Revue des études byzantines

An epitaph of a Gepid king at Vefa kilise camii in Istanbul

Haluk Çeti̇nkaya

Résumé
An epitaph of a Gepid king, namely Thrasarich, was found in the garden of the former Byzantine church today known as
Vefa kilise camii in Istanbul. When Thrasarich’s father Thraustila was killed by Theodoric in 488, Thrasarich was crowned
king of the Gepids and lived in Sirmium. The city was later conquered by the Goths under Theodoric in 504. No
occurrence of the name of Thrasarich was known after this date. The epitaph proves that Thrasarich was given the title of
comes domesticorum by the Byzantine administration and died at Constantinople while possibly serving the Empire.

Abstract
L’épitaphe d’un roi gépide nommé Thrasarich a été découverte dans le jardin de l’ancienne église byzantine connue
aujourd’hui sous le nom de Vefa kilise camii à Istanbul. Quand Thraustila, le père de Thrasarich, fut tué par Théodoric en
488, Thrasarich fut couronné roi des Gépides et vécut à Sirmium. La cité fut conquise plus tard par les Goths sous
Théodoric en 504. Aucune mention du nom de Thrasarich n’était connue après cette date. L’épitaphe prouve que
Thrasarich reçut de l’administration byzantine le titre de comes domesticorum et mourut à Constantinople sans doute au
service de l’Empire.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Çeti̇nkaya Haluk. An epitaph of a Gepid king at Vefa kilise camii in Istanbul. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 67,
2009. pp. 225-229;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.2009.4834

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-5598_2009_num_67_1_4834

Fichier pdf généré le 16/12/2021

 AN EPITAPH OF A GEPID KING
AT VEFA KILISE CAMII IN ISTANBUL

Haluk ÇETİNKAYA

A former Byzantine church, now known by its Turkish name of Vefa kilise
camii, stands on Tirendaz Caddesi in the neighborhood of Vefa in modern
Istanbul, only a few hundred metres away from the Valens aqueduct.1 In the
Byzantine period this area was located between the 7th and 10th regions of
Constantinople. Several proposals have been put forward for the dedication
and identification of this church. In the 16th century, Pierre Gilles was the
first to suggest that it was a church dedicated to St Theodore.2 Other identifi-
cations have included a church of the Theotokos,3 the church of St Procopius
τῆς Χελώνης,4 and the monastery of Gorgoepekoos.5 Vefa kilise camii is one
of the least documented monuments of the Ottoman period, and so it is not
exactly clear when it lost its function as a church. It has been suggested, how-
ever, that following the Ottoman conquest it was converted into a mosque
together with seven other churches.6 This event must have occurred before
1494, when it was recorded as having a medrese with fifty students. The
transformation of the church into a mosque was most probably the work of
one Şemsüddin Ahmed, better known as Molla Gürani-Şeyh Vefa, before his
death in 1487 in the reign of Sultan Bayezid II. Excavations at Vefa kilise
camii and a partial cleaning of the mosaics were carried out in 1937 by
Hidayet Fuat Tagay and Miltiadis Nomidis, but their work was published only
in 1990 by Cyril Mango.7

1. I would like to express my gratitude to Olivier Delouis and Denis Feissel for reading this
text and making invaluable suggestions to guide me through.
2. PΙERRE GΙLLES, De Topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius antiquitatibus libri quatuor,
Lyon 1561, p. 166; cf. J.-P. GRÉLOIS, Pierre Gilles. Itinéraires byzantins (Centre de recherche
d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 28), Paris 2007, p. 399 and n. 2238.
3. W. SALZENBERG, Altchristliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel, Berlin 1855, p. 115-199,
plates 34-35.
4. A. BERGER, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinopoleos (Ποικίλα βυζαντινά 8),
Bonn 1988, p. 460-461.
5. C. MANGO, The work of M. I. Nomidis in the Vefa kilise camii, Istanbul (1937-1938),
Μεσαιωνικὰ καὶ νέα ἑλληνικά 3, 1990, p. 421-429, reprinted in IDEM, Studies on Constan-
tinople, Aldershot 1993, text XXII.
6. C. BALTACΙ, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı medreseleri [Ottoman medreses in the XVth-
XVIth centuries], Istanbul 1976, p. 468.
7. C. MANGO, art. cit., p. 421-422.

Revue des Études Byzantines 67, 2009, p. 225-229.

226 HALUK ÇETİNKAYA

In 2006 the author announced the discovery of some architectural frag-

ments and features at Vefa kilise camii that had hitherto escaped scholarly
notice, including three glazed bowls or bacini set into the gable of the south-
ern façade of the building, which are the only ones recorded on a Byzantine
monument in Turkey, a fragment of early Byzantine templon post, datable to
the 5th-6th centuries, and a broken Byzantine column capital.8 The most
important new find at Vefa kilise camii, however, is a gravestone cut from
coarse white marble, parts of which were broken off except at the top of the
slab (see figures below). It was found during a regular visit of the ongoing
construction activities in the neighborhood of Vefa and is currently in the gar-
den of the mosque next to its eastern wall.

Six lines of a carefully carved Greek inscription can be read and restored
as follows.
Slab maximum height 55cm; maximum width 50cm; thickness 9.6cm; height of letters 4.2-5cm;
width of letters 2.2-4.2cm; space between lines 0.8-1.8cm.

[ΝΘ]̣∆ΤΙΤ[ΙΟΤΗC] [+ Ἐνθ]ά̣δε κατάκιτα[ι ὁ τῆς]

[ΥΛ]SϺNHMΗCϴΡ[CΡΙΧ] [εὐκλ]ε(οῦς) µνήµης Θρά[σαριχ]
[ΟΜ]∆oϺΡΓΗΠ[Ι∆ΩΝ] [κόμ](ης) δοµ(εστίκων) ῥὲξ Γηπ[αίδων]
[ΥΙΟC]ϴΡΥCΤΙΛΤΗ[CΥΛS] 4 [υἱὸς ?] Θραυστίλα τῆς [εὐκλε(οῦς) ?]
[ΜΝΗΜΗCΟ]CΤΙCΖΗC̣[ΝΤΗ] [µνήµης ὅ]στις ἔζησε̣[ν ἔτη]
[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]ΤΗS̅[- - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - -]τη ϛ̄ [- - -]

Line 1: lege κατάκειται. Line 3: lege ῥὴξ. Four latin S are used as abbreviations at line 2, 3 and
6. Other noticeable letters are  and .

Here lies Thrasarich of (glorious) memory, count of the domestici, king of

the Gepids, (son of?) Thraustila of (glorious?) memory, who lived (…) (years)
(…) sixth (…).

The Germanic male name Thraustila (Θραυστίλα) can be read clearly in

line 4, who from his position in the epitaph was probably a relative of the
deceased, mentioned in line 2, whose name Θρα[...] is only partially pre-
served. In line 3, this deceased person is further identified as ῥὲξ Γηπ[....],
best restored as ῥὴξ Γηπ[αίδων]. On this basis, the name of the deceased man
in line 2 can be convincingly restored as Thrasarich (Θρά[σαριχ]), king of the
Gepids (488-after 504), the son of Thraustila († 488) mentioned in line 4,
both of whom are known from written sources.9 As a consequence the epitaph
is securely dated to the first half of the 6th century.

8. H. ÇEṪINKAYA, Recent finds at Vefa kilise camii of Istanbul, Proceedings of the 21st
International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 21-26 August 2006, Abstracts of
Communications, II, London 2008, p. 77. A further article will deal with those elements.
9. W. ENSSLIN, Thrasaricus, RE, VI A 1, c. 559, and PLRE, II, s.v. Trapstila, p. 1124-1125,
and Trasericus, p. 1125. For the identification, see also H. REICHERT and W. KRAML, Lexikon der
altgermanischen Namen (Thesaurus Palaeogermanicus 1.1), I, Vienna 1987, p. 701-702 and
713-714.
 AN EPITAPH OF A GEPID KING 227

Epitaph at Vefa kilise camii. Istanbul.

228 HALUK ÇETİNKAYA

When the Gepid king Giesmos died in the second half of the 5th century,
his son Mundos was very young and so his maternal uncle Thraustila became
king in Sirmium. Thraustila (named in some sources as Trapstila) was killed
by Theodoric in 488 and Thrasarich succeeded his father as king of the
Gepids. Mundos came to serve the Goths in Italy until the death of Theodoric
in 526, then led some of his people to the Danube, and offered allegiance to
Emperor Justinian I in 529.10 From this date, he was a general for the
Byzantines, was involved in several battles in the Balkans and even played a
role supporting Justinian during the Nika riot in Constantinople in 532.11
In 504 Theodoric had sent his general Pitzia against the Gepids. Sirmium
was taken and Thrasarich’s mother captured.12 Celebrating the conquest of the
city in his Panegyric of Theodoric, Ennodius of Pavia is content with men-
tioning Thrasarich’s earlier association with another Gepid leader named
Gunderith.13 Up to now, nothing was known about Thrasarich’s later career on
which our inscription sheds a new light. First, the presence of his gravestone
at Vefa kilise camii indicates that Thrasarich died at Constantinople. Second,
Thrasarich was welcomed by the Byzantine court and administration since he
was given the military title of comes domesticorum (κόμης δοµεστίκων), one
of the lowest ranks among the vires illustres, i.e. among the highest class of
the Senate. Third, Thrasarich probably offered allegiance to the Byzantine
empire, like his cousin Mundus, after the fall of Sirmium to the Goths in 504,
but it is not known if he actually enrolled in the Byzantine army while keep-
ing his royal title.14 Indeed, from the second half of the 5th century, the title of
comes domesticorum, formerly a commander of the court garrison, became an
honorary title and could even be given to civilians. At that time, it did not
imply an actual responsibility in court or at the army.15

10. IOANNES MALALAS, Chronography, ed. I. THURN (CFHB 35), Berlin 2000, p. 37851-54: Ἐπὶ
δὲ τῆς ὑπατείας ∆εκίου [i.e. 529] προσερρύη Ῥωµαίοις Μοῦνδος ὁ ἐκ γένους τῶν Γηπέδων
καταγόµενος, υἱὸς ὢν ῥηγός, µετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν τοῦ ἰδίου αὐτοῦ πατρὸς πρὸς Θραυστίλαν,
θεῖον αὐτοῦ, γεγονώς, καὶ διῆγεν ἐν τῷ Σιρµίῳ. Cf. THEOPHANES CONFESSOR, Chronographia,
ed. C. DE BOOR, I, Leipzig 1883, p. 21831-21916, with the same information but a wrong date
(540) and the corrupted name « Regas » for Thraustila.
11. B. CROKE, Mundo the Gepid: from freebooter to the Roman general, Chiron 12, 1982,
p. 125-135 and PLRE, III, s.v. Mundus, p. 903-905, with relevant sources.
12. IORDANES, Romana et Getica, ed. T. MOMMSEN (MGH AA V,1), Berlin 1882, reprinted
1982, LVIII, p. 135300-302: « [Theodoricus] Pitzamum quoque suum comitem et inter primos elec-
tum ad obtinendam Sirmiensem dirigit civitatem. Quam ille expulso rege eius Trasarico, filio
Trapstilae, retenta eius matre obtinuit ». See H. WOLFRAM, Die Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Mitte des 6. Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, Munich 19903, p. 321.
13. ENNODIUS, Panegyricus dictus Theoderico, in Magni Felicis Ennodii opera, ed. F. VOGEL
(MGH AA VII), Berlin 1885, reprinted 1961, p. 203-214, here p. 206-207 and 210: « … circa
alios Gepidas, quorum ductor est Gunderith, intempestiva Traserici familiaritas » (p. 21028-29).
On Gunderith, see RE, VII 2, c. 1937 and PLRE, II, p. 522.
14. Parallels are much earlier and in the West, for instance Mallobaudes, comes domestico-
rum and rex Francorum in 378: AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, XXXI, 10, 6, éd. J. C. ROLFE, III,
Cambridge (Mass.) 1872, p. 448.
15. On honorary comites domesticorum, see R. DELMAIRE, Les dignitaires laïcs au concile de
Chalcédoine : notes sur la hiérarchie et les préséances au milieu du Ve siècle, Byz. 54, 1984,
p. 141-175, here p. 148-153.
 AN EPITAPH OF A GEPID KING 229

A magister militum named Thrasarich is mentioned on a Roman grave

dated 589 belonging to the grandson or nephew (nepus) of the deceased,
named Wiliarich.16 The question has been raised in the past if the two
Thrasarich should be identifed. As already suggested elsewhere, the answer is
negative.17 A further evidence here provided is that although a comes domesti-
corum, when promoted, may become magister militum, his gravestone would
have mentioned his highest dignity, not only the lowest one. A fortification in
the province of Haemimontum (Thrace) is also named τοῦ Θρασαρίχου by
Procopius,18 but it is impossible to prove that the fortress was named after our
Gepid king or after an homonym.
The Gepid kingdom was destroyed by the Lombard king Audoin in a deci-
sive battle in 567/568.19 After this date, Gepids are rarely mentioned in the
historical sources,20 although they participated in the Avar expedition against
the Byzantine empire in 60121 and fought on the side of the Persians during
the siege of Constantinople in 626.22
This new discovery at Vefa kilise camii shows that in a constantly chang-
ing city such as modern Istanbul, fieldwork is still needed to shed new light
on poorly recorded buildings and even, as it is here the case, on historical fig-
ures of the Byzantine period.

Haluk ÇETİNKAYA
Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Istanbul

16. I. B. DE ROSSI, Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, I,

Rome 1857-1861, no 1126, p. 516 (= CIL VI 32050): « Hic requiescet in pace Uuilliaric nepus
mag(istri) mil(itum) Trasaric… ».
17. Identification proposed by W. ENSSLIN, op. cit., p. 559 (in 1939), but in the PLRE, III (s.v.
Trasaric 2, p. 1335, and Wiliaric, p. 1404), no reference is made to the Gepid king Thrasarich
(PLRE, II, s.v. Trasericus, p. 1125).
18. PROCOPIUS, De Aedificiis, IV, 11, ed. J. HAURY and G. WIRTH, Leipzig 1964, p. 14721.
19. PAULUS DIACONUS, Historia Langobardorum, ed. L. BETHMANN and G. WAITZ (MGH SS
rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI-IX), I, 27, p. 68-70. See also PLRE, III, s.v.
Audoin, p. 152-153. An Arian bishop named Thrasarich is said to have brought the treasures of
the Gepids kings to Constantinople after the defeat of 567/568: Chronica minora, ed.
T. MOMMSEN (MGH AA XI), p. 212-213, 1: « Gepidorum regnum finem accepit, qui a
Longobardis proelio superati: Cuniemundus rex campo occubuit et thesauri eius per Trasaricum
Arrianae sectae episcopum et Reptilanem Cuniemundi nepotem Iustino imperatori
Constantinopolim ad integrum perducti sunt ». This bishop does not fit, except his name, with
our inscription.
20. A. KAZHDAN, ODB, II, s.v. Gepids, p. 844.
21. THEOPHANES CONFESSOR, op. cit., I, p. 28216-17.21-25: [The Romans] τριάκοντα γὰρ
χιλιάδας Γηπαίδων καὶ ἑτέρων βαρβάρων ἀπέκτειναν […]. Ζῶντας δὲ ἐκράτησαν Ἀβάρους
µὲν τρισχιλίους, <Σκλαυινοὺς δὲ ὀκτακοσίους καὶ Γήπαιδας τρισχιλίους> διακοσίους καὶ
βαρβάρους δισχιλίους. Ὁ δὲ Χαγάνος εἰς Μαυρίκιον τὸν βασιλέα πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλεν
ἀναλαβεῖν τοὺς ζωγρηθέντας πειρώµενος.
22. THEOPHANES CONFESSOR, op. cit., I, p. 3157-11 (date corrected): [Chosroes] τὸν δὲ
Σάρβαρον σὺν τῷ λοιπῷ αὐτοῦ στρατῷ κατὰ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀπέστειλεν, ὅπως τοὺς
ἐκ δύσεως Οὔννους, οὓς Ἀβάρους καλοῦσιν, Βουλγάροις τε καὶ Σκλάβοις καὶ Γηπαίδαις
συµφωνήσας, κατὰ τῆς πόλεως χωρήσωσι καὶ ταύτην πολιορκήσωσιν.