excerpt

REFLECTIONS: HARBOUR CITY DEATHSCAPES IN ROMAN AND BEYOND

EDITED BY

NIELS BARGFELDT & JANE HJARL PETERSEN

EDIZIONI QUASAR ROMA MMXX excerpt

Analecta Romana Instituti Danici – Supplementum LIII Accademia di Danimarca, via Omero, 18, I – 00197,

© 2020 Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon srl, Roma ISBN 978-88-5491-014-0

The book has been published with financial support from

The Carlsberg Foundation

Cover: Sarcophagus with harbour scene, marble, third century CE, allegedly from Ostia, IN.no 1299. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen. Reproduced with permission from the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen.

Whilst every effort has been made to locate copyright holders, the publisher would be grateful to hear from any person(s) not here acknowledged

Print in Italy by Arti Grafiche CDC srl – Città di Castello (PG) excerpt

Contents

Preface ...... 7

Introduction ...... 9

Contributors ...... 13

Dorian Borbonus, Organized Collective Burial in the Cities of Roman Italy ...... 15

Emanuela Borgia, Foreigners from the Eastern Mediterranean at Ostia, , and Puteoli in the Imperial Period: A Reconsideration of the Matter through an Analysis of Funerary Inscriptions ...... 39

David Noy, Electa mihi domus est Ostia felix: The Burial and Commemoration of Migrants at Ostia and Portus ...... 53

Steven l . Tuck, Harbors of Refuge: Post-Vesuvian Population Shifts in Italian Harbor Communities ...... 63

Valerie m . Hope, Life at Sea, Death on Land: The Funerary Commemoration of the Sailors of Roman Misenum ...... 79

Niels Bargfeldt, Unnoticed Diversity in Misenum: Revealing a Multifaceted Society in a Roman Harbour City ...... 99

Lauren Hackworth Petersen, People and Gods in the Necropoleis of : Isis in the Last Decade ...... 127

Jane Hjarl Petersen, Protecting Me Every Step of the Way: Dionysian Symbolism in the Burial Culture of Roman Ostia ...... 145

Marcello Spanu, Working and Dying in the Harbour Cities of Roman Asia Minor: An Appraisal of the Funerary Inscriptions ...... 169

Jesper Carlsen, Epitaphs and the Demography of the Imperial Slaves and Freedmen in Roman ...... 195

John Pearce & Rebecca Redfern, Port Societies on Rome’s Atlantic Façade: A Funerary Perspective ...... 211 excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy

Dorian Borbonus

Abstract mendously, of course. This is why the human re- Italian port cities were characterized by a high sponse to death and the physical manifestations degree of connectivity that created unique social it has generated are simultaneously wide-rang- conditions and a distinctive funerary culture. ing and sensitive to the social and cultural real- My paper posits that human migration led to ities of past societies.1 I have previously argued collective organization and, closely related, or- that the specific practice of collective burial ganized collective burial. There are two catego- can be traced across the ancient Mediterranean ries of evidence for this sort of burial: epigraph- (and, in fact, well beyond) to various historical ic sources attest that associations (collegia) contexts where this form of burial became rel- maintained communal burial sites and funerary evant and appealing for a variety of reasons.2 monuments with large capacities would be suit- Here, I will apply this thesis to Italian and other able for such a burial community. Even though Mediterranean port cities, and ask to what ex- epigraphic and architectural evidence usually tent organized collective burial reflects the so- do not overlap, the two types of evidence can be cial realities of port cities. analyzed separately. One of the main questions It has long been recognized that Roman relates to the external and internal group dy- port cities were sites of economic, social, and namics of burial communities. Externally, strik- cultural interactions. Past studies of trade net- ing objects and buildings show that the public works and social conditions in Roman port cit- face of burial communities was on par with ies have traditionally focused on specific sites that of individuals and households. Internally, and their urban geography, most prominently collective action maintained the cohesion of the Ostia.3 More recently, port cities have been con- group, which was, however, also subject to an ceptualized as a distinct category that presents internal hierarchy. My conclusion is that burial urban characteristics and social configurations communities could provide a meaningful social unique enough to merit targeted analysis. Sev- environment in and other cities with sub- eral monographs and recent conference vol- stantial migrant populations. umes have highlighted the distinctive sociolo- gy of port cities.4 One hallmark of this recent Personal encounters with death and the duty research is the integration of historical inquiry of burial are universal human experiences that into social networks and cultural landscapes cut across social boundaries and chronological with material culture studies and archaeologi- divides. The experiences themselves vary tre- cal data. Specific areas of focus are the urban

1. A number of recent conference proceedings provide an 700 CE” housed at the University of Tampere specifically impression of the range of ritual responses in prehistoric investigates how the integration of Ostia in a Mediterra- and classical societies: Laneri 2008; Brandt et al. 2015; nean network affected its population, urban identity, and Renfrew et al. 2016; Draycott & Stamatopoulou 2016. cityscape. 2. Borbonus 2014. 4. Two recent edited conference volumes on ancient ports 3. In addition to older publications (for example Meiggs contain several chapters that highlight the characteris- 1960; Hermansen 1982; Pavolini 1986), the ongoing tics of port cities as “sailor towns”: Ladstätter et al. 2014, collaborative project “Ostia – Segregated or Integrated? esp. 17–44, 619–643, 669–682; Höghammar et al. 2016, Living and Dying in the Harbour City of Ostia, 300 BCE – esp. 19–26. excerpt

16 Dorian Borbonus layout and the public buildings of port cities.5 tion could provide their members with concrete The cemeteries of port cities are only sporad- benefits and a social community. ically considered, even though port cities have Organized collective burial occured across been assigned an important role in explanations the Roman world wherever collegia existed, but of changes in funerary culture and behaviour. examples are concentrated in Italy and espe- For example, J. Ortalli surmises that integrated cially Rome.10 As a phenomenon that charac- coastal sites like Ravenna and Rimini played an terizes port cities and other highly connected important role in the adoption of inhumation in settlements, its study can provide two forms the second century CE.6 Likewise, G. Piccottini of insight. First, the alignment of funerary ar- and M. Verzár Bass explain the stylistic simi- chitecture to types prominent in Rome itself, larities of memorials in northern Italy and Dal- and especially the spread of columbarium-style matia in terms of coastal trade routes.7 These monuments, illustrates the close relationship examples illustrate the trend to emphasize the between Italian ports and the capital. Secondly, connectivity of port cities and invoke their ex- the organization of burial communities and the posure to cultural inspirations in order to ex- material manifestations of their burial grounds plain changes in usually conservative mortuary can tell us something about the social strat- behaviour.8 egies of urban populations. In what follows, I This contribution takes a different approach. will analyze the archaeological and epigraphical I will return to the topic of port cities as sites of records in order to document organized collec- cultural exchange later on, but my main focus is tive burial in port cities and thus to explore how exploration of the consequences of their unique burial communities were defined structurally, social conditions for burial culture. As in Rome symbolically, and ritually. More specifically, I itself, the populations of Italian port cities were will aim to answer and discuss three questions. mobile and contained a substantial number What was the nature of burial communities and of migrants and individuals in socially depen- who belonged to them? What does the physical dent positions. Arguably, the traditional Roman appearance of communal burial grounds imply practice of providing burial through the family about the public presentation of these burial or patronage may not have been an option for communities? What internal group dynamics every urban resident of such a population. Al- can be gleaned from the evidence? Answering ternative means to acquire a burial site would these questions reveals that organized collective plausibly have been attractive and the arrange- burial was an effective strategy by which to ad- ment that can be documented best is organized dress the contradictory situations between mar- collective burial. By this, I mean burial in com- ginalization and social integration that charac- munities beyond biological families or house- terized both port cities and the Roman capital holds that exhibit some level of formality. This alike. formality can either be organizational in nature, for example in the configuration of a collegium, Evidence for Organized Collective Burial or physical, for example in the employment of One of the primary questions to answer about a monument or burial area that is designated organized collective burial is how to identify it for collective use. Organized collective burial is in the record. Two forms of evidence exist: epi- closely related to collective organization more graphical and architectural. Both of these shed generally, and in the Roman world this is rep- light on the communities that were buried to- resented by the popularity of collegia in various gether and their internal structures and organi- contexts.9 These two related forms of organiza- zation. It is important to consider both types of

5. See especially Steuernagel 2004. Rohde’s analysis of col- fluctuations of which are largely explained through ex- legia in port cities only offers brief remarks on their spe- ternal forces (2015). cific character (2012, 32–37). 9. The literature on collegia is vast; the historiographical 6. Ortalli 2001, 225–257. overview by Perry (2011) provides a useful orientation 7. Piccottini 1976; Verzár-Bass 1985. regarding the major trends and protagonists in the rele- 8. An example of this explanatory model at work on a larger vant scholarship. scale is Ahrens’ analysis of cremation in Asia Minor, the 10. For examples, see Schiess 1888, 135–140. excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 17 evidence together, however, because each one inscriptions simply commemorate individuals provides distinct information and thus illus- who held a position in the collegium, with their trates different aspects of collective burial. official title or privileges.15 Clearly, pride in Epigraphic evidence provides more concrete these positions made them relevant enough to information, since it permits us to identify di- be included in brief epitaphs (presumably at the rectly the nature and operation of the orga- expense of other information) and presented to nizations that provided and regulated burial an audience of fellow collegium members. While privileges for their members. Thus, there are these hints do not provide quite as much detail inscriptions that identify communal burial as full collegium charters, they are unmistakable plots or specify the regulations of associations signs of organized collective burial and thus regarding communal burials. For example, permit the firm identification of the practice. an inscription from Antium specifies that two The body of epigraphic evidence also illustrates magistri, two queastores and two ministri of an the distribution of organized collective burial. unspecified association provided for a building The epicenter of the practice was Rome, but it (aedes) in opus quadratum, complete with gates was also fairly common in other Italian cities, and a calendar (ostia et fastus).11 The inscription both in ports such as Antium and Misenum, and illustrates a leadership circle within the colle- in other settlements. Beyond the Italian penin- gium that simultaneously provided patronage sula, collective burial was popular in Gaul, es- and assumed official roles. The named indi- pecially in the area around Arles, and it is also viduals are of various legal statuses, indicating attested in other provinces and port cities such that the association recruited members of both as Malaca, Narona, Ephesus, and Carthage.16 slave and non-slave status.12 A wider view of In contrast to epigraphic evidence, physical the operations of associations can be obtained remains by themselves allow only a tentative at- from their charters, although no examples are tribution to a burial community. In Rome, the attested from a port city. Nevertheless, the in- quintessential architectural form associated scriptions describe their funerary procedures with collective burial is the columbarium, a sub- in detail, especially when it comes to financial terranean chamber with a regular grid of semi- matters such as membership fees and fines. As circular niches that provided access to immured a general overview, what emerges from this evi- terracotta cinerary urns. Columbarium tombs dence is that collective burial was painstakingly ranged in size and could hold between about administered and operated in the social context 100 and over 1,000 burials; they were often used of a community that also met on a regular basis for the burial of the freed and enslaved staff of for other purposes.13 particularly large aristocratic households, like Most numerous, however, are inscriptions the gens Statilia or the familia Caesaris. These that refer to individual transactions, like the tombs provide a tangible image of how collec- burial of an individual by fellow association tive burial might have looked in practice, but members or the acquisition of a burial plot with epigraphic evidence is still vital for their inter- the approval of a collegium’s officials. Instanc- pretation as such. Association with the aristo- es of the latter demonstrate that the composi- cratic households of Rome can be made only tion of the group was actively regulated.14 Other through the many funerary inscriptions from

11. CIL X 6679; although it is not specified, it is likely that (Buonocore & Diliberto 2003). the building in question was a funerary one, because the 14. Burial by members of the collegium: CIL X 3441 (Mise- same donors are also said to have sponsored the “first num) and CIL X 6699 (Antium). Permission from magi- games” (ludos primi). stri: CIL X 1495 (Napoli); from a procurator: CIL X 1747 12. The duovirs and magistri have tria nomina, indicating (Puteoli); from collegii: IAquil 1.680 (Aquileia). their citizen status, whereas the quaestores and ministri 15. Borbonus 2014, 131, table 11. are identified with single names, indicating the possibil- 16. A numerical impression of the distribution is provided ity that they were slaves. A similar inscription is CIL XI by a list compiled by Schiess that includes 190 instances 1449 from Pisa, which appears to list collectively all the from Rome, 119 from the rest of Italy (Antium: Schiess members of the association. 1888, no. 198 = CIL X 6666; Misenum: Schiess 1888, nos. 13. The inscriptions in question have all been treated in de- 256–257 = CIL X 3441, 3483) and 54 from provincial con- tail elsewhere, especially that of the cultores Dianae et texts (Schiess 1888, 111–140). Antinoi (Ebel 2003, 12–75) and that of the familia Silvani excerpt

18 Dorian Borbonus columbarium tombs. These inscriptions thus public representation. The physical remains of help to identify the social group that was united collective tombs, on the other hand, provide a in a burial monument. Inscriptions also provide more tangible impression of their monumen- evidence of the activities of associations whose tality and thus their relationship to the outside officers managed these valuable resources.17 world, as well as the internal dynamics of the Columbarium tombs characterize the fu- burial community. However, a central problem nerary landscape of Rome, but they were also remains due to the fact that there is almost no employed in Italian ports, especially in Puteoli overlap whatsoever between these two types of and Ostia. A later type, the aboveground colum- evidence for the port cities of Italy. barium, was used in . All of these port-city columbaria employ the essential con- Organized Collective Burial in Italian Port Cities structional element of the columbaria of Rome, Within the Italian peninsula, four major port cit- namely semicircular niches; this makes them ies provide substantial evidence for organized col- easily recognizable as columbaria. However, lective burial. The aforementioned divide between their capacities do not quite reach the scale of epigraphic and archaeological evidence is evident the columbarium tombs of Rome. This obser- for all four. Generally speaking, Puteoli and Aq- vation is significant because capacity is a prin- uileia provide strong epigraphic evidence for or- cipal indicator of organized collective burial, ganized collective burial, whereas the evidence since tombs with capacities vastly exceeding is largely archaeological in nature for Ostia and the needs of biological families or even extend- Portus. In the following pages, I will proceed by ed households were arguably intended for wid- presenting the available evidence in detail, before er burial communities. The capacities of the integrating the information as much as possible. tombs from Isola Sacra that are attributed to There is ample evidence from Puteoli that at- individuals and families exhibit a range of be- tests to the operation of various collegia of pro- tween ten and 35 burials. With a typical colum- fessional and religious natures. Some of these barium tomb in Rome having a capacity of sev- can be tied to burial activity. An unmistakable eral hundred occupants, clearly these two burial case is a collegium baulanorum. To judge by the communities had very different compositions.18 name, this may be an association that comprised The central question here is where to place the residents of Bauli, located between Puteoli and cutoff between a family tomb and a collective Misenum, where two inscriptions mentioning tomb if no other evidence exists. Perhaps 100 this association have been found. Since Bauli is is a good working number; but such a criteri- also the location of aristocratic and imperial vil- on may be too speculative to provide any real lae, Th. Mommsen surmises that this was a col- insight. Furthermore, it is possible to estimate legium of imperial slaves.20 One of the inscrip- capacity for architectural monuments only; in tions records the burial of 20-year-old Eunea, undifferentiated burial grounds, the size of the carried out by Artichnus with the permission plot does not necessarily correspond to the pro- of the collegium through a procurator named jected number of burials.19 Corinthus.21 The other commemorates the Epigraphic evidence and archaeological re- 42-year-old Herodes from Ascalon whose burial mains thus convey different kinds of informa- plot had been bought by the vilicus Demetrius tion. Inscriptions are more concrete, in the sense from the collegium. All the individuals named in that they reveal the definitional basis of burial the two inscriptions are commemorated with a communities, and also their daily operation and single name, making it probable that they were

17. Borbonus 2014, 130–132, 139–142. tion is, however, based on the assumption that the burial 18. The capacities of tombs in Isola Sacra have been com- plots were the same size as those allocated in a different piled by Hope (1997, 74, table 1); the capacities of gift at Sarsina (CIL XI 6528). columbarium tombs in Rome can be found in Borbonus 20. See Mommsen’s commentary in CIL X 1.213. 2014, 19, table 1. 21. Two parallels exist in Puteoli: the burial of two possible 19. An area of 200 by 282 square feet, given by C. Veienus slaves by a collegium salu[tari] familiae Valer[ianae] (CIL Trophimus to the people of Tolentinum (CIL IX 5570) X 1588) and the burial of the 25-year-old Antonius by his has been calculated to be sufficient for 564 burial plots brother and collegii (CIL X 2072). (Purcell 1987, 36–37; Schrumpf 2008, 140). This calcula- excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 19 either enslaved or peregrini. The latter status operation in this ager would seem to be inhibit- certainly applied to Herodes, who apparently, ed if access was really limited to members of the like his more famous namesake, stemmed from corpus.27 The restricted access and the perime- Ashkelon in Philistia.22 The nature and physical ter wall that is implied by the reference to gates setup of the collective burial ground or monu- (ianua) are consistent with a funerary garden, ment is unknown, but it is clear that the asso- however. The size of the property is notable; at ciation managed it; this, in turn, gave it control seven iugera, it was probably used for commer- over the burial community through the granting cial or agricultural purposes as well. The ager is (and presumably refusal) of access.23 larger than most productive funerary gardens, An idea of what a collective burial ground but its overall size is not unheard of.28 might look like is furnished by a single inscrip- The only material evidence for organized col- tion describing the ager of a corpus Heliopoli- lective burial at Puteoli is a building complex in tanorum. The inscription itself is of uncertain the Via Celle necropolis that illustrates the mon- origin, but cultores Iovis Heliopolitani Berytens- umental dimensions of communal funerary ar- es are attested in Puteoli.24 Since we are proba- chitecture (Fig. 1). The excavation of the site is bly dealing here with a group of Syrians from poorly documented and therefore observations Beirut, this latter association was defined in re- are limited to the extant architecture.29 Accord- ligious and ethnic terms. The operation of the ingly, the complex cannot be dated with a great corpus probably extended to funerary matters, deal of accuracy. Nonetheless, the construction as indicated by the ager owned by the corpus. method of opus vittatum points to the second The funerary nature of the ager is not explicitly or third century CE. What is sufficiently clear, mentioned, but it is likely: the inscription speci- however, is that the site combined funerary and fies that those who act against the laws or spirit other functions, similar to the ager of the corpus of the corpus were denied access; this is in effect Heliopolitanorum. a denial of ius monumenti, which is common on The complex is situated along the Via Cam- funerary inscriptions. There are other examples pana, just outside the city, and stretches along of suburban properties that were used for fu- about 30m of the road. It consists of a central nerary and other purposes.25 The ager Heliopoli- with a funerary monument (A), cir- tanorum is clearly multifunctional in nature: a cumscribed on three sides by other structures. cistern and tabernae are explicitly mentioned.26 To the north are two sizeable rooms with black- The nature of the latter is a little unclear; while and-white mosaics (B), divided by a central cor- shops in cemeteries are attested elsewhere, their ridor.30 Behind these rooms is a small courtyard

22. The origin of Herod the Great was a matter of dispute the corpus Heliopolitanorum. already in antiquity, but several traditions connect him 27. Tabernae are, for example, mentioned on a funerary with the city of Ashkelon in various ways (Cohen 1999, property on the Via Latina (CIL VI 10245) and another in 13–24, esp. 19–23). On Herodes from Bauli, see Dubois Rome (AE 1968, 165). Cf. Steuernagel 2004, 196 n. 991; 1907, 104. Terpstra 2013, 85 n. 129; Bodel 2018, n. 80. 23. CIL X 1817 mentions another such permission at Pute- 28. Bodel has collected all the evidence on funerary gardens oli, in this case granted by a decree of the decuriones, if and identifies “a well-defined perimeter” as one of their the reconstruction of the isolated DD is, in fact, secure. characteristic – but not necessarily defining – features. In 24. CIL X 1579 (corpus); cf. CIL X 1634 (cultores). terms of plot size, most funerary gardens were less than 25. For example AE 1968, 165, a fragmentary inscription a iugerum in size, but there are examples of between one from Rome that mentions an ager (of uncertain own- and ten iugera that apparently were used commercially ership), the construction of a monument, tabernae, a (Bodel 2018). pergula, altars and cippi, and the bones and ashes of the 29. The complex was exposed in a “campaign of cleaning deceased. Similarly, see SEG 33.759. Likewise, a prop- and excavation” during the 1930s, but even before that erty in Misenum contained multiple tombs along with the cemetery was “half-buried” (Maiuri 1932, 237) and buildings of unspecified but clearly separate functions used by goatherds who apparently built stalls into the (CIL X 3334; Bodel 2010). Conversely, the inscription of aboveground remains (Maiuri 1932, 236–40). Thus, it Iulia Monime (and socii) about an ager on the third mile is possible that the remains were never fully buried, of the Via Appia does not specifically mention any funer- which in turn would explain the complete absence of ary activity (CIL VI 10231). finds. 26. These installations may have been donated by a bene- 30. Amalfitano mentions four rooms at this location (Amal- factor, as in CIL X 1894 where it is noted that a C. Iulius fitano et al. 1990, 145), but Gialanella notes two (Gi- Aquilinus constructed a porticus with seats in an ager re- alanella 2003, 79). The site is currently too overgrown to ligiosorum – apparently a funerary plot similar to that of attempt to reconcile these conflicting descriptions. excerpt

20 Dorian Borbonus

D

C

E

B B A

Fig. 1. Puteoli, Via Celle, Tomb 12, plan (Amalfitano et al. 1990, 133).

(C) and a three-storeyed building containing number of burials is not documented, but ap- a cistern in its northeastern corner (D). East pears to be substantial. of the courtyard, further service quarters and Since no epigraphic evidence whatsoever has a heated balneum have been documented re- been documented, the interpretation of this as a cently.31 To the south is a sizeable hall (E) that monument for organized collective burial can- was accessible both from the courtyard and not be proven beyond doubt. Consequently, the directly from the street. The interior features nature of the group that used the complex is a floor mosaics, marble revetment, and a cen- little ambiguous. For example, the suggestion tral niche framed originally by an aedicula. In that the complex was used by a Christian group a later phase, burials were sunk into the floor, appears to be based on the debatable hypothe- arcosolia were constructed along the sides and sis that it is to be identified with a praetorium a high podium was added in front of the rear Falcidii that is mentioned in the Atti Vaticani.32 wall. Centrally situated in the courtyard is the Based solely on the material remains, the com- main funerary monument (Fig. 2). Its entrance bination of numerous burials with other spaces faces away from the street and the rectangular that likely enabled convivial and other meetings burial chamber features two arcosolia, a central points to a facility that was used by a collegium base that was possibly meant for a sarcophagus or similar organization.33 In support of this in- and numerous formae below the floor. The total terpretation is the fact that the closest parallels

31. Gialanella 2003, 79–81. (only the base is preserved) within a courtyard was situ- 32. Amalfitano et al. 1990, 146–147; Gialanella 2003, 81. ated next to a three-storey building that featured sizeable 33. A similar arrangement characterizes a third-century rooms with black-and-white mosaics, thus possibly com- complex on the Via Appia, in the area archeologica del bining funerary activities and convivial meetings. This Sepolcro degli Scipioni, where a funerary monument complex has more commonly been identified as a Late excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 21

Fig. 2. Puteoli, Via Celle, Tomb 12, funerary monument (Amalfitano et al. 1990, 144). for the large apsidal hall are similar structures and it unmistakably combines dining and burial of collegia in Ostia and other Italic cities.34 within the same building.35 Two similar multi-functional complexes are Aside from Puteoli, the only other Italian port documented in the località di Cupa Cigliano, city that has produced epigraphically attested where two adjacent monuments combined a instances of organized collective burial that subterranean burial chamber underneath a can be reconstructed with any amount of de- funerary triclinium. The burial chambers con- tail is Aquileia. The cemeteries of Aquileia are, tained both cremations and inhumations in for the most part, known through inscriptions, arcosolia and formae. Both monuments were and only a few areas are documented archaeo- later reused for secondary formae inhumations, logically, most notably a famous stretch along even within the triclinia. No epigraphic materi- the Via Annia (Fig. 3). The distinctive local type al has been recovered from the two buildings, of burial monument is an enclosure tomb in and thus their attribution remains unknown. which a plot of standard size inside a perimeter The arrangement is strikingly similar to that of wall provided space for a primary monument the funerary complex on the Via Celle, however, and surrounding burials.36 All the archaeologi-

Roman house: cf. Claridge 1998, 331–332; Coarelli 2007, other examples set in more marginal positions in Puteoli 373. (Bollmann 1998, 200–203). 34. Steuernagel points to parallels from Ostia (1999, 159 35. The excavation results have been summarized by Gi- nn. 42–43), but the configuration of a large aula with a alanella (1991). central apse in the rear wall is a common arrangement 36. On the cemeteries of Aquileia in general, see Brusin in both public and private buildings throughout Roman 1934; Brusin 1941; Calderini 1972, cxxvi–cxxxiv (epigra- Italy (Bollmann 1998, 103–113). The scholae of collegia phy); Reusser 1987; Buora & Maselli Scotti 1991, 70–83; were usually located close to the forum, but there are Bertacchi 1997; Maselli Scotti 1997. excerpt

22 Dorian Borbonus

Fig. 3. Aquileia, Via Annia necropolis (Brusin 1941, Tav. II). cally documented examples were family plots, an enclosure tomb measuring 40 by 70 square but a similar arrangement may have been used feet, as specified on a cippus that identifies the for collective burial grounds, two of which are space (l[ocus] m[onumenti]) as that of the fero- known from inscriptions and other objects. nienses aquatorum and mentions an ustrinum The first is the area of the feronienses aqua- behind the monument.37 Perhaps in the center torum on the Via Gemina. It was apparently of the locus stood the monumental altar of the

37. CIL V 8303 (= IAquil 1.202). excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 23

feronienses aquatorum that listed the names of backs (Fig. 4). There is some debate about the ten liberti and ingenui on its sides, among which identification and setup of these statues. The were three members of the gens Kania.38 The interpretation of the holes as receptacles for same site also produced two fragmentary stat- wings led E. Maionica to identify them as aurai. ues of young women with jugs on their shoul- Their height (preserved at 70cm and 85cm, but ders and holes in their otherwise unworked originally “hardly more than 1.20 m”) suggests

38. CIL V 8307 (= 992, IAquil 1.201). excerpt

24 Dorian Borbonus

Fig. 4. Aquileia, funerary enclosure of the feronienses aquatorum, statues (Maionica 1898, 297). their use as acroteria on an otherwise unattest- name, the statues, and the patron goddess Fero- ed funerary temple, but their unworked backs nia. Two further altars to Feronia were dedicat- indicate, rather, that they were attached direct- ed by a Titus Kanius Ianuarius, who also dedi- ly in front of something, perhaps, as G. Reiner cated a fountain.40 proposes, the altar itself.39 In any case, they are It may be that the feronienses aquatores dealt clearly meant as a pair and have an association with water professionally, but in what capaci- with water. Their display in the enclosure tomb ty is imposssible to know. Furthermore, all the of the feronienses aquatores indicates some sort epigraphic records related to the collegium asso- of connection with the nature of the collegium. ciate closely with the gens Kania and especially That this was related to water is clear from its Titus Kanius Ianuarius, who was apparently a

39. Maionica 1898, 299; Reiner 1991, 74. tion of the collegium (1886, 587) and Aebischer equates 40. CIL V 776 (altar to Feronia), 8218 (dedication to Fero- the presence of Feronia at Aquileia with its Latin coloni- nia), 755 (fountain). Ruggiero surmises a military func- zation (1934, 12). excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 25 priest in the association. This has led D. Steuer- nagel to surmise that the association was not very long-lived; but perhaps we should not overprivilege the epigraphic information – the operation of the association may just not have generated many monumental texts, aside from those identifying the burial area and commemo- rating the activity of the collegium’s priest. How precisely the Kanii were associated with the fer- onienses aquatores is not clear, but there are two plausible scenarios: either the water-related re- sponsibilities were in the hands of the gens Ka- nia whose members thus organized themselves into a collegium or Kanius Ianuarius was simply a leading member or even the patron of the col- legium. There is one other funerary inscription commemorating six freed and freeborn Kanii (but not Ianuarius); it does not, however, men- tion the association.41 This inscription has no documented context, so it could belong either to this burial ground or to another monument. The close connection of the burial ground to the gens Kania does not automatically make this plot a family monument. Even though many or perhaps most individuals buried here may have been members of that gens, there was also clear- ly a conscious choice to foreground a collective Fig. 5. Aquileia, Collegium Sacrum Martis, altar (Buora 1995, label in the public manifestation of the monu- 83, fig. 22). ment and to depict symbols that were in some way or another connected to the civic or profes- from the collegium, a regulation that is reminis- sional function of the aquatores. cent of the similar rule in the corpus Heliopol- A second collective burial ground in Aquileia itanorum. The stele specifies that the area was that is relatively well known through inscrip- given by a decree of the decuriones and lists over tions is that of the collegium sacrum of Mars. 25 further names, among which is one liberta, Altogether there is evidence for three altars, one one freeborn person, and two individuals with stele, and two identical cippi, all of which were single names.43 From the same context comes recovered from the same property north of the a fragmentary votive inscription that commem- city. The name of the collegium is preserved on orates the consecration of an altar to Mars and one of the altars (Fig. 5), which also lists the Mercury by a certain Leontius. A third altar was names of 15 individuals with different nomina; set up by the freedwoman Titiana Charis to com- two are described as liberti, one as freeborn, two memorate her husband and five other individu- have single names, and may therefore have been als, probably the couple’s slaves and freedmen, slaves, and one is identified as a medicus.42 Fi- with the permission of the collegium.44 Finally, nally, there is a regulation that those who owed the two cippi specify the size of the property as money (presumably to the collegium) were de- being 45 by 90 square feet, slightly larger than, nied their loculus upon death or withdrawal but of the same general scale, as the feronienses

41. CIL V 1270: family relationships (coniunx, filius/a) con- 42. IAquil 1.676. The single names are both Fortunatus and thus nect four of these individuals; two others are identified this may represent a duplicate reference to the same person. as conliberti, while a further individual from another 43. IAquil 1.677. gens is labelled as amica optima. 44. IAquil 1.680. excerpt

26 Dorian Borbonus

Fig. 6. Ostia, necropolis at Isola Sacra, general plan (Baldassare 1987, plan 2). aquatores and several times larger than the typi- may be slaves. The nomina in this group are cal size of excavated plots in Aquileia.45 diverse and altogether nine appear twice, in all All in all, we do not learn as much about but one case (Iulius), in male and female forms. the visual appearance of the burial area of this These name pairs occur sometimes right next collegium, but the typology of the inscriptions to each other (in which case they probably rep- is consistent with the local style: an enclosure resent a couple), sometimes in disconnected tomb with an assortment of altars inside. The positions and, in one case, in different inscrip- number of individuals is particularly notewor- tions. The impression given by these names is thy; including those listed on the altar of Leon- that the collegium recruited its members from tinus, some 50 persons are individually named. a variety of families and potentially had a sub- Of these, three are designated as freeborn and stantial membership. Three named individuals five as liberti. Ten have single names and thus with the imperial praenomina and nomina Cai-

45. IAquil 1.2595. excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 27

us Iulius and Tiberius indicate that at decuriones or by the permission of association least some of the members belonged to families members. Finally, there is the shared obligation that were at some point connected to the impe- to support the group through membership dues rial household. The way in which this group is that required a commitment from all members commemorated highlights the individuality of and at least the threat of exclusion in the case of its members, since most of the epigraphic space non-compliance. is devoted to their names, literally covering the In addition to the two preceding examples of entire stone. However, there are also a number collective burial plots that can be reconstruct- of collective notions, such as the name and thus ed with a relatively high degree of detail, there the official dedication of the organization to are sporadic epigraphic hints that the situation Mars. The two inscriptions that do not make a they present was common. Thus, several in- reference to Mars instead focus on collective de- scriptions make reference to collective burial cision-making, in the form of granting a burial plots, but little or no evidence about the exact location to certain individuals by a decree of the nature of the associated group or the setup of excerpt

28 Dorian Borbonus these burial grounds is available in these cas- es.46 The situation for Portus and Ostia is an exact reverse of that for Puteoli and Aquileia, since there is not a single piece of epigraphic evi- dence that explicitly refers to organized collec- tive burial.47 This contrasts with the prominence of collegia in Ostia and their resulting visibili- ty in the epigraphic record of the city. At least some of these collegia must have been involved in the burial of their members, given that this is a well-attested practice in other contexts and, in fact, one of the major benefits of membership. The problem is that this likely activity has left no epigraphic trace, and thus it is impossible to identify concrete material remains of collective burial in Portus and Ostia. The only criterion to do so, as suggested above, may be capacity, and there are indeed a number of funerary monu- ments with capacities well beyond the needs of even sizable households. Perhaps the most suggestive one is the Fig. 7. Ostia, necropolis at Isola Sacra, Tomb 34, plan (Bal- third-century Tomb 34 (Figs. 6 and 7). This fu- dassare et al. 1996, fig. 51). nerary complex consists of an open courtyard with two rows of arcosolia along the walls. In- two factors stand out: its capacity and hierar- humations in formae cover the entire area of the chical setup. The capacity clearly exceeds that courtyard. There is a separate chamber at the of a typical family tomb, even when allowing back with further arcosolia and, in front of this, for an extended household. However, the hier- a portico with a mosaic and well (Fig. 8). Since archical setup, with a reserved “special” area, it is not clear how many burials were placed in corresponds to the design of second-century CE each forma, estimating the capacity of the com- mausolea that were typically owned by individ- plex is complicated.48 The important criterion uals and intended for the burial of their depen- of capacity thus awaits further verification, but, dents. Such a setup, however, does not neces- here, it clearly exceeds that of the other tomb sarily rule out the possibility that this tomb was monuments at Isola Sacra. A major structural operated by an association. First, associations change was implemented in a later phase of were not entirely egalitarian and their internal the building: the southern corner was cleared hierarchy could conceivably be reflected in the of formae and an underground room with opus design of a funerary monument. Second, as sectile floor was installed instead, housing three F. Feraudi-Gruénais demonstrates, a visually marble sarcophagi. No titulus inscription has “central” burial does not necessarily house the been recovered, and, accordingly, the interpre- most important person in the tomb.49 Thus, tation of this complex is difficult. Nonetheless, there is a strong possibility that Tomb 34 is in-

46. Locus of gen(tiles?) sal(viorum?): IAquil 1.679: 9,600ft2; itaph (CIL XIV 1506). If these inscriptions refer to the locus of gentiles veterani: IAquil 1.685 = CIL V 884: width same person, there are various possible scenarios. At any of 25ft; locus of sodales: IAquil 1.686: 750ft2; locus of ves- rate, this case does not appear to constitute strong evi- tiarii: IAquil 1.687 = Schiess 1888: 201: 3,200ft2; locus of dence for a collective burial monument. cultores Fortis fortunae: IAquil 1.684: 12,540ft2; see also 48. Borg estimates the capacity at 150, based on two inhuma- Buora 1995, 82; Hope 2001, 55–56; Liu 2009, 79 no. 98. tions per forma (2013, 23), but Baldassarre suggests five 47. CIL XIV 1507 is a funerary inscription on behalf of a inhumations per forma, which would produce a total ca- collega C. Prastina Nereus. This may well be a reference pacity of almost 300, although she provides an estimate of to a burial by a collegium, but a person of the same name 120 for the formae alone (Baldassarre et al. 1996, 128–134). is commemorated as spouse and patron in a different ep- 49. Feraudi-Gruénais 2003. excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 29

Fig. 8. Ostia, necropolis at Isola Sacra, Tomb 34, portico and courtyard with arcosolia (photograph by author). deed the funerary monument of an association, perhaps two subgroups are distinguished (aside but, in the absence of any direct parallels, this from the separate back chamber that occupies a attribution must remain tentative. somewhat distinct position and the subsequent- In terms of its appearance, the monument ly installed sunken chamber in the southern fronts directly onto the street and its lockable corner). It is difficult to draw any firm conclu- door sits on the main axis, thus providing a view sions, but the overall visual impression equates of the portico when open. The visual impres- well with that of a collegium with members of sion of the interior courtyard is characterized different status groups and a small leadership by two different “levels” of burials: the formae circle.51 below the ground were probably barely visible Other tombs at Isola Sacra are similar to or at least not easily distinguishable from each Tomb 34, in terms of their setup and capacity. other. The arcosolia along the walls were “rich- Thus, a similar setup characterizes the some- ly painted” and may have contained sarcophagi what earlier “Harvest Tomb” (Fig. 9) that fea- or pseudo-sarcophagi.50 In light of the generic tures two separate burial chambers; the first nature of the subject matter (birds, landscapes, (i.e. older) was originally set up for mixed burial etc.), it is unlikely that the painted decoration customs. The chambers are attached to a court- made any biographical references to the buried yard with further burials; here they are divided individuals. The entire courtyard could be ob- by burial custom (cremation on one side and in- served from any point inside it, and thus provid- humation on the other). Once again, the court- ed a “visual snapshot” of the entire burial com- yard houses a portico with black-and-white munity. The overwhelming visual impression is mosaics showing harvest scenes. Tomb 43 has that of a largely homogeneous group, in which a smaller capacity, but features a pharos mosaic

50. Borg 2013, 23. Some of the arcosolia may have been a burial spot and the legal status of its occupant, which closed off with marble slabs and stucco. is rather unlikely (cf. Feraudi-Gruénais 2003). On a more 51. This observation is not meant to imply that there is a general level, however, a hierarchical architectural space literal correspondence between the visual elaboration of may indicate a hierarchical group. excerpt

30 Dorian Borbonus

Fig. 9. Ostia, necropolis at Isola Sacra, “Harvest Tomb”, view of the courtyard from the west (Baldassare et al. 1996, fig. 62). and a sarcophagus of two potentially freed pub- design of collectively owned tombs is exempli- lic slaves, both of which have been interpreted fied by columbaria E1, E3, and E4 in the Via as signs of collective burial.52 Laurentina necropolis (Fig. 10), one of which At Ostia, the most conclusive evidence for was owned by an imperial libertus and his wife organized collective burial pertains to the first and another by an apparently unrelated group century CE. There is no evidence that collegia of people.54 All three follow the same gener- bought or erected collective tombs, but from al blueprint. There is a central barrel-vaulted Augustan times onwards enclosure tombs and main chamber with niches for cremation buri- columbarium tombs were owned by groups als and a triclinium. The chamber is integrat- of liberti. This ownership model disappeared ed into a courtyard with further burial niches in the second century CE when temple tombs and aediculae. The courtyard is accessed by a and columbarium tombs were exclusively in relatively small doorway and contains a stair- the hands of individuals and married couples. case that leads up to the roof of the chamber, There is a corresponding change in the archi- which featured a terrace. A hearth was in- tectural design; Early Imperial tombs often stalled underneath the staircases and, outside, feature installations for convivial gatherings a walled-off section has been interpreted as a and funerary rituals that are absent from sec- purpose-built ustrinum. Two of the complexes ond-century CE examples.53 The architectural feature internal wells.

52. Borg 2013, 23. Further examples of a similar setup are (for example CIL VI 6150, 11034, 33289–91; cf. Schrumpf Tomb 47, with a nymphaeum and probably a funerary 2008, 211–215). temple, and Tomb E43, arranged around a courtyard 54. Several inscriptions from Tomb VL E1 demonstrate with two central features. its association with the familia Caesaris (Heinzelmann 53. Heinzelmann describes the trend from the earlier own- 2000, 264). The ownership structure of VL E4 is more ership model to the later one (2000, 60–61, 65–66, 80, complicated: it appears that two independent plots were 90–91). The ownership of tomb monuments by groups united into one monument that was owned by several of related or unrelated freedmen is also attested in Rome parties (Heinzelmann 2000, 269–270). excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 31

Fig. 10. , Via Laurentina necropolis, Tombs VL D2-E4 (adapted from Heinzelmann 2000, Beilage 2a).

These monuments are self-contained build- other words, at a time when conglomerates of ing complexes that feature all the functional freedmen collectively owned funerary monu- elements required to facilitate the entire burial ments they were fitted with installations that process and commemorative gatherings. Such a facilitated collective activities by that group. By tomb complex must have been an important site the second century CE, funerary monuments for the burial community, because its self-con- were largely in the hands of individuals and the tained configuration suggests regular meetings burial community was thus probably more hier- with collective rituals that arguably strength- archical. In such a burial community, collective ened the internal cohesion of the group. The rituals may either not have been as important to imposing façades of these complexes display a maintain the cohesion of the group or have been public presence towards the outside. Although carried out largely at a different location, such none of the examples fronts directly onto the as the urban residence of the household. Via Laurentina outside the city, the monumen- The evidence from Ostia and Isola Sacra does tality of the façades and the restricted access not permit the positive identification of the provide an exclusive visual impression.55 These practice of organized collective burial beyond tomb complexes date to the first century CE, doubt. Nonetheless, given the capacities of the but their architectural blueprint did not contin- funerary monuments, their architectural ar- ue long: by the second century CE, newly con- rangements and the hints from the epigraphic structed tombs no longer featured any of the in- record, it is likely that these funerary complexes stallations and existing facilities were rendered functioned as more than family tombs. It seems obsolete by structural modifications. It is tempt- that they were used by wider groups, although ing, if ultimately not provable, to conclude that these groups may have been organized quite in- these changes in funerary architecture corre- formally and thus did not produce an epigraph- spond to changes in ownership structure. In ic record of their activities. At any rate, these

55. Hjarl Petersen 2014, 35. excerpt

32 Dorian Borbonus cases are at the boundary of what I define above the sake of a common interest.56 However burial as organized collective burial, in the sense that communities were defined, they tended to be hi- the organization appears to have lacked a de- erarchical in nature. This hierarchy is reflected fined structure and set of principles. in the evidence in various ways. In inscriptions, the leadership circle appears prominently, de- Analysis fined by their official functions (such as dedi- The situation at Ostia and Isola Sacra illus- cating an altar); regular members are relegated trates an underlying methodological challenge: to undifferentiated lists of names, at best. In the historical interpretation of the evidence for terms of the architectural layout, there are al- organized collective burial is hampered by the ways different levels of emphasis; some burials fact that the epigraphic and architectural evi- are especially elaborate or isolated in separate dence barely overlap. This makes it difficult to spaces.57 It does not follow, however, that the determine if and how collective identities were visually emphasized burial plots were intend- represented through funerary architecture. At ed for those individuals who are celebrated in Puteoli and Aquileia, where the identification of the inscriptions of the collegia.58 Nevertheless, collective burial grounds is possible on the basis the existence of these visual hierarchies demon- of the inscriptions erected by collegia, the visu- strates that communal burial did not necessari- al nature of these areas is only partially known ly entail the equality of all group members. due to the lack of systematic excavations. At Where the physical appearance of the collec- Isola Sacra and Ostia, architectural evidence is tive monuments can be reconstructed, it is clear abundant, but it cannot be tied unequivocally that they tended to be substantial and represen- to organized collective burial. This challenge tative in character. This is evident from the size prevents the formulation of a complete theory of the burial plots, which exhibit a certain range regarding organized collective burial in port cit- but are nonetheless substantial. The defining ies. It is still possible, however, to offer the fol- capacity of a collective monument is more diffi- lowing observations. cult to determine, because it constitutes a crite- The composition of burial communities ap- rion to detect collective tombs when epigraphic pears to have followed a variety of models, from information is absent and would present, there- established organizations to more unofficial fore, a risk of circular argumentation. A general groups with a common tie but no formal struc- indication is provided by the collegium of Mars, ture. Collegia founded on a cultic and/or pro- which had at least 50 members, and the funer- fessional basis buried their members and cele- ary complexes of Isola Sacra and Ostia, which brated their collective appellation in epigraphic could bury well over 100 individuals.59 Collec- records that were presumably visible to the wid- tive tombs also tend to occupy fairly prominent er public. At the same time, there is evidence locations that are usually visible to the wider that collegia did not replace family structures; public: the complex on the Via Celle at Puteoli at Aquileia, for example, the gens Kania un- is arranged within a row of similarly substan- doubtedly played an important role among the tial tombs immediately outside the city and feronienses aquatores. The same is true at Ostia, the forma complexes at Isola Sacra apparently where family or household units are the focus replaced earlier tombs in the first row, closest of titulus inscriptions that define the ownership to the street. On the other hand, the funerary of presumed collective tombs. Furthermore, it complexes at Ostia are somewhat removed from is possible that groups of liberti pooled their re- the street. Finally, there is ample evidence that sources in order to finance a tomb monument; collective burial grounds often included strik- this represents a more informal partnership for ing commemorative texts and objects, such as

56. See the references n. 53. special status of the individuals buried in such locations 57. Similar visual hierarchies were also introduced into the has been demonstrated by Feraudi-Gruénais (2003). funerary architecture of Rome, where elaborate central 59. These numbers are greater than the capacities of fami- aediculae were distinguished from regular burial niches ly-owned tombs in Isola Sacra, but still somewhat lower (Borbonus 2014, 98–104). than the capacities of columbarium tombs in Rome (see 58. The lack of a direct link between “central burials” and any n. 18). excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 33 altars, stelae, titulus inscriptions, and statuary. towards maritime routes only, but were also in- The monumentality of collective burial grounds tegrated into land-based networks. and monuments indicates that membership of Aside from typology, a notable common fea- the burial community provided access to a level ture is the presence of installations related to of privilege that was surely not within the reach funerary rituals and convivial gatherings. The of every resident of the ancient Italian port cit- tabernae and cistern in the ager of the corpus ies. Heliopolitanorum at Puteoli may be examples Thus, collective burial monuments were of this, but more definite evidence comes in the clearly monumental structures, but, otherwise, form of the ustrina, tricliniae, hearths, wells, their architectural manifestation did not fun- and solaria in the funerary complexes at Ostia damentally deviate from that of family-owned and the aula, cistern, , and possible tombs. Rather, they followed locally established dining rooms at the Via Celle complex at Pute- typologies in most cases, such as the enclosed oli.62 These installations furnished the physical plots of Aquileia. The fact that they do not dif- framework for funerary banquets or similar fer visibly from other monuments suggests that gatherings that are also known from the char- collective burial was a strategy employed in ters of collegia. Arguably, such rituals affirmed order to participate in an established funerary the symbolic cohesion of the burial communi- culture, rather than a rejection of this tradition. ty through the interaction of group members. The only specific architectural configuration Their communal activities took place in a shared that can be associated with organized collective social space that was presumably not accessible burial is the columbarium type, in which terra- to outsiders, since collective burial spaces were cotta cinerary urns were immured in the walls typically enclosed and lockable. The signifi- and accessed through semicircular niches. This cance of communal activities and shared social type originated in Rome, but it was adopted space is difficult to recover, but it likely depend- and adapted in some Italian port cities, such as ed on the nature of the group. For profession- Ostia, Puteoli, and Portus, as well as western al groups or members of the same household Mediterranean ports, such as Patras, Corinth, or familia Caesaris, communal burial provided Djerba, and Tarraco.60 The appearance of this recurring opportunities to interact outside of archetype from the city of Rome in Italian and other social situations. For groups that shared a Mediterranean port cities surely testifies to the tomb for purely pragmatic reasons, the commu- close connection between the ports and Rome, nity may not have been as tight, but there must in terms of movement, migration, and social have been regular encounters at the tomb site conditions. Likewise, the evidence for associa- that at least put people of similar status groups tions that buried their members extends to var- in touch with each other. ious provinces, especially those of the eastern Another way of developing interaction within Mediterranean where koina were active in var- burial communities was arguably their ability to ious port cities.61 This affirms the pivotal role shape membership and behaviour through col- of port cities in processes of cultural transfer, lective action. Both aspects could be influenced and also indicates that they were not oriented by the permissions that were granted at the

60. Columbarium tombs in Patras resemble prototypes from In Djerba, the columbarium of Dar al Ghoula features a Italy.This is perhaps due to the influx of colonists, legion- square chamber built with local stone and covered with aries, and veterans, who may have aligned the funerary a barrel vault. It has been attributed to a local building landscape particularly closely with Italian, specifically type, but also features cremation burial niches, probably Roman, prototypes. They may also have been responsi- eight of them (Akkari-Weriemmi 2004). At Tarraco, the ble for the presence of Latin inscriptions, the practice of columbarium of Vila-Rodona probably dates to the sec- cremation and a prevalence of liberti (Dekoulakou 2009). ond century CE and was related to a on the outskirts This situation is analogous with that in Corinth, where a of the city (Vivancos 1999, 38). chamber tomb with a biclinium may represent a “claim 61. For example in Bithynia (Harland 2014, 55–61) and Lydia to Roman dining culture” (Slane 2012, 449) and three (Harland 2014, 193–196); see also van Nijf 1997, 38–55; masonry tombs feature 11 cremation niches and one Harland 2003, 84–86. poros sarcophagus. The close connections between Co- 62. Triclinia and other installations are also attested rinthian and Italian tombs suggest that they were com- epigraphically in Rome: for example CIL VI 10237, missioned by “new arrivals from Italy” (Slane 2012, 455). 10332. excerpt

34 Dorian Borbonus collective discretion of the board of decuriones. ficult to document is that it often adopted the Specifically, permissions could be given for form of familial monuments and the demarca- non-members to be admitted to the shared buri- tion between the two forms of organization is al space or for special objects to be set up. This not clear-cut. This causes some difficulties of is especially clear of the collegium of Mars in Aq- identification, but the similarity between collec- uileia; here, numerous individuals are named in tive and familial tombs may be significant. We association with a space allotted by the decuri- could read this situation in one of two ways: it ones and an altar was dedicated with the explic- may indicate an “imitation” of tomb architec- it permission of the collegiati.63 The granting of ture that suggested “legitimate” family status, such permissions is an expression of collective but it may equally signify that no significant agency, and eternalizing it epigraphically surely distinction was made between these different enhanced the formal authenticity of the burial forms of social organization. community. The regulations denying burial or Despite the fact that tomb architecture was access to members who were behind with their often shaped by local traditions, there was a dues or had acted against the association may, at noticeable trend to adopt columbarium archi- first glance, seem to be the flipside of the same tecture from Rome in port cities, especially in agency, i.e. to exclude members and, through Ostia, Portus, and Puteoli in Italy, and Patras, the opposing processes of permission and exclu- Corinth, Djerba, and Tarraco. This indicates sion, shape the membership of the community.64 that the funerary culture of these port cities was However, they also add a different dimension: aligned closely with that of the Roman capital, to establish a code of expected behaviour and even though the external trade connections of thus influence the conduct of group members. these cities produced substantial human move- Such regulations also established the minimum ment and vast cultural throughput. commitment to the burial community that was The alignment with the imperial center expected from each member. Such commitment leads me to one last consideration, namely clearly included a monetary element, since the the orientation of port cities and their ceme- failure to pay dues is mentioned among the rea- teries more generally. In his analysis of urban sons for the denial of benefits. planning in Mediterranean port cities, F. Pir- son notes that they tended to have a twofold Conclusion orientation: toward the sea and towards their The presence of organized collective burial in hinterland. The urban architectural elements Italian and other Mediterranean port cities indi- that were oriented towards the sea tend to be cates that it was an appealing communal ritual. the port facilities themselves, along with ur- However, it is also clear that the practice was ban defences, economic facilities, and pub- not limited to ports, and perhaps existed in any lic administrative buildings. Two of the cities highly connected city.65 Furthermore, the form he discusses, the Lycian ports of Patara and that collective burial took was variable and this Phaselis, constitute examples of “sepulchral diversity appears to have been caused both by representation”, since substantial tomb monu- local architectural traditions and funerary cus- ments faced the port basin directly. In the case toms, and by cultural transfer. In fact, one of the of Patara, a port that “attained supra-regional reasons that organized collective burial is dif- significance” as a node in the military supply

63. Another example is the collegium baulanorum at Puteoli, host meals (II, 8–10) and misbehaviour at meetings and but the situation here is less explicit because one case meals (II, 23–28). Similar fines are set out in an inscrip- involves the permission granted by an individual and the tion from Simitthus, to penalize the failure of officials to other the sale of a burial plot without the explicit men- carry out their duties (CIL VIII 14683; cf. Schiess 1888, tion of a permission. 84–85, 101; whether the entity in question here was ac- 64. In the case of the corpus Heliopolitanorum, it remains tually a collegium has been questioned: Schmidt 1890, unclear what a potential breach of expected behaviour 599–611). entailed, but an impression can be gleaned from the 65. Along similar lines, Reger notes the possibility that “the charter of the cultores Dianae et Antinoi (CIL XIV 2112), intermixing that happens at ports is not a characteris- in which fines are imposed for the non-payment of mem- tic of ports but rather of any movement of population” bership dues for six months (column I, lines 22–23), (2016, 26), prompting him to compare sea travel to des- committing suicide (II, 5–6), the failure of magistri to ert travel. excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 35 chain, several temple tombs were distributed coast, but all the tombs are oriented towards the in isolated positions around the harbor basin. street. The arrangement of the cemetery associ- In Phaselis, a single temple tomb was located ated with the naval base of Classis near Ravenna on a coastal road, but, instead of facing the is a little less clear: here the tombs stretch along road, it was oriented towards a bay that was the beach, but no published data or maps indi- used as a harbor.66 To these examples may be cate their orientation.70 added a similar scenario at Ephesus, where the It appears, therefore, that in the port cities largest of the extra-urban cemeteries, consist- of Roman Italy, tomb monuments and ceme- ing of uniform “burial houses” and “detached teries were predominantly located on the land sarcophagi”, stretched out along both sides of side and oriented towards the streets that con- the harbor canal during the second and third nected these cities to their hinterlands. If fu- centuries CE.67 From these examples, it ap- nerary monuments are sites of social represen- pears that, in Asia Minor, the seaward orienta- tation, they primarily targeted audiences that tion of cemeteries was common. approached the port from the land as opposed Such a seaward orientation is less common to the sea. It may be that tradition dictated the in Roman Italy. All of the collective monuments location of tombs or that they were poorly suit- I have mentioned in this chapter are situated ed for coastal monumentality. In other words, towards the hinterland. This is, of course, not their predominant location on landward streets only a characteristic of collective monuments, may not be indicative of the predominant ori- but also of the larger cemeteries in which they entation of port cities as a whole. However, if are located. In fact, there are very few examples tomb monuments constitute our main evidence, of tomb monuments that directly face the sea. as they do for the purpose of this book, they are Of these, the most famous is the Mausoleum of likely to illustrate the inward dimension of port Munatius Plancus that sits on a promontory out- cities more than their outward dimension. Con- side Gaeta and dramatically overlooks the Tyr- sidered in this way, the alignment of collective rhenian Sea.68 At Ostia, two monuments outside tomb monuments in port cities with the colum- the Porta Marina were located between the city barium architecture of Rome is perhaps not so and the shore. One of these is the tomb of the surprising. Thus, tomb monuments are perhaps duovir Poplicola, which includes a celebration well suited to illustrate the interplay between of his naval accomplishments and thus a spe- the inward and outward orientations that port cific reference to a marine theme. This monu- cities represent: the people who occupied and ment and another tomb nearby are not oriented visited the tombs may have been from far-flung towards the sea, but instead face the nearest parts of the Empire or have regularly travelled street, which suggests that their visibility from the Mediterranean, but the visual appearance the sea was not the only consideration in their of the monuments was rooted in local archi- placement.69 Similarly, the main street through tectural traditions or closely aligned with the the cemetery at Isola Sacra stretches along the imperial center in Rome.

66. Pirson 2014, 638–641. Pirson mentions the Mausolum of lando (Gros 2006, 427). Halicarnassus as a parallel. 69. On the tomb, see Floriani Squarciapino 1955, 169–181, 67. Steskal (2017a and 2017b) provides brief overviews of 191–207; Boschung 1987, 124; Carroll 2006, 51; Petersen the cemeteries and recent work undertaken to document 2006, 119. Frischer questions whether the monument is, the remains. in fact, a tomb (1982–1983, 53–55). 68. Fellmann 1957, 9–11; Morello 1997, 66–82; Watkins 70. The topography of the area has been treated most com- 1997, 158–160. However, the location of the mausoleum prehensively by Maioli 1990, 375–414, esp. 390–412, figs. may be conditioned not only by the coastal setting but 1–2. also by the mythological connotations of the Monte Or- excerpt

36 Dorian Borbonus BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aebischer, P. Buonocore, M. & O. Diliberto 1934. Le Culte de Feronia, RBPh 13, 5–23. 2003. L’Album e la Lex della Familia Silvani di Trebula Mu- tuesca. Nuove Considerazioni, AttPontAcc 75, 2002–2003, Ahrens, S. 327–393. 2015. “Whether by Decay or Fire Consumed…”: Crema- tion in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. In: J. R. Brandt Buora, M. et al. (eds.), Death and Changing Rituals: Function and 1995. Aquileia romana nella collezione di Francesco di Top- Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices, Oxford & Phila- po, Milano. delphia, 185–222. Buora, M. & F. Maselli Scotti (eds.) Akkari-Weriemmi, J. 1991. Aquileia Romana: Vita pubblica e private, Venezia. 2004. Le Columbarium de Dar Al Ghoula, Djerba (Tune- sie), 20, 17–35. Calderini, A. 1972. Aquileia Romana. Ricerche di Storia e di Epigrafia, Amalfitano, P. et al. Roma. 1990. I Campi Flegrei. Un Itinerario Archeologico, Venezia. Carroll, M. Baldassare, I. 2006. Spirits of the Dead: Roman Funerary Commemora- 1987. La Necropoli dell’Isola Sacra (Porto). In: H. von tion in Western Europe, Oxford. Hesberg & P. Zanker (eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen. Selbstdarstellung – Status – Standard, München, 125– Claridge, A. 138. 1998. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, Oxford.

Baldassarre, I. et al. Coarelli, F. 1996. Necropoli di Porto: Isola Sacra, Roma. 2007. Rome and Environs: An Archaeological Guide, Berkeley. Bertacchi, L. 1997. I Monumenti Sepolcrali lungo le Strade di Aquileia. Cohen, S. J. D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, In: M. M. Roberti (ed.), Monumenti Sepolcrali Romani in Uncertainties, Berkeley & Los Angeles. Aquileia e nella Cisalpina, Aquileia, 149–167. Dekoulakou, I. Bodel, J. 2009. Monumenti delle Necropoli di Patrasso durante il 2010. Tombe e Immobili. Il Caso dei Praedia Patulciana Dominio Romano. In: Patrasso Colonia di Augusto e le (CIL, X 3334). In: L. Chioffi (ed.), Il Mediterraneo e la Sto- trasformazioni culturali, politiche ed economiche della Pro- ria. Epigrafia e Archeologia in Campania: letture storiche, vincia di Acaia agli inizi dell’età imperiale romana, Atene, Napoli, 247–264. 163–210. Bodel, J. Draycott, C. M. & M. Stamatopoulou (eds.) 2018. Roman Tomb Gardens. In: W. F. Jashemski et al. 2016. Dining and Death, Leuven, Paris & Bristol. (eds.), Gardens of the , Cambridge & New York, 199–242. Dubois, C. 1907. Pouzzoles Antique: Histoire et Topographie, Paris. Bollmann, B. 1998. Römische Vereinshäuser, Mainz. Ebel, E. 2003. Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden. Die Borbonus, D. Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer 2014. Columbarium Tombs and Collective Identity in Au- Vereine, Tübingen. gustan Rome, Cambridge. Feraudi-Gruénais, F. Borg, B. 2003. ‘Inschriften und Selbstdarstellung’ in stadtrömischen 2013. Crisis and Ambition: Tombs and Burial Customs in Grabbauten, Rom. Third-Century CE Rome, Oxford. Fellmann, R. Boschung, D. 1957. Grab des Lucius Munatius Plancus bei Gaeta, Basel. 1987. Die Republikanischen und Frühkaiserzeitlichen Nekropolen vor den Toren Ostias. In: H. von Hesberg Floriani Squarciapino, M. & P. Zanker (eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen. Selbstdar- 1955. Scavi di Ostia 3.1: Le Necropoli, Roma. stellung – Status – Standard, München, 111–124. Frischer, B. Brandt, J. R. et al. (eds.) 1982–1983. Monumenta et Arae Honoris Virtutisque Cau- 2015. Death and Changing Rituals: Function and Mean- sa: Evidence of Memorials for Roman Civic Heroes, Bull. ing in Ancient Funerary Practices, Oxford & Philadel- Com. Arch. 88, 51–86. phia. Gialanella, C. Brusin, G. 1991. Via Cupa Cigliano – Via Vecchia Vigna, Bollettino di 1934. Gli Scavi di Aquileia. Un quadriennio di attività archeologia 11–12, 175–180. dell’Associazione nazionale per Aquileia, Udine. Gialanella, C. Brusin, G. 2003. Puteoli: The Archaeological Park on the Puteoli-Ne- 1941. Nuovi Monumenti Sepolcrali di Aquileia, Venezia. apolis Road. In: C. Gialanella (ed.), Nova Antiqua Phle- excerpt

Organized Collective Burial in the Port Cities of Roman Italy 37

graea: New Archaeological Treasures from the Phlegraean Sepolcrali Romani in Aquileia e nella Cisalpina, Aquileia, Fields, Napoli, 64–81. 137–148.

Gros, P. Meiggs, R. 2006. L’Architecture romaine du début du IIIe siècle av J-C 1960. Roman Ostia, Oxford. à la fin du haut-empire 2: Maisons, palais, et tom- beaux, Paris. Morello, A. 1997. Lucio Munazio Planco, Venafro. Harland, P. A. 2003. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations. Claim- Ortalli, J. ing a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society, Minneapolis. 2001. Il culto funerario della Cispadana romana: Rappre- sentazione e interiorità. In: M. Heinzelmann et al. (eds.), Harland, P. A. Römischer Bestattungsbrauch und Beigabensitten in Rom, 2014. Greco-Roman Associations: Text, Translations, and Norditalien und den Nordwestprovinzen von der späten Re- Commentary II: North Coast of the Black Sea, Asia Minor, publik bis in die Kaiserzeit, Wiesbaden, 215–242. Berlin & Boston. Pavolini, C. Heinzelmann, M. 1986. La Vita Quotidiana a Ostia, Roma. 2000. Die Nekropolen von Ostia. Untersuchungen zu den Gräberstraßen vor der Porta Romana und an der Via Lau- Perry, J. S. rentina, München. 2011. Organized Societies: Collegia. In: M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman Hermansen, G. 1982. Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life, Edmonton. World, Oxford & New York, 499–515.

Hjarl Petersen, J. Petersen, L. H. 2014. Openness and ‘Closedness’ in Roman Tomb Archi- 2006. The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History, New tecture: Tomb E1 of the Via Laurentina Necropolis at Os- York & Cambridge. tia as a Case Study, AnalRom 39, 27–48. Piccottini, G. Höghammar, K. et al. (eds.) 1976. L’Influenza di Aquileia sull’Arte Sepolcrale del No- 2016. Ancient Ports: The Geography of Connections, Up- rico Mediterraneo. In: Aquileia e l’Arco Alpino Orientale, psala. Udine, 141–151.

Hope, V. M. Pirson, F. 1997. A Roof over the Dead: Communal Tombs and Fam- 2014. Antike Hafenstädte – Gestaltung, Funktion, Wahr- ily Structure. In: R. Laurence & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), nehmung. In: S. Ladstätter et al. (eds.), Häfen und Hafen- Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, städte in östlichen Mittelmeerraum von der Antike bis in Portmouth, 69–88. byzantinische Zeit. Neue Entdeckungen und Aktuelle For- schungsansätze, Istanbul, 619–643. Hope, V. M. 2001. Constructing Identity: The Roman Funerary Monu- Purcell, N. ments of Aquileia, Mainz, and Nimes, Oxford. 1987. Tomb and Suburb. In: H. von Hesberg & P. Zanker (eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen. Selbstdarstellung – Ladstätter, S. et al. (eds.) Status – Standard, München, 25–41. 2014. Häfen und Hafenstädte in östlichen Mittelmeerraum von der Antike bis in byzantinische Zeit. Neue Entdeckun- Reger, G. gen und Aktuelle Forschungsansätze, Istanbul. 2016. Nodes of Sea and Sand: Ports, Human Geography, and Networks of Trade. In: K. Höghammar et al. (eds.), Laneri, N. (ed.) Ancient Ports: The Geography of Connections, Uppsala, 2008. Performing Death, Chicago. 9–36. Liu, J. Reiner, G. 2009. Collegia Centonariorum: The of Textile Deal- 1991. Area Funeraria degli Aquatores Feronienses. In: M. ers in the Roman West, Leiden & Boston. Buora & F. Maselli Scotti (eds.), Aquileia Romana: Vita Maioli, M. G. pubblica e privata, Venezia, 73–74. 1990. La Topographia della Zona di Classe. In: G. Susini (ed.), Storia di Ravenna I: L’Evo Antico, Venezia, 375–414. Renfrew, C. et al. (eds.) 2016. Death Rituals, Social Order, and the Archaeology of Maionica, E. Immortality in the Ancient World, Cambridge. 1898. Zwei Statuen vom Grabmale der Feronienses Aqua- tores in Aquileja. In: Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu Sei- Reusser, C. nem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden 1987. Gräberstrassen in Aquileia. In: H. von Hesberg & und Fachgenossen, Wien, 296–300. P. Zanker (eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen. Selbstdarstel- lung – Status – Standard, München, 239–249. Maiuri, A. 1932. Pozzuoli – Colombaria di “Via Celle”, BdA 26, 236– Rohde, D. 240. 2012. Zwischen Individuum und Stadtgemeinde: Die Integ- ration von Collegia in Hafenstädten, Mainz. Maselli Scotti, F. 1997. I Monumenti Sepolcrali del Museo Archeologico Ruggiero, E. de Nazionale di Aquileia. In: M. M. Roberti (ed.), Monumenti 1886. Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane, Roma. excerpt

38 Dorian Borbonus

Schiess, T. Steuernagel, D. 1888. Die römischen Collegia Funeraticia nach den In- 1999. “Corporate Identity”. Über Vereins-, Stadt-, und schriften, München. Staatskulte im kaiserzeitlichen Puteoli, MDAI(R) 106, 149–187. Schmidt, J. 1890. Status einer Municipalcurie in Africa, Rh. Mus. 45, Steuernagel, D. 599–611. 2004. Kult und Alltag in römischen Hafenstädten: Soziale Prozesse in archäologischer Perspektive, Stuttgart. Schrumpf, S. 2008. Bestattung und Bestattungswesen im Römischen Terpstra, T. T. Reich, Göttingen. 2013. Trading Communities in the Roman World: A Micro-Eco- nomic and Institutional Perspective, Leiden & Boston. Slane, K. L. 2012. Remaining Roman in Death at an Eastern Colony, Verzár-Bass, M. JRA 25, 441–455. 1985. Raporti tra l’alto Adriatico e la Dalmazia: A Propo- sito di alcuni Tipi di Monumenti Funerari. In: Aquileia, La Steskal, M. Dalmazia, e l’Illirico, Udine, 183–208. 2017a. Reflections on the Mortuary Landscape of Ephe- sus: The Archaeology of Death in a Roman Metropolis. Vivancos, A. E. In: J. R. Brandt et al. (eds.), Life and Death in Asia Minor 1999. El Punto de Partida: Los Columbarios Clásicos. In: in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Times: Studies in A. G. Blanco (ed.), Los Columbarios de La Rioja, Murcia, Archaeology and Bioarchaeology, Oxford & Philadelphia, 25–42. 176–187. van Nijf, O. M. Steskal, M. 1997. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the 2017b. Defying Death in Ephesus: Strategies of Com- Roman East, Amsterdam. memoration in a Roman Metropolis. In: E. Mortensen & B. Poulsen (eds.), Cityscapes and Monuments of Western Watkins, T. H. Asia Minor: Memories and Identities, Oxford & Philadel- 1997. L. Munatius Plancus: Serving and Surviving in the phia, 229–236. Roman Revolution, Atlanta.