Introduction

1The rural town of Tavşanlı (Turkish: with rabbits) occupies a small plain among low hills in a dead corner of western central Anatolia (Fig. 1). Overshadowed by the city of Kütahya, ancient Cotiaeum, ca. 50 km to the east, and bypassed by all major roads, Tavşanlı rose to some limited prominence only relatively recently, during the last two decades or so, when its population doubled mainly due to a local coal mine and its workforce. The latest development includes the building of a museum with an archaeological collection, some of which is published in this article. More artefacts are scattered throughout the town of Tavşanlı and the surrounding villages, where they were located and documented by M. A. Kocabaş in 2021 (Kocabaş, 2021). P. Niewöhner visited Tavşanlı in 2021, and S. Mitchell collaborated in the publication of the inscriptions, preparing the texts from the photographs.

2Tavşanlı does not appear to have ancient roots, and the area may have belonged to the large territory of Aezani, modern Çavdarhisar, ca. 60 km to the south (Cameron, Cox, Cullen, & Levick, 1993, p. xvii). Located in the ill-defined borderlands between Phrygia, Bithynia, and Mysia/Hellespontus (Belke & Mersich, 1990, p. 46), the area of Tavşanlı was possibly even more obscure in antiquity than it is today, so much so that earlier scholars called the origin of any ancient inscription from Tavşanlı into doubt, suspecting that most or all of them could have been brought there in modern times from somewhere closer to Aezani (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, p. xix f.). However, a more recent survey in the vicinity of Aezani reached the conclusion that a local Turkish farmer would not normally dislocate an antiquity beyond his village, and their distribution across the countryside appears to be a valid indicator of the ancient settlement pattern (Niewöhner, 2007, pp. 76-78).

4Thus, this article proposes to fill in a putative gap or white spot on the map of ancient Anatolia and rehabilitate the Tavşanlı area as a worthy object of archaeological research. A site near Çardaklı Köyü, to the south of Tavşanlı (Fig. 1), has already yielded various finds from floor mosaics to gold jewellery, since the Rhydacus or Orhaneli river was dammed and former marshes fell dry (Kocabaş, 2021; Köse, 2011; Tuğrul, 1964, pp. 49 f. pl. 22). The site is locally known as Palanga or, formerly, Palonga, which could be derived from the accusative Παλοκα, of the Παλοξ κώμη recorded in two Claudian inscriptions from Aezani, and represent a rural settlement of the kind attested by the findings of this paper (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, p. xix cat. C16. P27; Waelkens, 1986, pp. 48, 83). Our finds are presented in the following order: Roman votives (Fig. 2-11), Roman grave stones (Fig. 12-17), early Byzantine architectural sculpture (Fig. 18-30), and early Byzantine liturgical furnishings (Fig. 31-44). Some general conclusions follow at the end.

Roman Votives

Votive to Zeus (Fig. 2-5)

6Karlı Köyü. Marble altar with relief decoration on the front, right, and left faces of the shaft and a three-line inscription on the front of the pediment extending round to the right-hand side. The top of the altar slopes back at an angle, an indication that the stone was re-cut for subsequent use, and the first line of the inscription on the pediment is missing. The front shows a crude male bust, bearded, with the right hand across a ridged cloak. The right side has a defaced male bust with a crescent shaped object behind the shoulders (moon or thunderbolt?); the half-length figure seems to have a high collar with two tassels hanging down from it, dividing a ridged garment with closely spaced folds. Another cloaked bust of a male figure is depicted on the left face. Copied by Cox and Cullen in 1925 in a supporting wall of the mosque foundations, when only the front of the monument was visible (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 55).

7The final three letters are carved on the right-hand side of the stone and were not seen by Cox and Cullen. They observed that up to three lines may have been removed from the inscription, but probably only a single line, with a name in the nominative, was cut away when the stone was recut for later use.

8It was uncommon to specify that Zeus was a god (θεῷ Διεί) as this was self-evident from the god’s name. The gift of a lion was presumably a stone statue, dedicated to the god (Cf. Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 55).

Votive to Zeus Soter (Fig. 6)

9Karaköy. Grey limestone votive altar or bomos without mouldings between pediment, shaft, and base. On the front a relief of an eagle, with its head turned back over its left shoulder, standing on a thunderbolt; the eagle’s head may have been deliberately defaced. Very worn three-line inscription at the top of the shaft on either side of the relief.

10All the readings are uncertain, but the relief showing the classic attributes of Zeus, and the letters ΣΩΤ which are legible in the middle of the first line suggest that this was an altar dedicated to Zeus Soter. Zeus Soter was worshipped at Haci Kebir in the territory of Aezani (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat. 56), at Nacolea (Cameron & Cox, 1937, cat. 151. R19), and on the territory of Amorium (Drew-Bear & Naour, 1990, pp. 1967-1981).

Votive to Zeus Kapetolios (Capitolinus) (Fig. 7)

11Aydınlar Köyü. White rectangular marble votive altar or bomos. Tendril decoration on the pediment. The first two lines of the inscription are on a panel below the pediment; a series of plain mouldings then lead to the shaft; the final three lines of the text are at the top of the shaft. Similar plain mouldings join the bottom of the shaft with the base. Letters: alpha with straight cross-bar; lunate epsilon; square sigma; large omega. Probably 2^nd cent. AD.

Votive to Hekate (Fig. 8)

13Aydınlar Köyü. Plain white marble votive altar or bomos with a weathered inscription on the shaft.

14The readings are difficult. In line 1, there are letter traces, presumably titles or attributes of the goddess Hekate: θεᾷ σωτείρᾳ ἐπηκόῳ, or similar. Line 2 shows ΗΝΟΦΑΝΗ at the end of the line, which should be part of a proper name Ζηνοφάνης or more likely Μηνοφάνης. Line 3 could be the beginning of a patronymic, e.g., Κλα[υδίου]. At the end of the line [γ]ονεῦσι, ‘for his parents’, could be restored but makes no sense here, so this should be an ethnic, [-]ονεύς.

15A votive inscription to Hekate, who was worshipped widely in Lydia and Phrygia (Cf. Akyürek Şahin, 2016; Akyürek Şahin, 2018. Cf. SEG 56, cat. 1439, and SEG 53, cat. 1522 [Arslanapa in the Upper Tembris Valley]).

Votive or grave altar (Fig. 9, 10)

16Aydınlar Köyü. White marble pediment of a votive or funerary altar (bomos), probably with a flat top. Broken above, left, and below; shaft damaged on both sides. An inscription is carved on the shaft beneath undecorated mouldings.

17This partially preserved and worn inscription was in verse and may be either a votive or a funerary text. Three to four letters are probably missing at the start, and one to two letters at the end of each line, but only a few individual words can be convincingly restored.

2: presumably the name Παύλου.

7: perhaps ἔτι δὴ ζῶν.

8: νοήθη ὧδε.

Votive to Artemis (Fig. 11)

18Göbel Köyü. Top of a white marble votive altar or bomos with plain mouldings. The first four lines of an inscription are on the shaft, which is broken below.

193: σωτηρίας would be the normal spelling, but the restoration seems unavoidable. Lines 3-4 should be restored as a dedication to Artemis, and it could be that Menophilos and Blastos were offering thanks after a hunting accident. An important temple had been built and dedicated to Artemis at Aezani in AD 50, but as protector of hunters, the goddess was also revered in rural areas (SEG 45, cat. 1708. Cf. Ricl, 2017, p. 135 note 27).

Roman Grave Stones

Grave altar of Athenion (Fig. 12)

20Tavşanlı, Ulu Cami Mahallesi. White marble altar with plain pediment, curved mouldings above the shaft, plain below. The stone has been cut down on the left and hollowed out for reuse as a water basin of a Turkish fountain. Copied by Cox and Cullen in 1925 (Levick, Mitchell, Potter, & Waelkens, 1988, cat.172).

21The erasure in the first line may be relatively modern. This was probably a gravestone put up by husband and wife for their child. The right-hand part of the text was not visible when Cox and Cullen copied the stone. Perhaps restore a short male name at the start of the first line and a joining word: [Γάιος κ]ὲ Ἀλεξανδρία.

Grave altar set up by Apollonios Soterichos (Fig. 13)

22Altınova Köyü. Weathered white rectangular marble funerary altar or bomos. The left edge of the front face is covered by concrete. The initial and final letters of lines 1-4 are worn and hardly legible.

242-3: The iota at the end of line 2 is doubtful and the name Trikaine is uncertain. Δουδα was a woman’s name and seems to have been the metronymic of Apollonius Soterichus’s wife.

Grave stele from Cotiaeum workshop (Fig. 14)

25Kuruçay Köyü. White marble funerary stele with a steep triangular gable in the pediment showing two bunches of grapes above an unidentifiable object that is badly weathered or has been deliberately destroyed. The shaft has a frame decorated with diagonal and vertical lines around a rectangular inset panel containing reliefs of standing male and female figures. The male, to the left, is dressed in a chiton and holds an object (a bowl?) in his right hand and a bag or purse in his left. The female figure to the right is veiled and wears an elaborate garment with heavy folds over the shoulder and pleats or folds in the dress reaching down to her feet. The feet of both figures have been cut away, probably when the stone was reused as part of a fountain. The heads of both figures have been defaced. Three-line inscription on the panel below the shaft.

26The style of the monument is typical of Cotiaeum, and it was probably produced there (Cf. Buckler, Calder, & Cox, 1925, pp. 145 f. cat. 128; pp. 162 f. cat. 153; pp. 169 f. cat. 160).

Grave stele of a child (Fig. 15)

27Başköy. Funerary stele of grey limestone with an arched pediment. The worn inscription around the rim of the arch and in the pediment. Door knocker above a basket between two spindles on the shaft.

Grave stele of Demetrius (Fig. 16)

28Tavşanlı, Mülayim Tepesi. Upper right-hand fragment of a marble funerary stele. The monument is broken on the left and about half of the inscription is missing. A triangular pediment contains a disc with a six-petalled rosette and a half-acroterion to the right of the pediment. The first two lines of the inscription are on a rectangular panel below the pediment, above two simple mouldings leading to the shaft of the stele that is entirely lost. The third line of the inscription is on the lower moulding.

29The restorations are uncertain. There is little space to restore the names of other family members.

Slab with omphalos (Fig. 17)

30Sekbandemirli Köyü. Limestone slab with central omphalos and flanking octagons reused at a Turkish fountain. The relief is rough, with tool marks remaining throughout. Omphaloi appear as the sole ornament of a Roman sarcophagus in a village near Konya, and other Roman sarcophagi in those parts are decorated with simple geometric motifs, for example with lozenges (Özgan, 2003, p. 81 cat. 37 pl. 63, 2 [sarcophagus with two omphaloi as sole decoration]; pl. 57-61 [more sarcophagi with simple geometric decor]). It seems thus likely that our slab was also employed in a funerary context.