Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 15. 1974 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1976)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Tóth I.: Two Misinterpreted Jupiter Dolidunus Relics from Pannonia Inferior. XV, 1974. p. 89–98.

2. The misinterpreted base of Juppiter Dolichenus from Aquincum and the question of the Aquincum Dolichenum The well-known(

47

) epigraphic base(

48

) for which I want to propose a new interpretation is to be found in the collection of stones at the Hungarian National Museum (Fig. 5.). The inscription up to now has been read as follows : [- - -] Harta filius Su\rus ex regioné Do\lica vico | Arfuaris | Silua(no) u(otum) s(oluit) \ Modesto \ et Probo | cofn)s(ulibus). The date: A.D. 228. This reading of the inscription which was complemented and remarked on by С u m о n t(

49

), served as basis for the hypothesis according to which „Harta" of Commagene origin dedicated the base in honour of Silvanus because he saw in the figure of Pannonian local god one of the sylvan deities of his homeland. Cumont's reading of the text and its interpretation based on that reading is generally accepted in the literature on the religious history of Pannonia(

50

). Thorough examination of the inscription, howewer, reveals that this reading must be corrected at certain points. Furthermore the religious historical interpretation should be corrected accordingly (Fig. 5.). First of all, the base in its present-day state is damaged, making the epigraph on it incomplete. The top of the base is missing and so is at least one line of the inscription. Surely, as was commonplace at that time, the first line contained the name of the deity invoked. In the second line

—which is today the first line

—a crack running lenghtwise makes it impossible to read with any clarity all but the first three letters, HAR. Following these three letters is a vertical stroke (perhaps from an F, I, K, P, T?), other wich can be seen the bottom portion of three of four letters. At present these last few letters cannot be acceptably identified. With the understanding that this is only a hypothesis, I propose that this line may contain the person's name formed from the origo of the person dedicating the base. With this in mind a new interpretation may be read as Har[fua]riinus. (47) GIL, III, 3490. On the basis of the inventory diary, all researchers regard the provenance of the find to be Aquincum. J. HAMPEL, AErt, XXVI, 1906, 235 — however is described it as an Intercisa find. G. ERDÉLYI, Intercisa I., AHung, XXXIII, 1954, 145., — though, it is said not to have originated from Intercisa. (48) Inventory number 78/1903. Dimensions: 77 cm. high, 28 cm. wide, 15 cm. thick. (49) F. CTJMONT, Études Syriennes. Paris, 1917, 165. (50) E. g. T. NAGY Budapest in antiquity, Bp., 1942, 390.; G. ALFÖLDY, BpR, XX, 1963, 66, 82. ID., AArchHung, XII, 1961, 113. Anm. 82.; A. MÓCSY, о. с, 743.; Z. KÁDÁR, о. с, 2. Anm. 39. —International research has aise taken up this idea; See A.H. KAN Juppiter Dolichenus. Leiden, 1943, 32.; Merlat Essai, 106., n. 7. — Only J. HAMPEL, О. C, 235, disaegrees with this mistaken reading of the text, but his reading, Hartius (t) triinus etc., did not have much influence on later research. The traditional reading of „filius" in the third or rather today's second line can be argued from both linguistic and epigraphic points of view. Linguistically this reading makes no sense because using the word „filius" after a comnomen („Harta") in the nominative without putting in the name of the father is completely useless. The traditional reading of „Harta" can by no means be interpreted as the genitive of the possible father, as would be logical in the case of filiation. From the epigraphic point of view the examination of the base does not reveal any trace of the word „filius" where it was supposed on the epigraph. Instead the letters TR or RT written into each other, followed by IINUS can be cleary read on the stone. Most likely this is the continuation of the name of the person that was started on the previous line. Its interpretation can be approached in two different ways. First the letters TR written into each other can be considered a ligature, giving the reading of TRIINUS. Contrary to this, though, the ligation of the letters T and R in this way seems rather unusual, and besides this would be the only awkwardly carved and bearly legible in an epigraph consisting of properly shaped, distinct letters. Rather, it would seem more probable that the stone-cutter had failed to carve the proper letter have and tried to correct his mistake after having carved the whole line, or at least the letter I. Thus the R, which is narrower and not shaped quite so well as the other letters of the inscription, was cut into the mistakenly carved T by trying to make use of the already existing strokes. The two letters I, which are in the middle of the word and which also seem to be a mistake, help to reinforce the hypothesis that the stone-cutter made an error when carving. To reconstruct his error, let us suppose first that he carved the letters TI at the head of the line. After realizing his error he made the correction from the letter T to R. According to the handwritten text he must have held in his hand, he now had to carve an I after the R for the second time. This hypothesis is far from being impossible. Rather, it is reinforced by the fact that there was not enough space left for the letter V at the end of the line: this letter is much narrower than all the other V's of the inscription, having been pushed to the frame. Thus the corrected reading of the text in the first lines of the inscription after the above linguistic and epigraphic emendations is as follows : Har[fua ?] ri{i}nus Sur us ... etc. The reading of the other lines does not need epigraphic correction. However, the current explanation of the expression Silua(no) in the eighth, or rather today the seventh, line must be examined. This is so because the deity's name did not need to be abbreviated for there was plenty of space left at the bottom of the base to spelled it out in full. Also, if the base was really dedicated in the honour of Silvanus, the name of the deity would hardly have been placed at the very end of the inscription, after the name and place of origin of the person who dedicated it. The 95