Toth - 1973 Ornamenta Iovis Dolicheni

7/24/2019 Toth - 1973 Ornamenta Iovis Dolicheni

1/7

ACTA CLASSICAUNIVERSITATIS SCIENTIARUM

DEBRECENIENSIS

TOMUS IX1973

DEBRECINI


2/7

ACTA CLASSICA UNIV. SCIENT. DEBRECEN.

IX. 1973. p. 105109.

ORNAMENTA IOVIS DOLICHENI

B Y I ST V A N T O T H

In the find complex of the Dolichenus sanctuary at Brigetio,1 excavated in 1899 by

Armin Milch, besides some stone monuments, bronze statuettes, bronze implements connected

with the cult and architectural bronze fragments belonging to the inner decoration of the

sanctuary, some bronze plate fragments with ornamental resp. figural decoration were

found. Publishing the material o f the sanctuary for the first time, N. Lang identified the latter

finds as fragments of a military parade cuirass; his opinion is shared unanimously by recent

research.23

Omitting for the present a detailed description of the plates2 we may confine ourselvesto the statementagreeing thus with N. Lang, P. Merlat and Z. Kadarthat as for their

technical execution and design, the Brigetio fragments correspond fully to the well-known

group of Roman parade armour. The figural representation as the helmeted male head

in profile (Mars?) the naked male figure treading to the left, a similar one holding a scythe

like implement and looking to the right, are insignificant and unsuitable for an iconographic

or substantial analysis on the merits. The aim of the present paper is, though, not an attempt

for enriching the well-known triumphal motif complex of parade armours with possible

additional types but to elucidate the significance and function of this particular object,

the fragmental breastplate of the Brigetio Dolichenum from new points of view. The former

treatments of this subject had omitted to pay a proper attention to the rather unusual

1P. Merlat,Repertoire des inscriptions et monuments figures du culte de Jupiter Dolichenus.Paris- Rennes 1951, 81 ff. ( =Merlat,Rep.)

2N. Lang, Das Dolichenum von Brigetio. Laur. Aqu. II. Diss. Pann. II. 11. (Budapest 1941)165 ff.; P. Merlat, Jupiter Dolichenus. Essai dinterpretation et de synthese. Paris 1961, 133 ff.( =Merlat, Essai); Z. Kadar, Die kleinasiatisch-syrischen Kulte zur Romerzeit in Ungarn. Leiden1965, 45 ff.

3Lang, op. cit. 179 f.: Das groBte Bruchstuck (H. 18.9 cm, Br. 11,8) ist die untere linke Seiteeines Bildviereckes und zeigt in der linken Ecke eine nach rechts gewendete Mannesgestalt, stehend;an deren rechten Seite auf einem runden, hohen Postament einen Henkelkrug, auf der anderenSeite den von weggebrochenen linken, erhobenen Arm herabfallenden Mantel. Rechts als AbschluBeine gekerbte Leiste und darauffolgend ein aus der Flache stark hervorragendes Kugelsegment(Schildbuckel) mit Schuppen. Auf dem Stiicke... 1/a (Br. 8,2) der untere Teil eines, dem vorigenahnlichen, erhabenen geschuppten Kugelsegmentes. Bruckstuck von der oberen linken Seite,des Bildvierecks (H. 7,8 cm Br. 4,9 cm, dazu das 9,3 cm hohe Seitenstuck). Darauf nur der Rahmensichtbar und ein kleiner gewolbter Ansatz. 2: viereckiges, seitlich von Kerbleisten eingepasstesBruchstuck (H. 2.6 cm, Br. 6,2 cm) Biiste eines in linker Seitenansicht dargestellten Kriegers (Mars?)mit Helm und Panzer. Oben links und rechts zwei Locher fiir Nagelchen mit welchen das Bronzestiickan eine Unterlage (Leder) befestigt war. 4: Halfte eines kreisformigen Stiickes (H. 7,1 cm, Br.4,5 cm.). Im runden Rahmen auf dem Bug eines Schiffes (?), nach rechts gewendet steht eine nackteGestalt, in der herabgelassenen Linken ein Tau schwingend, die Rechte auf die Schulter einer hinterihr stehenden Gestalt legend, von der nur wenig erhalten (ist). Auch dieses Stuck hat Locher (3) fiirNagelchen. Hieher gehort noch das Fragment einer rechten Bildecke (H. 3,8 cm, Br. 5,4 cm) mit

dem Bilde eines Seetieres. Die Stticke gehoren offenbar in den Kreis der sogenannten romischenParaderiistung und erheischen mit Einbeziehung des von F. Drexel zusammengefassten Materialund den neuerlich bekannt gewordenen Stiicken, besonders dem schonen Brustbild von Aquincum,eine gesonderte, eingehende Bearbeitung. Cf.Lang, op. cit. Taf. XXX, 1-4.

105


3/7

fact that the fragments were found at this special site, the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus.

N. Lang calls in the question whether the plates were really in connection with the other

finds of the sanctuary, having a pronouncedly cultic function;4 P. Merlat draws the conclu

sion that the armour fragments might have been in connexion with soldiers, belonging

to the community of the sanctuary.5 In my opinion it is, however, not likely that a soldier-

worshipper of the god would have conserved any paraphernalia of his military equipmute

in the sanctuary of Dolichenus, situated outside the military campnot to speak abont

the fact that the function o f military parade armour is far from being cleared in every aspect

and the assumption of their belonging to the service equipment o f any stratum of the military

ranks is not corroborated as yet.

Scrutinizing the plates they show, along with the other finds of the sanctuary, unmista

kable traces of fire,6 which give evidence of their having been in the sanctuary at the time

of its destruction, thus sharing the fate of the cult objects. The fragmentary state of the

objects is a further proo f for this assumption; the bronze objects, found in the sanctuary,

bear almost without exception, the traces of a forceful damaging and destruction. In the case

of the plate fragments I have to call the attention to the fact, seeming to be very essential,

namely that all the six fragments come from the edges, especially from the corners of the

breastplate, i.e. from parts attached by rivets to a foundation and only the border, resp.

corner parts, fastened strongly to the foundation, could escape destruction.7

These facts, taking altogether, would mean that the fragments of the parade cuirass

did not mix accidentally with the other finds of the Dolichenus sanctuary but were organic

parts of the find complex, or putting it in a different way: we may identify the parade cuirass

as a specific cult object, which became the prey of the destructors from this very reason.

The question remains, what the function of the cuirass in the sanctuary might have been

and how this is to imagine in the frame of the almost unknown formalities, cultic customs

or ceremonies of the Dolichenus cult?

Before attempting to give an answer to this question we have to state the fact thatthe fragments of the parade breastplate, found at Brigetio, are to this day unique among

the find materials of the Dolichenus sanctuaries known, which means that in our attempt

to elucidate the connexions between parade armours and the Dolichenus cult we cannot

rely on analogous material. We have to state furtherm ore that the sites of parade armours,

resp. of the fragments of those, do not show, generally, any peculiarities to be mentioned,

except perhaps the fact that the armour finds in a good or relatively good condition (Straub-

ing, Britannia), were found in their major part hidden in the earth, as hoard finds.8 This

can give us, though, no aid in answering the question raised.

It needs no special demonstration that our above hypothesisnamely that parade

armours were parts of the cultic inventory, belonging to Dolichenus sanctuariesdoesnot contradict in any point to our general knowledge of the cult. According to the unanimous

evidence of the statues and reliefs extant, the main iconographic characteristics of the

Iuppiter Dolichenus figures are the representation of the god in a military attire, i.e. ar

moured.9 He is represented similarly on the bronze triangles and on the major part of the

marble reliefs and statues, as on the votive tablets of the Brigetio Dolichenum, dedicated

4Lang, op. cit. 179.5Merlat,Essai 133 ff.

15Lting, loc. cit.7Cf. below note 23.8J. Keim-H. Klumbach,Der romische Schatzfund von Straubing. Munchen 1951, with further

literature.9Merlat,Essai 31 ff.

106


4/7

by Domitius Titus,10 and on the fragmentary relief of small proportions, found at the samesite.11 We know representations where the god appears in a breastplate, decorated with

reliefs, i.e. in a parade armour.12 This way of representation, to be regarded as a topos

and dictated, in all possibility, by a sacral doctrine, was destined to express the essence

of the deityhis bellicose, triumphal characterand resulted identical forms all along

the Empire. Objects of the military attire, in first line the armour, now so important for us,

can be thus inserted organically among our knowledge about the formalities of the Doli-

chenus cult, they must have even belonged to the paraphernalia, usual, almost indispensable,

for the gods visualisation, taking a central part in his cult.

To continue our argumentation this would mean, in all possibility, that if the parade

armour of the Brigetio Dolichenum was in fact a cult object, it must have functioned as

such in the first line as the gods attire, i.e. its practical function must have been that of

the attire of the cult statue in the sanctuary. We can find a great num ber o f analogies which

make this hypothesis likely. Dressing cult figures was a ceremony known and practised

in every part of the Roman world, to be traced back to ancient preliminaries. We find

this cult general in the worship of the Roman state gods: numerous sources mention the

attire of the Iuppiter statue of the Capitolium sanctuary.13 There are, similarly, many data

about statues of gods, standing in sanctuaries of Greek, Egyiptian and Oriental religions,

before all in those of the mystery cults, wearing sumptous garments and having been dressed

on solemn occasions, religious feasts, in a magnificent attire.14 Seeking for other parallels

there is, almost without exception, no religion whose gods are represented in human form

from primitive religions examined by ethnology to Christianismwhere the ceremony

of dressing cult statues would be unknown. That there were no Pannonian examples for this

cult custom until now means only that our sources were incomplete and cannot serve as

counterarguments against the above said.

The arguments mentioned before make my hypothesis likely but are, in themselves,

not sufficient for proving the existence of a similar ceremony practised in the Dolichenuscult, namely that the fragments of the parade armour, found in the Brigetio Dolichenum,

belonged to the parade attire o f the one-time cult statue of the sanctuary. There are, neverthe

less, some additional data corroborating this hypothesis from another point of view.

The most important place is taken here by the inscription of Misenum, preserved

only in a manuscript copy,15 which, elucidated recently through the brilliant analysis of

R. Noll,16 became a very important document. The inscription relates of four persons, who,

with the assistance of a Dolichenus priest, donated one pound silver each (in one case

one and a half) for a filum, serving for a cultic purpose. This word has several meanings

but, according to the thorough philological analysis of Noll, in this special case must be

equivalent with some accessory of the attire, an ornamentum,i.e. something like a jewel.As we could hardly imagine the military-looking figure of Iuppiter Dolichenus richly be

jewelled, Noll, before taking a second step on the way of deduction, comes to a stop, his

last conclusion being: In want of concrete proofs we cannot say anything as for the nature

10Merlat,Rep. 83.11Merlat,Rep. 84.12J. Leipoldt-W. Grundmann, Die Umwelt des Urchristentums.3 Bd. Il l, (Berlin 1967) Abb.

130. (Unknown provenience Staatl. Mus. Berlin).13See G. Wissowa,Die Religion und Kultus der Romer. Mtinchen 1902. 126 f.

With special references H. S. Versnel, Triumphus. An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and

Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden 1970, Brill. (Etudes preliminaires...)14 / . Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im romischen Heidentum. Berlin-Leipzig 1931,

passim.15CIL X \511=Merlat,Rep. 255.16R. Noil, Arch. Belg. 61. Miscellanea Arch, in hon. J. Breuer, 115 ff.

107


5/7

of the silver fila,mentioned in the Dolichenus inscription of Misenum.17 It seems, though

as if this inscription had a ra ther concrete starting point, namely the weight of the precious

metal offered. The four and half pounds altogether, which means almost one kilogramm

and half, is namely more than the material needs of any usual jewel known. As the word

filumof the inscription must have been employed deliberatley, we may take it for granted

tha t it did no t substitute here the usual expressions imagoor signum,i.e. we cannot interprete

the word as statue or relief but, according to the deduction of Noll, an ornament. In this

case it would seem obvious to interprete the word as an ornamentum suiting the personof Iuppiter Dolichenus best: as an armour, decorated with toreutic artisanship, resp. as

its parts, decorated with ornamental plates. The material requirements of this would not

be surpassed by the weight given and no other sort of jewellery would suit the unques

tionably military forms of the Dolichenus cult as well.

The Misenum inscription alone, in the interpretation o f Noll, is able to suggest the idea

of a parade armour, considered as a decoration of the gods attire, even if we disregard

the Brigetio finds altogether. If we link the two independent data together, they complete

and corroborate each other in meaning.

As an addition to this interpretation a further data, if only an indirect one, shall stand

here: the function of the lecticarius dei,18mentioned on the large ilbum inscriptions of theAventine Dolichenum, Rome, as a sacral function. This expression would not only mean

that in the Dolichenus cult, as in other Oriental cults, sacral processions were known,19

but it points to the fact that on these processions chairing the gods statue belonged to

the cult actions. This ceremony included, on the analogies of the Isis, Magna Mater, resp.

the Attis-Adonis mysterium cults, in all possibility20 the decoration of the gods statue,

its dressing in full parade. As the indispensable equipment of the statue o f Iuppiter Dolichenus

no other decoration could come in question but an armour, made with excellent craftmanship,

probably of a precious metal.

The function of the lecticarius deiallows a further conclusion: if the statue of the god

was taken round in the procession on a carrying-chair, carried by men, as it is seen on theknown representations of the processions, belonging to the mystery cults of Isis and Magna

Mater,21 we may take it for granted that the statue must have been of a comparatively

ight weight. This excludes metall or stone and makes the use o f wood likely.

This hypothesis, if accepted, could explain two problems at the same time: firstly

it suggests the material of the foundation the Brigetio bronze plates were nailed on ; secondly

it answers to the question, why we cannot find any life-size statues of Dolichenus in the

find material of his sanctuaries known.22 If we namely accept the beforesaid as sufficient

arguments for assuming the existence of life-size procession images, made of wood and

clad in bronze or silver armour, it follows that none of these highly important cult objects

could survive the destruction o f the Dolichenus sanctuaries, which was due, almost withoutexception, to fire.23 The cuirasses of these procession images could not escape destruction,

either, except on rare occasions, as it is beyond doubt that for soldiers, looting the temples

of the Syrians, parade cuirasses of great value must have been valuable booties and the

17 Mangels konkreter Anhaltspunkte konnen wir nichts dariiber aussagen wie die silbernenfilader Dolichenus-Inschrift von Misenum beschaffen waren. (Noll, op. cit. 119.)

18Merlat,Rep. 194, 200.isMerlat,Essai 202 ff.20 Cumont op. cit.49, 51 f. (Magna Mater); 78, 89 (Isis).21Ibid.pi. II. 2; pi III 5.22 Most of the statues found in the sanctuaries are considerably smaller than the size of life,

cf.Merlat,Rep.passim.231. Toth,Acta Arch. Hung. 25 (1973) 109. ff.

108


6/7

survival of the Brigetio fragments is due to chance as well as that of the gold jewels, regarded

as the remnants of the Dolichenum treasury of Pfiinz and Saalburg.24 As there are analogous

cases of hidding cult objects of Dolichenus sanctuaries along the Rhenish and Danubian

limes,25 we may launch the conjecture that the members of the cult communities tried to

hide the parade cuirasses, used for cultic purposes, on a similar way. In this case I venture

the hypothesis that a part of the parade armour finds, found as hoards, may be connected

with the Dolichenus cult, especially in cases when remains of the Dolichenus worship

are known from the same site.A nucleus of this conception is already found in the publication of H. Klumbach

about the famous parade armour, found at Straubing, but in demonstrating this hypothesis

there are still many difficulties to meet with.26

After giving a summary of the abovesaid, it seems to be necessary to outline some

general conclusions as well.

1. In summary: The fragments of a parade armour, unearthed in the Dolichenum

of Brigetio, can be considered, in all probability, as the parade attire o f the gods one-time,

full-size, wooden image, carried on sacral processions. A further proof for this is the data

of the Misenum inscription, commemorating the donation of a silverfilum,and our certain

knowledge of processions where image of the god was carried round.2. The parade armour of the gods image, decorated with reliefs, belonged to the

formalities of the Dolichenus cult suitable from a point of view both essential and formal,

t o establish connexion with the official religious practice of the Roman army. It is highly

probable that these forms played an important role in helping the cult to take a central

role in the religious life of the army at the beginning of the 3rd century; consequently it

influenced the attitude of the emperors towards the cult, having turned from an initial

ardent partizanship to a fierce enimity, culminating in bloody atrocities.

3. The parade armoursmade in some cases of precious metalshaving belonged

in all probability to the accessories of the Dolichenus sanctuaries, add a further proof

to the richness of these and allow the assumption tha t the bruta l measurements of MaximinusThrax against the Syrians and Syrian cults might have been motivated also by the amounts

of metal, suitable for minting as well.

4. On the ground of the aforesaid we are here for the first time able to outline the

original destination of a Roman parade armour in a positive way. I do not want to assert

here that allparade armours had the same purpose which seems to be proven in our special

case, i.e. that these sumptuous products of toreutical arts, made in the Late Principate

period, are to be connected, without exception, with the Dolichenus cult; it seems to be

certain, though, that the very close relationship of the Dolichenus triangles with the parade

armours, both in design and technique, noticed, for that matter, by research, must be more

than a simple stilistic identity or a problem of workshops. I hope furthermore to haveadded by this investigation a further proof to the assumption of some scholars, who consi

dered the parade armours, or at least a part of them, as having had a role in certain religious

cults.271 have to repeat here, though, what I have already pointed to, namely that all further

hypotheses of a similar nature are to be proceeded by a very circumstantial processus of

exploration, systematization, minute philological research and expansive study of religious

history.

24Medal, Rep. 172/a-d, 174 (Pfiinz); 328, 329, 331 (Saalburg).

25 For a summary see: Toth, op. cit.215Cf. note 8 above.27Cf. L. Barkdczi'sopinion in his bookreview on KeimKlumbach, op. cit. in: Arch. Ert.

84 (1957) 107.

109


7/7

CONS T 'ATE RIA E

Oswald PanagI: Eine Wortstellungsopposition im Mykenischen............................................ 3

Janos Sarkady:Zur politischen Karte Griechenlands im mykenischen Zeitalter.................. 15

Zoltan Kaddr: Some' Problems Concerning the Scientific Authenticity of Classical Authors

on Libyan F aun a.............................................................................................................. 25

LaszloHavas:Notes sur la candidature de Catilina en 66 avant notre e re ............................. 33

BelaNemeth:Further Notes on Catullan Poetry...................................................................... 41

IstvanBorzsdk: Spectaculum. Ein Motiv der tragischen Geschichtschreibung" bei Livius

und Tacitus......................................................................................................................... 57

WolfgangHering:Die Monobiblos als Gedichtbuch .........................................,..................... 69

Tamas Gesztelyi:Mercury and Au gustus................................................................................ 77

Krisztina Szinnai:Die Bildtypen auf den Denkmalern des Kaiserkults in Aquincum und ihr

Ursprung............................................................................................................................ 83

ArpadDobo: Gouverneurs de Dacie a lepoque de Trajan (106-117)..................................... 91

LajosBalla:Prosopographia Dacica ( I I . ) ................................................................................. 95

Istvan Toth: OrnamentaIovis Dolicheni. . ..................................................................................105

Johannes lrmscher:Heinrich Schliemann und die klassische Altertumswissenschaft heute . . I l l

Documents

Toth - 1973 Ornamenta Iovis Dolicheni