Z IRI DAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 28 2014 MUSEUM ARAD Z IRI DAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 28 2014 Editura MEGA Cluj-Napoca 2014 MUSEUM ARAD EDITORIAL BOARD Editor‑in‑chief: Peter Hügel. Editorial Assistants: Florin Mărginean, Victor Sava. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD M. Cârciumaru (Târgoviște, Romania), S. Cociș (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania), F. Gogâltan (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania), S. A. Luca (Sibiu, Romania), V. Kulcsár (Szeged, Hungary), T. Miklós (Budapest, Hungary), J. O'Shea (Michigan, USA), K. Z. Pinter (Sibiu, Romania), I. Stanciu (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania), I. Szatmári (Békéscsaba, Hungary). In Romania, the periodical can be obtained through subscription or exchange, sent as post shipment, from Museum Arad, Arad, Piata G. Enescu 1, 310131, Romania. Tel. 0040–257–281847. ZIRIDAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Any correspondence will be sent to the editor: Museum Arad Piata George Enescu 1, 310131 Arad, RO e‑mail: ziridava2012@gmail.com he content of the papers totally involve the responsibility of the authors. Layout: Francisc Baja, Florin Mărginean, Victor Sava ISSN‑L 1224–7316 Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e‑mail: mega@edituramega.ro Contents Ion Pâslaru, Vitaly Pozhidaev Percentages in the Study of neolithic Pottery 7 Székely Zsolt Contributions to the history of archaeological research in Macea, the settlement in Topila (Arad County) 21 Călin Ghemis, Tudor Rus, Robert Kovacs Between sacred and profane – a discovery belonging to the Coţofeni Culture inside “Stanu Cerbului” cave (Bihor County) 31 Victor Sava, Luminiţa Andreica, Xenia Pop, Florin Gogâltan Out of ordinary or common burial practice? A Funerary Discovery from the Baden Settlement at Sântana “Cetatea Veche” 39 Luminiţa Andreica Musculoskeletal Markers as Evidence of Physical Activity and Social Diferentiation in the Lower Mureş 77 Valley during the Late Bronze Age Alexandru Berzovan Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County 87 (2nd century BC – 1st century A.D.) Ştefana Cristea “I am Horus the Savior”. Representations of Horus‑Harpokrates in Roman Dacia 115 Csaba Szabó Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa 135 Csaba Szabó, George Valentin Bounegru, Victor Sava Mithras rediscovered. Notes on CIMRM 1938 149 Norbert Kapcsos he Sarmatian Graves of the 4R Archaeological Site Dated to the hird‑Fourth century A.D. Additional 157 Data on the Sarmatian Burial Rite in the Lower Mureş Region Dan Băcueţ-Crişan On the Two‑Room Dwelling from Precinct IV of the Early Medieval Fortiication in Dăbâca (Cluj County) and the Chronology of the First Stage of Fortiication 173 Aurel Dragotă Eggs as Oferings in Tenth‑Eleventh Century Necropolises 183 Imre Szatmári, György Kerekes Medieval Villages in the Fields Surrounding Mezőhegyes 193 Erwin Gáll he Signiicance of the Sites “Aşezare” and “Necropolă” on “Dealul Viilor” in the Development of Habitat in the Micro‑area of Sighişoara during the Middle Ages (Twelfth‑hirteenth Century). Human 209 Landscape of the Sighisoara Region from the 12th–13th Centuries Anca Nițoi, Claudia Urduzia Elements of Fortiication of the Medieval and Early Modern City of Sibiu. he Tower Gate and the Gate’s Bastion. Historical and Archaeological Considerations 243 Zsuzsanna Kopeczny, Florin Mărginean Medieval Stove Tiles in the Collection of the Museum of Banat Discovered in the Fortiication of Şoimoş (Arad County) 259 Abbreviations 273 Notes on the Mithraic small finds from Sarmizegetusa Csaba Szabó Abstract: Between 1882 and 1883 PálKirály and his team excavated the only Mithraic sanctuary (mihraeum) known from ColoniaUlpiaTraianaSarmizegetusa. he mithraeum was published in a separate monograph and in various articles, attracting also the interest of the international scholarship – entering in the bibliography, as the „biggest” sanctuary ever found outside Rome. In our article we will present shortly the discovery of the sanctuary focusing especially on those few objects, which were published very laconic, known at the moment as the only Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa. Keywords: Mithras, mithraeum, ColoniaUlpiaTraianaSarmizegetusa, votive small inds, Roman religion. he recent stage of the Mithraic studies are dealing with a change of paradigm, orienting the focus of the research from the iconography and from the quest for the origins, to the local and archaeological aspects of the cult1. he intense study and the systematic excavations of the recently found sanctu‑ aries ofered a huge amount of new, archaeological material which can be interpreted inally, in their own, local and archaeological context2. After the discovery of the Mithraic sanctuary from Apulum in 2008, the Romanian historiography must change also his focus from iconography to the votive small indsand the local, social, economic and religious networks of the cult3. his article is dealing with one of the most discussed Mithraic sanctuary, many time quoated in the international and Romanian bibliography as the “biggest” sanctuary from the Danubian provinces and even from the whole Empire. It’s tremendous amount of reliefs provoked in the end of the 19thcen‑ tury a unique scholarly efervescence, attracting the leading scholars of Mithraism in Transylvania. he case of the mithraeum from Sarmizegetusa shows the current state of the Romanian research: the historiography focused almost exclusively on the reliefs and the iconography, neglecting the small inds and the rituals behind these small objects. Reinterpreting and analyzing in details these objects open a new path in the research, changing our view not only about the “biggest” Mithraic sanctuary ever discovered, but also about the internal geography of a mithraeum. he irst mithraeum excavated in Transylvania he cult of Mithras in Dacia was well attested in the 19thcentury and even before, due to some well known reliefs and inscriptions from Apulum and other localities4. However, fewof them came from UlpiaTraianaSarmizegetusa, the capital of the province. One of them (CIMRM 2146=CIL III 1436) was found in 1856 in Várhely (Sarmizegetusa village). he exact place and condition of the discovery is unknown. heodor Mommsen saw the altar at Grădiştea or Abrud at the local priest. Russu airms – without explanation – that the altar was found „in the mithraeum” (IDR III/2, 282, CIMRM 2141–2152)5. In the end of the 19th century, the newly founded Historical and Archaeological Association of Hunyad County (Hunyad megyei Történelmiés Régészeti Társulat) begun their extensive excavations at Sarmizegetusa, marking the beginning of the irstsystematic research of a Roman city in the ex – terri‑ tory of Dacia6. In the end of the1870’s some local inhabitants of Várhely (today Sarmizegetusa village) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mastrocinque 2013, 59–89; Versluys 2013, 235–260. Klenner 2012a, 113–128; Szabó 2013a, 54–60. Gui 2012, 39–40; Martens 2004; Szabó 2013b, 43–72. Szabó 2014a. Király 1886, 11–12. Piso, Ţentea 2011, 112; Boda 2013, 379; Vincze 2014, 34–35. ZIRIDAVA, STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA, 28, p. 135–148 136 ◆ Csaba Szabó discovered some Mithraic inds. Soon, the Association from Deva bought the inds with the help of Sámuel Nemes and the systematic excavations could begin at 5th July, 1882. PálKirály (1853 – 1929) directed the excavations with the help of Gábor Téglás.he irst season took only ten days, in which period the team discovered around 260 fragmentary monuments – the biggest ind of this kind ever found in the Roman Empire. However, the exact number of the inds are unknown. Király’s catalogue presents 184 pieces, but he speaks about 250–260 pieces in his introduction7. Vermaseren’s corpus enroll 112 pieces (CIMRM 2028–2140) trying to it together the extremely fragmentary reliefs. A diferent number of monuments appears in the corpus of Cumont. he later catalogues usually just copied the repertory of Cumont and Vermaseren, neglecting the orig‑ inal publication8. he discovery became very famous in Europe, many of the foreign scholars – like Franz Studnicka and Otto Benndorf – visiting personally the site and the museum of Devaexamining the monuments9. Later, the “patriarch of Mithraic studies”, Franz Cumont also visited Transylvania collecting personally the rich Mithraic material of the province10. A second season took place between 14 and 26th August, 1883, when further monuments were found, examining the surrounding area of the sanctuary11. Király, with the help of Károly Torma, József Hampel, Gábor Téglás and Géza Kuun, catalogued the material of the sanctuary and published in a Hungarian monograph in 1886.His book became one of the most quoted – but less read – works of the Mithraic historiography. Cumont didn’t read the manuscript of Király, using for his corpus only his personal visit and examination. Vermaseren used a translation by Henri Boissin, a French orientalist. he later publishers usually just copied the interpretation of Cumont and Vermaseren. he rich material was partially republished during the last 130 years12. Without entering in details about the excavation, it is important to mention some particulari‑ ties of this ind. First, the extreme number of the monuments (around 260 artifacts) is so unusual, that it suggestor a later deposition and votive spolia from many diferent Mithraic sites of the city or a possible workshop – center for reliefs13.here are no Mithraic sanctuaries in the Roman Empire with such amount of reliefs found inasame place (more than 50 relief – fragments in a same spot: see Fig. 1). Similar deposits we can ind in Merida (CIMRM 772), Sidon (CIMRM 74), the Walbrook mithraeum (CIMRM 815) or in Apulum (CIMRM 1953)14. It is possible that the inds came from multiple mithraea, however, the topography of Sarmizegetusa at the moment doesn’t help us to identify the sanctuaries, even if some scholars suggested the existence of three mithraea in Sarmizegetusa15. If they come from one sanctuary, than we need to reconsider the inside geography of a mithraeum16. he iconographic typology of the reliefs, the material used suggesting a single provenience and a local workshop17. he example of Tienen shows that this kind of sanctuaries based on a collegia‑ system were in strict relation with mass production of pottery18. Other studies revealed the important role of the commercial and merchant groups and collegia with the Mithraic communities in Ostia or even in Dacia19. he plan of the sanctuary – reconstructed by Király as a monumental, 44,23 m long building – is an exaggerated one, which need to be reinterpreted(ig. I.)20. He get this unusual size from a very sophisticated equation based on the two monographs available at that time21. here are few sanctu‑ aries with similar dimensions in the Empire (CIMRM 1682) which makes sure that his calculation 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Király 1886, 3–4. Garcia 2010; Pintilie 2003; Sicoe 2014. Studnicka 1883, 200–225; Studnicka 1884, 34–51; Király 1885, 260–269. Cumont 1893, 289–299; Popescu 2000, 21–50. Király 1886, 11. Király 1891, MMM II280f, CIMRM 2027–2140; Garcia 2010; Pintilie 2003; Szabó 2010; Sicoe 2014. Sicoe 2014, 59–70. See: Christescu 1927–32, 620–625; Sicoe 2004, 285–302; Gordon 2009, 413, note 170; Dirven, McCarty 2014, 127–144. Alicu 2002, 221–222. Gordon 1976, 119–168; Beck 2006, 105; Szabó 2012,125–134. Sicoe 2004, 285–302. Martens 2004b, 335. Rohde 2012, 247–263; Szabó 2014b. Király 1886, 16. Habel 1830; Visconti 1864. Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa ◆ 137 is wrong22. However, the international bibliography still use the plan of Király without questioning its authenticity23. Fig. 1. Plan of the sanctuary with the position of the small inds (after Király 1886). he small inds of the Mithraeum Beside the impressive quantity of igurative and epigraphic monuments found in the sanctuary, a particular group of objects need to be analyzed – neglected till now by the scholarship. he votive small inds found in the mithraeum of Sarmizegetusa are extremely important, because they are the only sources of this kind from the city and the biggest amount from the province excavated till now. Important to mention, that the detailed description of the mithraeum from Slăveni from 1837 and the one fromfromDeceaMureşului from 1888 also mention some votive small inds. Very interesting is the description of Blaremberg, who mentions probably a votive deposit in the entrance of the sanc‑ tuary and some “fragmentary pieces (“sfărămături”) which could be interpreted as pottery too24. From Decea, Károly Herepei mentioned “four painted ceramics” which came from an amphora25. he votive small inds are extremely important sources for the understanding of the internal structure, liturgy and religious activity inside of a religious community26. Until the recent systematic excavations, the pottery, terracotta, glass and small bronze objects were neglected by the scholarship, enrolling them laconically in a repertory, focusing their study on the igurative and epigraphic mate‑ rial. After 2004 the studies are focusing intensively on the interpretation of the small inds too27. he sanctuaries discovered and published in the last twenty years – most notably the sanctuariesfrom Tienen, Bornheim – Sechtem, Güglingen II, Els Munts and the reexamination of the Crypta Balbi mithraeum from Rome – revealed the importance of the small inds in the rituals, integrating this category also in the so called “star – talk” or sacred geography of the mithraeum28. From the 184 objects enrolled in Király’s repertory, there are 29 “building elements”and only 22 small inds named by he as “interior ixtures”. It is possible, that in 1879, the owner of the ield 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Clauss 1993, 43; Tarrats, Remola 2008, 95–117. Schäfer 2007, 387. Petolescu 1976, 455–461. Takács 1987, 173–177. Martens 2012, 12–21; Gui 2012, 37–45. Martens 2004. Martens 2004b, 333. 138 ◆ Csaba Szabó found other small inds too29. After the discovery the inds were taken to the newly founded Museum of Deva. Some of the elements are mentioned very shortly also in other works of Király and at Vermaseren (CIMRM 2033)30.Gábor Téglás, as an appendix of Király’s volume, made a short summary on the osteological material – the irst of this kind ever published from amithraeum. He mentions that the osteological material was highly chared. Téglás tried to identify the animal types, enrolling the ovisaries, caprahircus, susscropha, gallusdomesticus, capreoluscapreolus. His short report can’t replace such a detailed analysis as in the osteological material of Tienen was made31. In that case the almost 14000 animal bones were analyzed very carefully, showing the presence of various bird species (mainly fowl, goose) and pigs, cattle, goats and two eels. heir study proved the importance of the cock and fowl, as the case of Künzigmithreum, presented much more in the sanctuaries. hey explained this as a special ofer and a Mithraic symbol. he case of Crypta Balbi‑ and other urban centers – however shows a high percentage of pigs in the sacred banquet32. General osteological researches show that the high percentage of the pigs and birds relects only a general tendency and not a special cultic activity33. In many sanctuaries – such as the case of Martigny – large amount of coins were found, possibly thrown intentionally as a part of a ritual34. In the case of the Sarmizegetusamithareum, there is no report about numismatic inds in the sanctuary. he majority of the small inds was published without the exact inding spot and detailed archae‑ ological context, thus their interpretation could be very laconic. he number of the small inds is disproportionately small in comparison with the igurate and epigraphic monuments, which could suggest that the monuments came from multiple sanctuaries of the city. he archaeological method‑ ology of thatperiod could serve also as an explanation for the extremely small number of small inds, the archaeologists being focused to collect only the most relevant and complete pieces. As an analogy, the mithraeum I. from Poetovio was excavated also in this period (1898 – 1899). Although, it contains more than twenty stone monuments, Vermaseren enroll only 2 small inds: a bronze raven and a dagger (CIMRM 1508). In the recently found sanctuaries – Tienen, Heidelberg, Martigny, Bornheim – Sechtem, Güglingen II – the number of the small inds are much higher than in the great sanctuaries discovered earlier and excavated fastly, with an old methodology. What is sure, is that the presence of the small inds proves the existence of rituals and cultic activity inside of the building. he glass and pottery material (rep. nr. 1–7.) shows clearly the presence of the sacred banquet, attested many times now not only from literary sources, graities (CIMRM 64) and iconographic representations, but also from archaeological evidencefrom Mithraicand other cultic places too35. None of the presented objects has a speciic, “Mithraic” feature or iconography –as we can ind in some exceptional cases36. he drawings of Király are very bad, making problematic the identiication of their typology and functionality. Piece nr.7. is an unknown form, but could be easily interpreted as a lid or as a Pompeian Red plate present usually in Mithras sanctuaries37. Both drinking and cooking vessels are present, however this insigniicant amount doesn’t help us to estimate the number of the participants such as in the case of Tienen38. A very important object is the small knife (Rep. nr.15.) found in the naos of the sanctuary – the only small ind from the excavated, archaeologically attested part of the building. Published as a “sacriicial knife”by Király, the role of the object is unknown. he size and form of the object is typical for Sarmizegetusa, however the lower part is slightly diferent from this type39. he publishers mentions that there is only 2 examples for this type in Sarmizegetusa (nr. 108 and an unpublished one) omitting to mention this object. he same happened with the bronze objects too. he presence of knifes, daggers and even swords in Mithraic context is very common, their interpretation varies 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Király 1886, 17. Kuun 1902, 73–79. Lentackeret al. 2004. Mazzorin 2004, 179. Lauweier 1988; Gudea 2009; Molnár 2012. Sauer 2004, 330. László et al. 2005, 103–108; Schäfer et al. 2006, 183–200; Ciută 2010, 185–199; Martens 2012, 261–273; Bocancea 2013. Gassner 2004, 229–239; Wiblé 2004, 135–146. Luginbühlet al. 2004, 115. Martens 2004a, 34. Alicu et al. 1994, type III, 27; Manning 1976, 37–38; Bozic 2001, 28–30. Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa ◆ 139 from “sacriicial objects” to “ritual objects” or simple cutlery (CIMRM 882, 1069, 1080, 1115, 1132, 1412)40. he fragmentation of the osteological material from Tienen shows also the procedure used in the preparation for the sacred banquet, where knife played only a banal, laic role of cutlery. However, the knife appears many times also in the Mithraic iconographyon reliefs, statues and even altars (CIMRM 1150) and ‑as an akinakes – a symbol of the perses grade41. On the loor of the Felicissimusmithraeum, a dagger (or sickle) appears as the symbol of the pater – the highest rank in the initiation. he small Mithras hands made in bronze represents also the knife, as a ritual object – many times the knife itself being separately attached to the hand. hese small bronze objects are very popular in the Germanic provinces42. A very similar analogy to the Sarmizegetusan example we can ind in Poetovio, from the I. mithraeum (CIMRM 1508b). In this case, a bronze raven was perched on a dagger. here we can presume also a ritual meaning of the object. he knife or the sword represented with Mithras Petrogenitus in an orphic context could repre‑ sent the creator weapon of Saturnus and in this context, had an important role in initiation rituals too – as we can see in the frescoes of Santa Prisca or Capua Vetere (CIMRM 187 – 193). Another interpre‑ tation is – at least for the iconographic scenes of tauroctony – that Mithras carries the knife of Aries, the symbol of Mars43. he presence of this object – independently from it’s interpretation – is very important, because it reveals a particular part of the internal life of the local community. he bronze and iron objects also represents a very interesting aspect of the material. he pres‑ ence of some possible bronze vessels, furniture decorations (knobs), scissors and the iron hook could indicate the material reminiscence of a sacral banquet, however the exact function of these objects are unknown. he hook with 8 form links could serve as a keeper of a cauldron. here are no analogy for a scissors in a mithraeum, their functionality here could be more banal, than the context of a sanctuary could suggest. Rep. nr. 13, identiied by us as a knob is very similar to a small, unidentiied object from Tienen44. he presence of a furniture decoration is very surprising, our knowledge and imagina‑ tion about the interior design of a mithraeum missed till now this aspect. here are few representa‑ tions however, which indicate the presence of chairs or tables (CIMRM 42, 390, 481, 782, 798, 1083, 1137,1175, 1301, 1896). heir position, the dining spaces of a mithraeum – represented especially on our modern reconstructions on the podiums – needs a new methodology to approach45. Similarly, the three integrally preserved oil lamps represent a particular aspect of the cult. he sanctuary of Mithras – a reconstructed spelaeum and sacred space – was meant to be dark and mystical, increasing the sensual and psychological efect of the artiicially created, religious space on the worshi‑ pers46. he lamps (Rep. nr. 16–18) are typical irmalamps (irmalampen – Loeschcke × type) probably made in a local workshop47. One of them (Rep. nr. 17) signed with the stamp of FORTIS, the most popular workshop in the Empire and in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa too, with many subdivisions and types48. he role of the lamps in the Mithraic context probably difers from those ind in Asklepeions or other sanctuaries, such as in the case of the possible Deus Aeternus sanctuary from Apulum49. As in some modern reconstructions we can see, the interior of a mithraeum was slightly illuminated. Important to mention however, that most of the 3D reconstructions are purely hypothetical (an exception is the CryptaBalbi sanctuary50). he role of the oil lamps in this case was not necessary a cultic, but a pragmatic one, representing furthermore a personal object of the worshiper as in many, private spaces too(Gui‑Petruţ 2012). Almost every mithraeum has oil lamps, most of them from local or regional production, without any speciic decoration51. It is very surprising that in a much more smaller sanctuary such as Tienen, they found 12 oil lamps. heir functionality was only a pragmatic 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Martens 2004a, 39; Schatzmann 2004, 19, ig. 10: 3; Kortüm, Neth 2005, 227; Klenner 2012b. Chalupa 2013, 12. Marquart 2004. Beck 2006, 107. Martens 2004a, 40, nr. 12: 5. Klöckner 2013. László et al. 2005, 238–252;Borgeaud 2013, 131–144; Chaniotis 2013, 169–190. Harris 1980, 131; Benea 2008, 301–340. Harris 1980, 137; Alicu 1994, 22 –24; Roman 2006, 548–549; Benea 2008, 304. Zeleanu 1943, 98, IDR III/5, 25, 29. Ricci 2005, 163; Scherrer 2010, 341–352. Martens 2004a, 34. 140 ◆ Csaba Szabó one. However, in some rare cases, like in Rome, the Crypta Balbi mithraeum or the Aventicumwe ind the thymiaterion form lamps or altar shaped lamps which surely played a special role in the sanctuary52. In the CryptaBalbimithraeum we can ind also imported pieces from North Africa53. Conclusions he small inds of the mithraeum of Sarmizegetusa were ignored by the Romanian and interna‑ tional scholarship, the research focusing on the impressive amount of reliefs and epigraphic monu‑ ments – which made this sanctuary so unique not only in Dacia, but also in the whole Empire. he republication of the small inds of the irst, systematically excavated mithraeum of Dacia has the main aim to show the importance of these small objects in the local community, highlighting also the perspectives for the Romanian archaeology of religion, which must focus more carefully on this aspect of the Roman religion too. he repertory serve also as an appendix for the important work of Alicu – Cociş – Ilieş – Soroceanu 1994. Repertory of the small inds54 1. Glass fragments Exact ind – spot: in the navy of the sanctuary (see Fig. 1). Description: three, fragmentary piece of a glass plate. he plate lays on a 0,007 m thick, oval basis. he outer verge of the piece is 0,05 m and it’s slightly inclined downwards. For an easier use, it was two handles, one of them is partially preserved. A nice, transparent glass with micaceouscolours.(Fig. 2). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 2. Glass jar base Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: base of a glass vessel, probably a jar. Very thin material.It’scolour is identical with the previous one. Diameter: 0,05 m. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 3. Lip of a glass jar Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: rudimentary fragment of the lip from a green jar. Diameter: 0,06 m. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 4. Ceramic vessel fragment Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: fragment of a round vessel with spout. he exterior diameter of the vessel (estimating from the fragment): 0,58 m. Interior diameter: 0,44 m. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 5. Ceramic vessel fragment Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: fragment of a ceramic vessel, probably a lip of a pot. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 6. Foot of a vessel Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: Rudimentary fragment of a foot. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 7. Round bowl (or lid) Exact indspot: in the central navy of the sanctuary (see Fig. 2). Description: thick, 0,03 m deep, rotund bowl. he four fragments its perfectly together. he form is unusual for a lid, it is possible that the drawings are not accurate (ig. III.). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 8. Marble bowl fragment Exact indspot: unknown. Description: bluish marble bowl fragment with ear. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 9. hree fragments of bowls Exact indspot: unknown. Description: three, round fragments of diferent sizes. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 10. Bronze plate fragment Exact indspot: unknown. Description: the object is covered with beautiful patina. he exact function of the object is unknown. Long: 0,118 m, hickness: 0,002 m, width: 0,027–0,04 m. (Fig. 4). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 11. Bronze link Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: Elegant, green patina. he exact role of the object is unknown, prob‑ ably a link or decorative element. Exterior diameter: 0,055 m, interior diameter: 0,035 m. hickness: 0,003 m. (Fig. 5). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. See also: Alicu et al. 1994, 108. 52 53 54 Sagui 2004, 173–174. Sagui 2004, 174. Faithful translation of Király’s text with further notes and possible interpretations of the objects. Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa ◆ 141 12. Bronze scissors Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: After Király, it is a bronze ear of a vessel with trapezoid decoration. he patina is light and green. In fact, it is the upper part of a scissors. he distance between the two edges is 0,025 m. Height: 0,023 m, thickness: 0,004 m. (Fig. 6). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. Analogy: Duvauchelle 1990, 106, abb. 136, Deschler 1997, 57, abb. 53. 13. Bronze vessel’s fragment Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: After Király it is a foot of a bronze vessel covered with intense, green patina. he form of the object indicates however that it is a decoration of a furniture (knob). Height: 0,025 m. Upper diameter: 0,015 m, Lower diameter: 0,01 m. (Fig. 7). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 14. Iron chain (probably a hook) Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: iron chain fragment with hanger. he links were eight – shaped, from which the second from the lower part was longer. 4 links preserved. (Fig. 8). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. See also: Alicu et al. 1994, 26. 15. Knife Exact ind – spot: in the naos of the sanctuary (see ig. I.).Description: iron knife. Length with the hadle: 0,115 m. Length of the blade: 0,07 m. Width: 0,02 m. (Fig. 9). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24, CIMRM 2033, Alicu et al. 1994, 26–27. 16. Lamp Exact ind – spot: probably from the pronaos of the sanctuary (see Fig. 1). Description: one lamed oil lamp. he gloss is yellowish – red. he top is decorated with a face of a long haired male – later identiied as a theatre mask. Partially broken ear.(Fig. 10). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24, CIMRM 2033, Alicu 1994, nr. 470. 17. Lamp Exact ind – spot: probably in the pronaos of the sanctuary (see Fig. 1). Description: oil lamp without ear. Fragmentations on the top and on left side. On the bottom in three circles an inscription: FORTIS (Fig. 11a and 11b.). Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24, CIMRM 2033, Alicu 1994, nr. 517. Fig. 2. Rep. nr. 1. Fig. 3. Rep. nr. 7. 142 ◆ Csaba Szabó Fig. 4. Rep. nr. 10. 18. Lamp Exact ind – spot: probably in the pronaos of the sanctuary (see Fig. 1). Description: Rudimentary crafted oil lamp with ear. Integrally preserved, the gloss worn out. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 19. “Gypsum” object Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: fragmentary ball, used at sacriices. Diameter of the preserved part: 0,089 m. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. 20. Melted plumb fragment Exact ind – spot: unknown. Description: no further details. Bibliography: Király 1886, 23–24. Fig. 5. Rep. nr. 11. Fig. 6. Rep. nr. 12. Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa Fig. 7. Rep. nr. 13. Fig. 8. Rep. nr. 14. Fig. 9. Rep. nr. 15. Fig. 10a. Rep. nr. 16. ◆ 143 144 ◆ Csaba Szabó Fig. 10b. Rep. nr. 16 (photo: OanaTutila, MCDR). Fig. 11a. Rep. nr. 17. Fig. 11b. Rep. nr. 17. Acknowledgements I owe special thanks for dr. Mariana Egri, dr. Silvia Mustaţa, dr. Dávid Petruţ and Oana Tutilă for their kindly help and suggestions. Csaba Szabó University of Pécs Erfurt Universität Pécs, HU; Erfurt DE szabo.csaba.pte@gmail.com Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa ◆ 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alicu et al. 1994 Alicu 2002 Beck 2006 Benea 2008 Bocancea 2013 Boda 2013 Borgeaud 2013 Bozic 2001 Chalupa 2013 Chaniotis 2013 Christescu 1927–32 Ciută 2010 Clauss 1993 Cumont 1893 Deschler 1997 Dirven, McCarty 2014 Duvauchelle 1990 Gassner 2004 Garcia 2010 Gordon 1976 Gordon 2009 Gudea 2009 Gui 2012 Gui, Petruţ 2012 Habel 1830 Harris 1980 Király 1885 Király 1886 Király 1891 D. Alicu, S. Cociş, C. Ilieş, A. Soroceanu, Small inds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 94, Cluj‑Napoca 1994. D. Alicu, Addenda la repertoriul templelor romane din Dacia.Apulum 39, 2002, 201–235. R. Beck, he Roman Cult of Mithras. Toronto 2006. D. Benea, Producţia de opaiţe din provincia Dacia. BHAUT IX, 2008, 301–340. E. Bocancea, Dining with Gods and Men: Mithraic meal scene and religious feasting in the Roman World. Conference presentation at 13th International Colloquium on Roman Provincial Art.Bucuresti, 18th May, 2013. I. Boda, Téglás Gábor (184–1916) and the archaeological research in Dacia.Sargetia NS 4, 2013, 377–392. Ph. Borgeaud, Les mysteres. In: C. Bonnet,L. Bricault (Eds.), Pantheé. Religious trans‑ formations in the Graeco – Roman Empire. Leiden – Boston 2013, 131–144. D. Bozic, Über den Verwandungszweck einiger römischer Messerchen.Instrumentum 13, June, 2001, 28–30. A. Chalupa, he third symbol of the Miles grade on the loor mosaic of the Felicissius mithraeum in Ostia: a new interpretation.Religio 21, nr. 1, 2013, 9‑ 32. A. Chaniotis,Staging and feeling the presence of god. In: C. Bonnet, L. Bricault (Eds.), Pantheé. Religious transformations in the Graeco – Roman Empire. Leiden – Boston 2013, 169–189. V. Christescu, Nouveaux monuments d’Apulum.Dacia – revue d’archeologie et d’histoire ancienne, 1927–33, 620–625 B. Ciută, Vitis vinifera specie unsed in libations and in daily life. ATS IX, 2010, 185–194. M. Clauss, Cultores Mithrae. Wien 1993. F. Cumont, Mithras emlékek Magyarországon.Archaeológiai Értesitő 13, 1893, 289–299. E. Deschler, Virudunum 7. Ausgrabungen im unteren Bühl.Zürich 1997. L. Dirven, M. McCarty, Local idioms and global meanings. In: L. Brody (Ed.), Roman in the provinces. Art on the periphery of the Empire. Chicago University Press, 2014, 127–144. A. Duvauchelle, Les outils en fer du Museé romain d’Avenches.Supplementum Bulletin Pro Aventico 32, 1990. V. Gassner, Snake decorated vessels from the canabae of Carnuntum – evidence for another mithraeum? In: M. Martens (Ed.), Mithraism – the evidence of the small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 229–238. G. J. R. Garcia, Los Cultos Orientales en la Dacia romana. Salamanca 2010. R. Gordon, he Sacred Geography of a mithraeum: Sette Sfere.Journal of Mithraic Studies, 1, 1976, 2, 119 –165. R. Gordon, he Roman Army and the cult of Mithras. A critical review. In: C. Wolf (Ed.), L’armée romaine et la religion sous le haut empire romain. Lyon 2009, 379–423. A. Gudea,Soldatul roman în Dacia (106–275). Studiu de arheozoloogie privind creşterea animalelor şi regimul alimentar în armată romană. Interferenţe etnice şi culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr. Vol. 15, Cluj‑Napoca, 2009. M. Gui, Small inds – what are they good for? Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series historica. 16. I, 2012, 37–45. M. Gui, D. Petruţ, Poster: being soldier in Dacia. A small ind story. 22th heoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC), 2012, Frankfurt. F. Habel, Die Mithras tempel in römischen ruinen bei Heddernheim. Wiesbaden 1830. W. Harris, Roman terracotta lamps: the organization of an industry.he Journal of Roman Studies 70, 1980, 126–145. P. Király, Archaeologische un epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Össterreich – Ungarn. Ismertető. Archaeológiai Értesitő 5, 1885, 260–269. P. Király, A sarmizegetusai mithraeum. Archaeológiai Közlemények 15, 1886. P. Király, Ulpia Traiana Augusta Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa Metropolis Dacica. Budapest 1891. 146 ◆ Csaba Szabó Kuun 1902 Klenner 2012a Klenner 2012b Klöckner 2013 Kortüm, Neth 2005 László et al. 2005 Lentacker et al. 2004 Manning 1976 Marquart 2004 Martens 2004a Martens 2004b Martens 2012 Mastrocinque 2013 Mazzorin 2004 Molnár 2012 Petolescu 1976 Pintilie 2003 Piso, Ţentea 2011 Pop 1994 Popescu 2000 Ricci 2004 Roman 2006 Sagui 2004 Sauer 2004 G. Kuun, Hunyad vármegye története. Budapest 1902. I. Klenner, Breaking news! Meldungen aus der Welt des Mithras. In: P. Jung, N. Schücker (Eds.), Utere felix vivas. Festschrift J. Oldenstein. Universitäts forschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 208, Bonn 2012, 113–128. I. Klenner, Schwerter in Römischen Mithraskult.Conference held at the Universitat Freiburg – Das Schwert – Symbol und Wafe. 19th October, 2012 (abstract online: uni‑hamburg.academia.edu/InesKlenner). Last accessed: 20.06.2014. A. Klöckner, Zur Eigenart der Götterbilder im Mithraskult.Paper held at XIIIth Colloquium of Roman Provincial Art. Bucuresti 2013. K. Kortüm, A. Neth, Mithras im Zabergäu, In: S. Schmidt (ed.)Imperium Romanum. Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Ausstellungskatalog des Archäologischen Landesmuseums Baden Württemberg, 2005, 225–229. L. László, L. Nagy, Á. Szabó, Mithras misztériumai I–II. Kairosz Kiadó, 2005 A. Lentacker, A. Ervynck, W. van Neer, he symbolic meaning of the Cock. he animal remains from the mithraeum at Tienen (Belgium). In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Ed.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 57–80. W. Manning, Romano – British Ironwork int he Museum of Antiquities. Newcastle upon Tyne. Newcastle 1976 F. Marquart, Mithras aus Bronze. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Ed.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 303–319. M. Martens, he mithraeum in Tienen (Belgium): small inds and what they can tell us. In: M. Martens‑ Boe de Guy (Ed.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 25–57. M. Martens, Re – thinking sacred “rubbish”: the ritual deposits of the temple of Mithras at Tienen.Journal of Roman Archaeology17, 2004, 333–353. M. Martens, Life and culture of the Roman small town of Tienen. Transformations of cultural behavior by comparatice analysis of material culture assemblages. Ph.D. thesis. Unversity of Amsterdam 2012. A. Mastrocinque, Note panoramique sur les mysteres de Mithras a apres Cumont. In: F. Cumont (Ed.), Les mysteres de Mithra. Bibliotheca Cumontiana. Scripta Maiora III. Bruxelles 2013, 59–89. J. Mazzorin, I resti animali del mitreo della Crypta Balbi: testimonianze di pratiche cultuali. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Eds.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 179–183 M. L. Molnár, Alimentaţia în Dacia romană. P.h.D thesis. Babeş‑ Bolyai University. Cluj‑Napoca 2012. C. Petolescu, Templulmithraic de la Slăveni. Apulum 14, 1976, 455–461. M. Pintilie, Mithraeaîn Dacia. Ph.D. thesis. Babeş‑Bolyai University. Cluj‑Napoca 2003. I. Piso, O. Ţentea, Un nouvaeu temple palmyrenien a Sarmizegetusa. Dacia NS, 55, 2011, 111–121. C. Pop, Ateliere particulare de ceramică în Dacia romană.Revista Bistriţei 8, 1994, 41–47. M. Popescu, Quand Franz Cumontcherchait Mithra en Dacie. Remarquessur les voyages du savant d’après la correspondence conservée à l’AccademiaBelgica de Rome. Ephemeris Dacoromana 11, 2000, 21–51. M. Ricci, Il mitreo della Crypta Balbi a Roma. Note preliminari. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Eds.),Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 157–165. C. Roman, Ateliere producătoare de opaiţe din Dacia. Elemente de identiicare. In: C. Găzdac, C. Gaiu (Eds.), Fontes historiae: studia in honorem Demetrii Protase. Biblioteca Muzeului din Bistriţa. Seria Historica 12. Bistriţa – Cluj‑Napoca 2006, 545–554. L. Sagui, Il mitreo della Crypta Balbi e i suoi reperti. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Eds.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 167–178. E. Sauer, Not just small change. Coins at mithrea. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Eds.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 327–354. Notes on the Mithraic small inds from Sarmizegetusa Schatzmann 2004 Schäfer 2007 Schäfer et al. 2006 Scherrer 2010 Sicoe 2004 Sicoe 2014 Studnicka 1883 Studnicka 1884 Szabó 2010 Szabó 2012 Szabó 2013a Szabó 2013b Szabó 2014a Szabó 2014b Takács 1987 Tarrats, Remola 2008 Versluys 2013 Vincze 2014 Visconti 1864 Wiblé 2004 Zeleanu 1943 ◆ 147 A. Schatzmann, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer funktionellen Topographie von Mithrasheiligtümern. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Eds.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 11–24. A. Schäfer, Tempel und Kult in Sarmizegetusa. Eine Untersuchung zur Formierung religiöser Gemeinscgaften in der metropolis Dakiens, Berlin 2007. A. Schäfer, A. Diaconescu, I. Haynes, Praktizierte Religion im Liber Pater-Heiligtum von Apulum-Ein Vorbericht. In: I. Nielsen (Ed.), Zwischen Kult un Gesellschaft, Hephistos 24, 2006, 183–200. P. Scherrer,Spaeleum sine camera? Bemerkungen zur Innenraumgestaltung von Mithraeen. In: Anodos. Studies of the ancient world. In honour of Werner Jobst. Trnava 2010, 341–352. G. Sicoe, Lokalproduktion und Importe. Der Fall der mithraischen Reliefs aus Dakien. In: M. Martens, Boe de Guy (Ed.), Roman Mithraism: the evidence of small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 285–303. G. Sicoe, Die mithräischen Steindenkmäler aus Dakien, Cluj‑Napoca 2014. F. Studnicka, Mithraeen und andere Denkmäler aus Dakien. In: Archaeologische und Epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Össterreich‑Ungarn 7, Wien, 1883, 200–225. F. Studnicka, Mithraeen und andere Denkmäler (Fortsetzung). In: Archaeologische und Epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Össterreich‑Ungarn8, Wien, 1884, 34–51. Cs. Szabó, Mithrea în Dacia. Studiul de caz: Sarmizegetusa. Unpublished B.A. thesis. Babeş‑Bolyai University. Cluj‑Napoca 2010. Á. Szabó, A mithraeumok tájolásának kérdéséhez.Antik Tanulmányok 56, 2012, 125–134. Cs. Szabó, Sziklából újraszületett: a nemzetközi Mithras-kutatás legújabb eredményei. Ókor 13, 4, 2013, 54–60. Cs. Szabó, Micro-regional manifestation of a private cult. he Mithraic Community in Apulum. In: I. Moga, (Ed.), Angels, demons and representations of Afterlife within the Jewish, Pagan and Christian Imagery. Iaşi 2012, 43–72. Cs. Szabó, Roman religious studies in Romania. Historiography and future perspectives. Ephemeris Napocensis 24, 2014. In press. Cs. Szabó, he cult of Mithras in Apulum: communities and individuals. In: Atti di II. Convegno Internazionale “Roma e le province del Danubio”. Ferrara 2014. Forthcomming. M. Takács, Date inedited în legătură cu mithraeum-ul de la Decea într‑un manuscris de la începutul secolului. Apulum 24, 1987, 173–177. F. Tarrats, J. A. Remola, La villa romanadels Muns (Tarragona). In: El territorio de Tarraco: villes romanes del Camp de Tarragona. Forum 13, Tarragona, 2008, 95–117. M. Versluys, Orientalising Roman Gods. In: C. Bonnet, L. Bricault (Eds.), Pantheé. Religious transformations in the Graeco – Roman Empire. Leiden – Boston 2013, 235–261. Z. Vincze, A kolozsvári régészeti iskola a Pósta Béla korban (1899 – 1919). Cluj‑Napoca 2014. L.Visconti, Del mitreo annesso alle terme Ostiensi di Antonino Pio. Roma, Tipograia Tiberiana, 1864 F. Wiblé, Les petites objets du mithraeum de Martigny. In: M. Martens(Ed.), Mithraism – the evidence of the small inds. Bruxelles 2004, 135–146. E. Zeleanu, Note epigraice din Apulum. Apulum 2, 1943–45, 95–100. Abbreviations ActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. ActaHist Acta Historica. Szeged. Acta Siculica Acta Siculica. Sfântu Gheorghe. Aluta Aluta. Revista Muzeului Național Secuiesc Sfântu Gheorghe. Alba Regia Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. Székesfehérvár. AMN Acta Musei Napocensis. Cluj‑Napoca. AMP Acta Musei Porolissensis. Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă Zalău. Zalău. ATS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis. Sibiu. AISC Anuarul Institutului de studii clasice Cluj Napoca. Cluj‑Napoca. AnB S.N. Analele Banatului – serie nouă. Timişoara. Apulum Apulum. Alba‑Iulia. AÉ Archaeologiai Értesitõ. Budapest. Areopolisz Areopolisz. Történelmi‑ és társadalomtudományi tanulmányok Odorheiu Secuiesc / Székelyudvarhely. ArhMed Arheologia Medievală. Iași. ArchRozhl Archeologické Rozhledy. Praga. ArhVest Arheološki Vestnik. Ljubljana. Banatica Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan. Reșița. BHAUT Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis. BAR International Series British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford. BAM Brukenthal Acta Musei. Sibiu. BMMK A Békés Megyei múzeumok közleményei, Békéscsába. CAH Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae. Budapest. Cerc. Arh. Cercetări Arheologice. Bucureşti. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. CIMRM Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae. CCA Cronica Cercetărilor arheologice din România. Bucureşti. Crisia Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor. Oradea. Dacia N.S. Dacia. Recherches et Découvertes Archéologiques en Roumanie, Bucureşti; seria nouă (N.S.): Dacia. Revue d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne. Bucureşti. DissArch Dissertationis Archaelogicae (Budapest). Dolg Dolgozatok. Szeged. EphNap Ephemeris Napocensis. Cluj‑Napoca. EL Erdővidéki Lapok. Barót/Baraolt. EM Erdélyi Múzeum. Kolozsvár/Cluj‑Napoca. Isis Isis. Erdélyi Magyar Restaurátor Füzetek. Cluj‑Napoca / Kolozsvár. JbRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch‑Germanischen Ztentralmuseums Mainz. Mainz. Marisia Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie – Istorie – Etnograie. Târgu‑Mureș. MCA Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice. București. ZIRIDAVA, STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA, 28, p. 273–274 274 ◆ Abbreviations MFMÉ StudArch A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Studia Archaeologica. Szeged. MFMÉ MonArch A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Monumenta Archeologica. Szeged. OpArch Opvscvla Archaeologica. Zagreb. OpHung Opuscula Hungarica. Budapest. Pontica Pontica, Constanţa. PZ Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Berlin. RMM‑MIA Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor – seria Monumente Istorice și de Artă. București. Sargeția NS Sargeția NS. Deva. SlovArch Slovenská Archeológia. Nitra. Soproni Szemle Soproni Szemle kulturtörténeti folyóirat. Sopron. StudCom Studia Comitatensia. Tanulmányok Pest megye múzeumaiból. Szentendre. ŠtudZvesti Študijne Zvesti Arheologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akademie Vied. Nitra. Stud. şi Cerc. Num. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie. Bucureşti. SCIVA Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie). Bucureşti. StComSatuMare Studii şi Comunicări. Satu Mare. hraco‑Dacica hraco‑Dacica. Bucureşti. VMMK A Veszprém megyei Múzeumok Közleményei. Veszprém. VTT Veszprémi Történelmi Tár. Veszprém. Ziridava Ziridava, Complexul Muzeal Arad. Arad.