摘要：In the sense of composition and content within the corpus of Mithraic monuments, the two-sided Konjic cult picture (CIMRM II, 1865) represents a unique example. This particularly relates to the Banquet presentation on the back, with all the initiation grades participating. Even though the question of iconography of the second grade, Nymphus, in the shape of a lion beneath the clina – an initiate wearing a lion’s skin – as B. Gabričević suggests, or in the same shape with a hyena sign, as favored by Miletić, has not been solved without further doubts, we consider the opinion that all the grades are being represented in parallel to be the only logical interpretation. The same exceptionality is characteristic also of the front side of the Konjic tauroctony relief. But unlike the Banquet presentation, to which more attention has been paid (K. Patsch, B. Gabričević, P. Selem, R. Merkelbach, L. A. Campbell etc.), there are no detailed analyses of the presentation of the tauroctony and the accompanying scenes apart from the study by B. Gabričević. The tauroctony scene is particularly interesting for two details. The first is the composition of the accompanying scenes. The second is their iconography and content. As we pointed out, the sidelong arrangement of the accompanying scenes is a characteristic not only of the Rhine, Rhaetia and Pannonia, but also of the Italian territory. As an example we pointed to the arrangement of the accompanying scenes on the Barberini fresco (CIMRM I, 390). Thus the broader area of the compositional influence has been determined, and the southern Danubian influence, to which the accompanying scenes in the bottom (and sometimes also upper) registers can be subscribed, could be completely discarded. The representations of two identical scenes within the lower side fields of the Konjic relief contain a male figure, holding an upside-down animal on his shoulders by the feet. He is standing with his feet astride, facing the tauroctony scene. Such an example of an ambivalent representation of identical motifs has not been registered within the entire Mithraistic iconography! The only difference is in the anatomy of the animal head, which they are dragging behind them. While in the left field a pig/ boar head is shown, in the right there is a ram head. In a triptychal relation with the tauroctony, the animals represented in the scenes – a pig, a bull and a ram – used to be connected with the festivity suovetaurilia. Particularly Merkelbach insisted upon it, comparing a couple of examples among Mithraic reliefs, supporting it with the procession of initiates with offerings on the frescos of the Mithraeums of Santa Prisca (CIMRM, 480) and Dura- Europos (CIMRM I, 40-42). The find of bones of the animals, which were offered on the occasion of the ancient Roman public festivity suovetaurilia, in the Mithraeum of Konjic (and some others), is an insufficient and possibly false argument in Merkelbach’s statement related to its Konjic presentation. Even though it is certain that Mithraism used to practice the aforementioned festivity as a sign of participating in the Roman religious rites, it seems incompatible that this offering took place within the Mithraeum. Within this context, R. Beck’s current sociological model of Mithraism as an association that practised a common meal within Mithraeum’s premises appears interesting. Contrary to the quoted assumption on the presentation of a suovetaurilia, we suggest an interpretation of the presentation of the Transitus in the lower side fields of the Konjic relief. From the presentations of the Transitus we know that the animal with a body turned upside-down which he drags behind him is a bull. Within the analysis of the materials containing similar presentations, in the bottom fields of the register, which always represent one and the same Transitus (the Barberini fresco CIMRM I, 390; the Stockstadt relief CIMRM II, 1168; and the relief from Meclo, CIMRM I, 729) we are more apt to interpret the Konjic presentations on the basis of this doctrinary scene and its content. The problem of the presentation of a ram and a pig still remains to be investigated since we have not yet found a scientifically supportable answer. Attributing it to the rustical character of the piece or the lack of skill of its creator would not provide an explanation for the aforementioned anatomies of animals, thus reducing them to bad presentations of a bull. Gabričević’s comparison of the Konjic presentation of Transitus with the examples from Lower Danubian reliefs, on which they are being represented within the tauroctony itself, or within the upper registers, needs to be absolutely rejected. Equally so his interpretation of the necessity of identifying the presentation of animals turned upside-down with the similar motif within the presentation of the Danubian horseman, with a scene of skinning a hanged ram. Particularly the latest interpretations are excluded, since on the examples of Rhine relieves from Ostenburken (CIMRM II, 1292), Diebrug (CIMRM II, 1247), Ruckingen (CIMRM II, 1137) and Nida (CIMRM II, 1083) we have pointed to the fact that they also contain presentations of a boar/pig and ram in their upper registers. At the end of the compositional analysis of the Konjic tauroctony and its iconographic recordings we have determined comparative examples – the Barberini fresco (CIMRM I, 390), the relief of Stockstadt (CIMRM II, 1168) and the relief of Meclo (CIMRM I, 729) – on the basis of which we support our interpretation of the western provenience of the influences imposed on the Konjic presentation of Transitus, but also on the scenes upon them, which were preserved only in traces.
关键词：Mithraism; cult picture; tauroctony; iconography; composition nad style; Transitus; souvetauriliae
