество, г. Удине, Италия Аннотация. В этой статье представлены изображения мраморной амвонной плиты из Археологического 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, в мраморной архитектурной скульптуре византийской Малой Азии для того, чтобы уточнить датировку амвонной плиты из Измира. Был составлен сопроводительный каталог с несколькими примерами изображе- Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 171 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА 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 архитек- турной скульптуре византийской Малой Азии на основе свыше 30 подобных примеров из музеев Турции. Ключевые слова: мраморная амвонная плита; епископ; павлины; павлины, фланкирующие вазу; Из- мир; 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. Изо- бражения 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 of published examples from this city during the Anne Mary Thoen-Weissenborn Byzantine period where we have only limited (1946–†2022) surviving literary and archaeological evidence 3. Introduction. The Archaeological Museum The marble slab. Material. High-grade of Izmir curates a marble slab among the marble large crystalline, light white-gray marble quarried finds in its garden (Fig. 1, a–g, acc. no. 000.270) probably from Belevi near Ephesus; fine grained, which bears a composition with two antithetic pale gray to blue gray. The marble is similar to peacocks flanking a vase and a dedicatory the native one into the area of Ephesus, which inscription on its upper part. We do not know where was commonly utilized for both architecture and and when the piece was found. The catalogue card in sculpture of the ecclesiastical buildings of western the Museum’s office contains no information about Anatolia during the Early Byzantine period. its findspot. But, because of a number of reasons, Measurements. H. 891 mm (with mouldings), which we explain below, we believe it must once L. 1423 mm, Th. (top) 88 mm, (bottom) 78 mm, have stood in an Early Byzantine church in Smyrna. L.H. 21–34 mm 4. (Fig. 2). The slab survived intact until the beginning State of preservation. Nearly intact slab of the twentieth century, when Josef Keil 2 who horizontally broken with the flat top broken off, was the director of the Austrian excavations at reassembled from four large fragments with Ephesus, found it in pieces at the Agora of Smyrna some chips and two large losses at the both upper and drew in 1910 its sketch (Fig. 3). It remained corners (Fig. 1, a). The main horizontal break unappreciated until Georg Petzl’s republishing it runs diagonally through the centre of the scene. in his corpus of Smyrnean inscriptions in 1990 The entire scene in the central portion is preserved. with other unpublished inscriptions of uncertain Dark gray particulate soiling covers the slab’s origin copied from Smyrna by Keil [43, pp. 365- front and back. Otherwise well-preserved. 366, no. 35]. In 1937 the piece was examined by The back, which is framed with narrow Anastasios K. Orlandos [39, p. 136, fig. 8], a Greek border mouldings both on top and bottom, is flat, historian of architecture who published the first plain, smooth and moderately weathered, with catalogue of the Byzantine stone monuments in pitted and abraded areas; there is also rasping the Museum of Izmir. In this study by Orlandos on the surface (Fig. 1, b). Mouldings on top and the slab was broken and its upper left corner was bottom are separated by two channels carved missing. That caused the loss of an important part with a narrow flat chisel. The top and bottom are of the inscription, which was integrated in a not smooth and flat, bearing marks of a flat chisel, entirely correct way by Orlandos himself. The plate although no attachment holes or cuttings are seen was, however, never photographed in any of these (Fig. 1, c–d). On the upper right break there are publications. two tiny, pin-size drill holes, possibly for (later) Since very few Byzantine stone monuments repairment (Fig. 1, e). There are no other holes in the Izmir Museum have a known provenance on both flank fronts which are left with a rough- as Smyrna, this plate merits inclusion in the body picked surface created by the pointed chisel 172 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks (Fig. 1, e–f). On the back, at the bottom of the ecclesiastical iconography. Typologically, the left side, a remnant of a certain carving with an vessel looks also like a cantharus, a type of ancient unidentified shape remains (Fig. 1, g). Greek cup used for drinking. Provenance. As said above, it was supposingly The scene is framed with the top and bottom found by Keil in pieces at the Agora of Smyrna in border mouldings. Slightly projecting three-part an unknown time period, as many of such pieces moulding (of a shallow cavetto over a flat ovolo) may once have been inside the Agora, where near the top are separating the finial from the main there was a collection of ancient sculptures and part of the stone and inscribed with the name of the architectural elements latest in the early 20th century. ecclesiastical dignitaries. The bottom of the plate Description. This is a rectangular slab with is also finished with three rows of moulding. The a shallow recessed panel, horizontally placed on height of the moulding below the design is 165 mm. the face of the stone, containing figures in low The crisp carving of the lower mouldings on this relief of two opposing peacocks in profile flanking fragment indicates that it was a monument of high a handless amphora-like large vessel measuring quality. Both mouldings do not continue around the 230 mm high, which are the central features of sides of the block, but on the back (Fig. 1, b). the iconography (Fig. 1, a). Our slab was most Inscription. As mentioned above, two probably a part of chancel enclosure of a church. narrow epistyles are inscribed with a short In addition to its shape, its inscription indicates inscription which is a dedication of chancel and clearly the expression “chancels” which appears has a very high value, as epigraphic evidence in in the first line (cf. below). Smyrna is extremely limited in the Byzantine At both sides of the vessel there are period (Fig. 4, a). According to the reading of two fat-bodied or plump-bodied birds in a Keil, which Petzl makes its own, the text is as narrative scene, very possibly peacocks or follows (Fig. 4, b): partridges, flanking a large vessel. The animals Transcription. are represented in low relief and the figures are ☩ Ἀνενεώθησαν οἱ κάνκελυ ἐπὶ τοῦ rendered inaccurately with less facial features. ὁσιωτάτου ἐπισκόπου The opposing peacocks are at the same level, 2 Εὐηθίου, οἰκονομοῦντος Ὀνησίμου but not placed on a groundline; the vessel which πρεσβυτέρου. has a larger scale in proportion to the peacocks, Epigraphic comments. Inscription in two rests on the lower edge of the relief panel. The flat lines consists of crudely incised and randomly figures are simple and stiffly carved in a shallow placed letters, but generally its lettering is good. outline technique with little plastic and modeling Alphas have a broken bar. At the beginning of the quality. Feet and legs of peacocks are well text there is a cross, as it is customary in sacred modeled, but simply incised. Shallow incisions texts and also popular in funerary inscriptions indicate anatomical features of the birds, such as from the fifth century AD onwards, both in the feet, feathers, wings, eyes and beaks. The facial East and in the West. features are cursorily indicated. The birds have The paleography of the inscription as well a sharp beak. The straight outline of their tail the expression ἀνενεώθησαν are not commented feathers is superposed over the bend in the wrist. here to avoid possible repetition. Their tail feathers form a backdrop. The bird’s Orlandos reconstructed the first word wings are slightly extended. Thus, these birds as κατεσκυάσ]θησαν. In the second line he resemble also a pigeon (genus Columba; Turkish completely missed the name of the episcopos, kumru which is very popular in modern Izmir), even if he should have understood, that it was a rather than a peacock. But, low level of detail couple of ecclesiastical dignitaries and the text in the representation makes identification of the only made sense, if the name of the episcopos was species difficult. In any case, the partridge is a followed by that of the oikonomos, the highest species of bird which is not commonly depicted authorities of the local ecclesiastical community in Byzantine marble iconography. of Early Byzantine Smyrna. The vase, most probably an amphora in the Dating. The accompanying inscription is middle, is somewhat larger than the peacocks, difficult to date, but the persons named in this but still within the size seen in comparable text might be identified (cf. below). With no firm Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 173 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА externally datable context, we have tried to date martyrs a Christian named as John or Euetius of this piece to a general stylistic milieu. It  could Nicomedia, executed at Nicomedia in 24 February thus be assigned to the mid-sixth century AD AD 303 for tearing down the first edict against on the basis of style, subject, inscription and the Christians [20, 13.2; and 32, 8.5.1]. The name workmanship; but this date should be considered comes from a Syriac martyrology of AD 411 [30, as a rough approximation. Perhaps the inscription p. 9]. Jacques Moreau regards Euethios as the was written secondarily. correct form of the name [37, p. 279]. The text References (in an chronological order): [23, of Eunapius offers in the extra properly corrupt p. 28; 39, p. 136, fig. 8 (dated into the late sixth- manuscript tradition the name Euetius, which has early seventh century AD); 53, p. 57, nos. 20-21; been unanimous since Valesianus improved in 54, p. 356, pl. 69, fig. 3 (late sixth-early seventh Evagrius [19, p. 38, 6.11.2]. century AD); 43, pp. 365-366, no. 35; 18, p. 604, The most significant attestation of Euethios no. 908 (with transcription); 4, pp. 261-262, no. 50 in Asia Minor was the name of the bishop of (with transcription), p. 624, no. 50 (sixth–seventh Ephesus in ca. AD 365–381 [13, p. 280] and could century AD), pl. 7, no. 50; 21, p. 139, note 248]. be the same person mentioned in our Smyrnean A bishop of Smyrna in Early Byzantine inscription. We do not, however, know the status of period? The letters of the inscription on our slab the see of Smyrna before the mid-seventh century are not particularly accurate. The fact that the AD, as it was an autocephalous archbishopric of slab is inscribed suggests that it was placed in the the province of Asia; but it is quite possible that centre of a fence. in this particular period Smyrna was a suffragan In fact, the inscription mentions two of Ephesus and because of this reason its bishop persons, namely the episcopos (bishop) Euethios was mentioned in our inscription. and the oikonomos (oeconomus) who was the In contrast to Euetius, Onesimos or Onesimus presbyter, i.e. an elder of the congregation in (ὀνήσιμος, meaning “useful”) was a popular name Early Christianity, Onesimos. In their time, the in Roman and Late Roman Smyrna. gates or slabs of the enclosure of the presbytery We believe that the slab from the Izmir of a church were renovated, which may have Museum originates from Smyrna. The local been the cathedral of Smyrna. Already since the church of Smyrna was organized into a diocese Early Christian era in the first century AD Smyrna since the second century AD, as an epistle was an autocephalous archbishopric, but about from St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Christians its location and churches we have almost no of Smyrna and their bishop Polycarp proves information. The succession of the two names is it in AD 107  5. From the fourteenth century, very significant: in the first place the episcopos, i.e. 1318, it had a series of Western bishops as then the person responsible for the treasury of the owners. The list of Greek bishops, with many diocese. It is surprising that in reporting this text shortcomings, has been handed down to us by in her doctoral dissertation, Sabine Hübner, while Giorgio Fedalto in his Hierarchia ecclesiastica citing the Petzl’s edition, did not realize that not orientalis [17] and Michel Le Quien in his Oriens only the πρεσβύτερος was mentioned here, as she Christianus [29, pp.  741-744]. Here two fixed erroneously writes [21, p. 139, note 248]. points appear, a couple of names linked to the The name Euethios, which is of unknown rise of the Monophysite movement and to the origin, is in particular known in its Latin version, events of the forties of the sixth century AD, and i.e. Euetius (or Vetius) [48, p. 983]. This name was then other names are attested at the beginning of popular in Asia Minor, as there are ten attestations the ninth century. Our bishop was not mentioned in LGPN (in vols. V.B and V.C); and four in ICG by any Medieval source, but his name was (nos. 229, 914, 943 and 2398). An Eubecius engraved on a stone monument and therefore (in Cod. Stuttgart) or Eubuetius (in Cod. Munich) indisputably attested. Because of this, the span of was quoted instead of Euteius in a Late Antique his episcopate probably fell between the mid-sixth manuscript which includes Eastern bishops and the beginning of the ninth century. who signed at the First Council of Nicaea [36, Furthermore, the Greek equivalent of the pp. 142-143, note 17]. Furthermore, Lactantius Latin term cancelli (or cancellus in the singular; and Eusebius record anonymously in the list of “lattice-work”), i.e. οἵ κάνκελυ; κάγκελλος in 174 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks singular, is very common in Byzantine Asia peacocks are portrayed drinking from a vase Minor, as Louis Robert has noted it already in which symbolizes a Christian drinking the waters 1966 [45, p. 363]. of eternal life 6. The scene also recalls one of the The depiction of peacocks or two central pleasures of life, the symposium, now antithetic peacocks flanking a vase in the ended forever for the deceased. In Asia Minor marble architectural sculpture of Byzantine the representation of two peacocks on either Asia Minor. In zoology peacock or peafowl is a side of a cantharus is very common on marble common name for three bird species. Male peafowl architectural elements so that we can analyze their is referred to as peacocks, and female peafowl particularities: generally on such scenes in various are referred to as peahens, even though peafowl combinations the peacock figures are more or of either sex is often referred to colloquially as less evenly spaced on both sides of a vase which “peacocks”. Peafowl means forest birds that nest stands in the middle. Most of the time peacocks on the ground, but roost in trees. are larger in comparison to the overall size of the Already in the third-fourth centuries AD vase in their middle. The peacock is often depicted peacocks appeared on mosaic floors in western next to the tree of life as well. It is, however, not Anatolia individually or in pairs, such as in clear when and where exactly this scene appears the peacock mosaic of the apsidal house at in Anatolia for the first time. Clazomenae, ca. 40 km west of Smyrna [47, p. 297]. It is longly noticed that compositions with As early as in the Roman period Early peacocks were popular among the monuments Christians adopted the symbol of the peacock, of ecclesiastical architectural sculpture, on παγώνι in Greek and pavo in Latin, to represent the mosaic floors and mural painting as well immortality. This came from an ancient legend as several other iconographic media whereas that the flesh of the peacock did not decay. It is representations on these latter groups are also associated with the resurrection of Christ, excluded in this article. In  Anatolia several because it sheds its old feathers every year and varieties of architectural monuments bear peacock grows, newer, brighter ones each year. depictions, ranging from those with relatively little During the Byzantine period various bird carving (for  example ambo plates) to elaborate species and mythical-biblical birds are represented architectural structures assembled from parts in marble architectural sculpture. The peafowl is (such as ciboria; cf. Table 1). This well-known native to Anatolia and significant in its culture. depiction is also common in burial contexts. In Anatolia the symbolism with peacock was Depictions of peacocks or two antithetic peacocks adopted mainly by Early Christianity, thus some flanking a vase have been the subject of much Early Christian marble architectural elements and previous discussion (Chronologically e.g. [31; 54; mosaics as well as frescoes show peacocks in 24; 44; 41, passim; 4, pp. 462-463, no. 249 (from various compositions. The peacock can symbolise Amorium in Phrygia; fifth century AD), p. 631, the cosmos, if one interprets its tail with its many no. 249, pl. 33, no. 249, pl. 34, no. 249 (g); 35, “eyes” as the vault of heaven dotted by the sun, pp. 85, 97, figs. 16–17 (in our catalogue, below); moon and stars. By  Christian adoption of old 5; 46; 52, passim; 56, passim;  1, pp.  216-217; Persian and Babylonian symbolism, in which 55, pp. 144-145; 20, passim; and 38, p. 13, p. the peacock was associated with paradise and 20, fig. 25, pp. 49-53, figs.  115, 123 and 125, the tree of life, the bird is again associated with p. 81, fig. 212, p.  141, p.  143, figs.  380 and immortality. 382, p. 157, fig. 428, p.  158, fig. 431, p.  173, In Byzantine Asia Minor peacocks are fig.  469]). These depictions are especially placed in a limited range of biblical/ecclesiastical common between the fifth and seventh century iconographic scenes. The compositions are AD in the marble architectural sculpture of Asia usually limited either to single peacock depictions, Minor. Peacocks are carved with more plasticity or two opposing peacocks on the sides of a vase and three-dimensionality in the Early Byzantine in their middle. The depiction of a peacock period; in later periods, however, details become on architectural elements makes generally a fewer and are indicated with less plasticity. connection with paradise. Especially between The name of the vase between two opposing the fifth and seventh centuries AD two antithetic peacocks is mostly interpreted as “cantharus”, a Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 175 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА name based in ancient literary sources. On these In general all types of this architectural depictions there are so many extant examples sculpture exhibit qualities that are conservative, of the tall and narrow-necked vessels, which formulaic and schematic. While there is an are generally called as “cantharoi”, but perhaps overall uniformity in depictions of peacocks, another and more common vase shape, amphora, each representation of peacock in this catalogue is a better candidate for this vase depiction, as does retain a modicum of individuality and the one on our plate from Izmir. It is already specificity. Within the conventions of architectural recognized that in the Byzantine depiction of sculpture, a marble carver would modify the such vessels there was a preference to use their characteristics of each work to satisfy the forms from the Greek Classical period in the particular requirements of its ecclesiastical fifth-fourth centuries BC which were treated in a function and setting. Each architectural element summary fashion. with peacock depiction presents a different variant Catalogue of depictions. The monuments of traditional elements, a unique combination included in this catalogue are from the Early of peacocks and other features. As mentioned and Middle Byzantine periods (cf. Table 1). above, there are no extant examples of a particular Only half of these pieces have already been peacock scene being replicated exactly on a second published previously. As said above, such monument. As longly noticed, the uniqueness of paradisal scenes with peacock depictions were each architectural monument suggests that the featured commonly in ecclesiastical architectural iconography, even though it appears repetitive and plastic in Byzantine Asia Minor and are attested adheres to a set of general norms, was an element on other contemporary media, such as mosaics, of consideration by both the sculptor and the frescoes and ceramics; but this scene at the patron, i.e. ecclesiastical institution which once slab from Izmir did not turn up any monuments ordered these monuments. with exactly the same composition. For a The variations of architectural monuments better understanding of our plate we collected with peacock depictions  – categorized by the images of over thirty representations on their monument type, such as ambos, ciboria, ecclesiastical architectural plastic, distributed sarcophagi or altars  – are all included in this throughout Anatolia (Fig. 2). Below we present catalogue (cf.  Table 1) but designated more a summarized catalogue of these monuments particularly in the individual catalogue entries. in alphabetical order of the city of their origin, We have tried to be conservative in this almost all of which are being curated in Turkish catalogue, including only architectural elements local museums. This collection offers, however, with concretized peacock depictions. In the only a selected overview of Byzantine peacock case of other bird depictions in a poor state of representations in Turkey, and we are not preservation, particularly heads broken from concerned here with the whole iconographic reliefs, identification as peacock is difficult and aspects of each monuments, as it is beyond the these material are excluded from this catalogue. scope of this catalogue. We have narrowed the Object deterioration, iconographical ambiguity list of works cited here, focusing on those which and, of course, the limits of our current knowledge, have been of the greatest use to us in our research all hinder the attainment of certainty. on peacock depictions in Anatolia, and we do not Very few of these monuments in this claim that this is a comprehensive accounting. catalogue are inscribed, like the slab in Izmir and Peacock depictions from Asia Minor reveal these uninscribed monuments are therefore dated sometimes unique iconography, previously on the basis of style. unknown inscriptions and a wide range of 1. Repository. Museum of Afyonkarahisar, monument types that were utilized by residents of Figs. 5–7. Byzantine Anatolia. Although all of our examples In the Museum of Afyonkarahisar there are in this catalogue are collected from various local two examples of peacock depictions on ambos museums or sites in Turkey, a marble plate with (Figs. 5–6) and a third on a fencing slab (Fig. 7). a peacock depiction from Skopje, Macedonia The trapezoidal panels on Figs. 5 and 6 have edges (Fig.  36) is also included here because of its with a series of sharp- and thick-edged mouldings, similarity to our material. which are dated particularly to the first half of the 176 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks sixth century. The animals have in common the Marmara, part of the upper slab of a ciborium crests formed by three feathers, the tails decorated (Fig.  11) shows characteristic features of the with zigzag lines and the thin necks. Middle Byzantine period, such as the shape of Fig. 6. Acc. no. 1399. the six-pointed leaf, the curved section of the Measurements. H. 90 cm, L. 76 cm, Th. 18 cm. twigs and the characteristic yield wing with the Provenance. It was found in Payamalanı front which is clearly distinctive from a different district (ancient Eibeos), 7 km north-east of orientation of the grooves. This detail of the wing Sivaslı (ancient Sebaste), province of Uşak appears in all contemporary representations. (eastern Lydia) and was brought to the Museum On  this relief, the leaf in the upper left corner of Afyonkarahisar in 1963. takes up an iconography of the sixth century, but is Description. In the plate neck and body are associated with a jagged leaf of a type widespread decorated with engraved circles. The same detail especially in the eleventh-twelfth century, a period appears on a plate from Grado, in the north-eastern in which the performance of the wings of peacocks Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia which has is also appropriate. The shape of the ridge is also been dated to the early sixth century AD [49, different. Başak Çoraklı who examined peacock p. 348, no. 523]. depictions on pottery, has dated this piece to the Reference: [42, pl. 89, fig. 108]. eleventh–twelfth or eleventh–thirteenth century. In this image the figures are not only simply 2. Repository. Museum of Anatolian flattened, but display, especially in the edges, a Civilizations in Ankara. hint of volumetric development. Measurements. P. H. 60 cm, P.L. 57 cm, References: [12, p. 13, fig. 12; 55, p. 147, Th. 17 cm. fig. 7; also cf. 2]. Description. The representation is considerably smaller than the exaggerated width 5. Repository. Bodrum Museum of of the ambo’s frame. Deep engravings on the body, Underwater Archaeology, Figs. 12–13. wing and tail. Fig. 12. Acc. no. 25/2022. Dating. Sixth century AD. Measurements. P.H. 85 cm, L. 110 cm, Th. 27. Reference: [9, p. 50, fig. 2]. Material. A gray-white marble from a local quarry in Caria. 3. Repository. Turkish National Forces  – Provenance. By a private collection which Kuvâ-yi Milliye Museum of Balıkesir, Figs. 8–10. is confiscated in the Bodrum Museum of The fragmented slab (of sarcophagus) from Underwater Archaeology through the decision the Museum of Balıkesir (Fig. 8) shows one of of the Bodrum Second Court of First Instance the two peacocks with his head lowered, next to a in 2011. It was probably found in Labraunda or central circle in which the monogram of Ioannes Mylasa in Caria. appears. In this image, the crest which is formed Description. It is bordered by rounded ribs only by two feathers, is highlighted and the wing separated by a large groove. The peacocks are emphasized by the groove that follows the edge placed vertically to make the most of the space and as well as the tail with zigzag motifs. The same are located on the sides of a very tall cantharus. monogram in the middle exists on a lead seal kept The decoration extends on the tail, where circles in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection which is dated appear that will be used in sculpture until the to sixth century (Fig. 9) 7. eleventh century, and on the wings, decorated with The performance of the peacock is more engravings, as on numerous Western monuments summary on a second slab from Balıkesir of the Romanesque art. (probably of a later date) in which the pecking Dating. Eleventh century. peacock is inserted in a circle which is itself Reference: [40, p. 394, fig. 10]. included in a lozenge with flattened edges (Fig. 10). Fig. 13. Measurements. H. 35 cm, L. 20 cm, Th. 15. 4. Repository. Museum of Bandırma, Fig. 11. Description. The second slab, which Description. In Bandırma (Πάνορμος in develops in height (perhaps the frontal part of the Byzantine period), on the coast of the Sea of an altar?), shows two peacocks on the sides of a Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 177 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА cross from whose horizontal arms hang some ivy borderline of the province of Yozgat, which is leaves. The ivy leaf is a popular motif in Byzantine mainly mentioned in literature on the prehistorical iconographic arts and appears for example on a period. Donated to the Museum of Kırşehir on fragment of a slab, dated to AD 540–560 in the 9 April 1984 and catalogued on 27 April 1987 by Museo Arcivescovile in Ravenna. Nonetheless, Vedat Kantürk (and confirmed by Ziyaettin Taşçı, the heraldic position of our two peacocks suggests the former director). a dating rather to the Middle Byzantine period, Material. Local whitish-yellowish marble. especially to the eleventh century. State of preservation. Well-preserved except Dating. Eleventh century. two diagonal cracks on the lower part. References: [58, p. 328, fig. 12; 40, p. 393, fig. 6]. Measurements. H. 176 cm, L. 103 cm, Th. 9 cm, L.H. 2.4-3.1 cm. 6. Repository. Archaeological Museum of Description. A plate-stele with rounded Bursa, Figs. 14–15. top and stylized figures, motifs as well as an In the Archaeological Museum of Bursa there inscription of six lines in a tabula ansata. The edge are two marble slabs with peacock depictions. of the stele has a 10 cm wide frame where floral The first peacock appears within a frame of an motifs in the form of extending ivies in spiral ambo plate (Fig. 14). The tail stands out, which form cover the entire stele. In the middle and most soars at the top, following the trend of the frame, visible part of the stele is a large cross dividing the tail which is the only decorated part of the the middle field in four smaller parts. There are animal. Three-feathered crest and deep furrow to two medallions with stylized rosettes on the top of delimit the wing. Sixth-seventh century AD. the cross; two peacocks on ivy leaves and grape On the second one, the only remaining bunches on the bottom. Two birds are depicted peacock is on the side of a cross, with the ends beneath the ivy leaves at each angle. flanked by two triangles (Fig. 15). The relief is Inscription. Six lines of Greek text in a flat with leaves drawn in the shape of a heart. tabula ansata (Fig. 18, b) 9. The  peacock has a sinuous course and appears ☩ ἔνθα κατά- almost completely covered by decorative motifs. κιτε ἡ ἐν ὁϲί- Middle Byzantine period. οιϲ τῇ μνήμῃ ἡ λαμπρ(οτάτη) κ(αὶ) εὐγ(ενεστάτη) 7. Repository. Archaeological Museum of 5 ἡ δόξα τοῦ γένο(υ)ϲ Çanakkale, Figs. 16–17. Φῶτα μνήμηϲ χάριν ☩ On the plate on Fig. 16 two rather ungainly 5: ἡ δόξα τοῦ γένο(υ)ϲ : ἡ̣ Δορ̣άτου γένος peacocks drink from a cantharus. The drawing is after [14, no. 7]. very coarse, especially for the legs. The limited Translation. Here lies among the holy in decoration on the tail take us to the sixth century. remembrance the most splendid and pious, the The marble slab on Fig. 17 is a low-quality glory of her family, Phota, in remembrance. artistic product, the only merit is the peacock Epigraphic description. Alpha has a broken decoration with typical eleventh-century motifs. bar; epsilon, sigma and omega are lunate. If the slab is, as it seems, finished, we notice that The middle bar of alpha, epsilon, eta, my and pi it is a single peacock, rather than two. Noteworthy are detached. Similarly, the loop of phi (line 6) and are the ungrammaticals, e.g. in the shape of the arms of kappa (line 1; 3) and are not attached the wing or in the detail of the legs that do not to the vertical bar. Abbreviation signs are used touch the branch on which they should rest. Ayşe for λαμπρ(οτάτη), κ(αὶ), εὐσ(γενεστάτη) (line 4) Çaylak Türker seems uncertain between a sixth or and γένο(υ)ϲ (line 5). An interpunctuation mark eleventh century dating [51, pp. 388-389] 8. is found after the first letter in line 4. Most letters carry small serifs. 8. Repository. Museum of Kırşehir, Fig. 18, a–b. Commentary. The phrase ἐν ὁσίοις is not Fig. 18, a. Acc. no. 209. particularly common 10, and δόξα τοῦ γένους is Provenance. It was found in Çiçekdağı, hitherto not attested. It is, however, most likely a township at high altitude, c. 65 km north related to the phrase δόξα τοῦ οἴκου, attested a of Kırşehir and 4 km south of Yerköy on the couple of times in Asia Minor 11. The name Φῶτα 178 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks is very uncommon, and we have found a single Dating. As said above, two elaborate parallel in Phrygia 12. peacocks on the sides of a schematic cantharus Dating. Fifth century AD. show all the typical characters of the Middle Reference: [14, no. 7]. Byzantine period. The rendering of the wings with the semicircular upper part, the performance of the 9. Repository. Archaeological Museum of upper part of the legs and the deep furrows of the Izmir, Figs. 19–23. wings reveal close similarities with the birds of The Archaeological Museum of Izmir has western sculpture of the eleventh century. an extensive collection of Byzantine marble Reference: [59, p. 52, fig. 4]. architectural sculpture which is first published by Fig. 22. Acc. no. 265. Orlandos and examined in the course of three theses Measurements. H. 71 cm, L. 59 cm, Th. 14 cm. at Turkish universities [39; 33; 6; 15]. Among Description. The peacocks on Fig. 22 have a these specimens there are also several plates with bent tail and a very thin and elongated cantharus in various peacock depictions. Below we offer a their middle. The relief seems to acquire a greater selection of these depictions kept in the museum. consistency and the edges appear rounded rather Fig. 19. than being cut. Dating. For the depiction on an ambo on Dating. The piece has been dated by Fig.  19 we consider an Early Byzantine dating Orlandos to the sixth century [39, p. 135, fig. 7]. because of the elegance of the peacock, whose Although the usual three feathers appear on their movement of the head forms a beautiful sinusoid heads, the unequivocal shape of the wing, with shape of the figure. the “shield” decoration and the design of the Fig. 20. Acc. no. 000.144. large feathers takes us once again to the Middle Measurements. H. 85 cm, L. 70 cm, Th. 12 cm. Byzantine period. Description. Only the peacock’s tail remains Comparandum. For the design of the wing visible, which has a series of empty circles as there is a close comparison with a peacock depiction shown in Romanesque representations of Europe. on an edge in the northern church of the monastery Dating. The skin edge recalls the reliefs of of the Pantocrator/Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul, which the ninth-tenth century AD. is dated after the year 1124 [38 , p. 127, fig. 339]. References: [38, p. 132, fig. 382, interpreted References: [39, p. 135, fig. 7; 6, pp. 65-66, as ‘flanking ambo slab’]. no. 56]. Fig. 21. Acc. no. 026.511. Fig. 23. Acc. no. 142–143. Measurements. H. 61.5 cm, L. 77 cm, Th. 11 cm. Measurements. H. 64 cm, L. 150 cm, Th. 17 cm. Provenance. This slab was discovered at Dating. The frame of this plate reveals a Başpınar on Mount Nif, ancient Olympus in the similar dating to Fig. 21. On Fig. 23 the cantharus district of Kemalpaşa which is located immediately has now disappeared and the carver undertakes to to the east of Izmir. During the discovery of tomb differentiate two peacocks in the rendering of their 16 in the south-west part of the narthex of the triangular wings and body. Orlandos believes that Church A, this slab was found in situ. this slab cannot be dated, while Ayşegül Andıç Description. It is an excellent example of proposes a dating into the thirteenth-fourteenth the Middle Byzantine sculpture. The moulded century, based on the upper ornamented frame. cantharus, the fleshy leaves and the stylized References: [39, p. 140, fig. 15; 6, p. 77, no. 70]. tails of the peacocks are close to the ones dated from the tenth to the twelfth-thirteenth centuries. 10. Repository. Museum of İznik, Fig. 24. The work and design of the leaves reminds On this beautiful slab on Fig. 24 all the Constantinopolitan examples, especially the ones elements of the eleventh century appear: two of the northern church of the monastery of Lips vertically placed peacocks, an elongated cantharus, (AD 907) and of the later decoration of monastery “shield” wings and decoration extended over the of Pantocrator (AD 1118–1124) [59, p. 52, note 17]. whole body. The iconography is typical of some For the Anatolian comparisons, the design of the slabs placed in monumental fountains, such as motives is close to the ones from western Asia that of Celaliye in Uşak in eastern Lydia which is Minor such as Izmir, Bergama and Manisa 13. attributed to the seventh century AD, in which the Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 179 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА peacocks were understood as being placed on the cantharus and the decoration of the frame lead to sides of the tree of life [55, pp. 142-143]. a date at least in the eleventh century. References: [50, pp. 218-219, fig. 405; 22, 11. Repository. Konya, Figs. 25–29. p. 160]. Fig. 25. Acc. no. 73/728. Measurements. P.H. 40 cm, P.L. 37 cm, 12. Repository. Kadıkalesi (Annaea) near Th. 13.2 cm. Kuşadası. Description. A schematic peacock of Early Fig. 30. Byzantine period is depicted on this fragment Measurements. P. H. 77 cm, P. L. 70.7 cm, of a marble ambo. The carver has substantially Th. 8.3 cm. spared the decoration on his body, replaced by Dating. The design of the upper frame thin engraved lines. appears for the first time towards the end of the Dating. A high date to the sixth century eighth century, but remains in use until after the is offered by the comparison with a peacock year AD 1000, an era to which this beautiful depiction of an enclosure in the Basilica of Santa depiction might also be dated. Maria delle Grazie in Grado, north-eastern Italy References: [8, p. 83, no. 161; 22, p. 160]. (Fig. 26) which is probably datable to the fixed chronology of the construction of this basilica by 13. Repository. Manisa, Figs. 31–32. bishop Elias in AD 579. In 2008 an essay by Zeynep Mercangöz Dating. Sixth century AD. was published which is dedicated to the References: [3, p. 103; 26, p. 165, fig. 1; 50, sculptural decoration of western Anatolia in the p. 214, fig. 392; cf. also 25]. Early Byzantine period. In this paper there are Fig. 27. two plates from the province of Manisa in the Dating. The scarce decoration and in territories of ancient western Lydia that have an particular the motif of the edge could indicate affinity with the representations we have dealed an early dating, i.e. at least to the sixth century. with. Today Manisa is located about thirty However, the rendering of the central element kilometers east of Izmir. (cantharus?) closely resembles a similar slab These two examples we report below inserted in the tomb of Karaca Ahmet Sultan, demonstrate once again how the image of the in Karaca Ahmet Village in Uşak, which is two peacocks facing each other, on either side of dated to the mid-fourteenth century. Thus, sixth a cantharus or the tree of life, has taken firm roots century AD. in an area steeped in Byzantine Christianity. This Reference: [22, p. 160]. could explain its great fortune over the centuries, Fig. 28. also in later Turkish-Islamic periods. Measurements. H. 39 cm, L. 170 cm, Th. 27 cm. Fig. 31. Description. Very close to the relief on Measurements. P.H. 115 cm, L. 53 cm, Fig. 17 from Çanakkale is the decoration scheme Th. 5.5 cm. of the slab on Fig. 28 that is the upper part of Description. Within a rich border decorated an ambo for which the same chronology is by semicircles, the slab presents two facing proposed. peacocks, which have the usual tripartite crest Dating. These peacocks have the typical and decorations on the body, wing and tail that appearance of the Middle Byzantine icono- are typical of the sixth century AD [35, pp. 86, 97, graphic art. fig. 16]. They are placed in heraldic position on the Reference: [50, pp. 214-215, fig. 393; 38, sides of a vertical element that does not seem well p. 132, fig. 354, interpreted as ‘monolithic window’]. understood by the stonecutter and which could be Fig. 29. a schematic representation of the tree of life. Measurements. P. H. 63 cm, P.L. 80 cm. Note that how in fact the representation is Dating. For this composition Tuğçe not too far from the one that appears in our plate Karademir proposes a date to the fifth-sixth in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir (Fig. 1). century which is clearly unthinkable [22, p. 160]. These two peacocks on Manisa slab also seem to The arrangement of the animals, the shape of the have been cut out of a certain modelling. 180 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks Fig. 32. 15. Repository. Museum of Ödemiş. Measurements. H. 61 cm, L. 68 cm. Fig. 34, a. Acc. no. 1786. Provenance. This relief constitutes a reuse Provenance. Found in the village of Konaklı of a slab from the Early Byzantine period which (formerly Adagüme) which is located 15 km south is walled during the Ottoman period in a public of Ödemiş and 119 km south-east of Izmir in the fountain in the Kırkoluk (literally “forty gutters”) Upper Cayster Valley. The slab indicates most Mosque in Tarhala [35, pp. 86, 97, fig. 17] that probably existence of a Middle Byzantine church is recently called as Darkale (literally “narrow in this area. castle”), located in the Soma district of the Manisa Description. The marble slab with the province. During the Byzantine period Tarhala used depiction of two peacocks at the Museum of to serve as a fortified outpost protecting Pergamum Ödemiş seem to have been drawn by a carver who against the threats coming from the east 14. has lost confidence with figures, even of animals, Description. Although the modern protruding while expressing all his ability in ornamental and metal tube disfigures the whole plate, it cannot abstract geometric motifs, such as the central perhaps be denied that the idea of purifying water, (Armenian?) cross, rosettes, interlacings and which is represented by peacocks drinking, may Catherine wheels (for a similar design on a have retained a sacred value even after centuries. funerary stele with an Armenian inscription in the Here the representation, which is datable Archaeological Museum of Izmir, cf. Fig. 34, b). to the Middle Byzantine period, is much more Bodies of the peacocks are marked by long incised articulated and recovers older decorative patterns, lines as if they have been drawn by a child’s hand. such as the central lozenge with round corners, with It is noteworthy that a large Armenian other more recent ones, such as the three-ply ribbon community is already attested in Ödemiş in the with its intertwining, to delimit the various set off. 19th century. The artist did not depict the peacocks as rigidly Dating. Twelfth century AD. antithetical, but tried to give them a semblance Reference: [38, p. 143, fig. 431]. of naturalness, varying their pose and attitudes. 16. Repository. Museum of Sakarya. 14. Repository. Museum of Milas. Fig. 35. Fig. 33, a–b. Acc. no. 1786 (Fig. 33, a), Description. This plate belongs to the acc. no. 3372. sarcophagus of a presbyter with the name Γαχα[--- Measurements. Fig. 33, a. P.H. 62 cm, who evidently wanted to make use of the usual P.L. 54 cm, Th. 58 cm; (Fig. 33, b) Early Byzantine iconography for himself. Description. Proud of its broad tail is Dating. Sixth century AD. the Milas peacock with its deep furrows. The  depiction is placed on the side of a stone 17. Repository. Museum of Tekirdağ staircase (Fig. 33, a). Fig. 36. On the other side of the opposite steps, two Description. The plate with the peacock peacocks appear, which are drawn only by the depiction in the Museum of Tekirdağ in eastern furrow that delimits them (Fig. 33, b). Thrace resumes its vertical position, revealing a This is an example of an ambo of the Priene search for plasticity both in the body and above type (cf.: [57]), which finds suitable comparisons all in the rendering of the wing feathers. The tail, in the Basilica of Meserias on Kos, in the Castle however, i.e. the true glory of peacocks, seems of Beçin (Peçin or Pezona), in the Museum of somewhat sacrificed. Miletus and in the Archaeological Museum of The use (or reuse?) of Proconnesian marble Izmir. This particular decoration and the style of is noteworthy. carving of the designs is peculiar to the northern Dating. Sixth century AD. part of Caria and southern Ionia. Dating. This is a richly decorated piece, 18. Repository. Museum of Tire, Fig. 37. with edges that recall models of the Classical era. Description. Recently a (Middle) Byzantine It should thus be dated to the fifth–sixth century AD. group of marble architectural elements with figural Reference: [34, p. 84, fig. 3]. scenes came to the Museum of Tire in the Upper Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 181 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Cayster Valley and remain entirely unpublished. datings in Byzantine Asia Minor. The reliefs we A strong plastic taste is clearly present in one of have chosen are far from representing the totality these fragments where a beautiful branch emerges of the specimens present in Asia Minor, however from a small cornucopia. they give an idea of the iconographic and stylistic Dating. In this case, a dating to the Middle evolution of peacock depictions from the Early Byzantine period is evident, probably the eleventh Byzantine to the Late Byzantine period. or twelfth century. The wide smooth frame, As in many other plates, the Izmir relief the large thin cross in the centre, the elaborate (Fig. 1) which is the actual focus of this paper, rendering of the plumage and the ornamented part seems to have been cut out of a cardboard. bring us back to this date. The animals are suspended in space and the one on the right almost seems to fall. The wing is rendered 19. Repository. Museum of Uşak. by a simple curved line and the tail by oblique Fig. 38. dashes, which fill the spaces outlined by long lines. Dating. Most probably belonging to an There are recognizable elements that modify ambo carved of Phrygian marble, it reveals a the rendering of the plumage and often also the taste for detail which is typical of the Middle position of the peacocks. As with the common ambos Byzantine period. in Caria and Ionia, it seems possible that some types or characteristics were predominantly regional. 20. Repository. Skopje in Macedonia. Usually a pair of peacocks are found on Fig. 39. either side of a cantharus, which is rendered as Description. Although Skopje is not located in an open cup at the top. Here instead we find an Turkey, we include this piece in our catalogue for the evolution, that is a sort of vertical element, with sake of completeness, as it has a special significance an enlargement in the centre. The peacocks, with its similar rendering to the pieces in Asia originally a typical Early Christian motif, Minor. It is a part of an ambo in which the peacock have gained an Islamic character up to being is literally immersed in an exorbitant vegetation. welcomed (and reused) in monuments of the Dating. The two-ply ribbon seems to be a Turkish age, such as the fountains of Celaliye typical production of the eleventh century. and Kırkçeşme and the tomb of Karaca Ahmet in the homonymous village near Uşak. “Peacock 21. Repository. Museum of Yozgat. depictions are also common in Anatolian Seljuk Fig. 40. Acc. no. 292. art. Rüçhan Arık, explains the reason of coming Description. The triangular-shaped fragment across with peacock figure so frequently also suggests that it is part of an ambo. Like many on the tiles of Kubad Abad, an Anatolian Seljuk others, this one is also decorated with the image of palace, with the influence of Byzantine and a peacock. We are sure that it is indeed a peacock Iranian cultures on Seljuk Art” [7, p. 95]. and not a dove due to the presence of the tuft in Over the span of almost a millennium, the which the three traditional feathers in the sixth central vase mostly in shape of a cantharus has century AD are almost fused together within a progressively transformed into a tree of life, which crown-like rectangle. The treatment of the neck however still retains some characters, arranged recalls birds drinking from a cantharus on a relief vertically, of the original container. The particular, in the Basilica C in Nea Anchialos, situated south- elongated shape of the cantharus that appears west of Volos and north of Almyros, which is from in our relief is also present on the examples in the period of Justinian [38, p. 12, fig. 7]. Bandırma, Bodrum, Çanakkale, Izmir, İznik, Conclusions. In this paper we have examined Konya and Kadıkalesi in Kuşadası. It therefore 34 examples of Byzantine peacock depictions on appears widespread especially in the central- marble elements from twenty museums from western part of Anatolia. Probably the Izmir relief Turkey and one from Macedonia. Certainly that is the main focus of this paper is the first to there are numerous others, but we believe that show this elongation, which in the following our exemplification through this brief corpus centuries is enriched by a kind of variations in is sufficient to give an idea of the range of this the decoration of the stem and cup. If  this is iconography, its related monument types and their correct, then our fence slab of an unknown church 182 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks (perhaps the cathedral?) of Smyrna would acquire Spaziergang im Kaiserlichen Garten. Schriften greater importance, as it shows the start of the über Byzanz und seinen Nachbarn. Festschrift für transformation of a symbol. A.  Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag. Mainz, Verlag Due to the scarcity of the decoration and the des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Schnell & Steiner, 2012, pp. 135-145. (Monographien des flat rendering of the figures, our relief in Izmir seems Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Bnd. 106). to date not before the end of the sixth century, most 2 Cf. [23, p. 28], quoted in [43]. Josef Keil likely during the seventh. The study carried out (1878–1963) was the secretary of the Austrian separately by scholars from different disciplines Archaeological Institute of Smyrna and during this post (epigraphy and history of art) did not allow us to he completed eight volumes of sketches of monuments understand the value of this monument for the and inscriptions in western Turkey, including ours. history of Byzantine Smyrna, of which it attests the 3 For a brief up-to-date account with numerous previously unknown name of a bishop (of Smyrna), references to specialist literature on Smyrna during the and for the evolution of a very common motif. 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 NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS typical upright, e.g., iota, tau or epsilon. 5 Ignatius’s epistles are particularly interesting 1 For the study of this slab at the Archaeological in the extent to which they reveal a clear concern to Museum of Izmir three authorisations have been issued strengthen the position of the established leadership: to E. Laflı by the Directorate of the Museum of Izmir bishop, presbyters and deacons. on 11 January 2012, 18 January 2012 and 23 February 6 A useful source that focuses on the Byzantine 2012 and numbered as B.16.4.KTM.0.35.14.00- iconography of two peacocks flanked a vase is [5]. 155.99/150, 233 and 604. Documentation was done 7 DO acc. no. BZS.1947.2.872. in 2012 and all the photos were taken by E. Laflı in 8 For the most recent studies of Çaylak Türker on 2012, if otherwise not indicated. the architectural sculpture of the region of Çanakkale The rest of the material was studied by E. Laflı in Byzantine Troad, cf. [51]. with several authorisations that have been issued by 9 We thank Dr Søren Lund Sørensen (Berlin) for directorates of each museum. his help with the inscription. Fig. 2 was arranged by Dr Sami Patacı 10 IG 22 13452 (from Athens; AD 400–450); ICG (Ardahan) in 2022 for which we would like to express 3586 (from Edessa, Macedonia; AD 400–450). Dr Patacı our gratitude. 11 MAMA 3,112 (from Cilicia; Christian period); We would like to thank the editors of this cf. [11, pp. 6-7(1) (from Iconium; AD 1068/1069)]. journal, especially Pavel Lysikov, who did a thorough 12 MAMA 4,192 (third century AD). and meticulous job. Outside reviewer has a thankless, 13 For a general review and bibliography, see [10]. yet vital role in the publication of this article. We have 14 For Tarhala, cf. among others [16]. attempted to incorporate their suggestions in the hope of making this a stronger and more useful paper. EPIGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS We, however, are solely responsible for the final outcome. Following publication can unfortunately not ICG – Inscriptiones christianae graecae be considered in this study: Sodini J.-P. A slab with IG – Inscriptiones graecae opposed peacocks in the Xanthos eastern Basilica. LGPN – Lexicon of Greek Personal Names Asutay-Effenberger N., Daim F., eds. Φιλοπάτιον, MAMA – Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 183 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА APPENDIX a b c d e f g Fig. 1, a–g. The plate in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir, acc. no. 000.270 (by E. Laflı, 2010, 2022) 184 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6 Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 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. Patacı, 2022) 185 E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Fig. 3. Drawing of the plate (after: [43, pp. 365-366, no. 35]) a 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 186 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks 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 Balıkesir Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 187 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА 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 Balıkesir 188 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks 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 Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 189 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Fig. 13. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology (after: [40, p. 415, fig. 6]) 190 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks Fig. 14. A peacock depiction on a marble slab, Archaeological Museum of Bursa Fig. 15. A peacock depiction on a marble slab, Archaeological Museum of Bursa Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 191 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Fig. 16. A depiction of two peacocks on a plate, Archaeological Museum of Çanakkale (after: [50, pp. 388-389, fig. 8]) Fig. 17. A peacock depiction on a marble slab, Archaeological Museum of Çanakkale (after: [50, pp. 388-389, fig. 8]) 192 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks a b Fig. 18: a – the funerary stele of Phota from Çiçekdağ, Museum of Kırşehir; b – inscription on the funerary stele of Phota from Çiçekdağ, Museum of Kırşehir Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 193 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Fig. 19. A peacock depiction on an ambo, Archaeological Museum of Izmir Fig. 20. A flanking ambo slab with a broken peacock, Archaeological Museum of Izmir 194 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks Fig. 21. Marble slab from the Church A at Başpınar on Mountain Nif / Olympus, Archaeological Museum of Izmir Fig. 22. A depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Archaeological Museum of Izmir Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 195 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА 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 İznik 196 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks Fig. 25. An ambo plate in the A.R. İzzet Koyunoğlu 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 Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 197 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА 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 198 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks 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 Kadıkalesi (Annaea) near Kuşadası (after: [7, p. 83, no. 161]) Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 199 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Fig. 31. A plate from Manisa (after: [35, pp. 86, 97, fig. 16]) Fig. 32. A plate walled in a public fountain in the Kırkoluk Mosque in Tarhala (Darkale) (after: [35, pp. 86, 97, fig. 17]) 200 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks a b Fig. 33, a–b. Two peacocks depictions, Museum of Milas Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 201 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА a b Fig. 34: a – a depiction of two peacocks on a slab, Museum of Ödemiş; b – a funerary stele with an Armenian inscription in the Archaeological Museum of Izmir 202 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks Fig. 35. A plate from the sarcophagus of a presbyter, Museum of Sakarya Fig. 36. A plate with a peacock depiction, Museum of Tekirdağ Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 203 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Fig. 37. A peacock depiction on a marble slab, Museum of Tire Fig. 38. A peacock depiction on an ambo (?), Museum of Uşak 204 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks Fig. 39. A peacock depiction on an ambo from Skopje in Macedonia Fig. 40. A part of an ambo (?), Museum of Yozgat Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 205 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА 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 Sarcophagi Altars Ambos Plates Ciboria Dating (in an alphabetical order) Afyonkarahisar Fig. 7 Early sixth century Afyonkarahisar Figs. 5–6 Sixth century Ankara Sixth century Balıkesir Fig. 8 Sixth century Balıkesir Fig. 10 Eighth-ninth century? Eleventh-twelfth Bandırma Fig. 11 century Bodrum Fig. 12 Eleventh century Bodrum Fig. 13 Eleventh century Bursa Fig. 14 Sixth-seventh century Bursa Fig. 15 Middle Byzantine Çanakkale Fig. 16 Sixth century Çanakkale Fig. 17 Eleventh century Kırşehir Fig. 18, a–b Fifth century Mid sixth-seventh Izmir Fig. 1, a–g century Izmir Fig. 19 Early Byzantine Izmir Fig. 20 Ninth-tenth century Izmir Fig. 21 Eleventh century or later Izmir Fig. 22 Middle Byzantine Thirteenth-fourteenth Izmir Fig. 23 century İznik 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 Kadıkalesi near Kuşadası Fig. 30 Eleventh century (Annaea) Manisa Fig. 31 Sixth century Tarhala in Manisa Fig. 32 Middle Byzantine Fig. 33, Milas Fifth-sixth century a–b Ödemiş Fig. 34, a Twelfth century Sakarya Fig. 35 Sixth century Tekirdağ Fig. 36 Sixth century Tire Fig. 37 Eleventh-twelfth century Uşak Fig. 38 Sixth century Yozgat Fig. 40 Sixth century Skopje in Macedonia Fig. 39 Eleventh century 206 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks REFERENCES C.N.R., “Storia dell’arte e della cultura artistica bizantina”. Atti della giornata di studio Roma, 4 dicembre 1. Acar T. (Uşak) Karaca Ahmet Sultan 1986. Rome, Biblioteca di Storia Patria, 1988, pp. 275- Türbesi’ndeki Tavus Kuşu Motifi ve Türbede 306. (Milion. Studi e ricerche d’arte bizantina; vol. 1). Gerçekleştirilen Halk İnanışları. Türk Kültürü ve 11. Bees N.A. Die Inschriftenaufzeichnung des Hacı Bektaş Velî Araştırma Dergisi, 2021, vol.  99, Kodex Sinaiticus graecus 508 (976) und die Maria- pp. 203-243. URL: http://isamveri.org/pdfdrg/ Spiläotissa-Klosterkirche bei Sille (Lykaonien), mit D01093/2021_99/2021_99_ACART.pdf (accessed Exkursen zur Geschichte der Seldschukiden-Türken. 1 September 2022). Wilmersdorf, Berlin, Verlag der “Byzantinisch- 2. Altun F.İ. Bandırma Müzesi’nde Bulunan neugriechischen Jahrbücher”, 1922. (Texte und Bizans Dönemine Ait Taş Eserler. Elyiğit U., ed. Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Anadolu Coğrafyasında Görülen Arkeolojik Sanatsal Philologie 1; Byzantinisch-neugriechischen Jahrbücher, ve Kültürel Faaliyetler. Konya, Eğitim Yayınevi, 2021, Suppl.). 89 S. pp. 116-163. 12. Çoraklı B. Çini ve Seramiklerde Tavus Kuşu 3. Anabolu M.U. Batı Anadolu’da Bulunmuş Motifi. Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Olan Yayımlanmamış Tavus Kuşu Motifli Mimarlık Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2012, vol. 6, Elemanları. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi, 1988, vol.  27, pp. 7-16. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/ pp. 101-112. article-file/757663 (accessed 1 September 2022). 4. Anastasiadou A. Ē chorēgia stis anatolikes 13. Destephen S. Prosopographie chrétienne eparchies tēs Byzantinēs Autokratorias: aphierōmatikes du Bas-Empire. Vol. 3: Diocèse d’Asie (325–641). kai ktētorikes epigraphes naōn tēs M. Asias (4os– Paris, Association des Amis du Centre d’histoire et de 15os  ai.): didaktorikē diatribē [Religious Patronage civilisation de Byzance, 2008. 1055 p. at the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire: 14. Dinç S., Efendioğlu T. Kırşehir Müzesi’nden Dedicatory Inscriptions from Churches in Asia Yeni Yazıtlar. Eskiçağ Yazıları. Vol. 9 (Akron. Vol. 12). Minor (4th – 15th Centuries): Doctoral Thesis]. Vol. II. Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2016, pp. 175-204. Thessaloniki, 2005. pp. 207-680, 59 pls., 4 ills. URL: 15. Ergil O. İzmir Müzesindeki (Agora) Bizans https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/20680 Parçaları: Lisans Bitirme Tezi. Istanbul, 1970. (accessed 1 September 2022). 114 p. 5. Anđelković J., Rogić D., Nikolić E. Peacock 16. Ermiş Ü.M. Darkale in the Byzantine as a Sign in the Late Antique and Early Christian Art. Period: Settlement and Some Architectural Notes. Archaeology and Science, 2010 (2011), vol. 6, pp. 231-248. Turkish Studies, 2016, vol. 11/1, pp. 59-76. URL: 6. Andıç A. İzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeki Bizans https://turkishstudies.net/turkishstudies?mod=tam Dönemi Taş Eserleri: Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Çanakkale, metin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=586047908_5Er 2012. xiv, 161 p., 45 p. ills. URL: https://tez.yok.gov. mi%C5%9F%20%C3%9C.%20Melda-trh-59-76. tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=-JU9ubkb8Y pdf&key=19251 (accessed 1 September 2022). GYEc8jjC4pKg&no=ynVT0lU6fZCPvu_fVFGF8Q 17. Fedalto G. Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis. (accessed 1 September 2022). Vol. I. Padova, Messaggero, 1988. xx, 571 p.; Vol. II. 7. Arık R. Kubad Abad. Selçuklu Saray ve P. 581-1208; Vol. III. 2006. 560 p. (Series episcoporum Çinileri. Istanbul, Türkiye İş Bankası, 2000. 227 p. ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium). (Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları Genel Yayın; 18. Feissel D. Inscriptions chrétiennes et No. 514 (Sanat Dizisi)). URL: https://www.academia. byzantines. Revue des études grecques, 1990, vol. 103, edu/33243370/ (accessed 1 September 2022). pp. 598-616. URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ 8. Armağan M.E. Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi’ndeki reg_0035-2039_1990_num_103_492_2489 (accessed Bizans Dönemi Taş Eserleri: Doktora Tezi. Izmir, 2010. 1 September 2022). 290 p. URL: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ 19. Giangrande J., ed. Eunapii Vitae Sophistarum. tezDetay.jsp?id=FriGvwBsii3WJqxnXfnSoQ&no=C Rome, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1956. xlv, IZ2xNMXZI2NiX-vU9qR2g (accessed 1 September 111 p. (Scriptores Graeci et Latini consilio Academiae 2022). Lynceorum Editi). 9. Aydın A. Ankara Anadolu Medeniyetleri 20. Hailes L., ed. On the Deaths of the Persecutors: Müzesi’ndeki Bir Kiliseye Ait Mimari Parçalar. a Translation of De Mortibus Persecutorum by Lucius Belleten, vol. 56, no. 4, 2002, pp. 50-66. URL: Cæcilius Firmianus Lactantius. Merchantville, NJ, https://belleten.gov.tr/tam-metin-pdf/13/tur (accessed Evolution Publishing, 2021. 128 p. 1 September 2022). 21. Hübner S. Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des 10. Barsanti C. Scultura anatolica di epoca spätantiken Kleinasiens: Diss. Dr. phil. Jena, 2005. mediobizantina. Barsanti C, Guiglia Guidobaldi A., 345 S. URL: https://d-nb.info/975203827/34 (accessed Iacobini A., eds. Gruppo Nazionale di Coordinamento 1 September 2022). Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 207 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА 22. Karademir T. Bizans Dönemi Taş Eserlerinde 35. Mercangöz Z. Réflexions sur le décor Refrigerium Sahneleri. Troy Academy, Mar. 2021, sculpté byzantin d’Anatolie occidentale. Pennas Ch., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 158-186. URL: https://dergipark.org. Vanderheyde C., eds. La sculpture byzantine VIIe–XIIe tr/tr/pub/troyacademy/issue/60531/894348 (accessed siècles. Actes du colloque international organisé par 1 September 2022). la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École 23. Keil J. Skizzenbuch Smyrna, July 1910. française d’Athènes (6–8 septembre 2000). Athens, In 8 vols. Vol. 8. Num. p. Kleinasiatischen Kommission École française d’Athènes, 2008, pp. 81-103. (Bulletin zu Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. de correspondance hellénique. Supplément; vol. 49). 24. Kramer J. Pfau. Kirschbaum E., ed. Lexikon 36. Mordek H. Eine ungedruckte Bischofsliste für christliche Ikonographie. Bd. 3: Allgemeine des 1. ökumenischen Konzils von Nicäa (325) Ikonographie, Laban – Ruth. Freiburg im Breisgau, (Cod. Stuttgart HB VI 113 der Collectio Weingartensis). Verlag Herder KG, 1971, S. 409-411. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1996, Vol. 118, 25. Kunduracı O. Konya Müzelerindeki Bizans No. 2, pp. 138-150. URL: https://www.jstor.org/ Devrine Ait Tezyinatlı Mimari Parçalar: Yüksek Lisans stable/24170247 (accessed 1 September 2022). Tezi. Konya, 1989. 37. Moreau J. Lactance. De la mort des 26. Kunduracı O., Mimiroğlu İ.M. Byzantine persécuteurs. Vol. 2: Commentaire. Paris, Les Éditions Stone Works in The Private Koyunoğlu City Museum du Cerf, 1954. 302 p. (Sources chrétiennes; vol. 39.2). of Konya Metropolitan Municipality. Öniz H., 38. Niewöhner Ph. Byzantine Ornaments Aslan E., eds. SOMA 2009: Proceedings of the XIIIth in Stone: Architectural Sculpture and Liturgical Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology Selçuk Furnishings. Berlin; Boston, MA, Walter de University of Konya, Turkey, 23–24 April 2009. Oxford, Gruyter, 2021. 188 p., 487 ills. and two maps. Archaeopress, 2011, pp. 165-170. URL: https://www. 39. Orlandos A.K. Christianika glypta tou academia.edu/38203057/ (accessed 1 September 2022). Mouseiou Smyrnēs [Christian Sculptures of the Museum 27. Laflı E., Buora M. Two Figural Marble Plates of Izmir]. Orlandos A.K., ed. Archeion tōn Byzantinōn from a Tetrarchic Honorary Arch in Izmir. Riehle A. mnēmeiōn tēs Ellados: eksamēniaion periodikon et al., eds. Studies in Honour of Albrecht Berger. suggramma [Archive of the Byzantine Monuments Berlin, De Gruyter, 2023. (Byzantinische Archive). of Greece: A Six-Monthly Periodical]. Vol. 3. Athens, (forthcoming). Archaiologikē Etaireia Publ., 1937, pp.  128-152. 28. Laflı E., Seibt W. 21 Lead Seals from Izmir 40. Özyurt Özcan H. Examples of Architectural (Ancient Smyrna). Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2023, Sculpture with Figurative and Floral Decoration of Bd. 116. (forthcoming). the Byzantine Period at Muğla, Bodrum and Milas 29. Le Quien M. Oriens christianus in quatuor Archaeological Museums. Olba, May 2011, no. 19, patriarchatus digestus, in quo exhibentur Ecclesiae pp.  383-418. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ patriarchae caeterique praesules totius Orientis. Vol. 1. olba/issue/47201/594316 (accessed 1 September 2022). Paris, Ex Typographia Regia, 1740. viii, 1450, l p. URL: 41. P a r m a n E . B i z a n s S a n a t ı n d a Ta v u s https://archive.org/details/lequienorienschristianus1 Kuşu İkonografisi. Sanat Tarihinde İkonografik (accessed 1 September 2022). Araştırmalar. Güner İnal’a Armağan. Ankara, 30. Lietzmann H., ed. Die drei ältesten Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1993, pp. 387-412. Martyrologien. Bonn, A. Marcus und E. Weber’s (Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları. Verlag, 1911. 18 S. (Kleine Texte für theologische und Armağan Dizisi; vol. 4). philologische Vorlesungen und Übungen; Bd. 2). 42. Parman E. Ortaçağda Bizans Döneminde 31. Lother H. Der Pfau in der altchristlichen Frigya (Phrygia) ve Bölge Müzelerindeki Bizans Kunst. Eine Studie über das Verhältnis von Ornament Taş Eserleri. Eskişehir, Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2002. und Symbol. Leipzig, Dieterich, 1929. 87 S., 6 pls. II, 273, 139 pls., 39 figs (T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi (Studien über christliche Denkmäler. n. F; Bd. 18). Yayınları; no.  1347; Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları; 32. Maier P.L., ed. Eusebius: The Church History; no. 11). URL: https://archive.org/details/ebru-parman- a New Translation with Commentary. Grand Rapids, bizans-doneminde-phrygia-ve-bolge-muzelerindeki- MI, Kregel, 1999. 412 p. bizans-tas-eserleri-2002 (accessed 1 September 2022). 33. Mercangöz Z. İzmir ve Manisa İllerinde 43. Petzl G. Die Inschriften von Smyrna. Bd. 2/2: Bizans Yapılarına Ait Mimari Plastik Parçaların Addenda, Corrigenda und Indices. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Saptanması ve Değerlendirilmesi: Doktora Tezi. Izmir, Habelt Verlag, 1990. vii, S. 339-468, 33 pls. (Inschriften 1996. griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien; Bd. 24/2). 34. Mercangöz Z. Milas Müzesi’ndeki Bizans 44. Reimbold E.Th. Der Pfau. Mythologie und Ambon Elemenları. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 1996, vol. 8, Symbolik. Munich, Callwey, 1983. 198 S. pp. 81-98. URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/std/ 45. Robert J., Robert L. Bulletin épigraphique. issue/16511/172394 (accessed 1 September 2022). Revue des études grecques 1966, vol. 79, pp. 335-449. 208 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6  E. Laflı, M. Buora. A Slab from Izmir with Two Peacocks URL: www.persee.fr/doc/reg_0035-2039_1966_ Byzantine Periods on the Valleys that Reached the num_79_374_3864 (accessed 1 September 2022). Hellespont; vol. 1). 46. Ruggieri A. Sculture di Ravenna fra V 53. Ulbert T. Studien zur dekorativen Reliefplastik e VI  secolo. ArcheoArte. Rivista elettronica di des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes (Schrankenplatten Archeologia e Arte, 2012, suppl. 1, pp. 577-590. des 4.–10. Jahrhunderts). München, Institut für URL: https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/archeoarte/article/ Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie der view/476 (accessed 1 September 2022). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 1969. 47. Scheibelreiter-Gail V. Die Mosaiken 209 S. (Miscellanea Byzantina Monascensia; vol. 10). Westkleinasiens: Tesellate des 2. Jahrhunderts 54. Ulbert T. Untersuchungen zu den byzantinischen v. Chr. bis Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Reliefplatten des 6. bis 8. Jahrhunderts. Istanbuler Vienna, Österreiches Archäologisches Institut Wien, Mitteilungen, 1969–1970, Bd. 19/20, S. 339-357. 2011. 712 S. (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen 55. Üstünipek S. A Fountain in Celaliye Archäologischen Institutes; Bd. 46). with Depiction of Peacocks and Its Iconographic 48. S e e c k O . E u e t h i o s . K r o l l W. , e d . Analysis. Škrijelj R., Düzgün E., eds. Academic Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Lyon, Altertumswissenschaft. Bd. 6, Teil 1. Stuttgart, Livre de Lyon, 2021, pp. 137-160. URL: https:// Druckenmüller, 1907. 983 S. www.bookchapter.org/kitaplar/AcademicStudies_ 49. Tagliaferri A. Le diocesi di Aquileia e Grado. inHumanitiesAndSocialSciences.pdf (accessed Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1 September 2022). 1981. 448 p. (Corpus della scultura altomedievale; 56. Vanderheyde C. La sculpture byzantine du vol. 10). IXe au XVe siècle. Contexte – mise en œuvre – décors. 50. Temple N.Ç. Konya/Ikonion ve Çevresinde Paris, Éditions A. & J. Picard, 2020. 364 p., 193 figs. Bulunan Bizans Dönemi Taş Eserleri: Doktora Tezi. 57. Westphalen St. The Byzantine Basilica at Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2013. 808 p. URL: Priene. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 2000, vol. 54, pp. 275- http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/ 280. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291846 handle/11655/1338 (accessed 1 September 2022). (accessed 1 September 2022). 51. Türker A.Ç. Byzantine Carved Marble Slabs 58. Yalçın A.B. Sculture bizantine conservate from Çanakkale Archaeology Museum. Pensabene P, nel Museo del castello di Bodrum. Padovese L., eds. Gasparini  E., eds. Interdisciplinary Studies on Atti del X Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni apostolo. Ancient Stone. ASMOSIA X: Proceedings of the Tenth Rome, Istituto Francescano di Spiritualità; Pontificia International Conference of ASMOSIA, Association for Università Antoniano, 2005, pp. 318-330. (Turchia, the Study of Marble & Other Stones in Antiquity, Rome, la Chiesa e la sua storia; vol. 19). 21–26  May 2012. Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 59. Yalçın A.B. The Byzantine complex at 2015, pp. 385-392. Başpınar. Laflı E., Patacı S., eds. Recent Studies on 52. Türker A.Ç. Byzantine Architectural Sculpture the Archaeology of Anatolia. Oxford, Archaeopress, in Çanakkale. Ankara, Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2015, pp. 49-55. (British Archaeological Reports, 2018. 660 p. (Research into the Early Christian and International Series; no. 2750). Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2022. Vol. 27. No. 6 209 ПЕРИФЕРИЯ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МИРА Information About the Authors Ergün Laflı, Doctor, Professor, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Oda No A 418, Tınaztepe/Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi, Buca, TR-35160 Izmir, Turkey, [email protected], http:// deu.academia.edu/ErgunLAFLI, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-5018 Maurizio Buora, Doctor, Società Friulana di Archeologia odv, Via Micesio 2, Torre di Porta Villalta, I 33100 Udine, Italy, [email protected], 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, Oda No A-418, Tınaztepe/Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi, Buca, TR-35160 г. Измир, Турция, [email protected], 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, [email protected], https://independent.academia.edu/mauriziobuora, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5746-8312 210 Вестник ВолГУ. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2022. Т. 27. № 6 

2023 © İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Bilgi İşlem Daire Başkanlığı

Скачайте приложение и будьте в курсе новостей