Talk:Double-headed eagle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

An editor has added a *very long* segment of text relating to a minor issue. It should be moved to a separate article or shortened very much. A full length essay does not belong here. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The essay in question

I removed this from the article. If anybody wants to shorten/edit or put it in a new article, here it is: THE ORIGINS OF THE SELJUKID DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE AS A COSMOLOGICAL SYMBOL / Author: Ali Uzay Peker Middle East Technical University, Ankara/Turkey Schuyler Camman, one of the rare scholars who fused ethnographical field research with art historical study, points to the frequent occurrence in Central Asia of a symbolic gate of heaven (Janua Coeli, Oculus in Roman) which was alternatively named Sun-gate on top of the Cosmic Axis leading into heaven, beyond which dwelt God, or the gods. He asserts that the giant bird or the double-headed eagle placed on top of the town pillars i.e. axis mundi, represents the metaphysical sun which reflects the light of the Celestial Glory behind it. The eagle, double-headed or not, is at the same time a gate, for its representations in the arts of entire Asia had a hole on its breast to signify the Sun-gate through which the Divine Light streams outward.(1) According to Cammann, the ideas associated with the sun reverence were transmitted through the teachings of Mani from Persia to China by Manichean Uighur Turks providing a link between these two countries. (2) Moreover, it is generally agreed that the Persian ideas originated from the Mesopotamian cosmology. Hence, the Persian eagle was a descendant of the well-known Sumerian sun and sky symbol, the solar eagle. The storm dragon Zu (Imgig or Imdigud) occupies an important place in Sumero-Akkadian myths. It became a symbol of the Sun- War- and Irrigation-god Ninurta after subdued by him in a gigantic conflict. Imdugud or Zu was the monstrous version of the eagle, a symbol of the Sun-god and was represented on artifacts as a lion-headed eagle. Its double-headed version is present on a seal of Urdun (2450-2250 B.C.) behind the throne of god Ningirsu.(3) According to Langdon, the double-headed eagle is a characteristic symbol of the twin-god (Sun-God), for the Sun-god had a double character. He radiates benevolent (in spring), at the same time malevolent (in summer) light.(4) The Sumero-Akkadian tradition of putting solar symbols on seals continued in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia. The double- or single-headed eagles on seals were used in Anatolia in the beginning of the second millenium B.C. before the coming of the Hittites by the Hattians, an indigenous population of Asia Minor. Hattians worshipped the Sky-god like the Syrians. They borrowed the eagle from Syria where it was a symbol of the Sky-god.(5) Worship of a Sky-god as the predominant deity among others was a Syrian religious practice. His name was Ba'al Sammin (Baal of the Sky) and the eagle (Sun-bird) was his bird who carries his servants and representatives in the world below to their master. This was a widespread belief in Roman times which originated from Syria.(6) Religious uranography of the Syrians placed the residence of the supreme divinity above the planets and stars. Hence the abode of the superior being was placed over the limits of the universe and the light-giving sun was accepted as the image and manifestation of predominant might, as the mediator between men and unattainable god.(7)Sun-bird, the eagle, as the only earthly being which could reach the realm of the god, was a mediator providing communication between men and their god, Ba'al Sammin. In the Hittite period in Anatolia the double-headed eagle is carved on stamp seals and in stone. Among the Yazilikaya sculptures in Hattusas (14th-13th c.) a double-headed eagle is rendered as a footstool supporting from below the two goddesses, Mezzula and Zintuhi, the daughter and grand-daughter of the Sun-goddess of Arinna.(8) The two lituus like strings coming from the back of its wings closely connects this double-headed eagle of the Hittites to the winged disk of Egypt, Syria and Assyria. The Syrian kings of Mitanni, who worshipped Mithra, Varuna and other Indian gods and spoke an Indo-European language, had firstly adopted the Egyptian winged disk and assimilated it into a concept of a sky symbol supported on a pillar, such as is mentioned in the Rigveda. The Egyptian winged-disk had an enormous prestige as symbol of 'imperial power' for these peoples, but they adapted it to their beliefs. The Hittites took the symbol from Syria, where it had become confused with the Babylonian sun symbol, the eagle.(9) Over the doors of Egyptian temples the winged disk of the sun was placed to keep the demons away from the building.(10) The images of the monstrous bird Zu functioning as a protective charm were placed in the same way at the entrances to the gates of the temple of Ishtar in Arbela by the Assyrian king Asarhaddon (680-69 B.C.).(11) Placing protective charms over the gates is an old Oriental tradition going back to Sumerian times. Old Sumerian myths contain episodes dealing with the gates of heaven over which guardians were placed. In a cylinder seal impression showing a libation scene a gate can be seen over which is placed the so-called eagle of Lagash.(12) Similarly, at the entrance to a special district (temple or palace, from 14th century B.C.) at Alaca Höyük, in Anatolia, a double-headed eagle figure is represented on the door jamb. (13) The eagle here, like the Janus god of the Romans, most probably functions as a symbol of the gate and as a door-keeper. The eagle was adapted on the winged disk of the Assyrian god Ashur whose prestige, according to Frankfort was supplied by the Egyptian kingship.(14) In Assyrian art the eagle's wings replaced the wings of the sparrow-hawk of the Egyptian winged disk and the eagle's pennated tail which was lacking in the Egyptian samples was added.(15) The reason of this change could be the importance attributed earlier to the representation of the sacred bird, the eagle and its derivative, Imdugud in Mesopotamia.(16) Concomitantly god Ashur can be considered the Assyrian form of the Sumerian War- and Sun-god Ningirsu.(17) God Ashur emerges from within the sun circle as the embodiment of the sun's beneficient light in peace and the harmful corrosiveness in war.(18) The Achaemenid kingdom borrowed the Assyrian winged disk and depicted it on the monuments and on cylindrical seals. Ahura Mazda who is an equivalent of Ba'al Sammim in Persia, replaced Ashur in between the wings of the disc. The two upper head-like appendages of some winged disks most probably symbolize the bilateral conception of the religious faith; on the one side Spenta Mainyu (the Holy Spirit) and on the other Anra Mainyu (the destroying Spirit). Ahura Mazda, the supreme and primordial spirit, whose throne is in the realm of eternal light, is probably symbolized by the circled disk of the sun between the wings.(19) The eagle as a mythological and religious symbol appeared in arts in almost all periods of Persian history. It is depicted on a harness ornament from the Parthian period with a heart shaped perforation on the breast, which is filled with a precious transparent stone.(20) The perforation is applied so as to give a sign of its direct attribution to the winged disk of the Achaemenid kingdom. Similarly, a double-headed eagle on a silver plate from the Sassanian period repeats the innovation with a heart motif in the middle of its wide frontal breast.(21) During the Sassanid era confronting eagles with triple anchor motifs on the wings and breast are displayed on textiles.(22) According to Ackerman the anchor motif was a conspicuous figure on the coins of Elymais (Elam, Khuzistan, in the south-west) where it functioned as a sky symbol. She attributes the eagle inside the Sassanian sphere to Khuzistan on the border between Iran and Mesopotamia.(23) As it is clear the eagle in Persia was a symbol of the sky and relatedly was a symbol of the 'Sky-door'. Before the phoenix-form Simurgh, there was apparently no established convention for representing the Simurgh in Persia. Therefore, it is possible that the single-, double-, and triple-headed Sun-bird (eagle) types may reflect earlier stages in its depiction which have survived in the conservative folk tradition.(24) Parsism associates the bird Simurg with the gate of the world. In late Muslim Persian literature which was completely based on old Persian tradition Simurgh inhabits the mountain Kaf (Alburz in Persian thought). The cosmic mountain surrounding the earth and having gates on its four quarters exists in almost all Near Eastern cosmologies. In Muslim tradition it is said that the sun rises from Mount Kaf and in Sumerian epic Gilgamesh, a mountain (Mashu) surrounding the earth or some part of it has gates in the characteristic points of the four directions. Furthermore by the 'two brazen mountains of Zecharja', is meant the gate in the East (Zecharja VI/1).(25) We have already seen that the eagle was a symbol of the Sun-god in Sumer emerging each morning from behind the mountains in the East.(26) These cosmological concepts supports the view that the solar eagle living in the mountain chain limiting the earth on the four sides and providing passage to the sun each day, was a symbol of the Sky- and Sun-gate together with the mountain. To these concepts the sacred-tree can be added, for the eagle is frequently not only associated but also fused with the tree on many seal impressions.(27) Beyond the borders of Persia proper the double-headed eagles are found in temples at Qyzil, which were built by the Manichean and Buddhist Turks.(28) These eagles are identified as Garudas because these eagles, like the Indian eagle-headed anthropoid god Garuda, represented as the foes of the Nagas (serpents) which are rendered in their beaks. In Southern India the double-headed eagle became popular as Ganda Berunda.(29) The rulers of Vijaynagara adopted the title of Ganda Berunda from the earliest times. Ganda Bherunda is still used as the vehicle of idols carried in processions together with the wish-giving celestial tree and the double headed eagle is the crest of the royal family of Mysore in India.(30) The eagle found its way even to China. Chinese double-headed bird Feng Huang is described as symbolising the moment of perfect balance between the two principles which govern the sun. Red and gold colours are associated with Feng Huang like Egyptian bird Phoenix, Indian Garuda or Siberian Toyon Kotor. Shang and early Chou representations of the bird were clearly those of a bird of prey; from the middle Chou period onwards it began to lose its claws and change its shape in similar to the Western Simurg.(31) The eagle had a long past not only in the cultivated valleys of the Southern Asia and China, but at the same time in the plateaus of Central and Northern Asia. Among the Uralo-Altaic peoples the eagle was respected as a cult object since the earliest periods. It was considered to be the creator of the first shaman and bore the name of the Supreme Being, Ai (the Creator) or Ai Toyon (the 'Creator of Light'). Ai Toyon's children were represented as bird-spirits perching in the branches of the world Tree, at the top of which was the two-headed eagle, Toyon Kotor ('the Lord of the Birds') probably personifying Ai Toyon himself.(32) Dolgans thought that the eagle is a Sky-bird closing to the people the gate of the sky with its large wings.(33) The fact that the eagle was at the same time a symbol of the Sky-gate is approved by the presence of perforations on the breast of some eagle representations which were a part of the shamanizing ceremonies.(34) Similarly in Assyrian art, the winged disk, with or without the god Ashur, is placed over the sacred tree. But this disposition had earlier connections with the 'pillar supporting heaven' which was introduced to northern Mesopotamia by the Mitannians at the end of the eighteenth century B.C. (35) The association of the 'sacred tree' with the disk before the Middle Assyrian times was a result of the assimilation of the alien conception of the 'pillar of heaven' with the autochthonous ritual object, the 'sacred tree'.(36) However, this practice of placing the eagle on top of the 'town pillars' seems to have a very long past preceding the Mesopotamian beginnings. It is more constructive to interpret these cult elements as the outcome of certain basic universal concepts existing in the cosmologies of sedentary and nomadic peoples of entire Asia, amongst which the 'pillar of heaven', the 'sacred tree', the Sky-eagle and the 'gate of heaven or sky' are the most common ones. Long after the Mitannian flow to Northern Mesopotamia in the beginning of the second millenium B.C., another large group of people came from the North-East and invaded Persia and Northern Mesopotamia in the beginning of the second millenium A.D. These were the Seljuks from Turco-Mongolian stock, who had a nomadic past like the Indo-European Mitannians. In this period we once more find the intervention of the Asian nomadic culture in the sedentary culture of Mesopotamia after four millenia. For this reason, as in the case of the Assyrian winged disk, many sources can be given to explain the double-headed eagle of the Seljuks too. Sumerian solar eagle or lion-headed eagle Imdugud, Islamic 'cosmic cock', peacock, Nasr (the eagle), Uqab (vulture), Anuq (anqa) or Roc, Persian Simurgh, Saena or Sen, Eurasian Toyon Kotor, Garide, Minley, Kara Kuþ,Bürküt or Merküt can be cited as definite samples. Not only the eagle itself but some certain concepts which were related to it before by the peoples of various origins can be found in Turkish cosmology. For example, Central Asian Turks thought of their tent as a sky-dome, the pillar of the tent as a sky-post and the tent shaft as a sky-door. The tent was a model of the world. They further imagined that the earth was separated from the space by a sky-dome, the symbol of the micro-cosmos wich was related to the world. They called the sky circling the earth kalýk comprising the micro-cosmos. Kök-kalýk, on the other hand, was beyond the sky in infinite space. The Great God was believed to be residing in this 'High-sky' above the moon, the sun and the stars.(37) This inattainable, higher sky (:Empyrean in the European Middle Ages) which is similar to the above-stated abode of the superior being of the Syrians, is another universal concept which can be found even in the cosmologies of the pre-Columbian cultures of South America. In Mayan cosmology it is called Hunabku which was the essence and the last source of everything.(38) The double- or single-headed eagles rendered in Seljukid art resemble their ancient prototypes in respect of their stylistic features. On a bronze plaque from the Artukid period found in Mesopotamia, the double-headed eagle with spread wings and a crescent on the breast is depicted.(39) In the horseshoe-shaped crescent a male figure stands in the manner of Assyrian god Ashur or Persian Ahura Mazda emerging from winged disk. The crescent is a reminiscent of the sun disk's circle between the wings of the sun disk. In the Sumerian myth of Etana and the Plant of Birth, the eagle carries Etana to heavens to find the sacred birth plant. The flight of Etana on the back of the eagle is represented on cylinder seals.(40) This ascension theme later transferred to Persia in around the 12-11 centuries B.C. and Anahid replaced Etana on Sassanian silver plates.(41) From Persia it found its way to Petcheneq Turks living near lake Balkash before they came to the vicinity of Don river in 889. On a gold vase in Nagyszentmiklos treasury (900-920 A.D.) of the Petcheneqs, the ascension theme is represented with the Sky-eagle holding the Persian goddess Anahit in front of its breast.(42) Moreover, following the Persian tradition anthropoid male figures are subject to ascension on the breast of the Sky-eagles on Buyid silk fabrics from the 11-12th centuries.(43) Through these samples and the details of the ascension theme on the Artukid bronze plaque, the Mesopotamian origin of the Islamic ascension theme is properly evidential. In Assyrian art some winged disk compositions have on the wings infront and behind the god Ashur, two bearded heads which together with Ashur represent Anu-Bel-Ea great Triad with Ashur in the place of Bel.(44) On a coin of the Artukid prince Nasir-Ad Din Mahmud of Amid (1200-1222 A.D.) an eared double-headed eagle with a man's bearded head on each wing, is represented in the middle.(45) This composition is not more than a follower of the triad of the winged disk of the Assyrian and Achaemenid monuments. It is probable that this triad survived for centuries on the coins and its form survived at the time of the Artukid period in Northern Mesopotamia. The reason of this is the tolerance of the Turkoman princes to put on the coins the old symbols of their vassals.(46) Another Mesopotamian element that penetrated Seljukid art is the perforation on the breast of the sky eagles in place of the circle of the Assyrian sun disk. On a polychrome engraved Seljukid plate from the 11th century, the Sky-eagle is frontally depicted with a prolonged split on the breast, which represents the Sky-gate.(47) The scrolls extending from the wing tips of this eagle indicate the classical eagle-tree of Mesopotamia Following the Mesopotamian tradition Seljukid eagle's character as the Sky-gate is particularly marked by its orientation on architectural works. The Sky-eagle is placed above one of the gates of the Konya wall (1221) in the pointed arch, on the external side of the defence tower.(48) Furthermore, Ýnce Minareli Museum in Konya contains eared double-headed eagles with the disk of the Assyrian winged disk reduced to a crescent in between their tail and body carved in stone brought from the gates of the Konya wall.(49) These Sky-eagles as the symbols of the Sky-or Sun-door indicate the entrance to the city i.e. the abode of God as a cosmos created by man after its prototype in heavens. Likewise The double-headed eagle can be found on the western gate of the Divriði Ulu Mosque.(50) This Sky-eagle as well is a symbol of the gate of heavens which is substantiated by the portal of the mosque i.e. the house of God. The double-headed Sky-eagle is also a part of a cosmic diagram rendered on some Seljukid buildings.(51) In this diagram the three-levelled universe is represented with sacred tree compositions. The Sky-eagle stands on top of the sacred tree in front of an iwan-like niche as a symbol and keeper of the Sky-door in between the sky symbolized by the foliage and higher sky. The double-headed eagle was applied as an abstracted ornamental device in Seljukid art.(52) It could alternate with the lotus which was a sun-symbol in Persia, or could even change into its form. If the crested heads of a double-headed eagle are placed back to back the basic form of a lotus type palmette is obtained.(53) The lotus type palmette of Islamic art, which is wrongly called 'palmette', is most probably made up of a combination between the lotus, the palmette and the crested double-headed eagle. As an example, Asik Paþa grave stone (1333) in Kýrþehir has a round medallion in which the heads and legs of a double-headed eagle are abstracted as lotus type palmettes.(54) On the breast of the eagle a star-shaped perforation stands for the Sky-gate providing a symbolic passage for the deceased to the other world. The bisected lotus type palmette called 'rumi' was applied in the so-called 'arabesque' decorations throughout the Islamic period. The arabesque decoration not only comprises the eagle as an abstracted figural element but the sacred tree as well, for the sacred tree is associated with the eagle in Mesopotamia since the earliest periods.(55) According to Öney the 'arabesque' decoration in the background of the double-headed eagle figures in Seljukid art represents the 'tree of life'. (56) As a matter of fact 'arabesque' is not only the abstraction of the 'sacred tree' but the eagle as well. In the so-called arabesque compositions the double-headed eagle is fused with the sacred tree. In this kind of a decoration from Seyid Harun Tomb (1320) in Seydiþehir the lotus type palmettes and rumis spring from within the crescent-shaped disk between the tail and body of a double headed eagle. The Sky- or Sun-gate is indicated with a perforated lotus type palmette in place of the eagle's breast in the middle.(57) Cammann points to this stylization or abstraction of the double-headed eagle in Islamic art. It is not known when and where this change took place, which most probably occured before Islamic times. The stylized representations of the double-headed Sky-eagle took a prominent place in Anatolian, Caucasian and Transylvanian rug designs, because, people thought it a powerful talisman. The stylized double-headed eagles were extensively used on the rug borders, and on or around the niche on the prayer rugs both of which were considered as symbolic doors.(58) GündoGdu asserts that the crested and eared eagle figures found in Pazyryk kurgan (VI-V. c. B.C.) are the forerunners of the late 'rumi' motifs . Furthermore, he shows some lotus type palmettes (:'palmette' in Gündoðdu's terminology) from Pazyryk as the prototype of the Islamic lotus type palmettes.(59) These lotus type palmettes from Pazyryk have openings in the middle, which remind the sun circle. According to Rudenko Asiatic Sakian and Altaian tribes evidently experienced the influence of Near Eastern art, in its Persian variety in particular. Representations of gryphons serve as convincing evidence of this. The best and most diversely treated eared and crested eagles, on the other hand, are of Asiatic origin.(60) Then it will not be contrary to reason to suggest that the abstraction of the eared and crested eagle occured somewhere in the north of Central Asia in the centuries before Christ; for the abstraction or the stylization of the natural art motifs was a general tendency of the so-called Eurasian animal style. Even though the single-headed eagle and the griffon were extensively applied, the Near Eastern double-headed eagle is lacking in the Eurasian animal style.(61) Since the lotus flower, the sacred tree and the eagle were solar symbols in the ancient Near East, and the eagle was associated with or replaced the sacred palm tree in Mesopotamia, it is better to say that the lotus type palmette was an abstracted offspring of a coalescence between the three solar symbols: the eagle, the palmette and the lotus. There is a widespread belief that the Seljukid double-headed eagle was the insignia of the Anatolian Seljukid Sultans.(62) The eagle's use as an emblem finds its origin in the earliest periods of Mesopotamian history. Ward asserts that the lion headed-eagle was the particular emblem of the kings of Lagash and equally was the emblem of Ningirsu (Ninurta.(63) Langdon, more accurately, connects the emblem directly to the War- and Sun-god Ninurta whose cult under various local names was prominent in the cities represented by the lion-headed eagle.(64) Hence the lion-headed eagle as an emblem did not belong to a single city, but to the cities where the Sun-god was the chief among the other gods. Its heavenly other than earthly symbolism was more accentuated throughout the centuries. The Seljukid single- or double-headed eagle follows its prototype in this respect. On the breast of a double-headed eagle found on an octagonal tile fragment in Beyþehir Kubadabad palace (1236), an inscription which reads El-Sultan, is peculiarly rendered following the Islamic Persian prototypes.(65) Because of the inscription on the breast of the Kubadabad eagle, the double-headed eagle is accepted as a personal emblem of Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad.(66) Berchem, on other grounds, assumes the double-headed eagle on the southern gate of Divrigi Great Mosque as an emblem of Alaeddin Keykubad in pointing the origin of the Seljuks from the Qiniq (Kinik) tribe of the Oghuz clan whose totemic animal was a goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) called tchaqir (çakir).(67) Moreover, he explains the double-headed eagle on the walls of Diyarbakýr as a personal emblem which is related to the Artukid ruler Mahmud's (1200-1222) title 'Sultan'. He tends to suppose that the two heads of the eagle either represent Kaifa and Amid cities or the dual might of the kingship or political and marital attachments.(68) However, there is no conclusive evidence to support the view that the double-headed eagle was an emblem of the Seljukid Sultans. Mayer thinks that the identification of the name of some animals, particularly, of birds, with the name of Islamic sovereigns is not clearly supported by written documents.(69) According to Gabriel it is the simplest idea to attribute heraldic values to the enigmatic figures on the walls of Diyarbakir, and there is no explicit inscription to interpret them.(70) Islamic heraldry did not have special badges belonging to Islamic cities or counties.(71) As a matter of fact Islamic cities could not possess emblems because of the lack of personnalité juridique and dynastic blazons are rare.(72) There is not enough knowledge to justify the heraldic quality of the double-headed eagles which can be found in many places in Islamic arts. Mayer includes the double headed eagles painted at the bottom of Saracenic pots in his list of Saracenic blazons; however, indicating the lack of written documents, he does not attribute them to any sovereign of the period.(73) The title 'Sultan' on the breast of the Konya eagles denotes a moral and magical authority in the Kor'an and the prophets received this sultan from God. Sultan also has the meaning of 'power' in the Kor'an and the aspect of governmental power was attached to the word sultan in the early centuries of Islam. In the literature of Hadith the governmental power is the shadow of Allah upon earth. The Seljuks were the first for whom sultan had become a regular title for a ruler.(74) As it is clear that the word originates from a religious term which acquired in time a new aspect as a title for an earthly ruler. The eagle was related to the term, because it was originally a heavenly symbol, a representative of the sun gods and a tutelary of kings and heros in Mesopotamia. At the same time it was a symbol and keeper of the gate of the god's domain in the upper sky, through which his authority or power (sultan in Islamic terminology) emanates. In Islamic times the people or even the Sultan himself could have interpreted the double-headed eagle as the symbol of God's power on the earth; then, as the embodiment of the Sultan's power suggested by a false concept showing the Sultan as the shadow of Allah upon the earth. As far as we know today, this identification did not comprise Western heraldic allusions. On the other hand, there is another Islamic version of the eagle which can be more directly related to royal symbolism. It was called Huma and was a symbol of God's immaterial nature. In Sadi's Gülistan Huma is considered to be a good omen and Huma's shadow falling on a person's head predicted his elevation to loyalty. The epithet Humayun meant 'august, royal fortunate and good omen' and Humay with the same meaning became a proper name.(75) But, Huma of Islamic literature symbolizes the eagle's association with the king but not with any particular one. The double- or single-headed eagle was primarily a messanger and a symbol of the earthly power granted by God.(76) / NOTES AND REFERENCES: (1) Schuyler Cammann, "Symbolic Meanings in Oriental Rug Patterns, II", Textile Museum Journal, III/3 (Washington, 1972) pp. 25,28,37,38. (2) Ibid., p. 41. (3) For a drawing of the seal see S.H., Langdon, The Mythology of All Races,Vol.V: Semitic, ed. by C.J.A.Culloch (New York, 1964) fig.54. The figures at the end of the text are taken from these sources which are given to illustrate the text. (4) Ibid., p. 116 (5) O.R. Gurney, The Hittites, (London, 1975) pp. 134,140-1 (6) Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism, (New York, 1959) pp. 101-02. (7) Franz Cumont, Les Religions Orientales dans le paganisme Romain (Paris, 1929) pp. 118-9, 123-4. (8) Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, (London, 1954) pp. 125-6; for the Yazýlýkaya reliefs see J.G. Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor, (Southampton, 1975) illst. 46. (9) Frankfort, The Art and Architecture............., p. 117; Gurney, op.cit., p212; Henri Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, (London, 1965) p. 209. (10) J.A. Mac Culloch, "Door", Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. IV (Edinburgh, 1911) p. 850; for a drawing of an Egyptian winged disk see C. Goblet d'Alviella, The Migration of Symbols, trans. by G. Birdwood (New York, 1956)fig.111. (11) Langdon, op.cit., p. 108. (12) For a drawing of the seal see W.H. Ward, Cylinder Seals of Western Asia, (Washington, 1910) illst. 100. (13) For a picture of the door see Gurney, op.cit., plt. 9. (14) Frankfort, op.cit., p. 67. (15) For a drawing of a double image showing the eagle and the winged disk from Assyrian period see A.J. Wensinck, "Tree and Bird as Cosmological Symbols in Western Asia", Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde, (Amsterdam, 1921) fig. 28. (16) D'Alviella, op.cit., p. 216; Frankfort, op.cit., p. 67. (17) Frankfort, loc.cit. (18) For a drawing of the anthropoid winged disk see d'Alviella, op.cit., fig. 118. (19) Ibid., pp59-60; for a cylinder seal impression showing such a Persian winged disk see Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, fig. 37c. (20) For the figure see Mario Bussagli, "Parthian Art", Encyclopaedia of World Art, (London, 1966) plt 58. (21) For the plate see Umberto Scerrato, "Sassanian Art", Encyclopaedia of World Art, (London, 1966) plt. 396. (22) For a drawing of such eagles on a wool compound cloth from Sassanian period see A.U. Pope (ed.), A Survey of Persian Art from the Prehistoric Times to the Present, (London-Toronto-New York, 1963) fig. 248. (23) Phyllis Ackerman, "Textiles Through the Sassanian Period", A Survey of Persian Art, vol. II, ed. by A.U. Pope (London-New York-Toronto, 1963) p. 706. (24) Schuyler Cammann, "Ancient Symbols in Modern Afghanistan", Ars Orientalis, II (1957) p. 33. (25) Wensinck, op.cit., p.42. (26) For a cylinder seal impression showing the Sun-god emerging from the wooded mountains of the East,holding the key of the gate of the sunrise and the eagle, the symbol of luminary descending to it see Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, plt.XIX/a. (27) For cylinder seal impressions showing the eagle with spread wings making the twigs in place of the sacred-tree see Wensinck, op.cit., figs. 30-2. (28) For a double-headed eagle on a ceiling of a cave temple see A. von Le Coq, Bilder Atlas Zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Mittel asiens, (Berlin, 1925) fig. 236. (29) For a drawing of a Ganda Bherunda motif on the ceiling of the Virabhatra temple at Keladi see J.P., Souza, "The Double-Headed Eagle", Indica ( the Indian Historical Research Institute Commemorative Volume), (1953) fig. 10. (30) Ibid., pp. 404-07; for ancient Indian coins with double-headed eagles see ibid., fig. 9 and d'Alviella, op.cit., fig. 7; (31) R. Pinner, "The Animal Tree and the Great Bird in Myth and Folklore", Turkoman Studies, I, (London, 1980) ss 232-6. (32) Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Technics of Ecstasy, trans. by W.R.Trask, (New York, 1964) pp.69-70; for the Dolgan shaman pillar representing the storeys of heaven with the two-headed lord of the bird on its top see Uno Holmberg, The Mythology of All Races, vol. IV: Fino Ugric, Siberian, ed. by C.J.A. Culloch, New York, 1964, fig. 20. (33) Bahaeddin Ögel, Türk Mitolojisi: Kaynaklarý ve Açýklamalarý ile Destanlar, vol. I (Ankara, 1989) p. 598. (34) For the shaman Sky-eagles see ibid., figs. 62a,b,63. (35) Frankfort, Art and Architecture........, p. 62. (36) Idem, Cylinder Seals, p. 276. (37) Bahaeddin Ögel, Türk Mitolojisi, vol. II: Türklerin Feza ve Dünya Anlayýþlarý, (Istanbul, 1971) pp. 139-43. (38) Joseph campbell, The Mythic Image, (New Jersey, 1974) pp. 91,100. (39) For the bronze plaque see Gaston Migéon, Manuel d'Art Musulman, vol. I (Paris, 1927) fig. 178. (40) For such a cylinder seal impression see Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, fig 27h. (41) For the eagle carrying an anthropoid figure depicted on a gold bowl from Hasanlu see Edith Porada, The Art of Ancient Iran, (New York, 1965) plt.24; for a Sassanian silver plate with Anahid held by the Sky-eagle see Pope (ed.), A Survey of....., fig.306. (42) For the vase see Gyula Laszlo, The Art of the Migration Period, (Florida, 1974), plt. 151. (43) For this kind of a silk fabric see Pope (ed.), A Survey of..........., fig.649. (44) Henri Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, p.214; for such a winged disk see ibid., plt. 33e. (45) For the coin see S.L. Pool, Coins of the Urtuki Turkumans, (Chicago, 1967), plt. V/3. (46) Ali Uzay Peker, The Double-Headed Eagle of the Seljuks: A Historical Study, unpublished M.A. D. Thesis, (Bosphorus University, 1989) pp169-70. (47) For the plate see Pope, op.cit., plt.606. (48)For the drawings of the gate and the eagle by Léon Laborde see Friedrich Sarre, Konya Köþkü, trans. by Þ. Uzluk, (Ankara, 1967), fig. 2, plt. 2. (49) For the Sky-eagle see Oktay Aslanapa, Türk Sanatý, (Ýstanbul, 1984) p. 312. (50) For this Sky-eagle see Gönül Öney, "Anadolu Selçuk Mimarisinde Avcý Kuþlar, Tek ve Çift Baþlý Kartal", Malazgirt Armaðaný, (Ankara,1972) plt. 20. (51) For the cosmic diagram on the entrance gate of Çifte Minareli Madrasa in Erzurum see Aslanapa, op.cit., p. 151. (52) Cammann, "Symbolic Meanings in ...... ", pp. 16-7. (53) For an explanation of the association between lotus, palmette and the double-headed Sky-eagle, and for the denomination of it as 'lotus type palmette' see Peker, op.cit., pp. 153-6. (54) For a drawing of the composition see Semavi Eyice, "Kýrþehir'de H 709 (=1310) Tarihli Tasvirli Bir Mezar Taþý", Reþit Rahmeti Arat Ýçin, (Ankara, 1966) plt. 14. (55) For the Mesopotamian eagle-trees on cylinder seals see Wensinck, op.cit., figs. 30-2; for an explanation of the abstracted eagle-tree composing the so-called arabesque decoration see Peker, op.cit., pp. 176 -92. (56) Öney, op.cit., p.153. (57) For a drawing of a double-headed eagle-tree abstracted in lotus type palmettes and rumis see Selçuk Mülayim, Türk Mimarisinde Geometrik Süslemeler, Selçuklu Çaðý, (Ankara, 1982) plt. 188/205. (58) For more information see Cammann, loc.cit (59) Hamza Gündoðdu, "Ikonografik Açýdan Türk Sanatinda Rumi ve Palmetler", Sanat Tarihinde Ikonografik Arastirmalar, Güner Inal'a Armaðan, (Ankara, 1993) pp.197-211, figs. 5,3; for the drawings of the Pazyryk eagles and palmettes see ibid., fig. 2a,b,1a,b,c. (60) S.J. Rudenko, "The Mythological Eagle, the Gryphon, the Winged Lion, and the Wolf in the Art of Northern Nomads", Artibus Asiae, XXI/2 (London,1961) pp103,122. (61) For a study of Eurasian griffon-eagle see Peker, op.cit., pp. 113-22; for the confronting eagles rendered breast to breast on a Sarmatian plaque (third century B.C.) see M. I. Rostovtzeff, The Animal Style in Southern Russia and China, (New York, 1973) plt, 28/3. (62) Ernst Diez, Türk Sanatý: Baþlangýcýndan Günümüze Kadar, trans. by O. Aslanapa, (Ýstanbul, 1946) p.261; Aslanapa, op.cit., p. 312. (63) Ward, op.cit., pp. 34,407. (64) Langdon, op.cit., p. 116. (65) For the tile see Öney op.cit.,plt. 21; for the double-headed eagles with Arabic inscriptions (:"Let us praise the Lord") on the wings rendered on a Persian silk fabric (11-12th c.) see Pinner, op.cit., fig.518 (66) Öney, op.cit., p. 167. (67) Joseph Strzygowski and Max van Berchem, Amida, (Heidelberg, 1910) p. 98. (68) Ibid., pp. 95-6. (69) L.A. Mayer, Saracenic Heraldry, (Oxford, 1933) pp. 8-9. (70) Albert Gabriel, Voyages Archéologiques dans la Turquie Orientale, vol. I, (Paris, 1940) p. 120-21, note:121/ 1. (71) Strzygowski and Berchem, op.cit., p. 82. (72) M.F. Köprülü, "Ortazaman Türk Devletlerinde Hukuki Senbollerdeki Motifler", Türk Hukuk ve Iktisat Tarihi Mecmuasý, II, (Ýstanbul, 1939) p. 35. (73) Mayer, op.cit., pp. 8-10. (74) J.H. Kramers, "Sultan", Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. IV, (Leiden-London, 1934) pp. 543-45. (75) Clement Huart, "Huma", Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, (Leiden-London, 1927) p. 572. (76) For more information see Peker, op.cit., pp. 203-4,214-5. (This article was published with modifications in Art Turc/Turkish Art: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Turkish Art (Geneva 17-23, 1995), (Geneva: Fondation Max van Berchem, 1999)pp. 559-566) Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

Double headed eagles have been present in imagery for many centuries. A representation of a two-headed woman dating from 6000 BC was discovered in Çatalhöyük (Turkey) one of the oldest cities in the world. Therefore, the apparition of the two-headed eagle is very old, because it can be found in archeologic remains of the Hittite civilization dating from a period that goes between the 20th century BC and the 13th century BC.

...This paragraph has no flow, the mention of a two-headed woman is irrelevant, particularly as a much earlier date for an actual eagle is given just below, there is nothing said before it that Therefore can relate to, and, frankly, needs serious revision User:Adam Cuerden 12:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree here this paragraph is missing information and has no flow. The mentioning of the two-headed women in connection to the two-headed eagle is missing. Further,s icne there is already an older date that shows the rich history of the two-headed eagle, it probably is not worth mentioning. What's the point of this paragraph?

Also the entire excerpt on above contains good information but it is all put together without seperation. The information above is too long and needs paragraphs for an easier flow.

Nazi use?

Didn't the Nazis also use the double-headed eagle, as part of the attempt to historically legitimize themselves? Taking it directly from the Holy Roman Empire that they saw as being the "First Riech." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.60.138 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just a single headed eagle. The Holy Roman Empire was just incorporated Germany and part of Italy. No real east-west divide like in Byzantium or Russia.

-G

Usage by the Turks

I removed the sentence refered to the Turkic shamanism. Not only it was unsourced, but in fact has nothing to do with this article... The article is about the double-headed eangle, not the one headed. if we are about to relate every depiction of eangles in ancient, medieval or modern cultures with the double-headed eangle, perhaps we should assosiate the later with the United States of America and, most importantly, with ancient Greece, since the eangle (talking about the one-headed) was assosiated with Zeus... Not to mention dozins of other civilisations all over the world. Hectorian 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My theory

Okay, it has nothing to do with the artical but i'm a history student at a greek university and I've been thinking (loudly:P), if the left head represents Rome then the reason the left foot of the eagle holds a cross is to symbolize the Ecclesiastical power of the Holy See (Pope of Rome) over the early Catholic Church (before the schism of the byzantine church), for the same reason the right foot holds a symbol of the Emperor. Do you think I've got a point here?

P.S. Please, no fanatic orthodox answers. I'm interested in REAL history here...

--89.210.81.235 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the eagle was not adopted until well after the schism (indeed, well after the catastrophic for the Greek-Latin relations events of 1204), and initially it did not include any crosses, orbs, or swords in its claws. These were added much later, from the 15th century onwards, when it was adopted by the HRE and Russia. Either way, no one is quite sure about the interpretation of the bicephaly (East-West, Europe-Asia Minor, Church-State, etc) and the Byzantines were having trouble accepting the papal primacy (which they interpreted as "primus inter pares", and not the sort of universal authority the popes later claimed) quite early on (see the schism of Photius for instance), so it really would be surprising if they were to support it in their imperial Coat of Arms. Cplakidas 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GrbRep.jpg

Image:GrbRep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Teutonic

also in teutonic COA ? Mallerd (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the Teutonic Kinights used a single-headed eagle.

Sv1xv (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Perth Kinross Arms.png

The image Image:Perth Kinross Arms.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Optimized image 2f25586a.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Double Headed Eagle - India Link

The Double Headed Eagle is also National Symbol of "Kingdom Of Mysore, which is Present Day Karnataka, in the southern part of India.Still it is used in the emblem of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.158.50 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Karnataka Emblem at answers.com Also, another image of an eagle related to Karnataka --91.77.14.108 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Double Headed Eagle - Japan Link

A Japanese double-headed eagle item was spotted in Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Pref., Japan, in 2002 (photo copyright Maxim I. Buyakov). While a one-head 'natural eagle' symbol is wide-spread in Japan, e.g. a grille emblem on a Toyota Harrier, the Japanese sibling of a Lexus RX crossover family, a double-headed eagle wearing three crowns with Christian crosses is a rare find. Note that the double-headed eagle item in question is very similar to the Russian Empire's coat of arms image. The main difference is another crown with a cross on the eagle's chest where the Russian would carry Saint George the Dragon Slayer. Note also that a crown with a cross is a tremendously popular symbol in Japan, as, for instance, the badge of Toyota Crown premium sedan.--Askmaxim (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Use by the Turks

I propose to rename the section "Turkic Peoples", which is the correct term covering both Seljuks and Turcomans (see also Turkic peoples for details). Sv1xv (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Which head represents what?

If we look at the heads as the symbol of the inseparable church and state, which head represents what (e.g. left one-church right one-state) and why? I'm sure there is a rule and an explanation about it, but I can't find it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.15.101 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire flag is a dishcloth.

This is a photo os an old tatty flag, a rag.

Why not have an illustration like the other flags? Upload a proper illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton John (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical basis of the symbol

Would there be a plausible origin of this symbol? Such as reports of real double-headed avian animals in human history. Komitsuki (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Queen Theodora ring.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Queen Theodora ring.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Queen Theodora ring.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Casa-Car-Dusan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Casa-Car-Dusan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Casa-Car-Dusan.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples image gallery

The 'Examples' section contains an image gallery that has been the subject of frequent drive-by additions of random images of double-headed eagles, sometimes reaching more than 40 images. To prevent this article from becoming a repository of random images of double-headed eagles, I propose two measures. First, we establish consensus for how many examples are sufficient and which specific images are most exemplary, and second, we require consensus to be established here on the talk page first before new images may be added to the 'Examples' section. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I think we could pare it down to eight examples, though I could be convinced that twelve is a better number. Either way, I think we need some controls. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• A better idea is to move the gallery with all 40 images to Commons and keep here a small gallery of 4 or 8 images. SV1XV (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • These are all images that are already at WM Commons. The question is how many to include here as examples, and which ones. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would personally vote for a slightly larger gallery size: I think the present gallery of 16 images works quite well, though I agree it certainly shouldn't be allowed to rise above that number. As to the question of which images, there are some which should definitely be included on account of their historical significance (Albania, Russian Empire, German Confederation, Palaiologos dynasty, Charles V), and other historical images which are helpful in demonstrating variety in artistic rendition and presentation (in the present gallery, the Nemanjić dynasty and the 1472 Russian eagle are both good). Of the rest of the present gallery, I'm particularly sceptical about the value of Mercia (at worst, historically dubious; at best, an anachronistic reconstruction), the Greek Orthodox Church (again, of dubious status, and effectively duplicated by the Church of Cyprus), and Stefan Lazarević (even at full size, the eagles are barely discernable): I'd have thought we could do better. GrindtXX (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like eight to twelve images in the gallery may be a good compromise (looks like we have a suggestion of 12, a suggestion of 4-8, and a suggestion of 16 above). Although WP gives no specific guidance on image gallery size, preferring a case-by-case approach, I tend to think more than 12-16 images in an article gets unwieldy when considering WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOBILE. Besides, a gallery of examples should be just that -- a few examples to illustrate the concepts discussed in the article. This article already has seven examples in the body of the article, so I think it would stand just fine without any gallery at all. Even with a gallery of only eight examples, that still puts us at 15 total images, which is plenty for an article of this length. I will attempt to offer some specific commentary on each image below. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wilhelm Meis

Images in the article body

1. B File:Byzantine eagle.JPG (Lead image, showing a (marble?) double-headed eagle above the entrance to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople): Clear enough image, JPG photo, CC license, though I see no particular reason to prefer this over #4 or #6 for the lead image. With other Byzantine eagles in the article, I'm not sure this one is even necessary for inclusion.
2. B File:Chrysobull of Alexius III of Trebizond.jpg (Section: Byzantine Empire, showing imperial vestments with double-headed eagle motif): JPG photo of a scroll, Public Domain, good image for the section, well placed, Public Domain, demonstrates a historical/heraldic use other than in book heraldry and architecture.
3. B File:Divrigi02.jpg (Seljuk Turks, carved stone architectural motif): Seems to be well selected and well placed, JPG photo, CC license, demonstrates Turkish style.
4. B File:Quaterionenadler David de Negker.jpg (Quaternion eagle under section: Holy Roman Empire): Featured picture, Public Domain, undoubted historical significance, would be well placed under this section or as lead image.
5. B File:Aigle bicephale poignee bibliotheque cabinets interieurs Reine Versailles.jpg (Versailles under section: Use by other countries): Is that a drawer pull? Difficult to distinguish at thumbnail size. I would suggest removing this image from the article.
6. B File:Двухглавый орёл на ограде Спасо-Преображенского собора.jpg (Russian imperial eagle in St. Petersburg): Very clear, high contrast photo, CC license. I would say this is a close second to #4 above as a candidate for lead image, definitely belongs in the article.
7. B File:Morals and Dogma eagle.jpg (Morals and Dogma under section: Use in Masonry): I'm not sure this image is necessary to the article or even the best image for this section. File:Scottish Rite Double Headed Eagle.gif could be a better candidate, but this is a non-free image, so maybe best to just leave that one to the article named in the Fair Use Rationale.

Images in the gallery

1. G File:Albania state emblem.svg (Albania): Good image, Public Domain, good candidate for inclusion.
2. G File:Imperial Coat of Arms of the Empire of Austria (1815).svg (Austrian Empire): Good image, CC license, AE was closely tied historically to the HRE, so this image is far more important to AE article than this article.
3. G File:Coa Hungary Family Balogh v2.svg (Balogh CoA): Good image, CC license, good example of double-headed eagle in personal heraldry, excellent candidate for inclusion.
4. G File:CoA of Palaiologos Dynasty.svg (Palaiologos dynasty): Good image, unclear license, unremarkable to this article other than as another example of Byzantine eagles.
5. G File:Wappen Deutscher Bund.svg (German Confederation): Not the best selection, perhaps File:Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor.jpg, being more historically significant as the first attested depiction of a double-headed Reichsadler, would be a better candidate for inclusion.
6. G File:Flag of the Greek Orthodox Church.svg (Flag of the Greek Orthodox Church): Good image, Public Domain. User:GrindtXX above states this flag is of dubious status. Could you tell me more about that? I don't know anything about it.
7. G File:Coat of arms of Montenegro.svg (CoA of Montenegro): Good vector image, CC license of a CoA, sufficiently distinct and yet representative of heraldic style. Fair candidate for inclusion.
8. G File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Russian Empire.svg (CoA of Russian Empire): Good vector image, Public Domain, featured picture on WMC, representative of Russian Imperial eagles. Excellent candidate for inclusion.
9. G File:Grb Nemanjica mini transparent.png (Serbian Nemanjic dynasty): Not the best quality image, though historical in nature. Still, I wonder if the Public Domain vector image File:Arms of Serbia.svg would be a better candidate for inclusion here.
10. G File:Greater Coat of Arms of Charles V Holy Roman Emperor, Charles I as King of Spain.svg (Charles V, HRE/Charles I of Spain): Good vector image, CC license, marshalling run rampant on the shield and inclusion of so many other elements of the achievement visually overwhelms the eagle, and we have many other examples of the double-headed eagle as an imperial supporter, so this image has limited utility here.
11. G File:21st SS Division Logo.svg (21st Mountain Division of Waffen SS): Public Domain vector image, logo banned in Germany, emblem of a military division based upon Albanian ethnicity/allegiance, so this emblem is certainly based upon the arms of Albania. I would suggest removing this one as effectively duplicative of #1G.
12. G File:QDG Cap Badge.PNG (Cap badge of 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards): Non-free image, Fair Use Rationale points to 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards. Use here may be in violation of Fair Use policy.
13. G File:Cypriot Orthodox Church logo.jpg (Emblem of the Church of Cyprus): Non-free image, Fair Use Rationale points to Church of Cyprus. Use here may be in violation of Fair Use policy.
14. G File:Mercian eagle.png (Mercian eagle): Good Public Domain vector image. GrindtXX calls this one historically dubious. Again, please tell us more. I know nothing about this Mercian eagle, but I find it fascinating as a rare example of an eagle in British heraldry. As such, I'd like to keep some version of it here, if it's historical accuracy is verifiable.
15. G File:Russian coa 1472.gif (First Russian eagle, 1472): Public Domain, GIF image. As a good, clear image of a medieval seal, I love it, but I wonder if File:Seal of Ivan 3.png (the image from which this one was derived) or File:Coat of arms of Russia (XV Century).svg (a vector image derived in turn from this one) would be preferred. Ideally, I would like to be able to include a vector version of just the eagle side of File:Seal of Ivan 3.png. I could make a request at WP:GL/I.
16. G File:Stefan Lazarevic-freska.JPG (Stefan Lazarevic): JPG photo of a fresco, Public Domain, poor resolution and color saturation. Even at full resolution the eagles are barely discernible, virtually useless as a thumbnail in a gallery.

Summary proposal

In summary, I would suggest removing the current lead image and promoting #4B (Quaternion eagle, or alternatively #6B Russian imperial eagle) to lead image, retaining #2B and #3B where they are, removing #5B, keeping #6B where it is if not promoted to lead, and removing #7B.

In the gallery, I would suggest keeping #1G, removing #2G, keeping #3G, removing #4G, replacing #5G with File:Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor.jpg, possibly removing #6G, possibly keeping #7G, keeping #8G, possibly removing #9G, probably removing #10G, removing #11G, removing #12G, removing #13G, possibly keeping #14G (pending verification), probably keeping #15G until it can be replaced with a vector version, and removing #16G.

This leaves us with four images in the article body, seven images in the gallery and a total of eleven images in the article. This proposal would have the article looking like this. The alternative proposal of leading with the Russian Imperial eagle would look like this. Please feel free to leave further comments below. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Further comments

This is a very belated response to a couple of your queries above (apologies for that). First and foremost, the "Mercian eagle": File:Mercian eagle.png. The kingdom of Mercia was in existence from the 6th to the beginning of the 11th centuries, i.e. in the pre-heraldic era, so any coat of arms assigned to it is axiomatically attributed and ahistorical. In this particular case, the arms don't even have the merit of "tradition", or of being based on non-heraldic iconography such as coins. As far as I can see, the design was invented as recently as 1958 as a cap badge for the Mercian Brigade, a British army unit: it has since been revived (in slightly modified form) by the Mercian Regiment (created 2007), and seems to have been borrowed by a few unofficial "Mercian" bodies and movements. The rationale for the cap badge design appears to have been that the eagle was the device (or attributed device) of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, but, as far as a double-headed eagle goes, that's simply not true: the Dictionary of British Arms records a coat of Sable, a [single-headed] eagle displayed or attributed to Leofric in several late C14/early C15 rolls of arms (as well as Sable, a cock displayed or in another C15 source), and I can't find anything else remotely relevant. The traditional coat attributed to Mercia (for example, in John Speed's Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine (1611/12)) was actually Azure, a saltire argent. Of course, that's no reason not to include the eagle here – as long as it's made plain that it's a completely modern design.

I can't really justify my scepticism over the "Flag of the Greek Orthodox Church"; but as it's gone now the question's academic anyway.

I continue to feel that the Gallery could usefully include a few more than seven examples, but your detailed analysis above is impeccable, so I will give way on that until such time as any further candidates are proposed. GrindtXX (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that informed response. I meant to look into the Mercian eagle and forgot all about it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This was interesting: Notes and Queries: A Medium of Intercommunication for Literary Men, General Readers, Etc., 10 X, 1908. P. 198.:

In a coloured plate in Ormerod's History of Cheshire the figure of Earl Leofric bears the device of a double-headed eagle. The double-headed eagle is also displayed in the arms of the ancient Shropshire family of Mytton.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to get more than an unhelpful snippet preview of Ormerod's History of Cheshire, but I can check at the library tomorrow. Meanwhile, I did, however, find this: Mytton of Garth PEDIGREE REPRINTED FROM THE "MONTGOMERYSHIRE COLLECTIONS" VOL. XXIV. ISSUED BY THE POWYS-LAND CLUB, 1890.: "Blakeway's Sheriffs of Shropshire (pp. 77-9) gives the following: "1483. THOMAS MITTON." Arms: (3) Per pale g. and az., an eagle displayed with two heads, or." So we do have some attestation of a double-headed eagle in the area well before the 20th century. I'll keep looking. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Fellas, I feel you're taking this way too seriously :). My two cents you can see in the article. Definitely include coas of the four modern-day countries (Imo in their own section) + maybe the Greek Orthodox Flag; and definitely include the big historical empires: Byzantine, HRE, Austrian, Austro-Hungarian, Russian. Possibly also Yugoslavia as a relatively recent country. The rest are optional Imo. Cheers -- Director (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, Direktor. What would you (or anyone else) think of the following?

• 
  First double-headed eagle as Reichsadler, from Chronica Majora, c. 1250
• 
  Hungarian noble arms of Balogh (c. 1300)
• 
  Double-headed eagle of Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos (R. 1425–1448)
• 
  First Russian eagle (1472), adopted by Ivan III after marriage with Byzantine princess Sophia Palaiologina
• 
  Coat of arms of the Austrian Empire (1815—1867)
• 
  Royal arms of Serbia (1882–1918)
• 
  Coat of arms of the Russian Empire (1883–1917)
• 
  Badge of the Mercian Brigade (1948-64), attributed to Leofric, Earl of Mercia (11th century)
• 
  Coat of arms of Albania (1992)
• 
  Coat of arms of Montenegro (2004)

Here, I have included the noble arms of Balogh, as this was the only example both of noble arms and of a double eagle in crest. I added in the Byzantine (Palaiologos) eagle and the Serbian arms, per your suggestion, but I also changed the Serbian and Austrian arms to earlier versions to better demonstrate historical precedents (and in the case of Serbia to show a good example of royal arms). I also omitted a few to avoid functional duplication, as something similar is already included here or elsewhere in the article. For later Imperial eagles of the HRE, File:Quaterionenadler David de Negker.jpg can't be beat, but it is already included elsewhere. I think the above shows a good mix, including double eagles as charges and as supporters, one in crest, one in a seal, one in a military badge, one in noble arms as well as some imperial, royal and republican arms, and it includes temporally diverse examples spanning from the 13th to the 21st centuries, and these are arranged in general chronological order. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I would do two galleries. One for actual modern-day usage by countries, those being Russia, Serbia (Serbia uses it today not just in the past), Montenegro, and Albania; with another historical gallery that must definitely include the Palaiologos eagle (as really the original), the HRE eagle, Austria, Austria-Hungary, and the Russian Empire. The rest are really optional but I would also include Yugoslavia. With both Yugoslavia and Serbia I prefer the lesser coa as one where you can see the eagle much more clearly. All these Balogh, Mercia coas and stuff.. I don't know, they seem very much secondary to actual countries. If you want an iconic family coa, there's the Habsburgs e.g at the time of Charles V, impressive stuff. Mercia is ok, I suppose.

What's important is to illustrate the two Roman traditions behind the use of the eagle: the eastern and western. The "Western Roman Empire" tradition including HRE, Austrian Empire, and finally Austria-Hungary (also with Napoleon's and Germany's single-headed eagle, but that's not for this article). And the "Eastern Roman Empire" tradition, starting ofc with late Byzantium (the actual Roman Empire), and moving on to the Russian Empire and Federation.. but also including Serbia, Montenegro, and Yugoslavia (all three because of the "Serbian Empire"), and Albania for some strange reason. -- Director (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the arms of Yugoslavia as functionally duplicative of the royal arms of Serbia. My preference for the royal arms of the Kingdom of Serbia (over the later republican version) is to show one clear example of royal arms among the other types present in the gallery. I'm a little confused by your comment about the Habsburgs. The noble arms of the family did not include a double-headed eagle, they only started incorporating the double-headed eagle after ascending to the Imperial crown. The double eagle on Charles V's shield shows he was Emperor, and the double-headed eagle as supporter of the arms of the Duchy shows its position within the Empire, but these are Imperial/territorial arms, not hereditary noble arms. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I find the Balogh and other non-country eagles optional. My key points are:

• Depict (in summary) all historical imperial and royal eagles stemming from the Western and Eastern Roman traditions.
• Depict all modern-day eagles used as symbols of countries (these are almost exclusively part of the Eastern Roman tradition).
• Separate historical and modern arms into two galleries.

Regarding Serbia/Yugoslavia. Serbia's modern-day arms are identical to Serbia's old (pre-1918) royal arms; nothing more than a redesign. Per my second point I would most certainly include modern-day Serbian arms into the "modern use" section. If we need an example of a royal coat of arms, then I recommend the (lesser) arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the "historical use" section. I must point out that, while they look similar (as many of these arms do e.g Russian and Austrian), Yugoslav and Serbian arms are by no means identical. And neither is Yugoslavia, a much larger and more significant country, to be compared or somehow equated to Serbia.

As regards Balogh & Mercia, I don't mind their being included, but in no case at the expense of actual imperial or royal or country arms. -- Director (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Greater Coat of arms of the Banovina of Croatia

Btw, here's an interesting coa of a banate. -- Director (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I view the Balogh and Mercian arms as a separate issue from the question of which imperial, royal and national arms to include, precisely because these are not imperial, royal or national arms. I also support their inclusion because they are not imperial, royal or national arms. The purpose of this gallery, in my view, is to demonstrate a diverse group of historically notable double-headed eagles, and as a representative sampling, these should be functionally diverse (i.e. not all imperial and royal arms, but also some noble arms, burgher arms, municipal arms, seals, military unit badges, charges, crests, supporters, etc., where possible) as well as temporally, geographically and stylistically diverse. I would never equate Yugoslavia with Serbia or imply that these political entities or their coats of arms are identical, only that these together do not represent the geographical, functional or stylistic diversity for which we should strive in this gallery, in order to succinctly portray a well-rounded and worldwide view of the double-headed eagle. The topic of this article (and thus the topic of the gallery) is the 'double-headed eagle', generally, not 'double-headed eagles in Eastern European heraldry'. Connection to the eastern and western Roman Empire is not a criterion for inclusion here, and status (current or historical) as imperial, royal or national arms may qualify a coat for consideration but does not require its inclusion here. If it did, we would have a large gallery of images showing little diversity. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. Piling on a bunch of obscure images simply to illustrate diverse usage is fallacious. We should be guided by objective historical and modern-day relevance rather than any arbitrary criteria. For instance, the idea that the modern-day Coat of arms of Russia ought to be excluded on any grounds to me just sounds silly. This heraldic symbol is the symbol of the Roman Empire (i.e. it was/is perceived as such), and that is its most significant function by far. Its use by those entities purporting to be either the successors of the Roman Empire, or the Roman Empire itself (Byzantium), is without question its most significant representation. Hence illustration of the primary usage of this symbol should be our priority. And yes, thank you, I am indeed aware the topic of the article is the 'double-headed eagle'. I have no ambition to illustrate 'Eastern European heraldry' beyond what is logical considering its widespread use in that region. -- Director (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Third opinion declined.

Removing. There are too many people involved already. Also, not clearly defined as to what is in dispute. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The only people currently involved in this dispute are myself and Direktor. The subject of the dispute is the scope of the article's image gallery and criteria fo inclusion therein, as summed up in the following comments:

The purpose of this gallery, in my view, is to demonstrate a diverse group of historically notable double-headed eagles, and as a representative sampling, these should be functionally diverse (i.e. not all imperial and royal arms, but also some noble arms, burgher arms, municipal arms, seals, military unit badges, charges, crests, supporters, etc., where possible) as well as temporally, geographically and stylistically diverse. I would never equate Yugoslavia with Serbia or imply that these political entities or their coats of arms are identical, only that these together do not represent the geographical, functional or stylistic diversity for which we should strive in this gallery, in order to succinctly portray a well-rounded and worldwide view of the double-headed eagle. The topic of this article (and thus the topic of the gallery) is the 'double-headed eagle', generally, not 'double-headed eagles in Eastern European heraldry'. Connection to the eastern and western Roman Empire is not a criterion for inclusion here, and status (current or historical) as imperial, royal or national arms may qualify a coat for consideration but does not require its inclusion here. If it did, we would have a large gallery of images showing little diversity. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. Piling on a bunch of obscure images simply to illustrate diverse usage is fallacious. We should be guided by objective historical and modern-day relevance rather than any arbitrary criteria. For instance, the idea that the modern-day Coat of arms of Russia ought to be excluded on any grounds to me just sounds silly. This heraldic symbol is the symbol of the Roman Empire (i.e. it was/is perceived as such), and that is its most significant function by far. Its use by those entities purporting to be either the successors of the Roman Empire, or the Roman Empire itself (Byzantium), is without question its most significant representation. Hence illustration of the primary usage of this symbol should be our priority. And yes, thank you, I am indeed aware the topic of the article is the 'double-headed eagle'. I have no ambition to illustrate 'Eastern European heraldry' beyond what is logical considering its widespread use in that region. -- Director (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, I hope you will stick around and offer a third opinion on how we should decide which images should be included in the gallery. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC:What are the best criteria for including images in the 'examples' gallery?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are the best criteria for including images in the 'examples' gallery? Should this image gallery focus on modern and historical national coats of arms with ties to the eastern and western Roman Empire, or should the focus be on succinctly displaying regionally, temporally and functionally diverse images of double-headed eagles, including personal and municipal arms as well as royal and imperial arms? 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support an image gallery succinctly displaying regionally, temporally and functionally diverse images of double-headed eagles, including personal and municipal arms as well as royal and imperial arms. A gallery focused on royal/national arms tied to the Roman Empire would not be regionally diverse but would be functionally repetitive and would play into WP:Systemic bias. I think we should strive to provide as diverse a selection as possible in our gallery of examples, with as little functional repetition as possible. My proposal can be found above, under #Further comments. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• The above sounds logical, but what it ultimately leaves us with is more images with little or no historical (or contemporary) significance. In contrast I believe our criteria should be objective relevance. This image is one of the most significant symbols in heraldry, primarily as representing the Roman Empire and its successors. This is, in effect, the heraldic symbol of empire, which is by far its most notable use. Thus, in contrast to a large number of examples of diverse usage, I hold its use by sovereign states (historical and contemporary), particularly empires, should be granted precedence. I'm not saying other uses should be excluded (a few additional images are certainly not objectionable), but I don't believe the principle of diverse usage should be our criteria at the expense of that which makes this image WP:NOTABLE in the first place. -- Director (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I support DIREKTOR's basic position here. I would only add a couple of notes. First, I am not comfortable with your tone DIREKTOR (e.g. "a bunch of obscure images" or describing position of your opponent as "silly"). Second, COA of Albania or Yugoslavia do not have any origin in "those entities purporting to be either the successors of the Roman Empire, or the Roman Empire itself (Byzantium)". Third, although I support DIREKTOR's basic position here I don't think that position of Wilhelm_meis is wrong, just that DIREKTOR's is better. I came here because I saw this RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Article alerts. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Antid. Nice to see you're following my contribs (not buying the above). As for my supposed "tone", I really do not give much weight to your opinion on that and hope you will refrain from further personal comments.
And I'm afraid you're quite mistaken: the Yugoslav royal coat of arms, being just a slight modification of the Coat of arms of Serbia, does indeed stem from Byzantine (=Roman) tradition. I.e. the eagle is the Serbian eagle, which is of course, along with all Serbian national heraldry, copied wholesale from that of the Roman state in its last throes (late Byzantine period, Palaiologos dynasty). I am not entirely certain about the Albanian arms, however, you may be right there.

Of course, I also do not think Wilhelm_meis is "wrong"; as I said: I'm not saying other uses should be excluded (a few additional images are certainly not objectionable), but I don't believe the principle of diverse usage should be our criteria at the expense of that which makes this image WP:NOTABLE in the first place. -- Director (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop misleading people, that is very bad wiki behavior. Sure, everyone is hounding you. There was no other way to come here then hounding your edit. You are doing this to me also, and its very disturbing. Please, stop. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone, just the Dynamic Duo :). -- Director (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Wilhelm. It'd be more interesting and informative if we could show lesser-known (but notable) examples. I don't see much point in a gallery that just shows the same basic eagle over and over again. I think we should try as much as possible to balance the gallery between national, royal, personal, military, and civic heraldry. I think we should strive to show a gallery as balanced as the subject. The trick is finding and agreeing upon the right examples.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• support variety Notified of discussion via RFCBot. while the most notable images should be used, I agree that showing the same image over and over again is not particularly illustrative. Although the symbol is most associated with the Romans and successor states, the the symbol is not exclusive to those topics, and to exclude our gallery to them would be WP:UNDUE. A variety of uses in other contexts should be shown as well, particularly where they are distinguished in some way from the repetitive heraldry. Adding additional examples does not dilute the "most notable" ones, and adding more copies of the "most notable" does not add significant value. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Brianann MacAmhlaidh. Anyway, question about specific usage can always be raised on talk here. I will also find very encyclopedic to have also corporate, personal and national usage, as a wide example of its usage. Maybe, examples and comments may be the way to establish the main list, and later, each addition can be commented. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support variety. I am broadly in agreement with Wilhelm Meis. The important usages of the double-headed eagle, historical and contemporary, should be discussed and illustrated in the body of the article (and to some extent already are, though as always on Wikipedia there's scope for improvement). The function of the gallery, as I see it, is to suggest to the reader a wider range of "lesser" usages. I would only add to Wilhelm's criteria of "regionally, temporally and functionally diverse" images that of "artistically diverse" – i.e. renditions that are visually striking, even if functionally similar to existing images. GrindtXX (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support variety also In general I always consider more information to be more beneficial than less information, even though some editors feel that content-rich text at times gets too dense. I never have agreed, after all Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedic and rich details, variety, and information is the whole charter. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The gallery should comply with WP:Gallery as a best criteria for including images in the 'examples' gallery. What aspects of the double-headed eagle cannot be easily or adequately described by text or the individual images already in the article? How is the gallery to add to the reader's understanding of the double-headed eagle subject as currently presented by the text of the article? Images in the gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the double-headed eagle subject and to the theme of the gallery. The gallery theme seems to be historical and modern day, but almost the entire article seems to deal with historical double-headed eagle. There seems to be an effort to make a point of contrast or comparison with the gallery. However, that first needs to be brought out in the text of the article and the gallery used to support that. Does a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature support either of the above listed gallery options? If so, the reliable sources supporting the images should be added to the article. Historical double-headed eagle and modern day double-headed eagle can be adequately described by text supported by reliable sources. Start there, and that article text can be used as the criteria for including images in the 'examples' gallery. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ancient and Medieval Origins

I think the quality of the article currently is very poor regarding the origins of the double-headed eagle; it is full of claims with no citations and the few sources cited are of poor quality. The article really needs attention from experts on a number of civilizations (Ancient Near East, India, Byzantium, Islam) who would also provide images for the claimed uses of the symbol and some comparative chronology to resolve whether there is any continuity in the use of the symbol from ancient to medieval times and if the origins of the symbol can be traced with any certainty or not.

To illustrate the confusion and poor quality I see in the article, let me note the following:

a) Is there any example of use of the double-headed eagle between the decline of the Hittite civilization and the time of the crusades? It seems not, and if that is the case this should be highlighted in the article. Any claims to the contrary (e.g. that is was a symbol used by Arsacid Armenia) need to be convincingly documented.

b) Double-headed animals/monsters/deities are ubiquitous in Ancient Near Eastern art but not every such creature is a double-headed eagle. From some very preliminary research, I find that the god Ninurta/Ningirsu was associated with lion-headed eagles, not double-headed eagles. The fact that the Freemasons adopted the symbol in the 19th century and named it Eagle of Lagash may be an utter anachronism. Is there any evidence of a double-headed eagle outside the Hittite sphere? Any images that show its connection to Lagash?

c) The Indian gandeberunda is also originally a bird with two heads of lions. How old is the use of a bird with two bird heads (as currently appearing in the coat of arms of Karnataka)? The kingdom of Mysore post-dates the crusades, Seljuks etc. Are we sure that this is an ancient Indian symbol or could it be one imported from the Middle East?

d) What is the source for Isaac Comnenus and the so-called Paphlagonian monster haga? I find no reference to the haga except Freemasonry websites and some poor quality Greek websites that seem to have taken this information from English websites. The Greek wikipedia article on the double-headed eagle also simply translates the English wikipedia article. It is clear that after the crusades the symbol spread West and East, but what is the earliest Byzantine attested use? Any Byzantine expert please?

e) What is the earliest depiction of the double-headed eagle in Seljuk art? There are claims in the article that the symbol was used as early as 1058 but the examples given are from the 13th century. Is there any way to infer whether the Seljuks adopted the symbol from the Eastern Roman Empire (this would make sense, it was after all the Sultanate of Rum) or is it that we simply can't tell?

For an example of a scholarly paper freely available online with bibliography on the Ancient Near East, see http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2011/chariton.ARC.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.209.77 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to research this now. I find it very intriguing that the double-headed eagle appears as it were suddenly or out of nowhere in the high medieval period. It is adopted both in the Balkans and in the Seljuk Sultanate just around 1200. In both cases, it is assumed that it was adopted from the Byzantine Empire, but all actual examples from Byzantium we have are themselves from the 13th century or later. We are hard pressed to come up with any examples of the motif from the 11th century, or indeed before the very end of the 12th. "Legend" attributes the motif to Isaac Komnenos, fl. 1050s, which would kind of fit the chronology, but it's (a) a legend and (b) even the legend qua legend is at present unreferenced.

When I say we have no examples prior to the 12th century, I am excluding the examples from before the 12th century BC, i.e. the Hittite depictions from as early as the 18th century BC. The interesting thing here is that we have an iconographic tradition which remained in situ, in Anatolia, but which has a gap of a full 2,500 years. Surely there must be art historians who have pondered this in literature? --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

turns out there is easily evidence for the motif in the 10th to 11th century, but it is very hard to pinpoint where it originated. It seems to pop up around that time basically everywhere at the same time, but especially at the boundaries between Christian and Muslim controlled territories, and both Christian and Muslim use seems to be substantiated from practically the same time. So, it is hard to say how it originated, but it seems to be clear that in its earliest occurrences, in the 10th to 11th centuries, it does not have any special "imperial" significance and is basically used as a grotesque ornament; it only begins to be used in ostensibly "imperial" or "royal" contexts from the 12th century or so. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)