Budapest Régiségei 39. (2005)

Zsidi Paula: Uralkodó képmása egy aquincumi téglatöredéken = Imperial portrait on a brick fragment in Aquincum 187-204

URALKODÓ KÉPMÁSA EGY AQUINCUMI TÉGLATÖREDÉKEN IMPERIAL PORTRAIT ON A BRICK FRAGMENT IN AQUINCUM Among the aboundant archaeological treasures of Aquincum the late roman period is only represented by a modest material. This is why the image carved into a brick found in the bath-wing of the inn (deversorium) standing outside the southern wall of the civil town of Aquincum in the course of the excavations in 2002 deserves special interst. The find was discovered within the building of the bath, but as the site is strongly drooping towards east and north, originally, it might have come from the part of the bath-wing laying to the south-west. Coin finds from the site cover the period from the second half of the 2

nd century to the second half of the 4

th century. The main bulk of pottery finds around the brick comprise pieces dating back to the 2

nd and 3

rd centuries, with some pottery types used in the 4

th century. The male portrait was scratched into the material of the brick (supposedly a brick with rim, a tegula) when it was still soft. The original thickness of the 8.9 x8.8 cms fragment cannot be established because the remaining back side of the object had been broken off by several blows. The condition of the back side and the traces of blows suggest that the image had been removed from its original fixed place with care that the main elements (face and fibula) - though fragmentarily - would survive. The instrument of the master could have been a sharpened wooden stick, the uneven surface of which can be seen on the inner sides of the scratches. A reliable hand was needed not to make a mistake when drawing into the soft clay There may be one detail where some mistakes can be discovered: it is the beard the shaping of which is not so successful as compared to the other patrs of the sketch. From the superposition of the lines the way of drawing can also be concluded. The depiction is obviously a work done thoughtfully by an experienced, skilful hand. The round fibula rising well above the right shoulder suggests at the first sight that it is a depiction of not an everyday person. The round fibula was an attribute of power, an imperial privilege from the reign of Constantine I , the beginning of the 4

th century onwards. The hair-style of our character scratched into the brick carries the features of the period of Constantine I . The carefully organized curls combed into the forehead, were bound down by a smooth band, by an anadem. It cannot be denied that the depiction has portray-like features. The unusually large eyes, the characteristic furrows under the eye, the long arched eyebrows, the long nose and the proportion of the thick lips bear similarities with Constantinian depictions. However the identification of our depiction with any members of the House of Constantine is disturbed by the presence of the beard, which, obviously, caused difficulty to the master himself. As images on the coins wittness, the Emperors of the tetrarchy used to wear beards entirely covering their faces, whereas after the turn of Constantine the face of the emperor introducing the new style and those of his descendants - with rare exceptions - are bare. Nevertheless, among images on the coins depicting Constantine, creating the the beard-less portray-type, especially in the early period there are some portrays with beard, too. The incertitude concerning the beard of the emperor is not unique, it is also known from other epochs. It can also be supported by the story of the almost miraculous escape of the bronze statue in the Capitol of Marcus Aurelius. The statue of the emperor known as having a beard was saved from melting because it was taken for Constantine the Great, the defensor of Christianity. The drawing on the brick definitely shows that concerning the features its master was inspired by a large-scale sculptural work, and it could only have been the recurring attributes, (fibula, anadem) where he turned to images on coins. The brick drawing could have been made in the early period of the style introduced by Constantine I, the earliest, in the second decade of the 4

th century, but definitely before the middle of the century. It cannot be questioned that it was the emperor representing the power who was the object of the depiction, who had received his power- as his unworldly air of his look suggests - from God. Thus, the image of the emperor also had a religious content. The maker and the owner of the object, the place of making and use are supposedly not identical. The nearest local brickmaking in Aquincum in the given period can be found on the south-western edge of the military town. It would be simple to originate our brick from there, but there are not any primary or secondary proofs. There is equal chance for the brick to come from Aquincum than to come from anywhere else. The number of brick scratches in Pannónia is relatively high. Regarding their finding site

, Pannonian fragments with Christian content have come mainly from late Roman cemeteries. Our fragment, 197