Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNumérosXXXIFilling in a Gap: Roman Votives a...

Filling in a Gap: Roman Votives and Gravestones as well as Early Byzantine Churches at Tavşanlı in Phrygia (2/2)

Mehmet Ali Kocabaş, Prof. Dr. Stephen Mitchell et PD Dr. Philipp Niewöhner
p. 63-85

Résumé

The rural town of Tavşanlı in north-western Phrygia does not appear to have ancient roots, the area may once have belonged to the Roman city of Aezani, and finds from Tavşanlı have long been discredited as originally belonging to Aezani. However, this article presents new finds from Tavşanlı and its vicinity that are undoubtedly of local origin and attest to considerable ancient settlement activity. The finds include a dozen Roman votives and gravestones as well as two dozen early Byzantine stone carvings, most or all of which belonged to churches. Overall, the find spectrum is similar to other parts of rural Phrygia, Tavşanlı appears to have produced its fair share of antiquities, and the area should not be considered an anomaly anymore.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Early Byzantine Architectural Sculpture

  • 1 For an excavated example of such a combination, see Schlimbach, 2020, p. 37, pl. 22-24.

1Christianisation and the early Byzantine period brought twofold change to the material culture and archaeological record of Tavşanlı: Gravestones went out of fashion, same as in neighbouring parts of Phrygia (but not in parts of Galatia and further east in central Anatolia: Arslan, Niewöhner, & Yeğin, 2023; French & Mitchell, 2019; Niewöhner, 2021, p. 175), and churches started to be built, including with architectural sculpture. The latter is particularly noteworthy because in Roman times when temples had mainly been limited to cities, architectural sculpture, too, had been something of an urban prerogative and status symbol. This changed in late antiquity, when countless rural communities each built their own local church, often to the same or similar standards as the cities (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 81 f., 98 f.). While some country churches elsewhere in rural Phrygia even employed fired bricks and lime mortar (Akduğan, Gürbüz, Karaca, & Türktüzün, 2013; Altunkaynak Duğan & Ünan, 2019; Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 160 f. s.v. Saray), most village churches in this region were probably built with rubble and mud, as were village houses (Mitchell, 1996, pp. 203-205; Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens, 2003, p. 305; Belke, 2005, pp. 426, 429), but the churches would nevertheless employ architectural sculpture, for example on doors and windows and colonnades or arcades.1

  • 2 Thanks to Georgi Parpulov (Göttingen), who saved us from a mistake in reading this inscription.

2Two overdoors at Akçaşehir Köyü likely belonged to the main and a secondary door of the same church. The main overdoor is half a meter longer, has a cross in the centre of an otherwise conventional s-shaped sima-moulding, and bears a dedicatory inscription, probably from the sixth century (Fig. 18-22):2

ὑπὲρ εὐχῆς Ἀκακίου καὶ Πατρικίου τῶν Ἀκακίου καὶ παντὸς τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῶ[ν]

To fulfill a vow of Akakios and Patrikios, the sons of Akakios, and their entire household.

Fig. 18 Akçaşehir Köyü, overdoor with central cross and Christian dedication. H 22, L 230, W 72

Fig. 18 Akçaşehir Köyü, overdoor with central cross and Christian dedication. H 22, L 230, W 72

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 19 Detail of previous figure, beginning of the inscription

Fig. 19 Detail of previous figure, beginning of the inscription

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 20 Detail of Fig. 18, centre left part of the inscription

Fig. 20 Detail of Fig. 18, centre left part of the inscription

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 21 Detail of Fig. 18, centre right part of the inscription

Fig. 21 Detail of Fig. 18, centre right part of the inscription

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 22 Detail of Fig. 18, end of the inscription

Fig. 22 Detail of Fig. 18, end of the inscription

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 23 Akçaşehir Köyü, second overdoor with thick semi-cylindrical moulding. H 27, L 177, W 67

Fig. 23 Akçaşehir Köyü, second overdoor with thick semi-cylindrical moulding. H 27, L 177, W 67

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

  • 3 For early Byzantine Docimium and its influence on local workshops in central Anatolia in general, s (...)

3The second, shorter overdoor has a different profile with a novel, semi-cylindrical moulding (Fig. 23). Such mouldings became fashionable in the Justinianic period, as attested by numerous mid-sixth century buildings at Constantinople and elsewhere (Niewöhner, 2021, p. 126). More examples of semi-cylindrical mouldings in the vicinity of Aezani show that the fashion was widespread in Phrygia, too (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 255-257 cat. 317 fig. 115 pl. 33; Niewöhner, 2023). Again in the vicinity of Aezani, more overdoors with crosses (but without semi-cylindrical mouldings) likely belonged to other local churches (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 231-233 cat. 221. 223 fig. 60. 62 pl. 24 f.). The rural buildings and their decoration with relatively simple overdoors could have followed more sophisticated examples such as an outstanding overdoor with a cross and dedicatory inscription from Bozhüyük in Phrygia, which appears to have been made in the region’s leading workshops at Docimium, probably before the sixth century (Niewöhner, 2021, p. 131, Fig. 349).3

4Nine blocks of what seems to have been a single entablature have partly been recorded at Tavşanlı (Fig. 24, 25 and four more: Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 552 b-e) and partly at Karaköy (three blocks: Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 552 f-h), at a distance of roughly 10 km (Fig. 1). The blocks are inscribed with a hexameter verse inscription that appears to be original, to date from the sixth century, and to refer to the archangel Michael as well as a family of donors. Michael was popular in central Anatolia (Feissel, 2020, pp. 35-42; Mitchell, 2023, pp. 521-529; Niewöhner, 2018), and the entablature likely belonged to a church of his.

5The block Fig. 24 has already been published but was misrepresented as forming two corners, one at each end, which led to the suggestion of a complicated building with “transepts, niches, or other indentations” (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 552 a). In reality, the block Fig. 24 does not form any corners and never did; both its ends are carefully dressed in anathyrosis for the seamless connection of neighbouring blocks. The same is true of the right end of the block Fig. 25, which is here published for the first time. The left end of this new block appears to have been cut short, probably on the same occasion when the piece was hollowed out for reuse as a water basin. The latter was done with the same care and precision as in the case of Fig. 24, including a similar spillway and drain in the same location, suggesting that both pieces were reworked on the same occasion and for the same purpose.

6At least two more blocks at Tavşanlı were also reworked as precisely rectangular basins, judging by the published photographs (Tuğrul, 1964, pl. 17, cat. 16. 18), whilst the three blocks at Karaköy were apparently not hollowed out (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 552 f-h). This would suggest that the four (and possibly six) hollow blocks at Tavşanlı were reused together, for example for a large Turkish fountain or bath. Such a particular purpose could have been a reason for bringing the large and heavy blocks from Karaköy. In contrast, the three blocks at Karaköy give no indication of having been brought there for any special purpose, which implies that the church of St. Michael was probably located in the vicinity of Karaköy, rather than at Tavşanlı.

The inscription of Fig. 25 reads

[ - π]νεύμασιν ΑΥΡΑ[ - ]

Fig. 24 Tavşanlı, fragmented entablature block with Christian verse inscription [ - ]ης ϟ προφρονέως τε θεοφρόνες ἁγ[νου].

Fig. 24 Tavşanlı, fragmented entablature block with Christian verse inscription [ - ]ης ϟ προφρονέως τε θεοφρόνες ἁγ[νου].

H 35, L 212, letters 46. Both narrow ends with anathyrosis. The top has been hollowed out, an incision at the top right provides a spillway, and two more holes below the inscription serve as drains, apparently for re-use as a basin. Still later, the front of the basin broke off in two parts and had to be re-assembled for the photograph

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 25 Tavşanlı, other part of the same entablature as in the previous image, partly buried in the ground.

Fig. 25 Tavşanlı, other part of the same entablature as in the previous image, partly buried in the ground.

The right end with anathyrosis, the left apparently cut short. The top has been hollowed out, an incision at the top right provides a spillway, and a hole below the inscription serves as drain, apparently for re-use as a water basin

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 26 Uluçam Köyü, entablature block with geometric patterns, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 34, L 185, W 74

Fig. 26 Uluçam Köyü, entablature block with geometric patterns, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 34, L 185, W 74

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

7The most likely reconstruction and use of the entablature blocks would seem to be as epistyles of a basilica church. The colonnaded basilica with epistyles was the traditional form, although most churches employed arcades as the more affordable and more easily built alternative. However, Phrygia stands out for numerous epistyles that were newly carved during the early Byzantine period (Fig. 26), including for rural churches, e.g., in the vicinity of Aezani (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 180, 228-232, cat. 198-214, Fig. 50-56, pl. 22-24). This will have been helped by the omnipresence of marble and local workshops, as the heavy epistyles did not need to be transported far and the necessary expertise was available nearby. The leading regional quarry and workshop complex at Docimium may also have played a part, as a fine and relatively early church epistyle at Afyon is attributable to that workshop, inscribed with Psalms, and could have set the example for our epistyle Fig. 24, 25 (Buckler & Calder, 1939, p. 385; Niewöhner, 2007, p. 291, cat. 464 f. pl. 58; Ramsay, 1897, p. 740, cat. 674). Other colonnaded churches with inscribed epistyles count among the most important and prestigious sixth-century foundations at Constantinople, most importantly Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and Hagios Polyeuktos (Barsanti & Guiglia Guidobaldi, 2004, pp. 262-265, Fig. 119; Harrison, 1986, passim; Stroth, 2021, pp. 81-91, 105-110). Fig. 26 at Uluçam Köyü represents the opposite end of the spectrum, a local carving without relief, where the decoration is only engraved.

Fig. 27 Tavşanlı, one of numerous mullions with Armenian inscriptions

Fig. 27 Tavşanlı, one of numerous mullions with Armenian inscriptions

P. Niewöhner, 2021

Fig. 28 Tavşanlı, mullion, re-used at a Turkish fountain in Ulu Cami Mahallesi, Çarşı Sokak, Kütahya Caddesi no. 21. H 59, L 49, W 14

Fig. 28 Tavşanlı, mullion, re-used at a Turkish fountain in Ulu Cami Mahallesi, Çarşı Sokak, Kütahya Caddesi no. 21. H 59, L 49, W 14

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 29 Gazelyakup Köyü, mullion with fluted capital, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 77, L 61, W 39

Fig. 29 Gazelyakup Köyü, mullion with fluted capital, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 77, L 61, W 39

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 30 Derecik Köyü, fluted mullion capital. H 32

Fig. 30 Derecik Köyü, fluted mullion capital. H 32

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

  • 4 A particularly fine mullion capital with a vase, doves, and ivy at Tavşanlı has been misrepresented (...)

8Arcaded basilicas often employed mullions instead of columns, as the wider mullions were better suited to support the thick arcades and walls that resulted from the use of rubble and mud as common building material (Niewöhner, 2021, p. 122). Mullions were also easier to carve than columns, as the semi-columns on each side of a mullion do not need to be precisely rounded in order to evoke the idea of column shafts (Fig. 27). A series of mullions at Tavşanlı was preserved through reuse in an Armenian church (Fig. 27). Mullions could be monolithic, including base and capital (Fig. 28, 29 at Gazelyakup Köyü) or built from separate parts (Fig. 30 at Derecik Köyü).4 The capitals were often fluted (Fig. 29, 30) (Cf. Aşık, 2020, pp. 190-204; Mitchell, Niewöhner, Vardar, & Vardar, 2021, pp. 200-204; Niewöhner, 2021, p. 45), following an ancient tradition that was widespread in Anatolia. Originally, the fluting represented organic leaves, but by the early Byzantine period, fluting could alternatively be conceived as a purely geometric ornament (Fig. 30).

Early Byzantine Church Furnishings

9The liturgical furnishing of a church was often conceived separately from the building’s architecture and could be supplied from different materials and workshops. Liturgical furnishings were smaller, less heavy, and therefore more affordable than architectural sculpture. They were also essential for the proper performance of the liturgy. Formal and functional specificities mostly excluded the reuse of ancient parts and required that the liturgical furnishings be newly made. For the same reason, liturgical furnishings are easily recognisable in the archaeological record, even when surviving only in small fragments. It is thus not surprising that they should be recorded in higher numbers than architectural sculpture, particularly in a rural context where many churches probably economised on architectural sculpture, but would still have to employ a complete set of liturgical furnishings.

10Two base slabs for altar tables at Karakişi Köyü and Dudaş Köyü are identifiable because each provides for four table legs, one per corner (Fig. 31, 32). Such altar tables were standard in early Byzantine Asia Minor (Niewöhner, 2021, p. 136), including several examples at and around Aezani (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 143, 231-233, Fig. 63, cat. 224-227 pl. 25). Two arches at Dudaş Köyü and at Sekbandemirli Köyü could be parts of ciboria or canopies of the kind that were commonly erected above altar tables (Niewöhner, 2021, p. 138), as is again attested for Aezani and vicinity (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 143, 269 f. cat. 358 f. Fig. 133, pl. 41), but in lieu of any Christian decoration, the arches from Tavşanlı might conceivably have also been employed above doors or windows or arcosolia graves, for example (Fig. 32, 33) (Cf. Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 130, 132, 139).

Fig. 31 Karakişi Köyü, base slab of an altar table with four legs, re-used at a Turkish fountain. L 195, W 150, Th 15

Fig. 31 Karakişi Köyü, base slab of an altar table with four legs, re-used at a Turkish fountain. L 195, W 150, Th 15

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 32 Dudaş Köyü, Alpagut Mahallesi, Turkish fountain with re-used base slab of an altar table (below), ciborium(?) arch (above, sandstone), and two slabs with soffits (left and right). Altar base: L 150, W > 85

Fig. 32 Dudaş Köyü, Alpagut Mahallesi, Turkish fountain with re-used base slab of an altar table (below), ciborium(?) arch (above, sandstone), and two slabs with soffits (left and right). Altar base: L 150, W > 85

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 33 Sekbandemirli Köyü, ciborium(?) arch, sandstone, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 58, L 102

Fig. 33 Sekbandemirli Köyü, ciborium(?) arch, sandstone, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 58, L 102

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 34 Emirler Köyü, post with soffit, re-used at a Turkish fountain. Broken at the top. H > 40, W 21

Fig. 34 Emirler Köyü, post with soffit, re-used at a Turkish fountain. Broken at the top. H > 40, W 21

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

  • 5 Compare a local barrier slab in the vicinity of Aezani that is decorated with a miniature architect (...)

11As the sanctuary with the altar was off limits for lay people, a templon or screen was required, consisting of posts, colonnettes, an epistyle, and closure slabs. The posts were often rough and ready products of local stone and workmanship, typically with a decoration of soffits, some more carefully carved and executed (Fig. 34 at Emirler Köyü), others with basic incisions only (Fig. 32 at Dudaş Köyü. Fig. 35 at Ayvalı Köyü). One rather large post at Derecik Köyü stands out for a fine, if badly mutilated, decoration with miniature columns in two superimposed storeys, each column with a fine-toothed acanthus capital and the lower storey with an egg-and-dart as epistyle (Fig. 36). Such sophisticated decoration with colonnettes is occasionally attested for other Phrygian posts (Niewöhner, 2014, pp. 264-266, Fig. 8-10), but the two storeys appear to be truly exceptional,5 and the quality of the workmanship could suggest import from Docimium.

12Certainly of Docimian marble and workmanship are three fine-toothed acanthus capitals, one medium-sized and composite or ‘Theodosian’ at Gümüşyeni Köyü (Fig. 37), two small and Corinthian at the museum in Tavşanlı (Fig. 38, 39). Such column capitals exist in relatively large numbers throughout Phrygia, appear to have been mass-produced at Docimium, and to have routinely been supplied to rural churches for templa and ciboria that were otherwise built of local marble and workmanship (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 128 f.; Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 20, 150; Niewöhner, 2023). Importing these relatively small, lightweight, and affordable capitals from Docimium enabled rural churches to participate in metropolitan style and quality of the highest order that was unattainable with the local marble and workmanship otherwise available in the countryside.

13The composite or ‘Theodosian’ capital of medium size appears too large for a templon colonnette and too small for a main colonnade or arcade between the aisles of a basilica, but could have been employed at a ciborium (Fig. 37). The capital has a dedicatory inscription in high relief on the abacus, as was common for all kinds of liturgical furnishings that appear to have often been donated by clergy or members of the community. The inscription reads

Fig. 35 Ayvalı Köyü, post with soffit, re-used as corner stone outside the upper mosque. Broken at the bottom. H > 67, W 22, D 15

Fig. 35 Ayvalı Köyü, post with soffit, re-used as corner stone outside the upper mosque. Broken at the bottom. H > 67, W 22, D 15

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 36 Derecik Köyü, post with two-storey decoration of paired colonnettes in front and Attic column base on top, flanking the door to the mosque.

Fig. 36 Derecik Köyü, post with two-storey decoration of paired colonnettes in front and Attic column base on top, flanking the door to the mosque.

The Attic base on top and the column shafts of the colonnettes have broken off, the marble has been painted, and the bottom is cut off by the photograph.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021

Fig. 37 Gümüşyeni Köyü, medium-sized fine-toothed composite or ‘Theodosian’ column capital with votive inscription on the abacus, fine white marble, re-used at the fountain of the mosque

Fig. 37 Gümüşyeni Köyü, medium-sized fine-toothed composite or ‘Theodosian’ column capital with votive inscription on the abacus, fine white marble, re-used at the fountain of the mosque

The bottom is buried in grey concrete, the rest partly disfigured by red lime mortar. H 35, abacus 50 x 50.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.

  • 6 For comparable slabs and Christograms, see Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 65, 156.
  • 7 For similar ambo slabs and how they were assembled, see Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 144-146.

14The sanctuary screen or templon required closure slabs, to be inserted between, and held in place by, the posts, and one such slab of local marble and workmanship has been reused at a Turkish fountain at Gökçeyurt Köyü (Fig. 40). The typical decoration with a Christogram medallion may alternatively be read as a floral ornament.6 The bottom side of an ambo platform is similarly decorated with a Staurogram and was apparently also reused for a Turkish fountain at Derecik Köyü (Fig. 41). A supporting ambo slab decorates yet another fountain at Ayvalı Köyü (Fig. 42).7

Fig. 38 Tavşanlı museum, small fine-toothed Corinthian column capital, fine white marble

Fig. 38 Tavşanlı museum, small fine-toothed Corinthian column capital, fine white marble

Most leaf tips and the helices are broken off.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.

Fig. 39 Tavşanlı museum, small fine-toothed Corinthian column capital, fine white marble

Fig. 39 Tavşanlı museum, small fine-toothed Corinthian column capital, fine white marble

Broken at the bottom; the leaf tips and helices are broken off.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.

Fig. 40 Gökçeyurt Köyü, barrier slab with Christogram medallion, re-used at a Turkish fountain

Fig. 40 Gökçeyurt Köyü, barrier slab with Christogram medallion, re-used at a Turkish fountain

Broken in four parts. H 78, L 113.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.

Fig. 41 Derecik Köyü, ambo platform with Staurogram

Fig. 41 Derecik Köyü, ambo platform with Staurogram

A central hole suggests former re-use at a Turkish fountain. L 114, W 108, H 21.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.

15A tub-shaped baptismal font at Tavşanlı is decorated with two cross medallions, one on each long side, and a simple cross in the center of one short side, the other short side remaining without decoration (Fig. 43). Below the cross on the short side, a drain appears to be part of the original font; it has the same tool marks as the plain surfaces with the crosses, and monolithic fonts were commonly provided with holes for drainage. Such fonts were widespread in Asia Minor (Aşık, 2020, pp. 249-253; Niewöhner, 2021, p. 163), but rare elsewhere (Ristow, 2023). Above the cross on the short side, the rim of the tub is smooth, without any remaining tool marks, and engraved with an inscription, to be read from the outside, i.e., presumably by the candidates as they entered the font (Fig. 44). To judge by the evidence of other monolithic fonts with internal steps, the candidates entered them at one end and exited at the other (Niewöhner, 2021, p. 163). The central letters of the inscription have been lost to a secondary spillway that was probably cut when the tub was reused as basin or trough. The inscription reads

Fig. 42 Ayvalı Köyü, supporting ambo slab with niche and flaking quarter columns, re-used at a Turkish fountain in the garden of the Ahmet Dede Türbesi

Fig. 42 Ayvalı Köyü, supporting ambo slab with niche and flaking quarter columns, re-used at a Turkish fountain in the garden of the Ahmet Dede Türbesi

Broken in the middle and the missing bottom left corner replaced by a rectangular block. H 110, W 75, Th 15.

M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.

Fig. 43 Tavşanlı, Mülayim Tepesi, tub-shaped baptismal font with crosses, drain, and inscriptionA secondary overflow at the top left cuts into a cross and the inscription and suggests Turkish re-use as a water basin. H 55, L 275, W 73.

Fig. 43 Tavşanlı, Mülayim Tepesi, tub-shaped baptismal font with crosses, drain, and inscriptionA secondary overflow at the top left cuts into a cross and the inscription and suggests Turkish re-use as a water basin. H 55, L 275, W 73.

An unrelated doorstone has been deposited inside the font.

P. Niewöhner, 2021.

Fig. 44 Tavşanlı, baptismal font as in the previous figure, detail of the inscription

Fig. 44 Tavşanlı, baptismal font as in the previous figure, detail of the inscription

The secondary spillway cuts the inscription in half.

P. Niewöhner, 2021.

  • 8 Cf. also another potential font at Kütahya: Niewöhner, 2023.

16This quotation from Psalm 28.3 was one of the most frequently occurring citations from the Greek Bible found in inscriptions, invariably on water containers. On cisterns and the like, the Psalm would relate to the liturgy of blessing the waters, on baptismal fonts to Jesus’ baptism (Di Segni, 2017, p. 80). The evidence of the inscription is particularly important, because other such tub-shaped basins, one from the vicinity of Aezani (Niewöhner, 2007, p. 263 cat. 334 pl. 37),8 have previously been identified as sarcophagi (Deckers & Koch, 2018, cat. 241), although they appear too short for that purpose, have original drains, but no provisions for any lids, and their decoration diverges from what was common on sarcophagi. The epigraphic evidence of the font from Tavşanlı is now putting that matter to rest.

Conclusions

  • 9 For Kütahya, see, with earlier bibliographies, Demirkök, Dönmez, Drew-Bear, & Türktüzün, 2007; Niew (...)

17The new carvings in the area of Tavşanlı give no indication of having been brought from afar. The likely removal of the entablature blocks Fig. 24, 25 across 10 km from Karaköy took place within the Tavşanlı area. The spectrum of finds is broad rather than particular, as it might be if the carvings had been brought to the area in modern times because particular antiquities were sought after for reuse in the Turkish villages. Most every kind of liturgical furnishings is represented by one or two items, without any conceivable bias towards reuse purposes. The mixture of Roman votives and grave stones as well as early Byzantine architectural sculpture and liturgical furnishings is similar to the archaeological collection at Kütahya and to what has been found in the vicinity of Aezani.9

18The earlier observation that the area of Tavşanlı may not have had a Roman city of its own, but could have belonged to Aezani, stands confirmed. However, a separate early Byzantine bishopric somewhere in the area—possibly at Palanga, as described above—seems a more likely option, considering that the network of such bishoprics was more densely knit than that of Roman cities and that bishoprics could be established at otherwise rural settlements in order to provide for rural populations outside the reach of the next city (Destephen & Métivier, 2007; Hübner, 2005, pp. 62-66; Mitchell, 2021; Cf. Arslan, Niewöhner, & Yeğin, 2023).

  • 10 Note a spout at Çardaklı, south of Tavşanlı: Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, p. 167 cat (...)

19There can be no reasonable doubt that the Tavşanlı area contained numerous Roman to early Byzantine settlements. To judge by the surviving carvings, the mode and quality of life were the same as in the vicinity of Aezani or in the area of Kütahya. Also similar is a general poverty in middle Byzantine stone carvings. Their near-total absence from Tavşanlı10 and their small numbers at Aezani and Kütahya may partly be explained by the reuse of early Byzantine carvings and the smaller size of later churches that normally required no more than four columns (Ousterhout, 2019, pp. 431-444). Fewer middle Byzantine carvings than in some other parts of central Anatolia may also be explained by less destruction during the Invasion period when Persians and Arabs ransacked Anatolia on numerous occasions during the seventh to ninth centuries. North-western Phrygia was reached by fewer raids than the regions further to the southeast, and less destruction would necessitate fewer middle Byzantine repairs (Belke & Mersich, 1990, p. 68; Niewöhner, 2008, p. 311).

20However, the survey in the vicinity of Aezani has shown that middle Byzantine marbles are as unevenly distributed as they are rare (Niewöhner, 2008, pp. 306-308). Considering that palynological evidence indicates continued land use in the middle Byzantine period (Cassis et al., 2018; Koder, 2017), the scarcity of middle Byzantine carvings cannot be taken to imply that large parts of the countryside became uninhabited. Apparently, new middle Byzantine carvings were an exceptional expenditure, possibly depending on the whims of landed aristocrats, and are thus not indicative of the general settlement pattern and activity anymore.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Akduğan, S., Gürbüz, S., Karaca, R., & Türktüzün, M. (2013). Tokul Köyü Kilise Kurtarma Kazısı ve Temizlik Çalışmaları. Kütahya Müzesi Yıllığı, 1, 47-83.

Akyürek Şahin, E. (2016). The Cult of Hekate in Lydia. Gephyra, 13, 1-48.

Akyürek Şahin, E. (2018). Kurtarıcı Hekate’nin Himayesine Sunulan Ölüler. Kütahya’dan İki Yeni Mezar Taşı. Kütahya Müzesi Yıllığı, 6, 145-161.

Altunkaynak Duğan, S. & Ünan, S. (2019). Örencik Mevkii Kilise Kurtarma Kazısı. Kütahya Müzesi Yıllığı, 7, 17-41.

Arslan, M., Niewöhner, P., & Yeğin, Y. (2023). The Episcopal Palace of Parnassos in Cappadocia and Its Early Byzantine Floor Mosaics. With an Appendix on a Late Roman Sarcophagus and Three Early Christian Grave Stones. Anatolian Studies, 73, 171-191.

Aşık, M. (2020). Kütahya Merkezde Bulunan Bizans Dönemi Taş Eserleri (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Türkiye.

Audley-Miller, L., Mitchell, S., Niewöhner, P., Vardar, A., & Vardar, L. E. (2023). An Archaeology of Emptiness. Haymana or the Prairie in Roman and Byzantine Times. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 73, in press.

Barsanti, C. & Guiglia Guidobaldi, A. (2004). Santa Sofia di Costantinopoli. L’arredo marmoreo della grande chiesa giustinianea. Studi di antichità cristiana 60. Città del Vaticano: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.

Belke, K. (2005). Das byzantinische Dorf in Zentralanatolien. In: J. Lefort, C. Morrison, & J.-P. Sodini (Eds.), Les villages dans l’empire byzantin (4e-15e siècle). Réalités Byzantines 11. (pp. 425-435). Paris: Lethielleux.

Belke, K. & Mersich, N. (1990). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7. Phrygien und Pisidien. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 211. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Buckler W. H. & Calder, W. M. (1939). Monuments and Documents from Phrygia and Caria. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua 6. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Buckler, W. H., Calder, W. M., & Cox, C. W. M. (1925). Asia Minor, 1924: II. Monuments from Cotiaeum. Journal of Roman Studies, 15, 141-175.

Cameron, A. & Cox, C. W. M. (1937). Monuments from Dorylaeum and Nacolea. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua 5. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Cameron, A., Cox, C. W. M., Cullen, J., & Levick, B. (1993). Monuments from the Upper Tembris Valley, Cotiaeum, Cadi, Synaus, Ancyra and Tiberiopolis. Monumenta Aiae Minoris Antiqua 10= Journal of Roman Studies Monographs 7. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Cassis, M., Doonan, O., Eastwood, W., Elton, H., Haldon, J., Izdebski, A., Newhard, J., & Roberts, N. (2018). Not the End of the World? Post-Classical Decline and Recovery in Rural Anatolia. Human Ecology, 46, 313-330.

Deckers, J. G. & Koch, G. (2018). Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage 5. Konstantinopel. Kleinasien − Thracia. Syria. Palaestina − Arabia. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Demirkök, T. F., Dönmez, E. Ş., Drew-Bear, T., & Türktüzün, M. (2007). Ben Anadolu’da Doğdum. Kütahya: Tugay Anadolu Kültür – Sanat ve Arkeoloji Müzesi Yayınları.

Destephen, S. & Métivier, S. (2007). Chorévêques et évêques en Asie Mineure au IVe et Ve siècles. Topoi. Orient-Occident, 15(1), 343-378.

Di Segni, L. (2017). Expressions of Prayer in Late Antique Inscriptions in the Provinces of Palaestina and Arabia. In B. Bitton-Ashkelony & D. Krueger (Eds.), Prayer and Worship in Eastern Christianities, 5th to 11th Centuries (pp. 63-88). New York: Routledge.

Drew-Bear, T. & Naour, C. (1990). Divinités de Phrygie. In W. Haase (Ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 18/3 Heidentum. Die religiösen Verhältnisse in den Provinzen 2 (1907-2044). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Erdinç, Z. (2020). Aizaitis Bölgesi Mezar Taşları (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pamukkale University, Denizli, Türkiye.

Feissel, D. (2020). Invocations chrétiennes à Éphèse. Tyche, 35, 35-45.

French, D., Mitchell, S. (2019). The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra) 2. Late Roman, Byzantine, and Other Texts. Vestigia 72. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck.

Harrison, R. M. (1986). Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul 1: The Excavations, Structures, Architectural Decoration, Small finds, Coins, Bones and Molluscs. Princeton and Washington, D.C.: Princeton University Press and Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Hübner, S. (2005). Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des spätantiken Kleinasiens. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Kocabaş, M. A. (2021). Tavşanlı Arkeolojisi ve Tavşanlı Belediye Müzesi’nde Bulunan Tunç Çağı’na Tarihlenen Pişmiş Toprak Eserler (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Kütahya Dumlupınar University, Kütahya, Türkiye.

Koder, J. (2017). Remarks on Trade and Economy in Eleventh-Century Asia Minor. In J.-C. Cheynet, & B. Flusin (Eds), Autour du « Premier humanisme byzantin » et des « Cinq études sur le XIe siècle », quarante ans après Paul Lemerle (College de France – CNRS. Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Travaux et mémoires 21/2 (pp. 649–664). Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance.

Köse, M. (2011). Kültürel Miras Tavşanlı Mozaiği. Tavşanlı Kültür ve Tarih Araştırmaları, 1, 36.

Lehmler, C. & Wörrle, M. (2006). Neue Inschriften aus Aizanoi 4. Aizanitica Minora 2. Chiron, 36, 45-111.

Levick, B., Mitchell, S., Potter, J., & Waelkens, M. (1988). Monuments from the Aezanitis. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua 9= Journal of Roman Studies Monographs 4. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Mitchell, S. (1996). The Development of Classical Cities and Settlements in Late Roman Anatolia. In Y. Sey (Ed.), Housing and Settlement in Anatolia. A Historical Perspective. Habitat II (pp. 193-205). Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.

Mitchell, S. (2021). A Note on Meiros in Phrygia. Gephyra, 21, 237-242.

Mitchell, S. (2023). The Christians of Phrygia from Rome to the Turkish Conquest. Leiden: Brill.

Mitchell, S., Niewöhner, P., Vardar, A., & Vardar, L. E. (2021). Church Building and Wine Making East of Ankara. Regional Aspects of Central Anatolia in the Early Byzantine Period. Gephyra, 21, 199–229.

Niewöhner, P. (2006). Frühbyzantinische Steinmetzarbeiten in Kütahya. Zu Topographie, Steinmetzwesen und Siedlungsgeschichte einer zentralanatolischen Region. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 56, 407–473.

Niewöhner, P. (2007). Aizanoi, Dokimion und Anatolien. Stadt und Land, Siedlungs- und Steinmetzwesen vom späteren 4. bis ins 6. Jh. n. Chr. Aizanoi 1= Archäologische Forschungen 23. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Niewöhner, P. (2008). Mittelbyzantinische Templonanlagen aus Anatolien. Die Sammlung des Archäologischen Museums Kütahya und ihr Kontext. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 58, 285-345.

Niewöhner, P. (2014). Production and Distribution of Docimian Marble in the Theodosian Age. In I. Jacobs (Ed.), Production and Prosperity in the Theodosian Age. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 14 (pp. 251-271). Leuven: Peeters.

Niewöhner, P. (2018). Healing Springs of Anatolia: St Michael and the Problem of the Pagan Legacy. In B. Pitarakis, & G. Tanman (Eds.), The Art of Healing in Byzantium. Istanbul Research Institute Publications 38 (pp. 97–124). Istanbul: Istanbul Research Institute.

Niewöhner, P. (2021). Byzantine Ornaments in Stone. Architectural Sculpture and Liturgical Furnishings. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Niewöhner, P. (2023). From Early Christian Region to Later Byzantine Hinterland. New Byzantine Marbles in the Archaeological Museum Kütahya. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 73, in press.

Özgan, R. (2003). Die kaiserzeitlichen Sarkophage in Konya und Umgebung. Asia Minor Studien 46. Bonn: R. Habelt.

Ousterhout, R. (2019). Eastern Medieval Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ramsay, W. M. (1897). The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia 1, 2. West and West-Central Phrygia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ricl, M. (2017). Cults of Phrygia Epiktetos in the Roman Imperial Period. Epigraphica Anatolica, 50, 133-148.

Ristow, S. (2023). Taufe II. In Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 31 (cc. 1016–1030). Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann Verlag.

Schlimbach, F. (2020). Neue Forschungen in al-Andarīn. Heidelberg: Propylaeum.

Schwabl, H. (1972). Zeus. In P. Wissowa (Ed.), Paulys Realencycklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: Zweite Reihe. Band X A: Zenobia–Zythos (1972) (cc. 253-376). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.

Schwabl, H. (1978). Zeus. In P. Wissowa (Ed.), Paulys Realencycklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: Suppl.15 Acilius bis Zoilos (cc. 993-1481). Stuttgart: Druckenmüller.

Stroth, F. (2021). Monogrammkapitelle. Die justinianische Bauskulptur Konstantinopels als Textträger. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Tuğrul, L. (1964). Tavşanlı ve Civarından Buluntular. Finds from Tavşanlı and Vicinity. İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı, 11, 34-50, 147-163.

Vanhaverbeke, H. & Waelkens, M. (2003). The Chora of Sagalassos. The Evolution of the Settlement Pattern from Prehistoric until Recent Times. Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 5. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.

Waelkens, M. W. (1986). Die Kleinasiatischen Türsteine. Typologische und epigraphische Untersuchungen der kleinasiatischen Grabreliefs mit Scheintür. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Wörrle, M. (2014). Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi VII. Aizanoi und Rom III. Der julisch-claudische Kaiserkult in Aizanoi. Chiron, 44, 439-511.

Wörrle, M. (2019). Der Brief des Septimius an Aizanoi. In K. Harter-Uibopuu (Ed.), Epigraphische Notizen. Zur Erinnerung an Peter Herrmann. Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne 6 (pp. 61-78). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Haut de page

Notes

1 For an excavated example of such a combination, see Schlimbach, 2020, p. 37, pl. 22-24.

2 Thanks to Georgi Parpulov (Göttingen), who saved us from a mistake in reading this inscription.

3 For early Byzantine Docimium and its influence on local workshops in central Anatolia in general, see Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 119-134; Niewöhner, 2014; Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 20, 61, 145, 147.

4 A particularly fine mullion capital with a vase, doves, and ivy at Tavşanlı has been misrepresented as column top with ancient basin (sic): Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, p. 172 cat. 561 b pl. 46. The basin was no doubt carved later for reuse of the beautiful piece. Cf. a closely comparable mullion capital at Kütahya, most likely for the window of a church apse: Niewöhner, 2023.

5 Compare a local barrier slab in the vicinity of Aezani that is decorated with a miniature architecture in two storeys, a colonnade below and an arcade above: Niewöhner, 2007, p. 267 cat. 344 pl. 39.

6 For comparable slabs and Christograms, see Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 65, 156.

7 For similar ambo slabs and how they were assembled, see Niewöhner, 2021, pp. 144-146.

8 Cf. also another potential font at Kütahya: Niewöhner, 2023.

9 For Kütahya, see, with earlier bibliographies, Demirkök, Dönmez, Drew-Bear, & Türktüzün, 2007; Niewöhner, 2006; Niewöhner, 2023. For the vicinity of Aezani, see Erdinç, 2020; Lehmler & Wörrle, 2006; Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988; Niewöhner, 2007.

10 Note a spout at Çardaklı, south of Tavşanlı: Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, p. 167 cat. 550a pl. 44. The spout was probably throwing rain water off the vaulted roof of a middle Byzantine church; cf. a similar spout at Kütahya (Niewöhner, 2023), and see more generally on such spouts, their usage, and their dating from the middle Byzantine period, Niewöhner, 2021, p. 133.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 18 Akçaşehir Köyü, overdoor with central cross and Christian dedication. H 22, L 230, W 72
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 725k
Titre Fig. 19 Detail of previous figure, beginning of the inscription
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 934k
Titre Fig. 20 Detail of Fig. 18, centre left part of the inscription
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 442k
Titre Fig. 21 Detail of Fig. 18, centre right part of the inscription
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 570k
Titre Fig. 22 Detail of Fig. 18, end of the inscription
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 569k
Titre Fig. 23 Akçaşehir Köyü, second overdoor with thick semi-cylindrical moulding. H 27, L 177, W 67
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 453k
Titre Fig. 24 Tavşanlı, fragmented entablature block with Christian verse inscription [ - ]ης ϟ προφρονέως τε θεοφρόνες ἁγ[νου].
Légende H 35, L 212, letters 4–6. Both narrow ends with anathyrosis. The top has been hollowed out, an incision at the top right provides a spillway, and two more holes below the inscription serve as drains, apparently for re-use as a basin. Still later, the front of the basin broke off in two parts and had to be re-assembled for the photograph
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 642k
Titre Fig. 25 Tavşanlı, other part of the same entablature as in the previous image, partly buried in the ground.
Légende The right end with anathyrosis, the left apparently cut short. The top has been hollowed out, an incision at the top right provides a spillway, and a hole below the inscription serves as drain, apparently for re-use as a water basin
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 749k
Titre Fig. 26 Uluçam Köyü, entablature block with geometric patterns, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 34, L 185, W 74
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 635k
Titre Fig. 27 Tavşanlı, one of numerous mullions with Armenian inscriptions
Crédits P. Niewöhner, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 791k
Titre Fig. 28 Tavşanlı, mullion, re-used at a Turkish fountain in Ulu Cami Mahallesi, Çarşı Sokak, Kütahya Caddesi no. 21. H 59, L 49, W 14
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 481k
Titre Fig. 29 Gazelyakup Köyü, mullion with fluted capital, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 77, L 61, W 39
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 653k
Titre Fig. 30 Derecik Köyü, fluted mullion capital. H 32
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 594k
Titre Fig. 31 Karakişi Köyü, base slab of an altar table with four legs, re-used at a Turkish fountain. L 195, W 150, Th 15
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 855k
Titre Fig. 32 Dudaş Köyü, Alpagut Mahallesi, Turkish fountain with re-used base slab of an altar table (below), ciborium(?) arch (above, sandstone), and two slabs with soffits (left and right). Altar base: L 150, W > 85
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 644k
Titre Fig. 33 Sekbandemirli Köyü, ciborium(?) arch, sandstone, re-used at a Turkish fountain. H 58, L 102
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 493k
Titre Fig. 34 Emirler Köyü, post with soffit, re-used at a Turkish fountain. Broken at the top. H > 40, W 21
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 847k
Titre  
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 9,8k
Titre Fig. 35 Ayvalı Köyü, post with soffit, re-used as corner stone outside the upper mosque. Broken at the bottom. H > 67, W 22, D 15
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 728k
Titre Fig. 36 Derecik Köyü, post with two-storey decoration of paired colonnettes in front and Attic column base on top, flanking the door to the mosque.
Légende The Attic base on top and the column shafts of the colonnettes have broken off, the marble has been painted, and the bottom is cut off by the photograph.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Titre Fig. 37 Gümüşyeni Köyü, medium-sized fine-toothed composite or ‘Theodosian’ column capital with votive inscription on the abacus, fine white marble, re-used at the fountain of the mosque
Légende The bottom is buried in grey concrete, the rest partly disfigured by red lime mortar. H 35, abacus 50 x 50.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 614k
Titre Fig. 38 Tavşanlı museum, small fine-toothed Corinthian column capital, fine white marble
Légende Most leaf tips and the helices are broken off.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 739k
Titre Fig. 39 Tavşanlı museum, small fine-toothed Corinthian column capital, fine white marble
Légende Broken at the bottom; the leaf tips and helices are broken off.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 989k
Titre Fig. 40 Gökçeyurt Köyü, barrier slab with Christogram medallion, re-used at a Turkish fountain
Légende Broken in four parts. H 78, L 113.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 881k
Titre Fig. 41 Derecik Köyü, ambo platform with Staurogram
Légende A central hole suggests former re-use at a Turkish fountain. L 114, W 108, H 21.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 713k
Titre  
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 16k
Titre Fig. 42 Ayvalı Köyü, supporting ambo slab with niche and flaking quarter columns, re-used at a Turkish fountain in the garden of the Ahmet Dede Türbesi
Légende Broken in the middle and the missing bottom left corner replaced by a rectangular block. H 110, W 75, Th 15.
Crédits M. A. Kocabaş, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 703k
Titre Fig. 43 Tavşanlı, Mülayim Tepesi, tub-shaped baptismal font with crosses, drain, and inscriptionA secondary overflow at the top left cuts into a cross and the inscription and suggests Turkish re-use as a water basin. H 55, L 275, W 73.
Légende An unrelated doorstone has been deposited inside the font.
Crédits P. Niewöhner, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 672k
Titre Fig. 44 Tavşanlı, baptismal font as in the previous figure, detail of the inscription
Légende The secondary spillway cuts the inscription in half.
Crédits P. Niewöhner, 2021.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/3046/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 824k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Mehmet Ali Kocabaş, Prof. Dr. Stephen Mitchell et PD Dr. Philipp Niewöhner, « Filling in a Gap: Roman Votives and Gravestones as well as Early Byzantine Churches at Tavşanlı in Phrygia (2/2) »Anatolia Antiqua, XXXI | 2023, 63-85.

Référence électronique

Mehmet Ali Kocabaş, Prof. Dr. Stephen Mitchell et PD Dr. Philipp Niewöhner, « Filling in a Gap: Roman Votives and Gravestones as well as Early Byzantine Churches at Tavşanlı in Phrygia (2/2) »Anatolia Antiqua [En ligne], XXXI | 2023, mis en ligne le 15 mars 2024, consulté le 06 décembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/3046 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/12ddd

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search