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.

stars, the Aquiîa was connected to this configuration (

35

). Both of astronomical references made the Capricorn clearly suitable for the system of symbols of the Roman army, as it truely was : this zodiacal symbol was used as an emblem for several legions(

36

). Among the legions in Pannónia, legio XIIII Gemina stationed at Carnuntum used this symbol, as seen on the emblem of this legio on a number of minor stone and bronze findings(

37

). Also the tympanum relief of sanctuary of the military encampment at Carnuntum that was identified not long ago(

38

) and that does not leave any doubt as to its official use contains the figure of a capricorne). With regard to the above it would seem reasonable that the Capricorn on the cultic triangle at the Brigetio Dolichenum was connected with the legio XIIII Gemina at Carnuntum. This can be done by supposing that one of the soldiers of the Carnuntum legion(

40

) set up the triangle at the Dolichenum in Brigetio; or simply by supposing that the cultic triangle was executed at a workshop in Carnuntum. In any case before A.D. 214 Brigetio was part of Pannónia Superior(

41

), making it quite possible that the town had many contacts with the legion stationed in the province's chief town. There exists still another representation of a Capricorn among the findings of the Dolichenus cult. This one is part of the decorations of two altars, which have almost the very same inscriptions, that were excavated at Obernburg in Upper Germany(

42

). There, too, it is the emblem of a legion : the figure of (35) A. JEREMIÁS, О. С, 1485. (36) E. DiEZ, in Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda dedicate (Römische Forschungen in Nieder-Österreich, V, 1966, 105.) (37) Cf. S. SOPRONI, FolArch, XVII, 1965, 119 and further literature. (38) Cf. CSIR, I. 3. (Wien 1970) S. 11, Nr. 153. — From the literature see mainly E. DIEZ, О. C, 105. (39) On the basis of the above mentioned works we must reject the doubts of B. KUZSINSZKY, AÉrt, XXIII, 1903, 63., and I. PAULOVICS, LA, IL, Diss Pann, 11/11, 1941, 142. — concerning the originality of the Stone finds representing two capricoms and bearing the name of the legio XIIII Gemina. Neither elements of form nor of content give any reason to doubt the authenticity of the two stone finds. Cf. J. CESKA — R. HO§EK, Inscriptiones Pannóniáé Superioris in Slovacia Transdanubiana asservatae. Brno, 1967; L. BARKÓCZI, RIU, II. 505. (40) The Dolichenus cult was widespread among the soldiers of the legio XIIII Gemina: Merlat Répertoire, 74 (Municipium Latobicorum) : bf. cos. leg. XIIII G.; ibid., 108 (Carnuntum); mil. leg. XIIII G.librarius numeris, eus. arm., signif(er), optio o(cta)u(i) pr.pr., candidatus.; ibid., 114: (centurio) leg. XIIII G. (41) A. MÓCSY, Pannónia, RE, Suppl. IX, 1962, col. 587. Cf. recently J. FITZ, Donaugrenze von Pannónia Superier und Inferior. Alba Regia XIV, 1975, 351—355. (42) E. SCHWERTHEIM, Die Denkmäler orientalistischer Gottheiten im römischen Deutschland. EPRO, XL, 1974, Nr. 133/a

—b. — For the first altar, cf. GIL, XIII, 6623 = Merlat Répertoire, 300. a Capricorn appears with the eagle and lightning that refer to Juppiter on the abacus and sides of the altars set up corporately by the uexillatio of the legio XXII Primigeniai^). The group of symbols used here referring to the god's Juppiter-like character expresses that the god was closely connected with the legion. This circumstance perfectly correspond to the reference to Mars of the Capricorn as an astronomical symbol, and so also with its reference to the god that is connected with both Juppiter Dolichenus and the official military religion. According to all probability the Capricorn represented on the Brigetio fragment has a similar meaning. Here, the four pointed star beside the figure only reinforces the symbol's astronomical meaning, i.e. its connection with Mars. Besides it is reasonable in its instance also to suppose that the Capricorn appears on the cultic triangle as an emblem of a legio having a definite symbolic reference. As far as the dating of the fragment in question is concurd, it would seem to fit well into the chronological limits of the total group of finds from the Brigetio Dolichenum. Though there is no data relating exactly when the sanctuary was built, it was certainly in use by the second half of the second century(

44

). It was probably destroyed

—as were most of the Dolichenus sanctuaries along the Rhine and the Danube(

45

)

—after Alexander Severus and Iulia Mamaea were murdered (A.D. 253) during the reign of Maximinus Thrax. Within these time limits and with regard to the connection of the Capricorn with the legio XIIII Gemina at Carnuntum, the cultic triangle would seem to have been produced and then placd in the Brigetio sanctuary before A.D. 214, i.e. when Brigetio was still a part of Pannónia Superior administratively. In this way the date of the cultic triangle of the Brigetio Dolichenum

—regarding to the analogies too

—can be the last third part of the second century and the first decade of the third century, i.e. the age of Com modus, and that of Septimius Severus(

46

). (43) For the pictures of the altars, cf. E. SCHWERTHEIM о. с, Taf. 113., Merlat Répertoire, 293. Fig. 59. (44) Merlat Essai, 133. — The three coins found at the sanctuary were the coins of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Iulia Mamaea. N. LÁNG, О. С, DissPann, 11(11, 1941, 166). — The Hadrian coin itself cannot

— in want of some other proof of this dating — signify when the sanctuary began functioning. It Seems to be more acceptable to date the building of the sanctuary after the Markomann Wars. All of the epigraphed finds can be dated from the end of the Second or from the beginning of the third century. (45) I. TÓTH, AArchllung, XXV, 1973, 109. (46) For the particular pieces, cf. Merlat Répertoire, passim (cf. note 1. and 5.); in general, see Merlat Essai, 168. 94