T r n a v s k á u n i v e r z i t a v T r n a v e F i l o z o f i c k á f a k u l t a

U n i v e r s i t a s Ty r n a v i e n s i s F a c u l t a s P h i l o s o p h i c a

A N O D O SStudies of the Ancient World

10/2010

T R N A V A 2011

A N O D O SStudies of the Ancient World10/2010

Redakčná rada/Editors:Prof. PhDr. Mária Novotná, DrSc., Prof. Dr. Werner Jobst, doc. PhDr. Marie Dufková, CSc., prof. PhDr. Klára Kuzmová, CSc.

Redakcia/Editorial Staff: prof. PhDr. Klára Kuzmová, CSc.

Počítačová sadzba/Layout: Zuzana Turzová

© Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Filozofická fakulta

Kontaktná adresa (príspevky, ďalšie informácie)/Contact address (contributions, further information):Katedra klasickej archeológie, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Hornopotočná 23, SK-918 43 Trnava+421-33-5939371; fax: +421-33-5939370 klasarch@truni.sk

Publikované s finančnou podporou Ministerstva školstva SR (Projekt VEGA č. 1/0408/09) a Pro Archaeologia Classica.Published with financial support of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (Project VEGA No. 1/0408/09) and the Pro Archaeologia Classica.

Za znenie a obsah príspevkov zodpovedajú autori.The authors are responsible for their contributions.

Tlač/Printed by: ForPress, s.r.o., Kmeťkova 1, 949 01 Nitra z tlačových podkladov Filozofickej fakulty Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave

Žiadna časť tejto publikácie nesmie byť reprodukovaná alebo rozširovaná v žiadnej forme - elektronicky či mechanicky, vrátane fotokópií, nahrávania alebo iným použitím informačného systému vrátane webových stránok, bez predbežného písomného súhlasu vlastníka vydavateľských práv.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form - electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, including web pages, without the prior written permission from the copyright owner.

ISBN 978-80-8082-500-3ISSN 1338-5410

Obálka/Cover:Motív „Zázračného dažďa“ zo stĺpa Marka Aurélia v Ríme. V okienku: Detail osthotechu z Keseciku, Turecko (Foto: A. Baldiran).Motif of the „Miracle rain“ from the column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome. In the window: Detail of the osthotech from Kesecik, Turkey (Photo: A. Baldiran).Grafické spracovanie/Graphic elaboration: Mgr. Pavol Šima-JuríčekPočítačové spracovanie/Computer elaboration: PhDr. Ivan Kuzma

Proceedings of the International Conference

THE PHENOMENA OF CULTURAL BORDERS AND BORDER CULTURES ACROSS THE PASSAGE

OF TIME

(From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity)

Dedicated to the 375th anniversary of Universitas Tyrnaviensis

Trnava, 22 - 24 October 2010

CONTENTS

PREFACE

BALDIRAN, A. An Osthotech with Hunting Scene in Çumra – Sırçalı Höyük ............................................................................................. 9

BARTUS, D. Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes ................................................................................................ 17

BLAKOLMER, F. Ethnizität und Identität in der minoisch-mykenischen Ikonographie .........................................................................................29

BOUZEK, J. Frontiers in Pre-Roman Thrace ............................................................................................................................................... 41

CHALUPA, A. Mithraism in Ancient Syria: Persian Cult on the Borders of the Roman Empire ............................................................. 57

DAŞBACAK, C. An Essay on the Heating Costs of Roman Baths .................................................................................................................. 67

DIMITROVA, Y. Rodopi Mountain Between Thrace and Aegea Region: Some Elements of a Border Culture of Early Iron Age in Southern Bulgaria .................................................................. 71

DOKSANALTI, E. M. - MIMIROĞLU, İ. M. Giresun/Aretias - Kalkeritis Island ......................................................................................................................................... 85

DUBCOVÁ, V. Götter ohne Grenzen? Transfer der religiösen Ikonographie in der Bronzezeit – Alter Orient und die frühe Ägäis ....................................................................................................................................... 103

GOLUBOVIĆ, S. – MRĐIĆ, N. Territory of Roman Viminacium - From Celtic to Slavic Tribes ....................................................................................... 117

HLAVÁČOVÁ, S. Greek Heroes on the Borders of the Historical Periods ..................................................................................................... 127

KLONTZA-JAKLOVÁ, V. The Meaning of Time in Late Bronze Age Europe and its Reflection in Material Culture .......................................... 133

KOVÁCS, P. Sarmatian Campaigns During the First Tetrarchy ............................................................................................................. 143

KOVÁLIK, L. The Gate Wall and the Doors of Greek Propyla ................................................................................................................. 155

KUČERÁKOVÁ, K. The Upland Settlements of the Púchov Culture and Germanic Tribes Beyond the North-PannonianFrontier, in the Mountainous Part of Central Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 163

LAZAR, I. The Inhabitants of Roman Celeia - An Insight into InterculturalContacts and Impacts Trough Centuries ............................................................................................................................. 175

MUSILOVÁ, M. Bratislavaer Burg - Arx Boiorum im Lichte der neuesten archäologischen FundeArchäologische Forschung - Winterreithalle ................................................................................................................................187

NÁMEROVÁ, A. Relations Between Greeks and Scythians in Black Sea Area ....................................................................................................207

NOVÁKOVÁ, L. Funeral Rites and Cultural Diversity in Hellenistic Caria Based on Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence ........................................................................................................... 213

ONDERKA, P. – DUFKOVÁ, M. Die meroitische Stätte in Wad Ben Naga, Republik Sudan ............................................................................................... 223

PAPOUŠEK, D. Centrality and Cosmopolitism in the Lukan Imagination of Paul of Tarsus:A Case of Jerusalem ................................................................................................................................................................ 247

POBEŽIN, G. Sources and History: Crossing From Archives to Historiography and Back The Development of Historiographical Method and Episteme in Respect of Using Archival Sources ................................................................................................................................... 255

POPOV, H. – JOCKENHÖVEL, A. At the Northern Borders of the Mycenaean World: Thracian Gold Mining from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age at Ada Tepe in the Eastern Rhodopes ......................................................................................... 265

ŠVAŇA, K. The influence of Roman provincial pottery manufacture on the production of the Suebic wheel-made pottery ....................................................................................................... 283

TRANTALIDOU, K. – BELEGRINOU, E. – ANDREASEN, N.Pastoral Societies in the Southern Balkan Peninsula. The Evidence From Caves Occupied During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Era ......................................................... 295

VERČÍK, M. Die griechischen Bewaffnung im Lichte des kulturellen Austausches ............................................................................ 321

ZIMMERMANN, Th.Legal Aliens on Hattian Grounds? – Tracing the Presence of ‚Foreigners‘in 3rd Millennium Central Anatolia ....................................................................................................................................... 335

Preface

The publication of ANODOS 10/2010 contains 27 articles in English and German which were presented in the form of papers and posters at the international conference “The Phenomena of Cultural Borders and Border Cultures Across the Passage of Time (From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity)” which was held in Trnava on the 22th - 24th of October 2010. The participants consisted of scholars from eleven countries (Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Slovenia, Hungary, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic, the USA and the Slovak Republic). Graduate and post-graduate students from Trnava participated in both the organization of the conference and the actual programme. The conference was organized on the occasion of the 375th anniversary of Universitas Tyrnaviensis (1635-1777), the first university in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary, which then included the historical town of Trnava. The current renewed Trnava University in Trnava (1992), situated in the Slovak Republic, follows the ideas and academic identity of the original university.

At the same time, in 2010 it had been ten years since the Department of Classical Archaeo- logy at Trnava University had established the tradition of organizing international scientific conferences on specific themes in chronological sequence – from the Late Bronze Age to Late Antiquity. The idea came from Prof. Dr. Mária Novotná, the founder of the Department and of the Classical Archaeology study programme in Slovakia. The conferences have been held every two-three years so far (in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007) and they have had the following themes: Contacts between Middle Europe and the Mediterranean, Jewellery and Costume, Arms and Armour, and Cult and Sanctuary through the Ages. Contributions have been published in four volumes of Anodos - Studies of the Ancient World (1/2001, 3/2003, 4-5/2004-2005 and 6-7/2006-2007). Another conference of this kind was organized under the title “Trade and Production through the Ages” at Selcuk University in Konya (Turkey) in 2008, in co-operation with Selcuk University (our partner institution).

The conference in 2010 and the publication of its proceedings have been financially supported by the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (Project VEGA No. 1/0408/09) and by the voluntary association Pro Archaeologia Classica.

Editors

Trnava, 25 November 2011

Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010, 17-27.

17

Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes

Dávid Bartus

Keywords: Figural Bronzes, Workshop, Brigetio, Dolichenum, Pannonia, XRF-analysis

Abstract: More than 450 figural bronze objects – which are now located in six different museums – have been collected into a database for a forthcoming monograph on the Roman figural bronzes from Brigetio. This paper presents preliminary notes about the planned publication and shows some interesting and problematic examples from the material. Evidences of bronze-working in Brigetio will also be discussed, as well as the new results of the archaeometrical analysis made on the group of bronze statuettes from the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus.

Introduction and brief history of researchA comprehensive work on Roman figural bronzes from Hungary has not yet been achieved,

the research focused mainly on publishing single objects or significant find-groups. The works of A. Hekler1, I. Paulovics2, A. Radnóti3 and Z. Oroszlán4 should be mentioned from the early research, later E. Thomas5, Zs. Bánki6, D. Gáspár7 and V. Cserményi8 studied the subject. The most important event in the Hungarian research was the 7th Conference on Ancient Bronzes, held in Székesfehérvár at 1982, with an exposition catalogue and a conference volume9.

The great importance of Brigetio was recognized already by the earlier research, due to the high quantity of the figural bronzes came from this site. We know about more than 450 objects, which is a very high number comparing with other sites in Pannonia or abroad. The most significant research in the first half of the 20th century could be connected with I. Paulovics, who published bronzes from private collections10, moreover, tried to identify a bronze workshop based on the finds from the excavation of the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus in Brigetio, carried out by Á. Milch at 189911. Despite of the rich find material and the achievements of the early research, comprehensive works on the bronzes from Brigetio do still not exist, we have mainly short publications of single objects12 or find-groups13.

I have started my research in the frame of the Magyary Zoltán Postdoctoral Scholarship, in 2009 and 2010. The main aim of the work is preparing a monograph on the Roman figural bronzes from Brigetio, which could be the first title in a series of publications on “Roman

1 Hekler 1913.2 Paulovics 1932; 1935; 1942.3 Radnóti 1968.4 Oroszlán 1939.5 Thomas 1963; 1965; 1982.6 Bánki 1972; 1984; 1994.7 Gáspár 1986.8 Cserményi 1984.9 Thomas 1982; Fitz 1984.10 Paulovics 1942.11 Paulovics 1932; 1935.12 Sprincz 1961; Radnóti 1968.13 Petényi 1993.

Dávid Bartus

18

Bronzes from Hungary”, following the structure of the earlier series published in Germany14, Switzerland15, Austria16 and Belgium17.

The materialThe figural bronzes from Brigetio are now located in different museum collections18

(Hungarian National Museum, Budapest; Kuny Domokos Museum, Tata; Klapka György Museum, Komárom; Danube Museum, Komárno; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; British Museum, London), although many of them were lost during the 20th century. Most of the lost objects can be identified in inventory books or old publications, however in most cases these records don’t contain any photos or illustrations. Another problem of the material is the uncertain provenance, only a small amount of them have been found in excavations, even less in stratigraphically confirmed contexts. Brigetio had been considered as a rich archaeological site already at the 19th century and many of the notable private collectors acquired their own bronze collection of material from Brigetio. Later, the museums could obtain a lot of them, but a huge number of the objects were lost or sold in auctions19. The number of therefore lost bronze objects is ca. 150, mainly statuettes. Besides the activity of collectors, archaeological excavations have also been started as early as the second half of the 19th century, which produced some very important finds, principally the bronzes from the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus, excavated in 1899 by Á. Milch20. The modern, systematic excavations have been started in 1992 at the territory of the civil town, which also increased the number of figural bronzes found in Brigetio with some new examples from datable contexts21.

Bronze-working in BrigetioWe have no direct evidence of any workshops producing statuettes (except the case of the

inscription of Romulianus artifex which will be discussed below), but some finds clearly show bronze-working activity in Brigetio. Several half-finished or waste products and clay moulds of fibulae have been published by É. Bónis from the collection of the Hungarian National Museum22, and there are waste products of fibulae, harness and other small objects in the Kállay Collection (now in the Kuny Domokos Museum, Tata)23. According to É. Bónis, these finds can be connected with the so-called „Militärhandwerk” of Brigetio, however the findspot of the objects is unknown. A half-finished fibula has been found recently at the excavation of the civil town of Brigetio, which indicates a workshop there or nearby24. Crucibles are also known from Brigetio, one with traces of bronze inside and molten vitreous material on the outer surface has been found in the castrum25, while an unused example is said to be found in the territory of the

14 Menzel 1960; 1966; 1986.15 Leibundgut 1976; Kaufmann-Heinimann 1977; Leibundgut 1980; Kaufmann-Heinimann 1994.16 Fleischer 1967.17 Faider-Feytmans 1979.18 I would like to thank the help of Ádám Szabó and Zsolt Mráv (Hungarian National Museum, Budapest), János

László (Kuny Domokos Museum, Tata), Emese Számadó (Klapka György Museum, Komárom), Marek Gere (Danube Museum, Komárno), Alfred Bernhard-Walcher and Georg Plattner (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) and Alex Reid (British Museum, London).

19 See for example the Trau Collection, which originally contained about 50 statuettes from Brigetio, and was sold in Switzerland (Trau 1954-55).

20 Milch 1901; Láng 1925; 1941.21 See for example the bust of a germanus, discussed below (Borhy and Számadó 2010, 250).22 Bónis 1986, 301-4, Abb. 1-2.23 Petényi 1993, 61, Abb. 3; One of the objects, which belongs to a harness (Inv. No. K1838) is wrongly identified there

as a mirror (Abb. 3: 6).24 Inv. No. 2009.001.11 (Klapka György Museum, Komárom).25 Inv. No. 54.59.25 (Hungarian National Museum, Budapest).

Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes

19

Fig. 1. Statuette of Iuppiter, said to be found in Brigetio. British Museum, London (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 2. Representation of Germani from Brigetio. 1 – Bust of a man with nodus. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest; 2 – Statuette of a bound prisoner. Kuny Domokos Museum, Tata; 3 – Head of a man with nodus. Kuny Domokos Museum, Tata (Photos D. Bartus).

canabae26. Another unused crucible without any indications of the find circumstances is in the private collection of I. Bodor (Klapka György Museum, Komárom)27. These unused crucibles could locate, at least theoretically, either pottery workshops where the crucibles were made, or bronze workshops where they had been planned to be used, but remained unused by some reason. Another evidence of the bronze working in Brigetio is a melting furnace, which was excavated in 1942 in the territory of the castrum, however, the statuette of Mercurius28 found next to the furnace was an imported object waiting for to be melted as scrap metal to produce new bronze objects.

Local production and imported objects can also be separated through analysis of the style and quality of the objects. Although comprehensive conclusions cannot be drawn until finishing the analysis of the whole material from Brigetio, some preliminary observations should be mentioned. First of all, we have some bronzes which are certainly imported, based on the very high quality of the objects. For example, the famous statuette of the throned Iuppiter in the British Museum, said to be found in Brigetio29, is one of the masterpieces of Roman minor arts (Fig. 1), and the above-mentioned Mercurius is also an imported one as stated by E. Sprincz earlier30. Some bronzes could be assigned as local products because of the subject: maybe it is the case of the representations of germani. Although there is no direct evidence on the origin and place of production, Brigetio is one of the possibilities31. A bronze bust from Brigetio, now in the Hungarian National

26 Inv. No. 60.4.22 (Hungarian National Museum, Buda- pest)

27 Kis 2010, 19, Kat. 28, XIX. tábla 28, 12. kép. 28 Sprincz 1961.29 Reg. no.: 1865,0103.36. Paulovics 1940a, 24, note 13.

mentions that older workers of his excavation in Brigetio at 1926-27 still remembered and could describe the statuette, which had been acquired by the British Museum at 1865. However, the inventory books of the British Museum, as well as the earlier publications of the statuette (Walters 1899, No. 909; Zadoks 1938, 51.) indicate „Hungary” or „Pannonia” as the provenance of the object.

30 Sprincz 1961, 260.31 Krierer 2002, 372.

Dávid Bartus

20

Fig. 3. 1 – Bronze bust representing a Germanic man with beard and nodus, found recently in Brigetio. Klapka György Museum, Komárom; 2 – Detail of the head (Photos D. Bartus).

Fig. 4. Statuettes from Brigetio representing Mars with patera. 1 – Hungarian National Museum, Budapest; 2 – Kunsthistori- sches Museum, Vienna; 3 – Differences of the posture of the statuettes in outline drawing; 4 – Differences of the posture of the statuettes on photomontage (Photos and drawings D. Bartus)

Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes

21

Museum, depicting a bearded man with the tipical nodus in the hair was well-known by the earlier research32 and two other Germanic representations: a statuette of a bound prisoner and a male head with nodus have been found in 1990 in the canabae (Fig. 2)33. A recent find from a cellar in the civil town also belongs to this group: it is a bust of a bearded man (Fig. 3), similar to the example in the Hungarian National Museum34. The bust has been found in a closed context with additional finds datable until the late Antonine and early Severian period35.

Our next example is an uncommon type of the representation of Mars holding a patera. There are three statuettes from Brigetio of this type, almost completely identical in size and posture, with only minor differences (Fig. 4)36. The statuettes depicting the bearded god in helmet, cuirass and greaves, with a spear in the raised left and a patera in the lowered right hand. The iconography of Mars is diversified with several types and variations even among the bronze statuettes37, but the majority of them go back to the so-called „Mars Ultor-type”. The representation of Mars with patera in the right and spear in the left hand is uncommon not only in the Roman, but in the Greek art as well38. However, similar representations from the fifth to third centuries BC are known from Central Italy39, primarily the so-called „Mars of Todi”40, and there are a small number of bronze statuettes of Mars with patera from the Roman Imperial period41, but they are not similar to the above-mentioned examples from Brigetio. I have found thus far only two published statuettes from the same type: one from the Collection Gréau with uncertain provenance42, and another one from the territory of Artois43. This uncommon group of statuettes surely needs further investigation, especially the pieces from Brigetio which could have been produced in the same, possibly local workshop.

Romulianus artifexThe most important evidence on a workshop producing bronze statuettes in Brigetio

is the inscribed bronze base of Romulianus, which has been found during the excavation of the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus southwest from the legionary fortress, carried out by Á. Milch in 189944. The rectangular bronze base (Fig. 5), measures 17,3 x 13,8 x 7 cm, containes two inscriptions: on one side I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) D(olicheno) P(ublius) Ael(ius) Ver/[us (centurio?)

32 Hekler 1909; Paulovics 1940b, 373; Járdányi-Paulovics 1945, 250-2; On the similar finds from Mušov and some analogies see Krierer 2002.

33 Petényi 1993.34 Borhy and Számadó 2010, 250.35 Szórádi 2010, 25-7.36 Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, Inv. No. 4.1933.1; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Inv. No. VI.2778

(LIMC II, s. v. Ares/Mars (E. Simon), 520, Nr. 113); Hollitzer Collection (Ladek 1891, 42-3, Nr. 3). 37 LIMC II, s. v. Ares/Mars (E. Simon), 513-22, Nr. 25-139.38 LIMC II, s. v. Ares/Mars (E. Simon), 509; The LIMC gives only one example of Ares(?) holding a patera on a fifth

century BC marble relief in Venice, from the Grimani Collection, but the identification of the two figures as Ares and Aphrodite is uncertain (LIMC II, s.v. Aphrodite (A. Delivorrias), 22, Nr. 142. = LIMC II, s.v. Ares (P. Bruneau), 483, No. 57). M. Robertson suggested that a figure on a fragment of a red-figure amphora by Oltos could be Ares with a lance in the left and a patera in the right (Robertson 1964-65, Fig. 67).

39 LIMC II, s. v. Ares/Mars (E. Simon), 509, Nr. 8; 521, Nr. 115; Cederna 1951, 190, Fig. 7.4-5. 40 LIMC II, s. v. Ares/Mars (E. Simon), 508-9, Nr. 1. with further reference.41 LIMC II, s. v. Ares/Mars (E. Simon), 520-1, Nr. 108-17. 42 Reinach 1913, 109.2.43 Terninck 1880, pl. 34.10.44 The excavations and the finds from the sanctuary were first published in Milch 1901, later in Láng 1941; Hörig and

Schwertheim 1987, 155-70, Nr. 236-61. Recently a hypothetical reconstrucion of the sanctuary was published by P. Ratimorská and J. Minaroviech. Here should be mentioned that the reconstruction of the door of the sanctuary was based incorrectly on an upside-down image of the Lesbian kymation (Ratimorská and Minaroviech 2010, Fig. 27).

Dávid Bartus

22

leg(ionis)] I Ad(iutricis) P(iae) F(idelis) and on the other side Romulianus arti(fex) fec[i]t45. Since we have the name of a soldier from the nearby legionary fortress, and the bronze base (originally with a statuette) was placed in the local sanctuary of Dolichenus, it is obvious that Romulianus was a local craftsman who worked in a bronze-workshop in Brigetio, which produced figural bronzes as well. The bronze base of Romulianus can be dated between the middle of the second century (based on the name Aelius) and the reign of Maximinus Thrax (when the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus was destroyed)46, so we can assume that the workshop was active in the Severian period. However, the main problem is that none of the figural bronzes from Brigetio can be securely assign to that workshop or to Romulianus itself. There are a group of bronze statuettes from the Dolichenum, found together with the inscribed base, but nothing indicates any connection with it47. The statuettes do not belong to a sculptural group, nor the style and quality of them are comparable. Since the only known product from the workshop of Romulianus is a base without any connected statuettes, the only way to define other possible products of the workshop seemed to be an archaeometrical analysis.

Data from the XRF analysisAlthough the results are usually not the most precise ones and the method has several

disadvantages in the case of bronze statuettes, we chose the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis due to the fairly low costs, the portability and the non-destructive nature of the method. The analysis was made by an Innov-x Systems Delta Standard handheld XRF analyzer. As recent studies show, XRF analysis seems to be appropriate on polished bronze surfaces for the approximate characterization of the alloying elements of the bulk material, too48. Therefore to avoid the misleading results caused by the corrosion of the surface, we removed the patina on the measured points of the objects. Since we could only polish the surface on a very small area, actually smaller than the detection area of the XRF analyzer, some 2-8% of impurities were mesasured from the surrounding corroded surface in every case. These are P (0,1-0,3%), Al (0,7-2,6%), and Si (1,3-6,5%) which had been incorporated from the soil to the corrosion layers49. Another difficulty was during the evaluation of the data, that all the bronze statuettes have traces of fire because the sanctuary of Iuppiter Dolichenus was burnt down, which can affect the composition of the alloy near the surface.

45 Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, Inv. No. 4.1933.94; Paulovics 1932; 1935, 21; AE 1937, 137; AE 1944, 129; AE 1981, 715; Tóth 1981, 160-1, Nr. 54, Abb. 10; Hörig and Schwertheim 1987, 163-4, Nr. 253, Taf. XLIX; Thomas 2000, 245, note 17.

46 Tóth 1973, 109.47 Although I. Paulovics stated that the two statuettes of Victoria from the Dolichenum were surely made by Romulianus

(Paulovics 1935, 26), we cannot accept this assumption because of the lack of evidence.48 Ortega-Feliu 2010, 1923.49 Climent-Font 1998, 230.

Fig. 5. Inscribed base from the Dolichenum (No. 1). Hungarian National Museum, Budapest (Photos D. Bartus).

Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes

23

Fig. 6. Statuettes from the Dolichenum, analyzed by XRF. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. No. 2 – Iuppiter; No. 3 – Sol; No. 4 – Luna; No. 5 – Victoria; No. 6 – Victoria; No. 7 – Wreath; No. 8 – Bull; No. 9 – Eagle (Photos D. Bartus).

Eight statuettes from the Dolichenum (Fig. 6, No. 2-9) and the inscribed base of Romulianus (Fig. 5, No. 1) was analysed50, with the following results (Fig. 7). The most surpising is the very low copper and in some cases extremely high lead content of the statuettes. In five cases, we measured more than 30% of lead51. One can see that the copper-lead amounts are in relation

50 The analysed objects are: No. 1: An inscribed bronze base, Hungarian National Museum, Budapest (HNM), Inv. No. 4.1933.104; No. 2: Iuppiter, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.98; No. 3: Sol, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.96; No. 4: Luna, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.95; No. 5: Victoria, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.99; No. 6: Victoria, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.100; No. 7: Wreath, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.105; No. 8: Bull, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.101; No. 9: Eagle, HNM, Inv. No. 4.1933.102.

51 A recent study, based on bronze objects from the Louvre and the Vatican Museum shows that lead content increases from the first century BC to the third century AD, but the measured values are under 20% in all cases (Robbiola and Portier 2006, Fig. 2).

Dávid Bartus

24

Cu Pb Sn Zn Fe Ni Ag Sb Al Si P

Base, lower part (No. 1) 81,07 9,43 1,05 3,48 0,30 ND ND ND 1,12 3,24 0,30

Iuppiter (No. 2) 74,28 3,99 8,68 7,71 0,58 0,11 1,39 0,90 0,85 1,33 0,16

Sol (No. 3) 60,49 16,25 5,41 12,37 1,38 0,03 ND 0,18 0,96 2,86 0,07

Base, upper part (No. 1) 58,95 17,43 1,38 17,16 0,36 0,05 ND ND 1,27 3,19 0,21

Eagle (No. 9) 55,93 18,19 14,73 4,86 1,43 ND ND ND 1,65 2,96 0,25

Bull (No. 8) 55,90 20,08 3,89 13,31 0,73 ND ND ND 2,58 3,41 0,10

Base, object on top (No. 1) 47,25 33,49 3,19 8,19 0,37 0,07 ND 0,27 1,82 5,07 0,27

Wreath (No. 7) 37,96 48,10 9,53 0,82 0,24 ND ND ND 1,29 1,84 0,22

Luna (No. 4) 32,61 31,02 6,19 20,68 4,13 0,22 ND ND 1,33 3,62 0,19

Victoria (No. 5) 32,24 29,33 6,31 20,34 3,56 0,15 ND ND 1,22 6,54 0,30

Victoria (No. 6) 30,78 57,97 7,79 0,88 0,33 ND ND ND 0,78 1,32 0,15

Victoria (No. 6) 19,81 66,96 8,05 1,16 0,60 ND ND ND 1,22 1,92 0,27

Fig. 7. Results of the XRF-analysis (ND = non-detectable).

Fig. 8. Relation of copper and lead in the analyzed alloys.

Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes

25

Fig. 9. Ternary diagram showing the ratio of the lead, tin and zinc in the analyzed material.

Fig. 10. Differencies between the statuettes of Victoria No. 5 and No. 6 (Photos D. Bartus).

with each other: as the copper content decreases, the lead content increases, so the sum of the two elements is between 75-90% in most cases (Fig. 8). The amount of lead is also very high comparing to other alloying elements, the tin and the zinc, as the ternary diagram clearly shows (Fig. 9). Lead usually produces segregates in copper alloys, which could explain the high percentages, but it is unlikely that the relatively big detection area of the XRF analyzer measured lead segregations in almost every case52. Other possible explanation can be the enrichment of lead in the surface caused by fire when the sanctuary was burnt down. As we can see, several uncertainties emerged during the evaluation of the data, so the analysis is rather qualitative than quantitative. However, the analyzed statuettes have been found together,

affected by the same environment, therefore can be compared with each other. First of all, there is no connection between the composition of the statuette base and any

of the statuettes, which means that unfortunately no additional products of Romulianus can be identified. We measured the different parts of the base and even these produced various results, thus there is no special „recipe” of the alloy used by Romulianus. Another important result is the almost exactly same composition of one of the Victoria statuettes (No. 5) and the bust representing Luna (No. 4): the difference between the alloying elements is around 1%. Such a similar values cannot be explained by coincidence, especially as we analyzed the patina of both statuettes with similarly matching results53. The almost exactly same composition indicates that

52 The experiments published by I. Ortega-Feliu and her colleagues show that the relatively large detection area of the XRF is less dependant on the selection of measured points than the conventional PIXE method (Ortega-Feliu 2010, 1922-3).

53 Cu: 55,6%/55,04%; Pb: 4,91%/4,98%; Sn: 1,96%/0,77%; Zn: 17,79%/18,93%; Fe: 3,22%/5,44%; Ni: 0,08%/0,1%; Ag: 0,01%/0,01%; Sb: 0,02%/0,03%; S: 12,92%/12,65%; P: 3,48%/2,06%.

Dávid Bartus

26

the statuettes were presumably made in the same – not necessarily local – workshop. Comparing the Victoria No. 5. with the other statuette of Victoria from the Dolichenum (No. 6), one can notice that the composition of the alloys are different. According to the very high amount of the lead, the Victoria No. 6 seems much more a lead statuette than a bronze one, which can also be seen visually by the greyish color of the object. The other statuette (No. 5) has half as much lead, but a high (20%) zinc content. We measured the Victoria No. 6 again on the opposite side, but the results were similar: very low copper, extremely high lead and almost no zinc content. It should be emphasized again, that the Victoria No. 6 is the worst preserved in the analyzed material, which may affect the results of the analysis, but we tried to measure the less damaged parts of the statuette. Despite of the different composition, the two statuettes were most likely made in the same workshop, probably with the help of the same mould, but the statuettes are not exact duplicates, contrary to opinions of the earlier research54. It is clearly visible despite of the bad condition of the Victoria No. 6, that the surface of its back is flat (Fig. 10), while on the back of the other statuette folds of the drapery can be seen. Although we can assume that these two statuettes of Victoria came from the same workshop as the above-mentioned Luna, unfortunately we cannot attribute them even now to Romulianus itself.

Dávid Bartus, PhD.Eötvös Loránd University of SciencesDepartment of Classical and Roman ArchaeologyMúzeum krt. 4/BH-1088 Budapestbartusdavid@gmail.com

BibliographyAE = L´Année épigraphiqueBánki, Zs. 1972. Az István Király Múzeum Gyűjteménye. Római kori figurális bronz, ezüst és ólom tárgyak. István Király

Múzeum közleményei B.30. Székesfehérvár.Bánki, Zs. 1984. “Bemerkungen zum Lararium von Sárszentmiklós”. Alba Regia 21: 83-6.Bánki, Zs. 1994. “Venus pudica und Jupiterstatuetten aus Gorsium”. In Akten des 10. Internationalen Tagung über antike

Bronzen. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 45, edited by J. Ronke, 37-40. Stuttgart.

Bónis, E. 1986. “Das Militärhandwerk der legio I Adiutrix in Brigetio”. In Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 13. Internationalen Limeskongresses, Aalen 1983. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 20, edited by C. Unz, 301-7. Stuttgart.

Borhy, L. and E. Számadó. 2010. “Komárom-Szőny, Vásártér”. In Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2009 (Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009), edited by J. Kisfaludi, 250-1. Budapest.

Cederna, A. 1951. “Carsòli”. Notizie degli scavi: 170-224.Climent-Font, A. et al. 1998. “Characterisation of archaeological bronzes using PIXE, PIGE, RBS and AES

spectrometries”. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 134.2: 229-36.

Cserményi, V. 1984. “Statuettes de Vénus en Pannonie”. Alba Regia 21: 135-8.Faider-Feytmans, G. 1979. Les bronzes romains de Belgique. Mainz.Fitz, J. (ed.) 1984. Bronzes romains figurés et appliqués et leurs problèmes techniques. Alba Regia 21. Budapest.Fleischer, R. 1967. Die römischen Bronzen aus Österreich. Mainz.Gáspár, D. 1986. Römische Kästchen aus Pannonien. Budapest.Hekler, A. 1909. “Eine neue Bronzebüste eines Germanen”. Mannus I: 277-9.Hekler, A. 1913. “Római bronzemlékek a Nemzeti Múzeumban”. Archaeologiai Értesítő 33: 210-31, 286-7.Hörig, M. and E. Schwertheim. 1987. Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans

l‘Empire Romain 106. Leiden.Járdányi-Paulovics, I. 1945. “Germán alakok pannoniai emlékeken – Germanendarstellungen auf pannonischen

Denkmälern”. Budapest Régiségei 15: 205-81.Kaufmann-Heinimann, A. 1977. Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz. I: Augst. Mainz.Kaufmann-Heinimann, A. 1994. Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz. V: Nachträge und Neufunde. Mainz.

54 Paulovics 1935, 26; Kaufmann-Heinimann 1998, 18, Anm. 46; Hörig and Schwertheim 1987, Nr. 244; Tóth 1976, 92.

Roman Figural Bronzes From Brigetio: Preliminary Notes

27

Kaufmann-Heinimann, A. 1998. Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica. Forschungen in Augst 26. Augst.Kis, Z. 2010. Római kori tárgyak a komáromi Bodor-gyűjteményből. Unpublished BA-thesis. Budapest.Krierer, K. R. 2002. “Germanenbüsten auf dem Kessel. Die Henkelattaschen des Bronzekessels”. In Das germanische

Königsgrab von Mušov in Mahren, edited by J. Peška and J. Tejral, 367-86. Mainz.Ladek, F. 1891. “Alterthümer von Brigetio”. Archaeologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn XIV: 40-6.Láng, F. 1941. “Das Dolichenum von Brigetio”. In Laureae Aquincenses memoriae Valentini Kuzsinszky dicatae

2. Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. II. No. 11, 165-81. Budapest.Leibundgut, A. 1976. Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz. II: Avenches. Mainz.Leibundgut, A. 1980. Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz. III: Westschweiz, Bern und Walls. Mainz.LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae II (München-Zürich 1984).Menzel, H. 1960. Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland. I: Speyer. Mainz.Menzel, H. 1966. Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland. II: Trier. Mainz.Menzel, H. 1986. Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland. III: Bonn. Mainz.Milch, A. 1901. “A bregetiumi Jupiter-dolycenus szentély”. A Komáromvármegyei és városi Múzeum-Egyesület 1900. évi

értesítője XIV: 27-35.Oroszlán, Z. 1939. “Állatalakos kulcsnyelek Pannoniából”. Dolgozatok 15: 115-33.Ortega-Feliu, I. et al. 2010. “A comparative study of PIXE and XRF corrected by Gamma-Ray Transmission for the

non-destructive characterization of a gilded roman railing”. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268.11-12: 1920-3.

Paulovics, I. 1932. “Római művésznév Brigetióból”. Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny 56:183.Paulovics, I. 1935. “Római kisplasztikai műhely Pannoniában”. Pannonia I: 21-27.Paulovics, I. 1940a. “Savaria Capitoliuma”. Archaeologiai Értesítő I: 19-33. Paulovics, S. 1940b. “Tonform für Germanenkopf von Brigetio und einige “barbarische” Bronzeköpfe aus Pannonien”.

In Serta Hoffileriana, 369-73. Zagreb.Paulovics, I. 1942. “Brigetioi kisbronzok magángyűjteményekből”. Archaeologiai Értesítő III: 216-45.Petényi, S. 1993. “Neuere germanische Statuen aus Brigetio”. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1993: 57-62.Radnóti, A. 1948. “Bronz Mithras-tábla Brigetióból”. Archaeologiai Értesítő IX: 137-46.Ratimorská, P., and J. Minaroviech. 2010. “Roman Sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus in Brigetio and its Hypothetical

Reconstruction”. In Anodos 9/2009, 119-32. Trnava.Reinach, S. 1913. Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine IV. Paris.Robbiola, L., and R. Portier. 2006. “A global approach to the authentication of ancient bronzes based on the

characterization of the alloy–patina–environment system”. Journal of Cultural Heritage 7: 1-12.Robertson, M. 1964-65. “Oltos’s Amphora”. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 47: 107-17.Sprincz, E. 1961. “Mercurius bronzszobrocskája Szőnyből”. Archaeologiai Értesítő 88: 258-60.Szórádi, Zs. 2010. Terra sigillata. Leletek a Brigetio-Vásártéren 2009-ben feltárt pincéből. Unpublished BA-thesis.

Budapest.Terninck, A. 1880. L’Artois souterrain III. Arras.Thomas, E. B. 1963. Rómaikori háziszentélyleletek Tamásiból. Szekszárd. Thomas, E. B. 1965. A nagydémi Lararium. Veszprém.Thomas, E. B. 1982. Römische Bronzeindustrie in Pannonien. Székesfehérvár.Thomas, E. 2000. “Signaturen Metall verarbeitender Künstler und Kunsthandverker in der römischen Kaiserzeit”.

In From the Parts to the Whole. Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28 – June 1, 1996, Volume 2, edited by C. Mattusch, A. Brauer and S. E. Knudsen, 241-7. Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. Ser. 39. Portsmouth.

Tóth, I. 1973. “Destruction of the Sanctuaries of Iuppiter Dolichenus at the Rhine and in the Danube Region (235-238)”. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae XXV: 109-16.

Tóth, I. 1976. “Two misinterpreted Juppiter Dolichenus Relics from Pannonia Inferior”. Alba Regia 15: 89-98.Tóth, E. 1981. “A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum feliratos fémtárgyai”. Folia Archaeologica XXXII: 145-69.Trau 1954-1955 = Antikensammlung. Nachlass Franz Trau, Wien. Auktion in Luzern, Galerie Fischer. I-III. Luzern.Walters, H. B. 1899. Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman and Etruscan in the Department of the Greek and Roman

Antiquities, British Museum. London.Zadoks Jitta, A. 1938. “Juppiter Capitolinus”. Journal of Roman Studies 28.1: 50-5.

Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010.

341

UNIVERSITAS TYRNAVIENSISF A C U L T A S P H I L O S O P H I C A

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

PUBLICATIONS

1. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 1/2001. Proceedings of the International Sym‑ posium The Mediterranean and Central Europe in Contacts and Confrontations. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2001, A4, 231 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑02‑2.

Price: 20 EUR

2. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 2/2001. In Honour of Mária Novotná. Trnava 2002, A4, 338 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑40‑5.

Price: 30 EUR

3. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 3/2003. Proceedings of the International Symposium Ancient Jewellery and Costume in Course of Time. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2004, A4, 229 pages. ISBN 80‑8082‑006‑6.

Price: 25 EUR

4. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 4-5/2004-2005. Proceedings of the International Symposium Arms and Armour through the Ages. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2006, A4, 262 pages. ISBN 80‑8082‑109‑7.

Price: 35 EUR

5. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 6-7/2006-2007. Proceedings of the International Symposium Cult and Sanctuary through the Ages. From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity. Trnava 2008, A4, 520 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑228‑6.

Price: 45 EUR

6. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 8/2008. In Honour of Werner Jobst. Trnava 2010, A4, 400 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑384‑9.

Price: 40 EUR

7. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World 9/2009. In Honour of Marie Dufková. Trnava 2010, A4, 143 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑385‑6.

Price: 16 EUR

8. ANODOS - Supplementum 1. Zentren und Provinzen der Antiken Welt. Trnava 2001, A4, 111 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑03‑0.

Price: 12 EUR

9. ANODOS - Supplementum 2. Probleme und Perspektiven der Klassischen und provinzial‑römischen Archäologie. Trnava 2002, A4, 79 pages. ISBN 80-89074-36-7.

Price: 12 EUR

Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 10/2010.

342

10. ANODOS - Supplementum 3. Stadt und Landschaft in der Antike. Trnava 2003, A4, 196 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑76‑6.

Price: 20 EUR

11. ANODOS - Supplementum 4. Forschungen und Methoden vom Mittelmeerraum bis zum Mitteleuropa. Trnava 2007, A4, 124 pages. ISBN 978-80-8082-167-8.

Price: 15 EUR

12. ANODOS - Supplementum 5. Rüstung und Waffen in der Antike. Trnava 2011, A4, 124 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑435‑8.

Price: 10 EUR

13. KeLemANTIA - BrIgeTIO. Tracing the Romans on the Danube. Guide 2003, 62 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑61‑8.

Price: 10 EUR

14. KeLemANTIA - BrIgeTIO. Auf den Spuren der Römer an der Donau. Wegweiser 2003, 62 pages. ISBN 80‑89074‑62‑6.

Price: 10 EUR

15. BOHUSLAV NOVOTNÝ (1921-1996). Biografia. Bibliografia. Spomienky. Trnava 2004, 95 pages. ISBN 80‑8082‑011‑2.

Price: 10 EUR

16. Klasická archeológia a exaktné vedy. Výskumné metódy a techniky I. Trnava 2008. A4, 123 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑229‑3.

Price: 10 EUR

17. Klasická archeológia a exaktné vedy. Výskumné metódy a techniky II. Trnava 2010. A4, 199 pages. ISBN 978‑80‑8082‑317‑7.

Price: 16 EUR