ACTA CLASSICA UNIVERSITATIS SCIENTIARUM

DEBRECENIENSIS

TOMUS VI 1970

DEBRECINI

CO NSP ECT US MATERIAE

Imre Tegyey: Messenia and the Catastrophe at the End of LH III B ................................. 3Janos Sarkady: Die Kalendergruppen Nord- und Mittelgriechenlands................................. 9Zsigmond Ritook: Dichterweihen .......................................................................................... 17Zoltan Kaddr: liber die Klassifikation in der Ornithologie des Aristoteles............................. 27Laszlo Havas: Crassus et “la premiere conjuration de Catilina” ............................................ 35Wolfgang Hering: Geographie und romische P o litik ............................................................... 45Istvan Borzsak: Tacitus-Probleme ........................................................................................ 53Lajos Balia: Some Problems of the History of Dacia in the Severan Age .......................... 61Istvan Toth: The Cult of Iuppiter Sol Invictus Deus Genitor in D a c ia ................................. 71Viktor Julow: The Source of a Hungarian Popular Classic and its Roots in Antiquity . . . 75In memoriam Emerici Trencsenyi-Waldapfel........................................................................... 85

87

ACTA CLASSICA UNIV. SCIENT. DEBRECEN. VI. 1970. p. 71—74.

THE CULT OF IUPPITER SOL INVICTUS DEUS GENITOR IN DACIA

BY ISTVAN TOTH

As it is known, in the religious life of Roman Dacia the different oriental cults—that of Syria and Asia Minor—played an extraordinarily important part.1 Especially numerous relics of Mithras’ worship remained, wich became widespread from the end of the second century onward, exp. in the first decades of the third century, throughout the whole terri­tory of the province.2 From this relic material, wich is important even in relation to the whole Empire, originate those two epigraphic monuments, to which we want to draw attention briefly, in connection with the names of deity standing without analogy3—to our knowledge—among Mithraic dedications.

The place of occurrence of the relics in question, it seems, is not cleared up sufficiently. The research traces them generally from Hosszutelek (Dorstadt, Dostat), from the area of the ancient Sacidava,4 whence they turned up from secundary use of the 18th century.5 But, we cannot leave without consideration the assumption of G. Teglas according to whom the monuments went eventually from Varhely (Sarmizegetusa) or Gyulafehervar (Alba Julia) to Hosszutelek, and in this case the Mithraeum, to whose inventory the monuments belon­ged, can supposed to be in Apulum or Sarmizegetusa.6 It can be taken for certain, however, on the basis of the specific dedication that both relics may be connected with the same Mithraic community.7

1. Cultual relief with representation of Mithras tauroctonos,8 Io(vi) S(oli) \ deo genitori \ r(upe) n(ato) ! L(ucius) Aeli(us) Hylas X X l(ibertus) pr(o) sa(lute) et Horientis

1 Summarily on Dacian religious life: (L. W. Jones., The Cults of Dacia. Univ. California Publications in Class. Phil. IX/8 (1929) 245-305.; on the oriental cults: O. Floca, Ephemeris Da- coromana 12 (1935) 204 ff.

2 Cf.: M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae (ab­breviated: CIMRM) II. (Den Haag 1960) 274 ff. Cf. further: A. Popa., Omagiu lui C. Daicoviciu. Bucuresti 1960, 443 ff.; I. I. Rttssit, SCIV 1960. 405 ff.—Cf. further: St. Toth Acta Class. Univ. Debr. 3 (1967) 78.

3 Cf. CIMRM I—II : “Epigraphical index”4 CIMRM II. nos. 2006-2008; cf. Tabula Imperii Romani-Budapest L:34—Aquincum-Sar-

mizegetusa-Sirmium (Budapest 1968) ed. by S. Soproni. 98 s.v.5 Cf.: C. Gooss, AEMO 1 (1877) 117 f.; F. Studniczka, ibid. 8 (1884) 34.B G. Teglas, Hunyad varmegye tdrtenete (History of the County Hunyad). Budapest 1902, 79;

The compilation of the Mithraic relics of Apulum and Sarmizegetusa, together with the previous literature, see CIMRM II 277 ff., 279 ff.

7 Probably to this same Mithraeum can be connected another Soli invicto Mithrae dedicated fragment: CIL III 968 = 7730 = CIMRM I I 2009.

8 CIL III 7729 ( = 968) =ILS 4241=C1MRM 11 2006-2007 = 0. Tudor, Istoria sclavajului in Dacia Romana. Bucuresti 1957, 270. No. ]25. = A. Kerenyi, A daciai szemelynevek — Die Per- sonennamen von Dazien. Diss. Pann. I. 9. Budapest 1941, 172, No. 1998.; See further: Tudor, Lato­mus 23 (1964)285.

71

fil(ii) sui et Apuleia(e) eius |5 sig(num) numinis cum absidata \ ex votopos(uit). Cp.: Romula (Resca)9— Nymphis \ Hylas vi \ cesimar(ius) \ ex v(oto) p(osuit); the person dedicating the two inscriptions can undoubtedly be considered one and the same person.10 The office of L. Aelius Hylas and the exact dating of the inscriptions are both doubtful. According to D. Tudor11 the person erecting the inscription of Romula was a slave, who at the time of the offering of the relief became—by the evidence of his praenomen and nomen—a freedman and owed his civic rights to the emperor Commodus.12 In this case the terminus a quo of the dedication of the Mithras inscription is: 191-192 A.D.13 It is curious, however, that the inscriptions of Hylas omit the generally customary indications of the imperial dominus or patronus,14 15 So there is a possibility that L. Aelius Hylas was the freedman of a private person,13 and in consequence of this the above dating becomes doubtful. The peculiarities of the relic in form and its relations to religious history still make it suitable for approximative dating, even without the specification of the problems in connection with Hylas’ office;16 and that is: the end of the second century or the first half of the third century.17 Hylas was certainly a well-to-do freedman.18

2. Altar.19 Io(vi?) S(oli) [invi(cto) ?deoge] \ nitori [ -------- Art] | emidorus de[c(urio) ?-------- 7 I sacer(dos) creatus a Palm[yre] |J nis do(mo) Macedonia et adve[n] | tor huiustempli pro se \ et suis fecit. M. J. Vermaseren completed the first line and the personal name otherwise after the CIL—[invic] to S [oli deo ge] -nitori etc., resp. P. [Ael(ins) Art]emidorus— though on the basis of the use of the epitheton ornans „genitor“ it can be taken for certain that this inscription invoked the same solar deity as the former; but at the same time— relying on the first publication of the relic20—the praenomen and nomen of the dedicatingperson still seems questionable. In the reading and completion of DE[-----] followingthe cognomen, the assumption of F. Cumont—de[orum ?]—was rightly rejected by A. D. Nock.21 Thus on this point—although conditionally—we have to remain with the above given reading of the CIL. In Dacia, the municipal aristocracy, though not in overhelming majority, participated in the cult of Mithras.22 If Artemidorus held the office of the supposed decurionatus in this province, and if the place of occurence is really Sacidava, then in con­nection with this office the near by Apulum should receive primary consideration.23 In

9 CIL III 13 798 = Tudor, ibid. 243. No. 8, = Kerenyi, ibid. 171. No. 1997.™ Tudor, ibid 113 f„ 181.11 Ibid. 181.12 Cf.: PIR2 A 1482.; O. Hirschfeld, Kais. Verw.2 Berlin 1905, 108: „vielleicht ein Freigelas-

sener des Aelius Caesar?”13 PIR2 ibid.14 See: Tudor, ibid 244 ff., 252 ff.; H. Dessau, ILS I. p. 325 ff.; Cf. further the detailed compre­

hensive monography of E. Chantraine: Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der rom. Kaiser. Studien zu ihrer Nomenklatur. (Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei.) Bd. 1. (Wiesbaden 1947) 14 ff.; he considered only those persons as imperial slaves who indicated this on their inscriptions.

15 Cf. Hirschfeld, ibid. 106-108.—The name L. Aelius was widespread in Italy: Dessau, ILS III. Indices, p. 3 ff., in Dacia: Kerenyi, ibid. 3 ff.

16 Cf.: Hirschfeld, ibid. 80, 108.; Tudor, ibid. 181.; A. Dobo, Publicum portorium Illyrici. Diss. Pann. II. 16. Budapest 1940,153.; Fr. Vittinghof RE ’’Portorium” 368, 379.

17 To this refers the piling of ligatures, especially the use of jointly written DO, CE, and the peculiar syncretistic dedication as well.

18 Cf. the literature referred to in the notes 15-16; the picture of fine workmanship see: CIMRM II. fig. 526.

19 CIL III 7728 (cf. 12 555) = CIMRM II No. 2008.20 Cf. Studniczka, ibid, the published picture and epigraphic description.21 Fr. Cumont, OR4 (Paris 1929) 276. note 39.; A. D. Nock, JRS 27 (1937) 109.22 Cf. CIMRM II No. 2031. {bis)—decuriones; No. 1998.—haruspex coloniae; Nos. 1917,

2034, 2067.—Augustales.23 For the compilation of the relic material of the municipalian officials see,: Kerenyi, ibid.

242 ff., 268, 275.

72

Apulum the municipium was organized under Marcus which received the status of colonia from Commodus; later Septimius Severus granted the military town similarly the status of municipium,24 25 In this case the terminus post quern of the offering of the altar could be 161-180 or evidently 180 or 192 A. D. Moreover, not even on the basis of the ligatures and historical considerations the relic could be dated earlier than the second half of the second century, the probable dating—corresponding with that of the relief—is in this case also the end of the second or the first half of the third century.

The expression adventor huius templi is to be interpreted that Artemidorus became the initiated of the Mithras-mystery elsewhere, and was regarded as a newcomer in the given community.23 The indication of extra-Dacian domus seems to support this too.

The majority, or the whole of the Mithras-community in question, was formed evi­dently of those Palmyreni who elected the adventor Artemidorus to be their priest. From the reign of Hadrian onward one can show a relatively significant Semitic element in Dacia, among them many Palmyrans who can be brought into connection mainly with those numeri which were organized from Syrians and Palmyrans.26 The presence of this Semitic —Palmyran—element can be observed in close groups nearest to Sacidava on the central part of the limes Alutanus and in Romula, as well as in Apulum, Sarmizegetusa and Tibi- scum.27 Till now research knows of four irregular formations on the territory of Dacia, organized from Syrian, likely Palmyran elements:28 numeri Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium (Tibiscum, Zsuppa, Juppa) , Optatianorum (Optatiana, Zutorj, Porolissensium (Porolis- sum, Mojgrady, Syrorum (limes Alutanus, Romula, Rescaj, the existence of similar other units, however, cannot be considered impossible at all.29 If the Mithraic-community in ques­tion could not be localized here, but in Apulum or Sarmizegetusa, then first we have to think of the veterans and their relatives of Palmyran origin.30 It is necessary to point out two circumstances here. First, the Palmyrans coming to Dacia cultivated very inten­sively the worship of their native gods—Bel, Malachbel, Jarhibol (deus Sol Hierobolus) etc.31—though they naturally joined in the cult of other deities as well, especially those which where popular on the territory of the province.32 Secondly, it is known that in the Palmyran religon the idea of fertility played a significant part, the creative, begetting aspect of the male gods forming the centre of the cult.33

On the basis of the above, we can arrive at the conclusion that the background of the peculiar dedication in question—Iovi Soli invicto deo genitori, resp. perhaps [Invic]to ( ?) S[oli deo ge]nitori—were probably formed by a combination of the religious ideas of a cul- tual community, consisting of Semite, but chiefly of Palmyran elements. This signifies that the role of the Palmyreni on the altar inscription can very likely be considered determining

24 Recently on this in detail: Vittinghof in: Studien zur europaischen Vor- und Friihgeschichte. Neumunster 1968, 137 sk.

25 Cf.: Apul., Met. XI, 26 and together: Cumont, ibid.'. Nock, ibid.26 Cf.: Kerenyi, ibid 155; ff Russu, AISC 4 (1941-43) 222 ff.; id., AISC 5 (1944-48) 290 f.27 See the former and following notes.28 W. Wagner, Die Dislokation der rom. Auxiliarformationen. Berlin 1938, 202 ff.; A. T. Rowell,

RE „Numerus“ 2549 ff. H. Cadies, 45 BRGK 1964 (1965) 182, 205.; L. Balia, A debreceni Deri Muzeum Evkonyve 50 (1968) in press.

29 L. Balia, ibid, supposed that the Palmyreni mentioned on Sacidava, were the soldiers of a Palmyran numerus, till now not known more closely.

30 See: note 26 above.31 Bel: A. Stein, Die Reichsbeamten von Danzien. Diss. Pann. I 12. Budapest 1944, 63; Malach­

bel: CIL III 7954, 7955, 7956, 12580, ACMITr 1929. 313; Arh. Mold. 2—3 (1964) 299; Jarhibol: CIL III 1108; cf. further: CIL III 7954 and moero verzl. Betz, Omagiului C. Daicoviciu 33 ff. — Sum­marily cf.: T. G. Fevrier, La religion des Palmyreniens. Paris 1931, 70, 82, 125; O. Eissfeldt Tempel und Kulte syrischer Stadte in hellenistisch—romanischer Zeit. Leipzig 1941, 88 (mistaken).

32 Cf. e.g.: CIL III 7896 — Kerenyi, ibid. No. 2184.33 Cf.: Fevrier, ibid, passim; Eissfeldt, ibid. 87. f.

73

in the development of the Dacian cult of the mentioned deity. The dedicators of the in­scriptions in question—L. Aelius Hylas libertus and [-----Art]emidorus—undoubtedly cameas newcomers into this community, since its Mithraic character loosened the supposed separation of the cult of the dii patrii, based on descent.34 In the formulation of the dedi­cations however, they took primarily the ideas of this mostly Semitic community into consideration, and this can be in the invocation of the unparalleled syncretistic deity. This deity cannot identified simply with the Iranian Mithras: this apparent not only from its identification with Juppiter (Zeus), but first of all from the epithet genitor, which elsewhere is completly lacking beside the name of Mithras.35 Taking into account, the attachement of the Palmyrans, even when far removed from their homeland, to their native gods, we have to realize that on the Sacidavan inscription Mithras bore the features of a great Semitic Ba‘al as well. This deity would be most probably Ba‘al Samin—the god of heaven36—who stood on the summit of the Palmyran pantheon, and whose figure appears—in such manner that it can parallel with the inscription of Sacidava—on the great cultual relief of the Mith- raeum in Dura too,37 which was established by the Palmyran soldiers, and it is known that this deity stood near in its essential features to the Iranian Ahuramazda.38

Examining the occurence of the epitheton ornans genitor beside the names of gods,39 a place of Macrobius seems to be most characteristic in connection with the relics in ques­tion: . . .Sol auctor spiritus caloris ac luminis humanae vitae genitor et custos est, et ideo nascentis Aalgcov id est deus creditur. . . (Saturn. I, 19,17.) This late pagan conception can be tra ced back in the last analysis to Hellenic-Semitic ideas40 and comprises the final form of those solar pantheis tic religious conceptions, to which the now examined relics adapt them­selves too.

34 On this problem in general and detail, see: Nock, ibid.35 Cf. CIMRM I—II. passim; Indices', The genitor as epitheon omans appears on stone monu­

ments — to our knowledge — connected with the name of other deity, in only one instance: in the case of the Punic god worshipped in North Africa: deo patrio Saturno genitori Aug. etc. See: M. Leglay, Saturne Africain. I. (Paris 1966) 114 ff. and II. Jandices s.v. More often meet we with this expression by the auctors (cf. below note 39) in detail: Thes. 1. L. s.v. „genitor“ II/B.

36 Cumont, ibid. 118.; Fevrier, ibid. 141 f., see also the following note.37 CIMRM I. Nos. 34, 40; detailed explanation see: M. L. Rostowzeff, in: Rom. Mitt. 49 (1934)

180 ff. above all: 186 and id., Dura-Europos and its Art. Oxford 1938, 64 f.38 Cumont, ibid. 137, 276 note 36.39 The epithet appears predominantly besides the names of Jupiter, Sol and Oceanus, cf. Th.L.L.

bid.40 Cf. Wesener, RE 14 (1930) 194 skk.; Cumont, ibid. 181 ff.

74