revista doctoranzilor În istorie vech rheologie

REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎNISTORIE VECH RHEOLOGIE

ReDIVA

THE POSTGRADUATE JOURNALOF ANCIENT HISTORY AND

ARCHAEOLOGY

I / 2013

E I AȘ

CLUJ-NAPOCA2013

5

CONTENTS

Foreword 7

AlexAndru BerzovAn

Some remarks on the Dacian silver hoard found at Gura Văii (Pleşcuţa Town, Arad County) 9

AurorA PeţAn

Sarmizegetusa Regia in the Austrian map of 1804 29

SzABó CSABA

The Mithraic Statue of Secundinus from Apulum 45

dAn deAC

Being an Isiac in Potaissa. Short remarks on Ricis 616/0102 (= cil III 882) 65

BodA ImolA

Torma Károly (1829-1897) and the archaeological research in Roman Dacia. Case study: Ilişua 75

Ion CeBAn

Archäologische denkmäler in der gemeinde Slobozia Mare, Bezirk Cahul, Republik Moldau 107

vlAdImIr ovtChArov

Countermarked coinage of Dobrudja. A detailed investigation (case report) 129

ReDIVA I/2013, p. 45-64

THE MITHRAIC STATUE OF SECUNDINUS FROM APULUM1

Szabó CSABAPhD candidate, University of Pécs, HU

E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Gordon septuagenario dedicatum

Abstract. In this paper the author discusses the iconography of the fine votive statue of Mithras from Apulum, and calls attention to Antonius Bartalis, Ortus et occasus Imperii Romanorum in Dacia Mediterranea (Posonium [Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava] 1787), the first book to provide an account of the statue and a milestone in the reception of Mithraic studies in Transylvania.

Keywords: Apulum, Roman religion in Dacia, Mithras, signum, Bartalis Antal.

The twin cities of Apulum (colonia Aurelia Apulensis and Municipium septimium Apulense)2 boast more than 50 Mithraic monuments, many of them of exceptional interest not only for their iconography, but also for the socio-historical information they provide. Despite the recent Mithraic discoveries in Apulum,3 these monuments are the only primary sources relating to the Mithraic communities from the two cities. Of the ten (or eleven) surviving sculptural monuments of the

1 I express my grateful thanks to Professor Dr. Richard Gordon for his ideas and critique on the paper.

2 The modern city of Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár, Karlsburg) is built on the complex conurbation of Apulum that enclosed Castra legionis XIII Geminae, the canabae of the castra, the Municipium Aurelium Apulense (later becoming colonia Aurelia Apulensis) and the Municipium Septimium Apulense. See Piso 2001, p. XVII-XXI.

3 About the two new sanctuaries and the recent discoveries see Szabó 2013d. Szabó Csaba, Sziklából újraszületett: a nemzetközi Mithras kutatás legújabb eredményei. In: Ókor, XII/3. Budapest, 2013 (forthcoming).

46

Szabó CSABA

cult4, the most important is the cult-statue (Kultbild) of Secundinus (CIL III, 1123 = TMMM II p. 314 no. 197 = CIMRM 1947-8 = IDR III/5, 284) (see Pl. I.). A full account of such a cult-statue or important votive monument would imply a discussion on its location, physical appearance and ritual function5, but in our case such a programme is impossible. We can only deal with the appearance (i.e. iconography), since the provenance (i.e. the precise archaeological context) of the object is uncertain. In this study I will focus on the epigraphic and iconographic aspects of the statue, but I will also discuss what little is known about its discovery, as reported by the eighteenth-century antiquary Antonius Bartalis. As a side-issue I question the suitability of the term ‘cult statue’ in the Mithraic context.

I. Iconography and typology

According to the latest tests of petrography, the statue (Pl. I.) is made from an unidentified, but surely imported type of marble6. In its present fragmentary state, the dimensions are h. 1.08 x w. 1.08 x d. 0.30m, which suggests that the intact statue was rather less than life–sized (say 1.30-1.50m)7. The legs of Mithras are bare, without the bracca persica or anaxyrides8, which are the typical indication of an oriental person in Greek art, and almost universal in the representations of Mithras.9 As usual, the god’s left leg is represented forcing the bull into submission. The folding of the chiton is poorly executed compared to the other parts of the statue10. Some attention has been paid to the animals: the bull has been given a pathetic expression, and the dog

4 Szabó 2013a, p. 32-46.5 Mylonopoulos 2010, p.6.6 Piso, Benea 2013, p. 57 (AP 32). 7 There is a variety of estimates both of the height and of the width. Cumont,

who had evidently seen the statue in the Bruckenthal Museum in Sibiu, mentions 1.17 x 0.95 m (TMMM II p. 314, no. 197); Vermaseren – 1.22 x 0.95 m. The dimensions given above are from IDR III.5, no. 284. The missing parts are: the head, trunk and arms of Mithras, the lower part of his right leg, the hind-leg of the bull from the hock, the left hand side of the inscription, part of the snake, the lower part of the dog’s body, the bull’s muzzle. Only the marble struts supporting Mithras’ hand and the dagger survive.

8 Other terms are sarabara and sarapis, see D’Amato 2005, p. 17-18. 9 http://www.encquran.brill.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/anaxyrides-e120700?s.num=

12 Last accessed: 9. November, 2013.10 Diaconescu 2004, p. 152-3. Note Cumont’s judgment on the quality of the

statue as a whole: “Travail très médiocre” (TMMM II, p. 315).

47

The Mithraic Statue of Secundinus from Apulum

has a collar.11 As usual with free-standing Mithraic statues, Cautes and Cautopates were apparently not represented12.

For financial and other reasons, there are very few statues that represent Mithras killing the bull; most of them are from Italy, even from Rome itself13. In some opinions, this iconographic type appeared in Italy, but it is still a problematic topic in historiography14. It is impossible to establish a meaningful chronology of these statues based on the known examples. Nevertheless, it is without a doubt that the basic type – statue or relief – of Mithras killing the bull appears in Italy at the end of the first/beginning of the second century A.D15. The dating of the well-known representation of Mithras Tauroctonos made by the Athenian sculptor Kriton (CIMRM 230, Terme di Mitra, Ostia) is under debate. Some scholars even argue that it was the “prototype” for all other statues and even some relief-types, which is evidently impossible16. Even if this iconographic type of the hero killing an animal was created in Hellenistic workshops, it has been embraced at the end of the first century A.D. by the Mithraic communities, certainly in Rome, and was brought to the Danubian

11 The scorpion however is represented very schematically.12 Cf. Gordon’s proposed continuum between the poles of ‘silence’ and

’garrulity’ (1976, 175f. = 1996 no. VIII, p. 175f.). In this scheme, statues fall near the pole of silence.

13 CIMRM 107, 122, 163, 211, 258, 335, 352, 370, 374, 385, 531, 548, 557, 584, 587, 592, 595, 596, 601, 605, 618, 619, 620, 629, 661, 662, 664, 685, 771, 1050, 1798. Some of the monuments are still part of private collections making their analysis difficult: Bonanno 2012, p. 454-468.

14 Diaconescu 2004, p. 152-3 with bibliography.15 See Gordon 1978 on CIMRM 593, dedicated by Alcimus, the servus vilicus of

Trajan’s praetorian prefect, Tib. Claudius Livianus. Ambrogi 2005, p. 327.16 Kriton’s model was obviously the Classical images of heroes, e.g. Herakles,

Theseus, killing wild animals. Speidel argued in his article that an unusual representation may appear on the relief from Moesia Inferior (wrongly identified by Speidel as a relief from Dacia) CIMRM 2196: Speidel 1980, p. 24. Other examples of this type: Vollkommer 2001, p. 331, no. 86, 91, 95, 99, 100. On the dating, see: Ridgway 2002, p. 193; mid-first century AD: Rolf-Michael Schneider (personal commentary to Richard Gordon). Vollkommer 2001 places Kriton at the end of the first century AD, mainly on the grounds that the cult of Mithras did not exist in the west before that time. But this argument is based a) on the assumption that the statue was originally of Mithras, and b) on complete ignorance of the dating of the mithraeum of the Terme di Mitra. The existence of an ancient copy, formerly found in the Giustiniani gardens, and illegally expatriated by the Getty Museum, is a clear indication that the original was not a Mithras (pers. comment of prof. Richard Gordon).

48

Szabó CSABA

provinces only in the second century A.D. (cf. CIMRM 1768 = Tit.Aq. 248 from Aquincum – pl. nr. II.)17. Some specific elements, also highlighted by Richard Gordon in his study as chronological and iconographical references18 (the position of the snake, the presence of the scorpion, the bull’s dewlap and hind-leg and the tunic) are present on the statue of Secundinus. The snake under the bull, the highly detailed dewlap of the animal and the collapsing hind-legs may indicate some chronological features. There are some similar analogies in Italy (CIMRM 208, 592) where the snake is below the bull and the classical chitoniskos appears, but there are no chronological references and similarities. Without other archaeological sources, we can’t determine an exact chronology, but the iconographical style, the provincial context and the most relevant analogy (CIMRM 1768) may suggest a mid – Antonine dating for the statue.

II. Signum: the representation of the divine

The inscription reads:

------] I(nvicto) M(ithrae) · SIGNVM------ Sec]VNDINVS · EX · VOTO · POS(uit).

The donor, whose name was probably [---Sec]undinus,19 was evidently an important member of a Mithraic community in the first civil settlement in Apulum, as he was relatively wealthy20. However his name does not recur in the Mithraic context from there. None of the other six persons bearing this popular cognomen, all of them Roman civilians or veterans of the Leg. XIII Gemina, has any connection with

17 There is no detailed analysis of the statue. First, it was mentioned by the archaeologist of the IV. Mithraeum, Nagy Tibor in 1941 in a short, Hungarian summary about the excavation (unpublished, mentioned by Zsidi 2011, p. 21.) than shortly analyzed in Nagy 1971, 150-1, pl. no. 80, where the discoverer of the statue suggested, that the rude iconography and the face of Mithras shows an intermediate style from the Antonine to Severian period (II-III. century). Szabó Ádám (Tit. Aq. No. 284, p. 225-6) dates the statue to the end of the IInd century. The archaeological material of the sanctuary is still unpublished.

18 Gordon 1978, p. 157.19 Kajanto 1965, p. 292, OPEL IV, 58. The preserved part of his name

„undinus”was completed even by Antonius Bartalis in 1787 as Secundinus, the latest historiography doesn’t question the plausibility of this transcription. Other (very rare) possibilities could be: Nundinus (AE 1992, 135), Iucundinus (CIL X 2798), Verecundinus (AE 1993, 1577).

20 On the local Mithraic communities of the city see: Szabó 2013b, p. 43- 73.

49


the cult.21 Although the dedicatory inscription is incomplete, there may have been space for abbreviated praenomen and nomen, i.e there is no technical reason why he would not have had the tria nomina. All we can infer about his status, based on the probable cost of such a statue, is that his role in the local Mithraic community was very important, whether or not he was one of the founders22.

The word chosen by Secundinus for his statue is signum23. This is one of the most common words used for a statue or relief representing a deity. Alternative words are statua (in some provinces24) and simulacrum deorum in the Roman context25. Although the word signum is so common elsewhere in the Roman Empire, it only occurs five times in Dacia.26 Two of these cases are Mithraic27. Despite the number of

21 IDR III/5, 377, 519, 557, IDR III/6, 171, 172, AE 1965, 39. There are some followers from other provinces with this cognomen: CIMRM 704, 907.

22 Some of the dedicators of a signum in other provinces are known to have been patres.

23 The word appears many times in Mithraic and other votive contexts: CIMRM 129, 222, 223, 283, 285, 286, 311, 470, 522, 625, 660, 752, 1484, 1536, 1598; AE 1912, 180; AE 1925, 15; AE 1932, 69; AE 1973, 228; AE 1990, 764; CIL III 3066, 5773, 5792, 5871, 5877. On the use and meaning of the word ‘signum’ see: Richardson 1992, p. 369. Roth 2012, p. 77. The word appears 353 times in the Clauss/Slaby epigraphic database. Roth and Estienne affirm that the word is used exclusively for the description of the physical representation of deities and rarely for emperors, although there are examples from funerary contexts as well: AE 1919, 33; CIL VI 13213, 28703.

24 Rüpke 2010, p. 186. 25 Gordon 1996, p. 7-8, Olszewski 2005, p. 863-865, Hijmans 2009, p. 131, Estienne

2010, p. 257-273, Mylonopoulos 2010, p. 1-21, Nicolae 2011, p. 69, Nemeti 2012, p. 16-18. See also: Varro, Ant. rer. Div. fr. 225 Cardauns: “Antiquos simulacra deorum et insignia ornatusque finxisse, quae cum oculis animadvertissent hi, qui adissent doctrinae mysteria, possent animam mundi ac partes eius, id est deos verso, animo videre; quorum qui simulacra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc videri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est inmortalis animi; tamquam si vasa ponerentur causa notandorum deorum et in Liberi aede oenophorum sisteretur, quod significaret vinum, per id quod continent id quod continetur; ita per simulacrum, quod formam haberet humanam, significari animam rationalem, quod eo velut vase natura ista soleat contineri, cuius naturae deum volunt esse vel deos.” See Rüpke 2010, p. 185.

26 CIL III 1061, 7683, 12607.27 Our example and CIL III 968/p.7729 = IDR III.2, 306a = CIMRM 2007 (from

Sacidava; a relief, not a statue). See also Nock 1937, p. 108-113,Tóth 1970, p. 119-130. The only other tauroctony-statue termed signum is from the ‘Mitreo Fagan’ in Ostia (CIMRM 310-11 = CIL XIV 64).

50

Szabó CSABA

Mithraic dedicatory inscriptions known from Apulum, this is the only occurrence of the word in a Mithraic context28.

As the inscription makes it clear, Secundinus’ statue was intended to be an ex voto, a gift for the god probably made after an important event in his or the community’s life, it served also as a signum, a cult image, the central focus of the rituals performed inside a mithraeum. There are no archaeological or ancient author’s sources about any kind of physical interaction with the cult-images in Mithraism unlike the other Greco-Roman cults29, making the use of the latest definition of cult image for these statues quite problematic30. Some of the reliefs (CIMRM 1083, 1896) were certainly moved and turned about in a specific moment of the ritual, maybe at the time of the sacral banquet, but we don’t know neither the exact roles of these acts, or the rituals of the installation (hidrysis) of such kind of statues31.

This statue was, first of all, an ex voto; of course, it has an absolutely central role in the furnishing of the sanctuary, as it represents the main scene of the cult, the killing of the bull32. The visual message delivered by a tauroctony is much less dense than that of a paneled relief, since many important elements (e.g. Sol, Luna, Cautes, Cautopates, the raven) have to be omitted, but this loss of information is off-set by the statue’s monumentality and expressive power – a very important consideration in antiquity33.The statue would be static, probably conceived to be seen frontwise, its position being at the end of the central nave of the sanctuary as a part of the Mithraic star talk. Unfortunately we do not know any example found in situ for a statuary representation of Mithras Tauroctonos and it is hard to tell whether a statue of Mithras the Bullkiller excluded the existence of a central or paneled relief or not34. None of the known statues representing Mithras Tauroctonos came from a sanctuary, where complex reliefs were also found.

28 CIMRM 1937, 1942, 1949, 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1977, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1994, 2136; cf. Szabó 2013a, p. 37.

29 Weddle 2010.30 Witschel 1995, p. 252, Mylonopoulos 2010.31 Idem, 8.32 Levente et al. 2005, 1, p. 206-225.33 Cicero, De oratore 2.357.34 On the place and role of the cult statues, and of the votive offerings in the

Greco-Roman world see: Auffarth 2009, p. 307-316.

51


III. The discovery of the monument and its first publication in the work of Bartalis

The Roman cult of Mithras, unlike other pagan deities, has disappeared completely by the mid-fifth century. The revival of classical studies in the Renaissance, however, associated with a widespread interest in ancient statuary, marked the beginning of a new era in the field35. Many Mithraic cult-images entered private collections at that time, a few being even represented in lithographs. One of the earliest representations of Mithraic images is that published by Antonio Lafreri in 1564, which was part of his monumental speculum Romanae Magnificentiae (CIMRM 335)36. Another notable case is that of a copy of Kriton’s statue analyzed in 1631, identified as „Gladiatore che uccide un leone”37. In the late Renaissance and early modern period in Italy and later also in France and Germany Mithras became a focus of antiquarian interest, debated in detail in various works38. Antiquarian research in the Siebenburgen area of what is now Romania had its impetus in this burgeoning work in Western Europe.

The first Mithraic remains from Apulum were discovered in the XVIth century by Mezerzius (CIL III 1119 = CIMRM 2003 = IDR III.5, 27539) and Verantius (CIL III 1121 = CIMRM 1992/93 = IDR III.5, 285)40. Both monuments were reused in some Late Renaissance palaces, the first at Vinţu de Jos (Alvinc, Martinuzzi palace), and the second in the palace of the prince at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár). At that time, the cult of Mithras was only known in Transylvania from Christian authors and some Italian and German antiquarian writings.

Antonius Bartalis (Bartalis Antal, *1749, † before 1802) was born in Lazarea, Gyergyószárhegy, Transylvania. Although few details are known about his life, he was a much-quoted author in the XIXth century, known as saxo transylvanicus, after the early Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus41. He learned of the Roman auxiliary fort in the village when he was a schoolboy in Călugăreni (Mikháza). He studied

35 Bober, Rubinstein 1986, p. 84-85, Barkan 1993, p. 133, Barkan 2001, Bignamini 2004a, Venetucci 2008, p. 73-88, Candilio 2008, p. 89-92, Koortbojian 2011, p. 149-167.

36 Vermaseren 1978, Gordon 2004, p. 1-41, Gordon 2009, p. 381 (see subnote 12.)37 Valeri 2003. 38 See again Gordon 2009, p. 380-9. 39 Idem, p. 382.40 Szabó 2013c41 Knapp 2005, p. 46.

52

Szabó CSABA

theology at the seminary in Alba Iulia before 1776. In this period he might have witnessed the transformation of Karlsburg, the Habsburg centre of Transylvania, where hundreds of Roman inscriptions and monuments were discovered during the re-modeling of the fortress. Following upon a very rich scholarly tradition of writing histories concerning Roman Dacia (antiquitatum romanorum)42, he published with the help of Simon Peter Weber a synthesis entitled Ortus et occasus imperii Romanorum in Dacia Mediterranea, when he was not even thirty years of age43. The book presents not only the general history of Roman Dacia insofar as it was known at the time, but also some specific aspects of the history of colonia Aurelia Apulensis. The book is important not only because of the many new details and perceptive remarks on some new inscriptions, but also because it contains the first mention of three Mithraic monuments discovered around that time, including our statue44. Bartalis provides a detailed analysis of the text and iconography of the statue45. The sources he draws upon and the overall presentation bears witness to his genuine interest in the cult of Mithras. He quotes some of the most important and relevant ancient authors known in his days46. In addition to the classical sources, he also quoted some foreign scholars, such as Lorenzo Pignaria (1571-1631), Bernard de Montfaucon’s (1655-1741) Diarium italicum47, and Friedrich Eberhard Boysen (1720-1800)48. He also read the work of Zamosius and Verasius in order to discuss some inscriptions that had been discovered earlier49. From his reading of Western European authors,

42 On the historiography of Roman studies in Transylvania, see Bodor 1995, p. 56-81.43 Published at Posonium [Pressburg//Pozsony/Bratislava] 1787. The sub-title

is: cui accedunt nonnullae de monumento quodam e ruderibus coloniae Apulensis eruto opiniones.

44 CIL III 1109 = TMMM II 308f. no. 192 = CIMRM 1935 = IDR III.5, 280; CIL III 1110 = TMMM II p.133 no. 243 = CIMRM 1937 = IDR III.5, 281 with drawing; and our piece, CIMRM 1947.

45 Bartalis 1787, p. 81.46 E.g. Macrobius, saturnalia [who notoriously does not mention Mithras],

Lactantius Placidus, in statii Thebaida commentum; Porphyry, De antro nympharum; Jerome, Epist. ad laetam 107. All these sources, and indeed many others, had been known to antiquarian scholarship since the compilations of G. Giraldi, De deis gentium (1548 and often reprinted), and V. Cartari, Le imagini de I dei de gli antichi (1556 and often reprinted/edited).

47 Bartalis 1787, p. 67.48 Bartalis 1787, p. 78-81.49 Bartalis 1787, p. 76.

53


he knew that some Mithraic images had been painted50. His section on the cult of Mithras goes together perfectly with the enthusiasm of the Renaissance and of the Enlightenment scholars from the rest of Europe. His contribution is very similar to what the painter and antiquarian Robert Fagan (1761-1816) did around that same time in Ostia, where he discovered an important mithraeum that unfortunately can no longer be identified with certainty.51

Bartalis’ most valuable contribution might have been his information about the discovery of Secundinus’ statue. Unfortunately what he has to say is brief and ambiguous:

Gaudemus hic iam nobis, quod venerandis his Daciae nostrae saxis monimentum, cui simile in terris hisce videre contigit hactenus nemini, adiicere possimus, cuius typum fronti opusculi huius habes Lector praefixum. Effossum illud non ita pripidem est e ruderibus coloniae Apulensis ad Portum Marusii in Area spectabilis D. Francisci Kaftal, Salis, ut dicere amant, Ponderum Magistri. Subinde? nobis dono oblatum et a Charissimo Nepote nostro Iosepho Kaftal Cibinium, ubi Curati munere fungimur, deuectum”52.

Much of this was cited by Theodor Mommsen in the entry to CIL III 112353. The most important information is the fact that it was discovered on a parcel of land in Marospartos (Portus Marisii) owned by Franciscus Kaftal, who was a magister salis ponderum. References to this position (also known as wegmeister or mázsamester in XVIIIth century documents) frequently occur in official documents of that time, especially in Alba Iulia (Karlsburg, Gyulafehérvár) and Turda (Torda), which was the regional centre of salt production (fig. IV).

Bartalis makes it clear that the parcel of land was known to lie within the ruins of the Roman Municipium Aurelium that later became colonia Aurelia. We may infer that the statue had been discovered („effossum”) not long before 1787. The territory of the discovery („ad Portum Marusii”) would be the portus (port for the salt-trading ships) of the River Maros, between Váradgya and Limba54, known by the travelers of the XVIIth – XVIIIth century as „régi Fejérvár”, the old

50 Bartalis 1787, 81.51 Bignamini 2004b, p. 94, Granieri 2008, p. 209-220.52 Bartalis 1787, 60-61. I express my grateful thanks for the translation of the

text to Aurora Petan and Radu Mustaţa.53 CIL III 199.54 Wolf 1996, p. 471-490.

54

Szabó CSABA

city of colonia Aurelia Apulensis55. The statue was given to Bartalis as a gift (it is not stated by whom, but presumably by Francis Kaftal) and transported by his nephew to Cibinium (Hermannstadt, Nagyszeben, Sibiu), where Bartalis was a curate in a church. Since both men are named Kaftal, it seems likely that Francis was a relative of Joseph Kaftal. It is possible that the statue and maybe two other objects were found in approximately the same place. If so, a paneled relief, a statue-base and a statue (signum) suggest the presence of a mithraeum.

Bartalis rightly guessed that the donor’s name was Secundinus („nos autumamus fuisse secundinus”)56 but he wrongly identified him with C. Clodius Secundinus, duumvir of the Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. He also noted the interest of the word signum, analyzing its meaning and giving some local examples. In the inside cover page there is a copperplate engraving made by Marcus Weinmann57 in Pressburg/ Pozsony/Bratislava (pl. III), that is the first known depiction of Secundinus’ statue. The statue’s size is enormously exaggerated and it stands in a naturalistic landscape. These conventions are not unusual for the representation of antiquities in Italy and Germany at this time58.

Inspired by the current antiquarian interest in such themes, Bartalis discusses the cult of Mithras at great length, showing off his scholarly abilities. Even if his report of the discovery of Secundinus’ statue does not help us identify its origin, his contribution remains an important chapter in the historiography of Mithraic studies in Dacia.

55 Szilágyi 1875, p. 211-246: „ […] Kapucsi passa is a [maros]váradjai hidon Serédy urammal és az több követekkel, s hozzá tartozó szolgáival, síposival, dobosival és trombitásival in summa personis no. 39 […] által jövén, és innét [ti. Gyulafehérvár felől] az ifjú fejedelem is szép lassan és illendő módon közelgetvén, egy felől az magyar gyalog, s más felől a német állván rendben, jutottak szembe egy alkalmatos tisztás és téres helyen, az régen elpusztult Fejérvár az hol volt. […] az ifjú fejedelem is az kapucsi basával felülvén, azalatt az öreg lövő szerszámokkal lőttek az bástyán; azonban megindulván, az ifjú fejedelem jobb kéz felől, az pasa peniglen bal kéz felől egymás mellett, az Király-kútja mellett eljövő derék országútján jöttek az Majorig, s ott alá térvén Sz. György kapujára menő hídra, jöttek be ugyan az Sz. György kapuján. […] Beérkezvén azért az városba, és az magyar [testőr]gyalog bal felől, jobb felől penig a német jövén, mind egész az mezőtől fogva szép lassan, mikor az kapucsi basa szállásához jutottak, ki az Gállfi háznál volt, mindjárt az öreg lövő szerszámokkal viszont lőttek […]”

56 Bartalis 1787, p. 82.57 On Weinmann’s life and work, see Vollmer 1942, p. 303.58 See: Gordon 2004, Amigo Aspertini’s sketch book, British Museum, 1898,

1123.3 – Mithras – presented as a bearded, strong Hercules - killing the bull.

55


IV. Conclusion

This study deals with the most impressive Mithraic statue from Apulum. Analyzing the epigraphic and iconographical aspects of the statue from a regional and a wider perspective, it became plausible that the word „signum” has the same meaning in Mithraic context as in other Greco-Roman cults. Upon analyzing the poor archaeological material from sanctuaries with statuary representation of Mithras Tauroctonos it is also clear that „cult statue” in the Mithraic context had a different connotation as in other Greco-Roman cults. Even if we do not know the rituals and ceremony regarding the installation and use of a Mithraic statue, it is clear that in this case the aspect of offerings is much more obvious (ex voto) regarding these objects than in other cults. The so-called „star talk” and the interior geography of a mithraeum would also suggest that a Mithraic statue had quite a different status in the sacral language of this cult. It is still not clear if the presence of a statue of Mithras Tauroctonos had the role of a paneled relief or not, and if this can be a chronological reference.

Bartalis’s short presentation of the statue was the first detailed report of a Mithraic discovery in Transylvania. His contribution is important because of the given topographical references that suggest that a Mithraic sanctuary was erected in the civilian municipium, later the colonia Aurelia, of Apulum (Partoş). His work is also notable as an example of the reception of antiquarian knowledge about Mithras at the end of the XVIIIth century, just before the moment when the careful work of the Danish scholar Georg Zoega (1755-1809), based in Rome, revolutionized the study of the cult59. These kind of literary sources also help us in the puzzling work of reconstructing the sacral topography of ancient Apulum.

59 Zoega’s major essay on the cult of Mithras, though only published posthumously in 1817, was written in 1798/99 (prof. Richard Gordon’s comment). See also: Gordon 2009, p. 383 (with bibliography), Mangiafesta 2013.

56

Szabó CSABA

Pl. I. The statue of Secundinus from the Brukenthal Museum (Inventar numbers: A 3391 or 7164. Photo by Ortolf Harl. lupa nr. 17291)

57


Pl. I

I. Th

e st

atue

of M

ithra

s Ta

uroc

tono

s fr

om A

quin

cum

(C

IMR

M 1

768

= Ti

t. A

q. 2

84. P

hoto

wit

h th

e pe

rmis

sion

of d

r. Fa

csád

y A

nnam

ária

, Aqu

incu

m M

úzeu

m, B

udap

est)

58

Szabó CSABA

Pl. III. The statue of Secundinus (copperplate engraving by Marcus Weinmann, 1787)

59


Pl. IV. Map of the port from Alba Iulia (Karlsburg, Gyulafehérvár, Colonia Aurelia Apulensis) from the XVIII century.

60

Szabó CSABA

ABBREVIATIONS

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.CIMRM Maarten J. Vermaseren, Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum

religionis Mithriacae, The Hague, 1956-60.IDR Inscriptionum Daciae Romanae, București – Paris.LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae.OPEL Lőrincz Barnabás (ed.), Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae

Latinarum, Budapest, 1996.Tit. Aq. Tituli Aquincenses I. Tituli operum publicorum et honorarii et

sacrum, Budapest, Pytheas, 2009.TMMM Cumont, Franz, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères

de Mithra : pub. avec une introduction critique, Bruxelles, 1894-6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auffarth 2009 Christoph Auffarth, Götterbilder im römischen Griechenland: Vom Tempel zum Museum? in Olivier – Witschel Hekster, Christian (Hrsg), Ritual Dyna mics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eight Workshop of the Inter national Network Impact of Empire. Heidelberg, July 5-7, 2007, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2009, p. 307-326.

Ambrogi 2005 Annarena Ambrogi, Labra di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati, Roma, L’Erma di Bretscneider, 2005.

Ando 2008 Clifford Ando, The matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire, Berkeley, University of Cali fornia Press, 2008.

Barkan 1993 Leonard Barkan, The Beholder’s tale: ancient sculpture, Renaissance Narratives, Representations, 44, 1993, p. 133-166.

Barkan 2001 Leonard Barkan, Archaeology and Aesthetics in the making of Renaissance Culture, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2001.

Bartalis 1787 Bartalis Antonius, Ortus et occasus Imperii Romanorum in Dacia Mediterranea, Posonium [Pres sburg/Poszony/Bratislava], 1787.

Beck 2006 Roger Beck, The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire, Oxford-New York, Oxford Univer sity Press, 2006.

Bignamini 2004a

Ilaria Bignamini (ed.), Essays on the history of archae ological excavations in Rome and southern italy from the Renaissance to the Nineteenth Century, Rome, 2004.

61


Bignamini 2004b

Ilaria Bignamini, British excavations in the Papal states during the XViii.century: written and visual sources. in Ilaria Bignamini (ed.), Essays on the history of archaeological excavations in Rome and Southern Italy from the Renaissance to the Nineteenth Century. Rome, The British School at Rome, Oxbow-Archaeological Monograph 14, 2004, p. 91-108.

Bober, Rubinstein 1986

Phyllis Bober, Ruth Rubinstein, Renaissance Artist and Antique sculpture: a handbook of sources. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1986.

Bodor 1995 Bodor András, Erdély ókori történetének kutatása a XIX. század közepéig, Erdélyi Múzeum 3-4, 1995, p. 56-81.

Bonanno 2012 Margherita Bonanno, Il gruppo di Mitra Tauroctono nella chiesa di san saba a Roma, in Venetucci, Beatrice Palma, Horti Hesperidum. Studi di Storia del collezionismo e della storiografia artistica, Roma, UnversItalia, 2012, p. 454-468.

Candilio 2008 Daniela Candilio, Rilievo mitraico dalla collezione Alti-eri, in Palma Venetucci (ed.), Culti Orientali – tra sca vo e collezionismo, Roma, Artemide, 2008, p. 89-93.

Estienne 2010 Sylvia Estienne, simulacrum Deorum versus Ornamenta Aedium: the status of Divine images in the Temples of Rome, in Joannis Mylonopoulos (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome. Leiden, Brill, 2010, p. 257-253.

D’Amato 2005 Raffaele D’Amato, Roman Military Clothing (3), Oxford, 2005.

Diaconescu 2004

Alexandru Diaconescu, Statuaria majoră în Dacia romană I-II, Cluj-Napoca, Editura Universității, 2004.

Gordon 1976 Richard Gordon, A new Mithraic relief from Rome, Journal of Mithraic Studies I.2. 1976, p. 166-186 = Gordon 1996 no. VIII.

Gordon 1978 Richard Gordon, The date and significance of CIMRM 593 (British Museum, Townley Collection), Journal of Mithraic Studies 2.2, 1978, p. 148-174.

Gordon 1980 Richard Gordon, Panelled complications, Journal of Mithraic Studies 3, 1980, p. 200-227 = Gordon 1996 no. IX.

Gordon 1996 Richard Gordon, Image and value in the Graeco – Roman World. Studies in Mithraism and Religious Art, Aldershot, 1996.

Gordon 2004 Richard Gordon, Interpreting Mithras in the Late Renaissance, Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies 4, 2004.

62

Szabó CSABA

Gordon 2009 Richard Gordon, The Roman Army and the Cult of Mithras: a critical view, in Y. Le Bohec and Cath. Wolff (eds.), L’armée romaine et la religion. Actes du 4e congrès de Lyon, 26-28 oct. 2006, Lyon and Paris, Collection CEROR, 2009, p. 379-450.

Granieri 2008 Francesca Granieri, Gli scavi nel mitreo Fagan ad Ostia. in Palma Venetucci (ed.), Culti Orientali – tra scavo e collezionismo, Roma, Artemide, 2008, p. 209-220.

Kajanto 1965 Iro Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki, 1965.Knapp 2005 Knapp Éva, Adalékok a 18. század végi nyelvi archaizálás

kérdéséhez, Magyar Könyvszemle 121, 2005, p. 2.Koortbojian 2011

Michael Koortbojian, Renaissance spolia and Renaissance Antiquity. in Richard Brilliant (ed.), Re-use Value – spolia and appropiation in art and architecture from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, Farnham – Burlington, Ashgate, 2011.

Mangiafesta 2013

Maria Mangiafesta, Zoega e i rilievi mitriaci nelle collezioni romane, in Georg Zoega International Conference, Roma, 27-30 October, 2013 (presenta tion – publication forthcoming).

Mithras I-II László Levente, Nagy Levente, Szabó Ádám, Mithras misztériumai. 2 vols. Kultusz és Logosz 4. Budapest, Kairosz Kiadó, 2005.

Mylonopoulos 2010

Joannis Mylonopoulos, Divine images versus cult images: an endless story about theories, methods and terminologies, in Mylonopoulos, Joannis (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in An cient Greece and Rome, Leiden, Brill, 2010, p. 1-19.

Nagy 1971 Nagy Tibor, Kőfaragás és szobrászat Aquincumban, Budapest Régiségei XXII, 1971, p. 103-156.

Nicolae 2011 Corina Nicolae, Cult Images and Mithraic Reliefs in Roman Dacia. Transylvanian Review vol. XX. Supp. 2:1, 2011, p. 67-79.

Nock 1937 Arthur Darby Nock, The genius of Mithraism, Journal of Roman Studies 27, 1937, p. 108-113 = idem, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Z. Stewart), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1972, p. 452-58.

Olszewski 2005 Marek Titien Olszewski, The status of the image according to Artemidorus and Roman art, in Morlier, H. (ed.), IX. Colloque International pour l’étude de la mosaique antique et médievale, Roma, 2005, p. 858-880.

Richardson 1992

Lawrence Richardson, A new topographical dictio nary of ancient Rome, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Ridgway 2002 Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture III. The styles of ca. 100-31. B.C., Wisconsin- Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 2002.

63


Roth 2012 Kevin Roth, statuae Deorum Hominumque: the distinction in epigraphic statuary terminology between divine and human representation in Africa Procon sularis and beyond, Chronika, vol. II., 2012, p. 75-82.

Rüpke 2010 Jörg Rüpke, Representation or presence? Picturing the divine in ancient Rome, Archiv für Religions geschichte 12, 2010, p. 181-196.

Piso 2001 Ioan Piso, ,Prolegomena Historica, in IDR III/5, vol. I., XVII – XXI, Paris, Diffusion de Bocard, 2001.

Piso, Benea 2013

Ioan Piso, Marcel Benea, Der Marmor im Römi schen Dakien, Cluj-Napoca, Editura Mega, 2013.

Speidel 1980 Michael P. Speidel, Mithras-Orion. Greek Hero and Roman Army God, EPROER 81, Leiden, Brill, 1980.

Szabó 2013a Szabó Csaba, Monumente sculpturale mithraice din Apulum, De Antiquitate nr. VI, Electronic Journal, 2013, p. 32-46.

Szabó 2013b Szabó Csaba, Micro-regional manifestation of a private cult. The Mithraic community in Apulum, in Moga, Iulian (ed.) Angels, Demons and Representations of Afterlife in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Imagery. Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi, 2013, p. 43-73.

Szabó 2013c Szabó Csaba, Mithras kutatás Gyulafehérváron a XX. század előtt, Szabadság, 2013, 15. May, 8.

Szabó 2013d Szabó Csaba, Discovering Mithras in Apulum. PPT presentation, Călugăreni (Mikháza, RO) 2013, online: Last accesed 1. 11. 2013.

Szelestei 1982 Szelestei N. László, A magyarországi nyomdászat történetirás kezdetei, Magyar Könyvszemle, 98, 1982, I., Budapest, p. 19-39.

Szilágyi 1875 Szilágyi Sándor, II. Rákóczi György fejedelemmé vá lasztása és beigtatása, Budapest, Athaeneum, 1875.

Tóth 1970 Tóth István, The cult of Iuppiter Sol Invictus Deus Genitor in Dacia, Acta Classica universitatis Scienti arum Debrecensis 6, 1970, p. 71-74.

Valeri 2003 Claudia Valeri, Il Mitra di Kriton e la copia della Collezione Giustiniani, online: http://www.ostia-antica.org/fulltext/valeri/valeri03.htm. Last acce sed: 2013. 08. 22.

Venetucci 2008 Palma Venetucci, Antichità esotiche nel collezionismo del XV e XVi secolo, in Venetucci, Palma (ed.), Culti Orientali – tra scavo e collezionismo. Roma, Arte mide, 2008, p. 73-89.

Vermaseren 1978

Maarten J. Vermaseren, Mithriaca 4: Le monument d’Ottaviano Zeno et le culte de Mithra sur le Célius. EPROER 16.4, Leiden, Brill.

64

Szabó CSABA

Vollkommer 2001

Rainer Vollkommer, s.v. Kriton (III). in idem (Hsg.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike. München and Leipzig, K.G. Saur, 2001, p. 431f.

Vollmer 1942 Hans Vollmer, (ed.), Allgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Künstler: von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1942, vol. XXXV.

Weddle 2010 Polly Weddle, Touching the Gods: Physical interaction with cult statues in the Roman World. Durham University thesis, online: http://etheses. dur.ac.uk/555/1/Touching _ the _ Gods. pdf. Last accesed: 1. 11. 2013.

Will 1955 Ernest Will, 1955. le Relief cultuel gréco-romain: contribution à l'histoire de l’art de l’Empire romain, BEFAR 183, Rome and Paris.

Witschel 1995 Christian Witschel, Römische Tempelkult- bilder, in Stemmer, Klaus (ed.), Standorte – kontext und funktion antiker Skulptur. Berlin, Freunde und Förderer der Abguss Sammlung Antiker Plastik 1995, p. 250-275.

Wolff 1996 Rudolf Wolff, Az erdélyi sóügyek az Apafi korszak végén, in Sipos Gábor (ed.) Jakó Zsigmond emlék könyv, Kolozsvár, Erdélyi Múzeum Egye sület, 1996, p. 471-490.

Zsidi 2011 Paula Zsidi, Nagy Tibor és az aquincumi Mithras kutatás, Budapest Régiségei XLIV, 2011, p. 20-31.

revista doctoranzilor În istorie vech rheologie

Documents