Copyright by Susan Grace Crane 2019

The Report Committee for Susan Grace Crane Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Report:

Communities of War: Military Families of Roman

APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Andrew M. Riggsby, Supervisor

Adam T. Rabinowitz

Communities of War: Military Families of

by

Susan Grace Crane

Report

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

The University of Texas at Austin May 2019

Dedication

I would like to dedicate my work to Virginia Crane, whose grace and perspective are my constant encouragement.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Andrew M. Riggsby and Dr. Adam T. Rabinowitz for their invaluable guidance and support. Thanks also go to my parents for their endless advice, and to my siblings, Judy, Adele, and Harry, for their love and enthusiasm.

v Abstract

Communities of War: Military Families of Roman Dacia

Susan Grace Crane, MA The University of Texas at Austin, 2019

Supervisor: Andrew M. Riggsby

This paper examines the cultural information of epigraphic choices within military communities of Roman Dacia and engages with the private behaviors of members of the military and their families in the ancient world. A case study on votive inscriptions dedicated by members of the military supports this paper’s primary interest in dedicants of military epitaphs. Actions taken by soldiers, veterans, and their families present in votive inscriptions and epitaphs alike as individual and collective decisions intentionally made to communicate private behavior to the audience. At the same time, they situate themselves in the broader epigraphic trends of the , albeit in unique ways. While both inscription types demonstrate individual reaction to societal norms, the epitaphs studied contain a notable absence in single-woman dedicants and an associated prevalence of situating both the deceased and the dedicants in identifiable social roles. The concern for societal status and self-identification emphasizes the significance of public expression of private behavior, as well as issues of legality and community response in the aftermath of death. Votive inscriptions and military epitaphs alike feature a prioritization of military

vi identity among military communities in Roman Dacia at the expense of individualized choices regarding the self that are publicly communicated.

vii Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... x

List of Figures ...... xi

I: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II: THE CONQUEST OF DACIA ...... 4

Mapping Dacia ...... 5

Identifying the in Literature ...... 6

The Colonization of Dacia ...... 7

III: PROVINCIAL REALITIES ...... 11

IV: MONUMENTAL VICTORY ...... 14

Adamclisi ...... 14

V: EPIGRAPHY IN ROMAN DACIA ...... 17

Votive Offerings: A Case Study of Băile Herculane, jud. Caraș-Severin ...... 19

Dedications to Asclepius and Hygieia ...... 20

Dedications to Hercules Invictus ...... 21

Dedications to Hercules: Localized Behavior ...... 22

Discussion ...... 23

Funerary Epitaphs: Case Studies of , , and Caraș- Severin ...... 25

Methodology ...... 27

Mehadia, jud. Caraș-Severin ...... 28

Wives of Mehadia ...... 29

Wives and Heirs of Mehadia ...... 30 viii Tibiscum, jud. Caraș-Severin ...... 32

Problems Identifying Wives at Tibiscum ...... 33

Heirs and Familial Dedicants of Tibiscum ...... 34

Unknown Dedicants of Military Epitaphs ...... 37

Pojejena, jud. Caraș-Severin ...... 37

Other Towns of Caraș-Severin ...... 39

Discussion ...... 39

VI: CONCLUSION…...... 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 45

ix List of Tables

Table 1: Votive Dedications at Băile Herculane ...... 24 Table 2: Sites in Caraș-Severin with Military Epitaphs ...... 40

x List of Figures

Figure 1: Defensive System of Roman Dacia ...... 4 Figure 2: Regional Map of Modern and ...... 7 Figure 3: Map of Thermal Springs of Roman Dacia ...... 19 Figure 4: Map of Sites Discussed in Caraș-Severin ...... 27

xi I. Introduction

The Roman conquest and occupation of Dacia is unique in its brevity and intensity of militarization. These qualities, particularly when structured along lines of nationalism and nation building, remain a popular focus in scholarship and have popularized the identification of Roman troop placement in Dacia. The region is indeed rich in its capacity to inform research on cultural and political formation in the provinces at the height of Roman imperialism as it contains an abundance of material and epigraphic culture within the boundaries of ’s Dacia and its subsequent iterations until Gallienus and . Dacia’s position on the as a buffer zone remained militarized throughout its brief existence as a province, which, combined with its wealth of natural resources, invited waves of migration that changed the social landscape of the province. The military in Roman Dacia continues to be of great interest because it is peopled by

Romans and non-Romans, provincial and otherwise, who bring with them religious and social practices that complicate any simple reading of Roman imperialism in the province. The focus on the military engages most readily with the placement of various units in forts and in settlements throughout Roman Dacia, and it is in this same scholarly trend that a consideration of military families arises.

In order to understand more closely the behaviors of occupying military forces and their interactions with the land and people around them, this paper examines the actions taken by soldiers, veterans, and their families, because they illuminate the lived reality of Roman Dacia’s military community. In particular, epigraphy provides a multivalent perspective on private behaviors enacted by individuals and families that taken part in, or react against, larger traditions of Roman inscriptional practices. It becomes increasingly evident that, even within the expression of personal nuances, there remains a preferred method of putting forth information

about the self on a public platform like votive dedications and epitaphs. Attention paid to the discrepancies in dedicatory practices, particularly those not traditionally considered when discussing Roman military life, reveals nuances in individual and community behavior that, in their complexities and simplicities, demonstrate a reality of living in an ever-changing provincial world.

This paper examines two case studies, one focused on the private behavior of soldiers and veterans, and the other interested in military families and familial obligations. The first looks to

Băile Herculane, thermal springs associated with Hercules, and considers individual religious practices of members of the military. The second concerns itself with those who dedicate funerary epitaphs and focuses on sites in the county of Caraș-Severin, same region as Băile

Herculane, as juxtaposed exempla of behavior in military communities. Together, the two case studies provide a view of military life outside of the military, albeit with a constant mindfulness of military status in each. The votive altars of Băile Herculane are the result of an intersection of mobility, religion, and military culture, dedicated by members of the military who identify themselves through localized and shared religious practices. In turn, the precisely curated information of funerary epitaphs, particularly at Mehadia, Pojejena, and Tibiscum, suggests that the social fabric of Roman Dacia was remarkably stable insofar as it operated in an everchanging, multicultural world. These three sites are unequal in the wealth of inscriptional evidence they provide, giving an overview of the extant material from Caraș-Severin. Each case study then complements our understanding of social status, religious tradition, population movement, and individual mobility, all as the studied individuals and communities participate in military life. The epigraphical approach to studying military communities in Roman Dacia makes it possible to structure military life not in terms of defensive position, but in terms of a

2

peopled landscape comprised of thoughts and actions that transgress and abide by social and political norms.

3

II. The Conquest of Dacia

Figure 1: Defensive system of Roman Dacia (Gudea and Lobüscher, 2006)

The position of the Danube as one of the more vulnerable and troublesome frontiers of the Roman Empire in conjunction with the heavy militarization and economic exploitation of

Dacia has long established the province as a region of great anxiety to imperial administration.

Indeed, local opposition had invited both war and conciliation on the part of the Romans, necessitating—at least in Trajan’s mind—a more holistic response of conquest and permanent stability. The function of the in ensuring frontier security and the protection of

Roman interests, as well as its role in mitigating potential challenges, demonstrates homogeneity of behavior of military communities throughout the empire. Likewise, there is inevitably localized behavior and action dependent both upon the province and upon microregions within that province. It is with this dual concept in mind—that of homogeneity and heterogeneity—that

4

Roman Dacia provides an interesting study of provincial behavior as it intersects with broader trends in the empire. The history of Roman Dacia illuminates Roman engagement with risk and risk response throughout imperial expansion, bearing witness to a close integration of Roman societal structures into the fabric of Dacian life.

MAPPING DACIA

The boundaries of Roman Dacia in the ancient world were constantly shifting, mirroring changes in imperial policy, military placement, and response to border challenges. Given these changes, a brief look at two itineraria of the region is appropriate in order to understand the boundaries within and through which military communities moved and lived. A single sentence from Trajan’s itinerarium of Dacia remains, naming settlements in the same county of Caraș-

Severin: inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus.1 The imperial road network, part and parcel to the development of itineraria, was constructed into Dacia first between Lederata in

Superior and Tibiscum, and then between and Tibiscum.2 A third road linked Drubetis to

Apulum. The awkward position of Dacia, jutting and mountainous beyond the Danube, necessitated a careful strategy of troop movement to and within the province, and its natural wealth similarly demanded a road system well-integrated into the rest of the empire. The Tabula

Peutingeriana marks Tivisco (Tibiscum), Sarmategte (Sarmizegetusa), Apula (),

Napoca, and Porolisso () with double towers, Ad Aquas with a larger construction indicating its role as a spa town, and a series of settlements and villages otherwise mentioned along three represented roads.3 The surveyor Balbus discusses how he and the invading Roman army drew lines to guide the conquest of Dacia in a series of bridges, defended routes, and river

1 Florin Fodorean, , Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016), 29. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 83.

5

widths.4 Considered together with the Tabula and Trajan’s single sentence, Balbus’s testimony shows the desire for ease of travel in conquest and in permanent occupation. Moreover, it demonstrates the goal of mobility for military communities that functioned as one of the most integrated parts of administrative structures of imperial power in the provinces. The conquest of

Dacia was built on movement, and this mindset of mobility lingered in the province as a particular characteristic of behavior, especially among military communities.

IDENTIFYING DACIANS IN LITERATURE

Literary sources confuse any cogent narrative of Dacian relations with the outside world.

They have also historically led to misinformed assumptions that cloud the reality of Roman

Dacia. To begin, the ethnonym appears as early as Herodotus when they interact with

Darius (Histories IV.93). Later, describes ’s unification of the tribes of the

Dacian kingdom, bringing them into direct contact with Greek cities and, once the cities were conquered, Caesar (Geographica VII.3.11-12). He also differentiates between the Dacians and the Getae, positioning the former to the west and the latter to the east, and emphasizes the exceptional nature of Burebista’s political success. The pattern of unification in this region as a threat to Greek and Roman livelihood appears again with . offers the greatest information regarding the Dacian Wars, first touching upon the enduring danger

Decebalus presents as early as , who was forced to pay off the Dacian king for peace after a failed Dacian campaign (Historia Romana LVIII 6.1). Dio provides a motive for Trajan’s campaigns in Dacia with the emperor’s distaste for treaties that had Romans subsidize the Dacian kingdom. The general emphasis on the specific vulnerability of the province also features in an episode of construction and deconstruction: Trajan had a great bridge built across the Ister in the

4 Balbus, Expositio et ratio omnium formarum, I.I.

6

fear that the frozen river would aid in surprise attacks against the Romans, which immediately had taken apart in the fear that the bridge would do the same (Historia Romana

LXVIII 13). Discussions of the Dacians and Dacia appear among ancient authors framed in anxieties of war and threat. Moreover, the preoccupation with phases of unification and resistance in Dacia allows for a general narrative of the potential danger the conglomeration of tribes therein offer to outside populations.

THE COLONIZATION OF DACIA

Figure 2: Regional map of modern Romania and Moldova (Gudea and Lobüscher, 2006)

The conquest of Dacia fit in well with the broader colonization policies of the Roman

Empire, since it sat on the restless frontier of the Danube and contained a wealth of mineral resources. After the CE 101-102, occupied the , southwest and southeast parts of , Wallachia, and southern , and, colonization began in

7

earnest after the death of Decebalus at the end of the , CE 105-106.5 The trend of unification and subsequent violent threat that previously worried the Roman Empire with Burebista and Decebalus necessitated a defense system that would counter the threat of unity and protect the inner provinces. The barrier of the Carpathians curves around a high plateau with accessible valley openings in the eastern Carpathians, fewer passes in the southern

Carpathians, and major north-south passes in the western Carpathians.6 Romans integrated the mountain peaks and passes and the network of rivers into an organized defense system anticipating movement along these lines, with the outer as a collection of outer towers and inner forts, and then shrinking rings of defense to the central fortifications of the province.7 The

Dacian capital of Sarmizegetusa was abandoned as the Roman capital of Ulpia Traiana

Sarmizegetusa was established.8 The two legions manned the central system of fortification, with alae and numeri positioned in the intermediate phase, and the remained at forts on the limes in a coordination of fixed and mobile units designed with a flexibility of response and recovery.9 The forts of the limes appear most often on plateaus overlooking passes and rivers, nearly all of them managing the connectivity and adjacent danger in both connective routes, and were built with stone and wood since the time of Trajan.10 Even as it changed administratively from emperor to emperor, Dacia remained thus from Trajan’s victory in CE 106 to its abandonment by Aurelian in the early 270s, characterized by intense colonization, militarization, and the exploitation of economic resources.

5 Nicolae Gudea and Thomas Lobüscher. Dacia: Eine römische Provinz zwischen Karpaten und Schwarzem Meer ( am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Labern, 2006), 21-22. 6 Nicolae Gudea, “The Defensive System of Roman Dacia” 10 (1979): 63-64. 7 Ibid., 65. 8 This paper abbreviates Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa to Sarmizegetusa as the Roman capital unless otherwise noted. 9 Gudea (1979), 66-67. 10 Ibid., 74-82.

8

The positioning of military units throughout Roman Dacia was adaptable in its organization, proving quite capable in response to extra-provincial threat in the latter half of the province’s existence. Originally, the legiones IV Flavia Felix, XIII Gemina, and I Adiutrix were stationed in Dacia, with vexillationes and auxilia as support, but in permanent occupation I

Adiutrix left, with IV Flavia Felix in Bersobis and XIII Gemina in Apulum.11 Legio V

Macedonica appeared around CE 167/8 in ,12 and additional auxiliary units, such as cohors II Hispanorum Scutata Cyrenaica after CE 13313, were added throughout Dacia’s existence as a province. Roman Dacia’s vulnerability demanded flexibility in troop mobility—

Hadrian was forced to respond to incursions by the and the by CE 117/118 and withdrew from southern Moldavia and Mutenia in Wallachia.14 The continued development and strengthening of the defense system of forts and towers proceeded as well post-Trajan. Forts east of the Olt River, from the Carpathian passes to the Danube, were completed under Hadrian15 in conjunction with the construction of earthen ramparts along the .16 Such reorganization continued under in CE 167/168 due to the .17

The constant changes in military position and defensive structure aimed at improving the security of the province, its environmental resources, and the Danube. Urbanization proceeded with administrative and military organization, promoted by the number of soldiers who remained in the environment of camp settlements scattered across Roman Dacia. The defining and lasting

11 Gudea and Lobüscher, 21-22. 12 Ibid., 38. 13 Stephen Chappell, “Auxiliary Regiments and New Cultural Formation in Imperial Dacia, 106-275 c.e.” The Classical World 104, no. 1 (Fall 2010): 96. 14 Gudea (1979), 69. 15 Gudea and Lobüscher, 33. 16 I.P Haynes W.S. Hanson, “An Introduction to Roman Dacia,” in Roman Dacia: the Making of a Provincial Society. Hanson, W.S., and I.P. Haynes, eds. (Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C., 2004), 26. 17 Gudea and Lobüscher, 22.

9

quality of military mobility and settlement in the region yielded a provincial landscape inundated in military life that remained a constant even through reorganization and up until Roman withdrawal.

Roman Dacia was organized into municipalities amidst and surrounding military positions. The pattern of settlements often originating as canabae or vici of forts—with as a notable exception—resulted in a particular reliance on military administration throughout the larger network of Dacian society.18 This was evident in the military-owned amphitheaters at

Porolissum and Micia, accommodating 5000 and 1000 people respectively.19 This integration blurs the line between military and civilian, and indeed it has become increasingly apparent that there is little distinction archaeologically between military and civilian life in terms of mapping the two separately in space outside of forts and defensive towers.20 In short, the establishment of

Roman power structures in the new province of Roman Dacia provides a unique backdrop for the private behavior and actions of members of the military communities. Moreover, the growing population of the military in the province brought with it the simultaneously increasing participation in epigraphic trends, expressing the nested identities so characteristic of the provincial world. The historical orientation of life in Roman Dacia on military establishments, compounded with the presence of empire-wide Roman civic buildings provided social and political continuity for both soldiers and civilians moving about the province.

18 Gudea and Lobüscher, 24-29. 19 Ibid. 20 Haynes and Hanson, 25.

10

III. Provincial Realities

The continued military presence in Dacia was founded in its position as a protective buffer zone, which notion has then been entrenched modern scholarship in a Roman-versus- barbarian mentality. This diminishes the lived reality of communities existing and thriving on the frontier. Gil Gambash examines non-Roman resistance to Roman power in the provinces, framing such interactions in terms of flexibility in Roman mitigation and response.21 His focus on provincial unrest within local and imperial structures of power acknowledges the connectivity inherent between populations within the province among Romans and non-Romans, and also the interregional connectivity that extends beyond the bounds of the Roman empire.22 It is difficult to delineate spheres of Roman influence from non-Roman local influence, although the fundamental risk of Dacia as a militarized buffer zone becomes apparent. The inscriptional evidence examined below features individuals and their families who are deeply aware of how status interacts with society at large. The military is rarely separate from the non-military sections of society, but rather it and its members engage with the broader world with an attention towards reputation and societal position. At its core, Dacia as a buffer zone did not exist in a vacuum, but within a connected set of communities, trans-frontier and otherwise, that in multivalent identities, behavior, and social and economic challenges the Roman-barbarian dichotomy.

Gambash is not alone when he notes the overarching Roman concern with peace and routine that disrupted neither society nor economy.23 Conquest certainly brought populations into contact with one another, yet within a preexisting structure of regional societies and economies

21 Gil Gambash, Rome and Provincial Resistance (New York: Routledge, 2015), 1-3. 22 Ibid., 43. 23 Ibid., 180-182.

11

that circled the frontier. Karim Mata engages in the concept of cross-cultural interaction and difference negotiation on a background of messy and unexpected colonial encounters.24 In short, hybridity frames behavior in the provinces. The cultural habits, and certainly the epigraphic behaviors, are localized and dynamic, formed and maintained in an environment of reflexivity in populations that come into contact with one another.25 Moreover, cultural hybridization and negotiation exists naturally at all levels of society, often developed locally before they are written into more formal governmental structures. This is critical when considering the lived reality of individuals and communities of Roman Dacia. The vibrancy of identity and interaction as it appears in the multiethnic communities of the epigraphic scene in Dacia demonstrates a complexity of experience under Roman colonization. Particularly among military communities, inherently migratory, we see individuals and groups who employ common communicative techniques to actively participate in a society from which they may not originate. When applied to Dacia, the concept of fluid frontiers aids in understanding structures of power in communities with many individuals and groups connected to the Roman military in some capacity.

Conquest brings populations into contact with one another and yields a dynamism in identity management and construction in a region spatially restructured to fit the broader communicative networks of the empire. Migration and urban growth in the new province of

Dacia, and then its subsequent administrative reorganizations, have proven a popular subject of epigraphic studies. This is especially true given the prevalence of non-local gods and names in inscriptions throughout the region. Lucrețiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba separates epigraphic evidence into the categories of urban elite, inhabitants of the mining regions, non-elite, and local (i.e.

24 Karim Mata, “Of Barbarians and Boundaries: The Making and Remaking of Transcultural Discourse,” in Romans and Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers: Archaeology, Ideology, and Identity in the North, eds. Sergio Gonzalez Sanchez and Alexandra Guglielmi (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2017), 12-13. 25 Ibid.

12

Dacian or Thracian) in order to discuss the origin of Roman Dacia’s mixed population.26 The phenomenon of post-conquest migration and settlement arises in Dacia most readily in terms of veterans, military families, and their descendants, although the economic potential of Dacia’s mines and contact beyond the limes drew migrants regardless. Mihailescu-Bîrliba notes the common presence of foreign names among the urban elite of Roman Dacia in a broad study that ranges from the capital of Sarmizegetusa to the towns of Apulum, Drobeta, Dierna, Napoca,

Romula, Potaissa and Porolissum.27 Potential and established regions of origin include Italy,

Dalmatia, , Greece, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Thrace, Dacia itself, and provinces with Celtic populations.28 The variety in urban elite—those whose rank and status are named epigraphically—creates a view of the local imperial administrative structures in the province as inherently non-Roman, or at least, not comprised of individuals and families originating from

Rome or necessarily from the Italic peninsula alone. From this quick selection of Mihailescu-

Bîrliba’s larger study, the configurations of imperial power in Roman Dacia are, in terms of population, dynamic. In a sense, Roman warfare codified communication, even at the frontiers of the empire as a necessity, and this becomes quite apparent as inscriptions grow in use and popularity in the multiethnic communities of Roman Dacia. It is evident that flexibility inherent in the modes of communication and negotiation provided—and was the result of—a certain accustomed mobility of military communities.

26 Lucreţiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Ex Toto Orbe Romano: Immigration into Roman Dacia (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2011), 2-4. 27 Ibid., 39-57. 28 Ibid.

13

IV. Monumental Victory

When discussing epigraphy, it is useful to consider the practice in light of the victory monuments of the Roman Empire. Such monuments celebrate the broad success of war and in their collective orientation leave individual bereavement of a soldier killed to the family of the deceased. It is the prerogative of the family to have the funerary epitaph inscribed and the monument placed. Monuments interact with the living and with the gods simultaneously as a thing to view and engage with, to relate to the community however large and to connect that community’s triumph to the divine. A similarity arises in this intentional relationship garnered by the monument, in that divine invocation often begins a private funerary epitaph. Moreover, both are public-facing—each has an audience which may nor may not know the individuals or events inscribed in stone before them. Valerie Hope’s study on monuments of war and victory provides a useful framework for separating the public and private of military death in war and peace.29

She notes that anonymity is crucial when celebrating Roman military victory, as the desire was not to consider individual sacrifices, but rather the collective triumph and conquest in a heavily politicized environment.30 Such monuments celebrated aspects of war in terms of prowess and ingenuity, focusing on critical events during or following battle—in the context of Roman Dacia, this is seen most readily on Trajan’s Column, with its depictions of scenes of war in an idealized and carefully designed fashion.

ADAMCLISI

In the context of the private epitaphs of Roman Dacia it is appropriate then to begin with one of the more unique public victory monuments of the early Roman Empire, the monument at

29 Valerie M. Hope, “Trophies and Tombstones: Commemorating the Roman Soldier,” in World Archaeology 35, no. 1, The Social Commemoration of Warfare (June 2003): 79-84 30 Ibid.

14

Adamclisi in Moesia Inferior. The uniqueness of the Adamclisi monument exists in its commemoration of individual soldiers killed in war. This features briefly in Gambash’s discussion of provincial unrest with regards to commemorating victory as a continuous practice of Roman imperial behavior.31 Roman monumental traditions employ memory in a specific manner so as to define victory and defeat in recognizable and wide-ranging applications that adapt to new challenges and new eras. Hope interrogates this practice more thoroughly when identifying collective Roman attitude for war, noting a preference to commemorate victory, not the individual soldiers who lost their lives in pursuit thereof.32 She lists the altar at Adamclisi,

Romania, formerly the Roman castrum and then municipium of Civitas Tropaensium in Moesia

Inferior, as a unique exception in individually listing an estimated three thousand eight hundred soldiers killed in war.33 The monument was a funerary altar, found collapsed near a tropaeum of

Trajan in 1895, that listed by name men killed fighting the Dacians on inscriptions largely discovered at the east of the structure (CIL III.14214). Controversy over the emperor under which it was constructed attributes the monument either to Domitian34 or to Trajan due to the content of the inscription and prominence of the altar. The altar commemorates the deceased regardless in a structure that would have dominated the landscape where they died. Hope contextualizes the Adamclisi monument in a discussion of two other exceptional public burials of individual Roman soldiers: Cicero’s proposal of a public memorial commemorating those who died fighting Marc Antony (Philippics XIV.12.33), and Germanicus’s burial of the deceased of the Varian Disaster in the Teutoburg Forest ( I, 61-2).35 Neither the imagined

31 Gambash, 124. 32 Hope, 84. 33 Ibid., 91. 34 This argument prevails in Dorutju (1961). 35 Hope., (90-91).

15

monument of Cicero nor the burial coordinated by Germanicus match the wealth of inscriptions that decorated the altar at Adamclisi, but all three complement one another in that each example is positioned in conflict and enduring unrest, matching the circumstance with an exception to the traditional Roman attitude of public commemoration of the fallen in war.

The votive dedications and epitaphs discussed below are visible pieces of private decision and commemoration in a public-facing environment. Not monumental themselves, they nevertheless position the private within the public—that is, as a medium of communication, inscriptions are consumed not only by those who personally know the named individuals mentioned in writing, but also by those who do not know these individuals. The far more private and much less monumental informational elements of votive offerings and funerary epitaphs are founded in a certain governance of behavioral response the deceased. The information included therein—status, familial relations, etc.—elicits recall specific to societal networks and to people, places, and institutions that constitute these networks. Moreover, the social capital of the inscriptions communicate specifically curated information improves how we approach societal structure in Roman Dacia.

16

V. Epigraphy in Roman Dacia

Formulaic patterning participates in cognitive and behavioral recall and replication in the epigraphic habits of Roman Dacia, because it is flexible, able to be either specified or broadened, and participatory in larger social and political trends. As discussed previously, the people, places, and institutions that comprise the fundamental connectivity of life in Roman Dacia, ranging in function and capacity, partake in a shared, if localized, set of behaviors and actions that define

Dacia as Roman and as provincial. Epigraphic habits reveal life in Dacia via their modes of standardized communication and shared information. Given the breadth of this topic, I choose a short case study at Băile Herculane for a conversation on the intersection of military, religious community building, and mobility among soldiers and veterans, and then move to a larger examination of funerary epitaphs in the same modern county of Caraș-Severin. Together, they provide a condensed view into how people interacted with one another, with gods, and with imperial institutions. The shared region additionally gives the two approaches a general spatial parameter of human behavior. The differences between the case studies are revealing; in each, individuals manage death and the protection of life and health, although there is a gendered divide when it comes to the military. Women are largely absent from specific dedications of military and government officials at Băile Herculane, while they feature more so in funerary dedications. This illuminates the behavior of soldiers and veterans as being in one context quite individualized, and family oriented in another. Moreover, funerary epitaphs are dedicated by soldiers, veterans, and their families altogether, yielding an act of dedication that is a collective decision. Each provides unique insight into military communities and how they develop.

Anna H. Walas examines social network formation in Roman military bases using epigraphic evidence to track models of human relations within military communities. She applies

17

the models of Robin Dunbar and H. Russell Bernard to her consideration of cohesion and fluid social relations within military bases of different sizes to parse the complexity of hierarchy and patronage in military communities.36 Her approach is particularly relevant when discussing the extension of soldiers’ networks beyond the walls of the base, with a brief look at the social relations of their dependants as well: “…their business in the base is likely to have been different to that of the soldiers, meaning that their social networks might not have contained as many soldiers as the networks of the serving personnel did, with more extensive relationships within the extramural community instead.”37 This expands the spatial conception of military communities as compartmentalized into distinct yet related subgroups with communication and passage in between as a relatively constant procedure. Walas acknowledges that the lived reality of social relationships within and between these subgroups in epigraphy reveals only certain aspects of connectivity in military communities.38 The epigraphic record complicates subgroup identification and relations as it positions individual relationships into an extended network between people who might or might not have been in contact with one another. Nevertheless, social networking within inscriptions are still structured in formulaic language and patterning that orders information for the dedicant and the audience. Subgroups of military communities interact with one another, as is the case with funerary epitaphs, and also participate in broader communities that may have little directly to do with the military.

36 Anna H. Walas, “An Integrated Cognitive and Epigraphic Approach to Social Networks within the Community of a Roman Base” TRAC (2014): 17-20. 37 Ibid., 23. 38 Ibid., 24.

18

VOTIVE OFFERINGS: A CASE STUDY OF BĂILE HERCULANE, JUD. CARAȘ-SEVERIN

Figure 3: Map of thermal springs of Roman Dacia (Fodorean, 2012)

We begin with a consideration of Băile Herculane, a site of thermal springs in Caraș-

Severin used for its healing properties in ancient and modern times. The site is located within the geographically significant Banat, a region bordered on the south by the Danube, on the west by the Tisa, and on the north by the Mureș. The Carpathians and the Transylvanian Plateau curve around both to the east and north. Despite its position, easily accessible from multiple provinces,

Băile Herculane is not unguarded—the Roman settlement of Mehadia was thirteen kilometers from the springs and a fort housing the cohors III Delmatarum was located three kilometers to the north of Mehadia. The springs were associated with Hercules, yet, as is evident in the epigraphy, dedicants gave votive offerings to a flexible set of divine recipients. Băile Herculane features a number of public and private buildings and associated inscriptions, and here we consider private dedications of soldiers in order to understand the recreational and health-focused

19

behavior of individuals in the military. In addition to cohors III Delmatarum, they feature a variety of non-local military unit identifications that range from cohorts to legionary stamps to votive altars.

There are eighteen extant inscriptions from this site, four of which are votive dedications that meet the criteria of the dedicants with a military career. These are the ones that are of greatest interest. Out of the eighteen, there are only two epitaphs, neither of which commemorate a soldier or a veteran. Among the ten remaining are votive offerings not directly connected to soldiers or veterans, but most often dedicated by members of the imperial administration. This case study looks at those four votive dedications erected by members of the military.

Collectively, the inscriptions are revealing—soldiers on active duty as well as veterans appear to be willing to travel, particularly over long distances, to benefit from the restorative properties of the springs and local sanctuaries.

Dedications to Asclepius and Hygieia

One out of the total eighteen extant inscriptions from Băile Herculane has a military dedicant erecting an altar to Asclepius and Hygieia. This comprises one fourth of the total military dedicants at the site. The marble votive altar of Marcus Aurelius Veteranus provides a typical example in its formula: first, a dedication to Asclepius and Hygieia, then the dedicant’s name, and finally his position as a praefectus of legio XIII Gemina Gallieniana:

Diis magnis et bonis Aescu- lapio et Hygiae Marc(us) Aur(elius) Vete- ranus praef(ectus) leg(ionis) XIII g(eminae) Gall(i)eniana(e) v(otum) l(ibens) m(erito) p(osuit)39

39 IDR III/1, 54.

20

Marcus Aurelius Veteranus and his legion were beneficiaries of the military reforms of

Gallienus, evident in his position of praefectus.40 The chronology of the inscription is interesting, as Gallienus’ reign ended in 268 CE, just before the final evacuation of the province in the early

270s CE. Marcus Aurelius Veteranus’s dedication then would be among the later inscriptions of

Roman Dacia, yet the inclusion of Asclepius and Hygieia shows continuity of religious practice within Dacia until the very end of Roman occupation.

Dedications to Hercules Invictus

The relative paucity of dedicants to Asclepius and Hygieia is matched by a wealth of altars dedicated to Hercules, and a particular adaptability in the formulaic choices of the inscriptions. There are three votive altars dedicated to Hercules Invictus, two of which are associated with the military. A lacuna on the third prevents such a reading.41 The two votive altars considered here comprise one half of the military dedicants. The first of the two identifying military status was dedicated by Titus Aurelius Geminianus, veteran of legio XIII Gemina

Antoniniana, and was discovered in Băile Herculane with six statues of Hercules and two other votive altars dedicated to Hercules, without the epithet of Invictus:

Herculi invicto T(itus) Aur(elius) Geminianus vet(eranus) le- g(ionis) XIII gem(inae) Antoninian- ae ex voto posuit42

T. Aurelius Geminianus gives no military position other than his legion, yet from Antoniniana we can date the inscription to the reigns of and . Given that he was a veteran at the time of dedication, the suggestion that T. Aurelius Geminianus was visiting the springs for

40 Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 33. 41 IDR III/1, 62. 42 IDR III/1, 61. See IDR III/1, 67, 68 for the two altars discovered with IDR III/1, 61.

21

reasons of personal health—or simply for a holiday—is likely.43 The second altar dedicated to

Hercules Invictus by a member of the military identifies Lucius Pompeius Celer as the dedicant, a praefectus of cohors I Ubiorum, which was stationed in Dacia Superior and is attested elsewhere:

Herculi in- victo L(ucius) Pomp- eius Celer praef(ectus) coh(ortis) I Ubior(um) v(otum) s(olvit)44

The differences in military unit, status, and time in their military career at which the dedicants visited the healing springs is nevertheless united not only in the pattern of the dedicatory formula, but also by a concern for garnering a good relationship with the divine in return for good health. Likewise, both veteran and soldier travelled to make use of the springs, perhaps individually, and likely acted apart from the collective actions of their respective units.

Dedications to Hercules: Localized Behavior

It is useful to consider behavior in other dedications to Hercules at Băile Herculane that explore Hercules’s various spheres of identity as a god associated with the springs. There is only one votive altar dedicated by a legion commander that focuses on Hercules as genius loci of the thermal springs. Calpurnius Iulianus identifies himself as a vir clarissimus, a commander of legio

V Macedonica, and a propraetor, and dedicates to Hercules:

[Herc]uli Genio [loc]i fontibus [cali]dis Calpur- [nius] Iulianus [v(ir) c(larissimus) le]g(atus) leg(ionis) V Mac(edonicae)

43 Ioan Russu briefly considers that IDR III/1, 61 could have been erected when XIII Gemina was moving through the area, to or from its more permanent local of Apulum, but rejects this on the count that T. Aurelius Geminianus identified himself as a veteran (IDR III/1, p. 85). 44 IDR III/1, 63. Cohors I Ubiorum can be found on a funerary inscription from Apulum (CIL III 1187=IDR III/5, 494).

22

[leg(atus) A]ug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) [pro]v(inciae) [Da]ciae [sup]er[iori]s v(otum) l(ibens) s(olvit)45

This altar was discovered with the altar dedicated by Titus Aurelius Geminianus, veteran of XIII

Gemina, and is similarly engaged with military identity. Calpurnius Iulianus’s altar remains the single extant one at this site that specifies Hercules as the genius loci at the thermal springs.

There is a similar altar that dedicates to the Dis et Numinibus Aquarum and the dedicant is a member of the senatorial order, but gives no military identification.46 The pattern of god(s), name, and status, remains a general and adaptable framework that allows dedicants to take part in a religious community that transcended both social hierarchy and spatial distance.

Discussion

Băile Herculane provides a short set of examples that combine a localized deity with a concern for identifying oneself in relation to either the military, the broader imperial administrative structure, or both. Often, the two are inseparable. The nature of Hercules as a localized patron of healing springs in Dacia draws upon Hercules’s role not just as a panhellenic figure, but also as a figure popular across the Mediterranean as a protector whose position in the local community is adaptable. Hercules’s capacity to provide healing is exploited here using a variety of his particular aspects—indeed, the sodalis augustalis Quintus Vibius Amillus calls upon Hercules Salutiferus.47 Moreover, Băile Herculane is a node in religious life that demands a level of mobility and a willingness to travel in order to participate in what potential healing the sanctuary provided. The site is then spatially situated in the collective, yet very personal,

45 IDR III/1, 67. 46 IDR III/1, 56. 47 IDR III/64.

23

behaviors of people with differing roles in the military and government. The breakdown of votive dedications at this site is as follows:

Military Non-military imperial Non-military, Military official non-government Status civilian Unknown Dedication to Asclepius IDR III/1, 54 (CE IDR III/1, 55 (CE and Hygieia 253-268) 101-150) Dedication to Hercules IDR III/1, 61 (CE IDR III/1, 60 (CE invictus 211-222); IDR 157); IDR III/1, 62 III/1, 63 (CE 151- (CE 201-270) 250) Dedication to Hercules, for IDR III/1, 57 (CE the health of the imperial 205-207); IDR III/1, dynasty 58 (CE 211-217) Dedication to Hercules and IDR III/1, Venus 68 (CE 201-270) Dedication to Hercules IDR III/1, 64 (CE salutiferus 107-150) Dedication to Hercules IDR III/1, 66 (CE sanctus 241-243) Dedication to Hercules, IDR III/1, 67 (CE genius loci 171-230) Dedication to Hercules, no IDR III/1, modifier 59 (CE 107-275) Dedication to Sucellus IDR III/1, 70 (CE 151-153) Dedication to the gods and IDR III/1, 56 (CE numina aquarum 153) Dedication to Isis patrona IDR III/1, 69 (CE 101-300) Total 4 8 1 3 Table 1: Votive Dedications at Băile Herculane

Above, we have four votive offerings certainly ascribed to military dedicants, exhibiting a concern for participation in religious life across military and non-military communities. It is not exclusive behavior, then, but it is evident that the self-identification of military membership and status remains an important factor of dedication. Military identity is critical, a placement for oneself in society, as well as a very public indicator of social and political status. When considered altogether, the votive altars participate in broader imperial identities in a localized sacred landscape. To each, that identification is as significant as the chosen deity is. Băile

24

Herculane contains an expansive religious community, evident even when considering only dedicants related to the military, and localizes a similarly expansive Hercules. It demonstrates a standardized set of actions that have to do with dedication in Roman Dacia, actions that connect the province to broader epigraphical and religious trends in the Mediterranean.

FUNERARY EPITAPHS: CASE STUDIES OF MEHADIA, POJEJENA, AND TIBISCUM, JUD. CARAȘ-

SEVERIN

The communicative capacity of funerary epitaphs has not been neglected in scholarship.

Rachel McCleery suggests that inscriptions in Achaia provide a medium of cross-cultural interaction in multi-cultural communities.48 She focuses on audience bilingualism and the knowledge of Latin beyond Roman populations and identifies variant and localized behavior between city-states, arguing briefly that soldiers would have communicated with other soldiers by way of inscriptions.49 The experience-specific information included on funerary epitaphs soldiers would have been relevant only to other soldiers. Hope repeats this thought, arguing that a soldier’s epitaph would have existed in and interacted with a network of military comrades.50

Each author is correct in that soldiers’ funerary inscriptions contained information quite applicable to other soldiers and veterans and participated in a shared experience of military life and military socialization. That applicability is not exclusive however and should be expanded to include the families and communities of the deceased soldiers. Indeed, it is not beyond reason that a passerby with a basic understanding of Latin would have engaged with the inscription at some level. In Roman Dacia, military presence inundated society and the civilian population

48 Rachel McCleery, “Being Roman, Writing Latin? Consumers of Latin Inscriptions in Achaia,” Chronika 6 (2016): 41. 49 Ibid., 43-49. 50 Hope, 85-87.

25

would have likely been somewhat fluent in military communication systems. Hope notes that the common practice of private funerary inscription of soldiers collectively established visual aspects of Roman presence and continuity throughout the early empire.51 The common language of inscriptions is particularly useful for a shared understanding in the experience of viewing the inscription and processing the information contained therein. The audience would not strictly be soldiers, nor would it be soldiers alone who erect funerary epitaphs. Finally, recognition and recall of patterns in communications across various media affects how conversant audience members of the epitaph would be.

Funerary epitaphs in Dacia contain a set of specific information set in general structure.

A pattern appears in the following order: address to the Manes, name of the deceased and potentially their age, military status and connection, and the dedicants. The pattern is altered among locals and populations, yet the framework remains fairly constant in nested identities of religion, military, and family. The prominence of women featured in the epitaphs—namely the wives and, occasionally, daughters and mothers of the deceased—fits in well with the broader familial participation in the Roman Empire. They appear more when they are associated with a fellow dedicant or dedicants rather than when they dedicate alone. The pattern suggests a codified expectation on the part of the grieving and the inscriber(s) regarding the contents of the inscription and the order of information included. While the ordered pieces of information indicates a potential hierarchy of information, the epitaph would be approached as a wholistic experience—the name of the deceased is a critical part of the inscription, yet the inclusion of status, family, and gods are also equally critical to understanding who died. In the end, funerary

51 Ibid.

26

inscriptions are not just for the dead, but for the living to interact with the similarly living community surrounding the deceased individual.

Methodology

Figure 4: Map of Sites Discussed in Caraș-Severin (Ancient World Mapping Center)

The modern Romanian county of Caraș-Severin lies on the Serbian border and is home to the sites of Băile Herculane, Mehadia, Pojejena, Tibiscum, and a number of other originally

Roman settlements. Given its strategic and religious significance in the broader social landscape of Roman Dacia, Caraș-Severin provides an attractive case study for viewing the military communities found in funerary altars. Likewise, it is appropriate following the examination of the private behavior of soldiers and veterans in a religious context. The location was chosen for its small number of extant inscriptions that fit the specific criteria for each case study. In turn, the epitaphs are separated for the sake of clarity between wives as dedicants and heirs as dedicants, including but not limited to heirs alone, heirs and widows, heirs and (or as) children, and family members such as brothers. Only those epitaphs originating from Caraș-Severin with the strict

27

identification of the deceased as one with a military status in conjunction with either a wife as a dedicant or heirs, including children, feature in this paper. Naturally, there are fragments of epitaphs that may only identify a piece of the pattern, such as the name of the deceased, but they remain absent from the scope of the discussion below. The focus on wives and heirs is founded in the notion that they exist as communicators of attachment to the public eye—epitaphs are private monuments that are inherently public-facing expressions of grief and, most importantly, remembrance. Both groups are established through dedicating as the primary caretaker of the deceased in collective thought, bridging the gap between the living community and the similarly living memory of the dead.

Mehadia, jud. Caraș-Severin

A collection of epitaphs at Mehadia demonstrates response to death in a community that is structured around the local military fort. Gudea and Lobüscher suggest dating the fort to

Hadrian times, given the trapezoidal corner towers and the projecting towers at the gate, a feature also of the forts along the Olt valley.52 The auxiliary unit cohors III Delmatarum resided at the fort, attested in stamped bricks and other epigraphy, and a canaba hosted the local civilian population.53 Additionally, the epigraphic habits of the nearby sanctuary of Hercules and thermal springs at Băile Herculane are reflected here with a dedication to imperial dynasts: Julia

Mamaea, her family, and a similarly grateful one to Gallienus, both done by cohors III

Delmatarum.54 The impetus on the imperial cult in a vulnerable part of the empire is particularly interesting, given suggestions of emergent violence in the region and the necessity for increased protection on the road from Dierna to Tibiscum, of which the fort at Mehadia was a part.55

52 Gudea and Lobüscher, 34. 53 IDR III/1, pg. 100. 54 Dedication to Julia Mamaea et al.: IDR III/1, 76; dedication to Gallienus: IDR III/1, 77. 55 J.J. Wilkes, “The Roman Danube: An Archaeological Survey” The Journal of Roman Studies 95 (2005): 160.

28

The epitaphs that have wives or heirs or both dedicating to deceased soldiers or veterans at Mehadia number three out of fourteen total epitaphs from the site. Of those three, one is a widow dedicating alone, while the other two have both heirs and widows dedicate together. Of the eleven other non-military epitaphs, four are definitively dedicated by widows of the deceased, and another one is dedicated by a man and a woman in memory of the deceased. That is, potentially eight out of fourteen epitaphs from Mehadia are dedicated by widows among the military and non-military families. The fort, its spatial relationship with the local thermal springs, and the shifting nature of peace in the province provide context for relatively unchanged epigraphic behavior and private response to death in the community.

WIVES OF MEHADIA

One of the three military epitaphs at Mehadia is a commemoration of a deceased veteran by his widow. This is the single extant epitaph that we are sure only speaks to the connection between the deceased member of the military and his wife. Among the non-military epitaphs dedicated by widows, the following are definitively identified: IDR III/1, 89; IDR III/1, 95; and

IDR III/1, 90. IDR III/1, 92 features both a man and a woman dedicating to the deceased, but the relationship between the woman and the deceased is unsure. The epitaph related to the military, however, is of greater interest. It is a limestone funerary altar decorated with an ornamental capital, dedicated by a wife mourning her husband, a veteran of cohors III Delmatarum stationed at the fort at Mehadia:

D(is) M(anibus) Ael(ius) Corneli- us vet(eranus) vix(it) ann(os) LXXX Aelia Primiti- va coniugi

29

b(ene)m(erenti) p(osuit)56

The pattern is relatively simple: a dedication to the Manes, the nomen and cognomen, identification as a veteran, age, the wife’s name, the identification of the wife and a moral modification, and the action. The wife evidently received citizenship after her husband. Russu postulates her unique cognomen may carry the same meaning as Primigenia, yet it is not uncommon in Roman Dacia—it appears twice in Sarmizegetusa and once in the modern town of

Ohaba, near ancient Apulum.57 The inscription keeps closely to the formulaic patterning of funerary epitaphs, brief yet impactful in the information it contains, and remaining close to the home community of the octogenarian veteran.

WIVES AND HEIRS OF MEHADIA

Two of the three military epitaphs at feature a widow, an heir, and children. A fragmented slab of a limestone conglomerate is a complex one dedicated by an heir and a widow together:

D(is) [M(anibus)] Au(relius) Sur[us? mil(es)?] coh(ortis) III Del(matarum) vi[xit] an(nos) XXXX Aur(elius) Proculinus sig(nifer) et (h)eres et Qui- ntina co(n)iux et Surilleo et Quin- tinus et Sura pii patri b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuerunt)58

Again, a general pattern is kept, similar to before, whereas here the fragmentary nature allows for only a guess at the military status, although we know his and age. Aurelius Surus is twice

56 IDR III/1, 84 (=AE 1973 462) 57 IDR III/1, pg. 109. IDR III/2, 309 (=CIL III 7908) and IDR III/2, 443 (=CIL III 7985) originate from Sarmizegetusa, while AE 1997 1294 originates from Ohaba. 58 IDR III/1, 87 (=AE 1973 463).

30

as young as the veteran Aelius Cornelius, and has an heir, the military comrade and standard bearer Aurelius Proculinus, a widow Quintina, and the children whose names are derived from that of their fathers. Russu suggests a Syrian identity, with the caveat that Surus appeared elsewhere in Italic, Thracian, Celtic, and Illyrian naming traditions.59 The inscription is both soldier specific and family focused, a comparatively younger father, husband, and comrade with a pre-designated heir and a concern not only for the identification of the widow but also for the children. The second epitaph from Mehadia in this category of listing children and the widow is a sizeable stele that remembers a veteran of legio XIII Gemina and a decurion of Sarmizegetusa:

D(is) M(anibus) Q(uinto) Canio Q(uinti) f(ilio) Cl(audiae) Celeiae Restituto vet(erano) leg(ionis) XIII dec(urioni) col(oniae) Sar(mizegetusae) vix(it) an(nos) LXXX Canius Respectus et Cania Atticil(l)a fili(i) item Ulpia Admata co(n)iun(x) posuer(unt) b(ene) m(erenti)60

Quintus Canius Restitutus, son of Quintus, of the Claudia tribus of Celeia appears in Mehadia, although his military career has taken him elsewhere, and his tribus is from modern day Celje,

Slovenia. The pattern does not follow that of IDR III/1, 87 in the listing of the widow and the children; here, the children are first and then Ulpia Admata is second, whereas previously in IDR

III/1, 87, the children were listed below the mother. The families are both migrant families—that is, the father in each inscription is either an immigrant himself or a generation in—yet the children of III/1, 87 lack a cognomen like Canius Respectus and Cania Atticilla. This

59 IDR III/1, pg. 112. 60 AE 1999 1304.

31

discrepancy in the patterning shows a hierarchical difference in society with relation to the mother and age upon their fathers’ death.

Tibiscum, jud. Caraș-Severin

The site Tibiscum in Caraș-Severin is home to one of the more important auxiliary forts of Roman Dacia. Russu lists cohors I Vindelicorum, numerus Maurorum Tibiscensium, numerus

Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium, and cohors I Sagittariorum among the military units who inhabited the site, which itself became a municipium only under Gallienus.61 Prior to its status as a municipium, Tibiscum originated as one of the canabae, which Gudea and Lobüscher associate with the string of forts built under Marcus Aurelius due to the Marcomannic Wars.62 As apparent in the Tabula Peutingeriana, the site sat on one of the primary imperial roads in Roman Dacia, which proceeded from the Danube to Sarmizegetusa to cross the Timiș River at Tibiscum.63 The site features number of inscriptions which fit the parameters of this paper, most notably in the amount of heirs as dedicants. The question of origin and identity appears quite prominently, particularly given the presence of numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium, as well as the site’s general position as a hub of strategic military activity at the intersection of a main road and a river north of the Danube.

There are thirty-two total epitaphs at Tibiscum, thirteen of which commemorate a deceased soldier or veteran. Of those thirteen, six of those do not clarify the relationship of the dedicant with the deceased, and six of them identify the dedicant as an heir, child, or sibling.

Only one epitaph is potentially a widow dedicating to her deceased husband, who was in the military. The site’s religious landscape hosts a vibrant community celebrating non-Roman

61 IDR III/I, pg. 145. 62 Gudea and Lobüscher, 24-34. 63 Haynes and Hanson, 25.

32

traditions and at the same time employing very Roman epigraphic traditions for an appropriate public-facing expression of identity. Additionally, by numbers, the non-military epitaphs of

Tibiscum offer an interesting comparandum to our discussion of military epitaphs, especially when women dedicate. The negotiation between status, origin, and family in the collection of funerary epitaphs at Tibiscum suggests conscious and unconscious engagements with a series of identities simultaneously.

PROBLEMS IDENTIFYING WIDOWS AT TIBISCUM

While epitaphs containing both mentions of soldiers and veterans and mentions of heirs and family members who are not wives, those clarifying dedications by women to deceased soldiers and veterans are difficult to discern. Only one out of the thirteen military epitaphs at

Tibiscum fits the criteria. A funerary stele commemorating the death of a soldier who was a member of the numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium is fragmented enough to cause difficulty in a clear reading of familial relationships, but provides enough information for a brief discussion of identity:

D(is) M(anibus) Ael(ius) Borafas Za- bdiboli mil(es) e[x] N(umero) Pal(myrenorum) vix(it) a[nn(os)---] [---Val]eria C[------64

The soldier was evidently still in military service at the time of his death, remembering the

Roman-Palmyrene name of Aelius Borafas, son of Zabdibolus. The potential of Valeria as a wife cannot be a sure identification, although the incomplete nature of the inscription leaves room for this possibility. The Roman nomen and the Palmyrene cognomen nevertheless exist in a context

64 IDR III/1, 152 (=CIL III 14216).

33

where the dedicant chose to keep to the Roman funerary behavior with reference to the Manes, a clear positioning of the deceased soldier in his Roman community as well as a self-identification of the dedicant as Roman, or at least with care to communicate to an audience fluent in Roman custom. Another stele is similar:

---vit--- vix] an XXX— ---TICIA--- -he]res Gad- vete(ran-) vix(it) an(nis) L, Iul(ia) M[a]r- cia Erapoles I p(osuit)? coniux65

Russu identifies one of the named individuals as Gaddes son of Aninas and designates the names as Semitic-Palmyrene, which then matches the identification of Erapoles as Hierapolis and also as the origin of Iulia Marcia.66 The woman’s name is, admittedly, not as clear, but coniux is clear enough, as is the connection between this family and the military. As with IDR III/1, 152, there is a Palmyrene family in and associated with the Roman military stationed in Roman Dacia, and the subsequent intentional decision to converse in Roman culture and society.

HEIRS AND FAMILIAL DEDICANTS OF TIBISCUM

Dedicants who are heirs and/or relatives feature more prominently Tibiscum than strictly widows who dedicate, and these epitaphs comprise six out of thirteen military epitaphs at

Tibiscum and nearly a fifth of the total amount of epitaphs from the site. This category is broadly separated into brothers, children, and heirs to dedicate. There are two epitaphs in Tibiscum that clearly identify the deceased soldier or veteran and an heir alone as a dedicant. The first is a fascinating bilingual funerary altar in Latin and Palmyrene:

65 IDR III/1, 166 (=CIL 8000). 66 IDR III/1, pg. 196.

34

D(is) M(anibus) Ael(ius) Guras Iiddei [op]tio ex N(umero) Palmvr(enorum) [vi]xit ann(os) XXXXII mil(itavit) [an]n(os) XXI Ael(ius) Habibis [pon]tif(ex) et h(eres) b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit)67

The heir Aelius Habibis remembers Aelius Guras son of Iddeus of numerus Palmyrenorum

Tibiscensium with a characteristic formulaic pattern, dedicating to the Manes, commemorating the soldier, his status and age, himself and his own titles, and finally the action of dedication.

Russu rightly criticizes the neatness of the Latin letters in contrast to the Palmyrene ones, the majority of which unfortunately have largely disappeared, and notes this epitaph as one of the few bilingual Latin-Palmyrene inscription extant from Tibiscum.68 The second epitaph commemorates a man who served with the auxiliary unit numerus Maurorum Tibiscensium which was stationed at the Tibiscum fort:

D(is) M(anibus) Ael(ius) Sebl[--]er ex N(umero) Ma- ur(orum) Ti(biscensium) vix(it) anni(s)? VL et Aeliae Sa[-----]tus [v- ix(it) a(nnis) XXX et Ae[l. ? Val]ens fil[ius eorum [----] AT (?) I h(eres) p(onendum) [c(uravit)69

Here, the nomen of the deceased soldier and his military association are both evident, and an heir and son are named, although it is difficult to see if they are the same person or not. However, the inscription leaves little room for another full name in between fil[ius and h(eres), even if the inscription prevents a clear reading. For both of these epitaphs, identification as the heir is important socially, and perhaps legally, as they were visible pieces of private behavior in response to death.

67 IDR III/1, 154 (=CIL III 7999). 68 IDR III/1, pg. 179. IDR III/1, 167 and IDR III/1, 170, other Latin-Palmyrene epitaphs, are discussed below. 69 IDR III/1, 156.

35

Next, there are two epitaphs from Tibiscum naming children and brothers as dedicants.

There is first a bilingual inscription in Latin and Palmyrene, a funerary stele commemorating one

Neses son of Ierheus, of numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium:

[D(is)] M(anibus) N[e]ses Ierhei [e(x)] n(umero) Pal(myrenorum) vixit [a]n(nos) XXV Ma- [l]chus et Ier [heu]s f(ratri) b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuerunt)70

The dedicants here are the brothers of the deceased, Malchus and Ierheus, members of a

Palmyrene family which has maintained a strong Palmyrene identity in Roman Dacia. The

Palmyrene letters are less clear than the Latin, and Russu notes the translation to be less than exact, although it is nevertheless an approximate translation.71 Another fragmented bilingual epitaph mentions at least one brother and again the numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium:

------ex n(umero) Palmyren]orum v[ix(it) ann(is) ---] [---] ex eis mili(tavit) anni[s ---] [--- T]hemhes frat[ri ---] [--- bene meren]ti pos(uit)72

The brother and the deceased are Palmyrene, although unfortunately the Palmyrene letters that begin at the fragment’s edge are too poorly preserved to determine if the translation matches the

Latin. The fragmentary nature of the latter prevents a better reading, but it nevertheless matches

IDR III/1, 167 in its focus on preserving Palmyrene identity in Roman Dacia.

The final two epitaphs in this category of heirs, children, and general family members who dedicate are either fragmentary or unclear. The first possibly commemorates a veteran, definitively of numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium, and a child of the deceased is the potential

70 IDR III/1, 167. 71 IDR III/1, pg. 197-198. 72 IDR III/1, 170.

36

dedicant, although the text is too corroded to discern clearly.73 Since there is a child mentioned alongside a veteran, it falls in this category. The second commemorates Antonius Marcus and

Valerius Iulianus, both soldiers from Palmyra, and was set up by Aelius Priscus.74 Although

Aelius Priscus appears, there is no status or association apparent that connects the three men, which suggests that the dedicant is either an heir, a comrade, or both. Therefore, he falls in this category.

UNKNOWN DEDICANTS OF MILITARY EPITAPHS

As briefly mentioned above, there are six inscriptions that mention soldiers alone and no dedicant: IDR III/1, 153 commemorates Publius Aelius Claudianus of numerus Palmyrenorum

Tibiscensium; IDR III/1, 155 commemorates Aelius Male of numerus Palmyrenorum

Tibiscensium; IDR III/1, 157 commemorates Publius Aelius Ulpius, a veteran and likely the decurion in the garrison with cohors I Vindelicorum; IDR III/1, 163 commemorates Brisanus son of Aulusanus, possibly of cohors I Vindelicorum; IDR III/1, 172 possibly commemorates a soldier from numerus Maurorum Tibiscensium; and IDR III/1, 176 commemorates an unknown person of numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium. From what is extant, it is evident that soldiers and veterans alike were engaged in displaying their military status and, in the case of the decurion Publius Aelius Ulpius, a particular sense of Roman culture.

Pojejena, jud. Caraș-Severin

The modern town of Pojejena is positioned on the Romanian side of the Danube and the border between Romania and Serbia. It is the site of a Roman fort located along the upper

Moesian limes, near the of the Danube, a narrowed gorge and strategic defense

73 IDR III/1, 164 74 IDR III/1, 160.

37

position, and upriver of the bridge built by Trajan for the Second Dacian War.75 Unfortunately, the extant funerary epitaphs are mostly corroded, with the likely presence of epitaphs set up by military communities, if it is possible to judge from the presence of similarly difficult to read inscriptions that do mention military units. Out of twelve inscriptions total, six are votive dedications, and four are epitaphs. Among the epitaphs, one fits our criteria of an heir or widow dedicating to a deceased soldier or veteran. Two other feature women as dedicants with unsure statuses of the deceased. A single stele from Pojejena contains potential references to two men, one a deceased soldier, an heir and a wife, and it is clear that both the heir and the widow are dedicating.76 This reflects the pattern apparent in IDR III/1, 87 and AE 1999 1304, both of

Mehadia. Another mentions an heir, potential ages, and a definite funerary dedication to the

Manes, but no clear reference to the military.77 Apart from these two mentioning heirs, there are various military units and statuses among the inscriptions, both named and unnamed: cohors V

Gallorum, legio VII Claudia, and ala Frontoniana.78 The general corrosion of the epigraphy at this site nevertheless does not prevent a reading of the same formulaic patterns discussed above—epitaphs that are dedicated to the Manes, the name of the deceased, statuses, age, mention of heirs and wives, and the action of dedication. Additionally, it is clear from the available evidence that Pojejena displays a vibrant military community and a definite node of communication and mobility in the fabric of imperial road networks.

75 A team led by Emil Jęczmienowski of the University of Poland’s Institute of Archaeology is currently excavating the Pojejena fort; for related work on the forts along the upper Moesian limes, see: Emil Jęczmienowski, “The Fortifications of the Upper Moesian Limes. Topography, Forms, Garrison Sizes,” Światowit: Rocznik Instytutu Archaeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 10, no. 51 (2012): 31-58. 76 IDR III/1, 19 (=CIL III 6275). 77 IDR III/1, 18 (=CIL III 8007). 78 Cohors V Gallorum appears in IDR III/1, 11 (=AE 1972 490) and IDR III/1, 10 (=AE 1963 165); legio VII Claudia appears in AE 1960 359; ala Frontoniana appears in ILD 179.

38

Other Towns of Caraș-Severin

There are twenty-three other towns and villages in the county Caraș-Severin. Of them, no extant and identifiable epitaphs originate from the sixteen sites of Bersobis, Bocșa Română,

Boilvașnița, , Dalboșeț, Domașnea, Gornea, Marga, Pătaș, Surducu Mare, Svinița,

Teregova, , Vărădia, Voislova, and Zăvoi. The seven other towns contain very few inscriptions, including epitaphs, and out of the seven, only one was the find spot of an epitaph of a deceased soldier or veteran. The village Petnic in the Iablanița commune has three inscriptions total, two epitaphs, and one votive dedication. Only one commemorates a soldier, possibly of cohors III Delmatarum.79 Moldova Nouă, Băile Herculane, Slatina-Timiș, Sat Bătrân, , and Constantin Daicoviciu have between them nine epitaphs, but those inscriptions from the latter two towns are completely unreadable. The others are all non-military but are nonetheless family focused. As of now, Mehadia, Tibiscum, and Pojejena remain the primary sites for military epitaphs.

Discussion

The information contained within the epitaphs above follow the same formulaic pattern and adhere to the same engagement with status, self-identification, and family. Recall and recognition are critical to audience understanding for the dedicants and the audience, both of whom rely upon the information presented to communicate death and its consequences.

Although the state of many epitaphs render them unreadable, there appear certain trends still in the breakdown of military epitaphs, the dedicant’s identity, and their relationship to the deceased.

79 IDR III/1, 103.

39

Mehadia Pojejena Tibiscum Petnic Military deceased with IDR III/1, 84 (CE 201- IDR III/1, 152 (151-270) widows as dedicants 230) Military deceased with IDR III/1, 87 (CE 201- IDR III/1, widows and heirs as 270); AE 1999 1304 (CE 19 (CE dedicants together 131-170) 171-270) Military deceased with IDR III/1, 154 (171-270); IDR III/1, heirs/children/siblings 156 (CE 171-230); IDR III/1, 160 (CE as dedicants 151-270); IDR III/1, 164 (CE 201- 270); IDR III/1, 167 (CE 159-160); IDR III/1, 170 (CE 151-270) Military deceased with IDR III/1, 153 (CE 151-250); IDR IDR unnamed dedicant III/1 155 (CE 151-270); III/1, 103 IDR III/1, 157 (CE 131-170) (CE 201- IDR III/1, 163 (CE 151-270); IDR 270) III/1, 172 (CE 171-230); IDR III/1, 176 (CE 107-200) Non-military widows as IDR III/1, 89 (CE 151- IDR III/1, IDR III/1, 165 (CE 171-230); IDR dedicants 275); IDR III/1, 90 (CE 17 (CE III/1, 174 (CE 107-275); IDR III/1, 151-250); IDR III/1, 91 151-270); 187 (CE 131-250); IDR III/1, 270 (CE (CE 151-270); IDR III/1, IDR III/1 151-270) 95 (CE 107-275) 18 (CE 151-270) Non-military widowers IDR III/1, 171 (CE 101-200) as dedicants Non-military, woman IDR III/1, 92 (CE 201- (not widow) mentioned 270) as dedicant Non-military family IDR III/1, 85 (CE 171- IDR III/1, 159 (CE 171-270); IDR members dedicating to 270) III/1, 161 (CE 201-270); IDR III/1, one another 162 (CE 151-270); IDR III/1, 169 (CE 151-250) Unknown dedicants/ IDR III/1, 86 (CE 151- IDR III/1, IDR III/1, 119 (CE 151-270); IDR IDR too fragmented 270); IDR III/1, 88 (CE 16 (CE III/1, 158 (CE 151-270); IDR III/1, III/1, 104 171-270); IDR III/1, 93 171-270) 168 (CE 101-200); IDR III/1, 173 (CE (CE 131- (CE 107-275); IDR III/1, 171-270); IDR III/1, 175 (CE 171- 270) 94 (CE 171-300); IDR 270); IDR III/1, 177 (CE 151-270); III/1, 96 (CE 151-200) IDR III/1, 185 (CE 151-270); IDR III/1, 186 (CE 151-230); IDR III/1, 188 (CE 201-270); IDR III/1, 194 (CE 171-270)

Total military-related 3 1 13 1 epitaphs Total epitaphs 14 4 32 2 Table 2: Sites in Caraș-Severin with military epitaphs, including non-military epitaphs

The appearance of widows as single dedicants at Mehadia and Tibiscum is far rarer than the combination of widows and heirs—in the former, one out of three military epitaphs features a widow dedicant, and in the latter, the percentage is one out of thirteen military epitaphs. Even then, we can only assign IDR III/1, 152 of Tibiscum to a widow dedicant with the caveat that the inscription is severely fragmented. It is clear that, even without a more complete collection of

40

epitaphs among the sites, women as single dedicants is rare. This number changes significantly among non-military families in Mehadia, Pojejena, and Tibiscum. Among the eleven non- military epitaphs at Mehadia, four of them are dedicated by widows alone. Among the four non- military epitaphs at Pojejena, two are dedicated by widows alone. Four widows dedicate to non- military husbands in Tibiscum, out of a total of nineteen non-military epitaphs. Leaving out the

“unknown dedicants/too fragmented” category for now, the pattern remains that widows of soldiers and veterans are not as visible in the epigraphic record as non-military widows are.

Indeed, with a status likely quite dependent upon that of her husband’s, a military wife’s position in society was intrinsically related to her husband’s career.

Widows and heirs dedicate more often than widows alone, comprising two out of three military epitaphs of Mehadia and the single military epitaph of Pojejena. There are no epitaphs of widows and heirs together at Tibiscum, but the site shows the greatest promise with the number of military epitaphs extant in which the most prominent dedicants are families and/or heirs, often together. This category makes up six out of thirteen military epitaphs at Tibiscum. Of the six, three are bilingual: IDR III/1, 154, dedicated by an heir; IDR III/1, 167, dedicated by brothers; and IDR III/1, 170, dedicated by at least one brother. The others feature an heir as the single dedicant (IDR III/1, 156), a son mentioned as a potential dedicant (IDR III/1, 164), and a dedicant with no relationship to the deceased identified, but very likely an heir or comrade (IDR

III/I, 160). There is a clear importance attached to identifying oneself in relation to the dead, but in the three primary sites of this case study, that importance is fairly legal. The public aspect of epitaphs as communicating private and familial information to individuals who may not know the deceased or their family is heightened in that the dedicant finds it necessary to self-identify as an heir with legal recourse to what the deceased left behind. Moreover, this specific bit of

41

information is now publicly displayed. The number of fragmentary inscriptions renders it difficult to confidently compare widows as single dedicants and dedicants that include either heirs or a collection of heirs, widows, and family members. It is nevertheless evident that there are simply less widows dedicating alone as there are heirs and family members either taking place of the widow dedicant or joining them. There is more value in the latter category than in the former, particularly as an expression of what legal changes a social shift has brought.

Finally, a significant section of this study is of these military epitaphs features an unknown dedicant commemorating a deceased soldier or veteran. Five out of thirteen epitaphs at Mehadia fit this category, as do ten out of thirty-two at Tibiscum, one of four at Pojejena, and one of two at Petnic. This emphasizes the impact of fragmentation on a sure understanding of the numerical breakdown among dedicants of military epitaphs. We can, however, speak on the sheer number of epitaphs at Tibiscum in comparison there was a culture of with the other sites, which outnumbers the combined number of extant epitaphs from the rest of Caraș-Severin. Clearly there was a celebrated epigraphic tradition at Tibiscum that, among the military epitaphs, was founded upon complex familial relations and a particular engagement with self-identity.

Epitaphs are built jointly upon individualizing and collectivizing principals that celebrates the family and its continuity as well as the social fabric of provincial life. The focused models available in Caraș-Severin give perspective to a well-patterned expression of information applicable public and private realms of life in a unique population of military communities, administrative officials, and civilians intermingling in a vibrant and mixed landscape of peoples and cultures. For the sites examined, the dedicant’s identity was always a critical factor. Mehadia shared in the trend exhibited in Băile Herculane of a certain attention paid to various emperors and emperors’ mothers, although the notion that this was tied also with local violence in the area

42

has yet to be examined. Insofar as women dedicate, there arises a pattern of wealth, enough wealth at least to fund the epitaph consistently. Moreover, the women who dedicate keep to the same formulas that are used in epitaphs not dedicated by solely women. The heirs and other family members who dedicate similarly are interested in expressing the key characteristics of the life and military career of the deceased. The engagement with varying identities, particularly among the Roman-Palmyrene dedicants, illuminates how individuals and families self-identified.

Overall, the deceased are defined in terms of individual, living people, as well as larger social structures, made clear in the consistent combination of the military status and associated societal position of the deceased with living relatives.

43

VI. Conclusion

The epigraphic habits of the sites examined reveal family and community oriented private behaviors among soldiers, veterans, military families, and associated heirs. Among the votive inscriptions, we see a concern for private and public health of individuals in the empire.

Dedications for health of the imperial dynasty certainly appear, although not as often. Perhaps the more interesting aspect of dedications at the thermal springs is the intentional participation in

Roman religious practices that required significant movement in Roman Dacia on the part of members of the imperial administration and those attached to the military. Additionally, the various epithets employed and chosen deities worshipped give insight into a dynamic approach to personal health. The behavior of votive dedicants brings private anxiety to the public eye in actions that are initiated individually but performed according to the broader votive practices of the Roman world.

The ancient sites of modern day Caraș-Severin host military communities comprised of mobile populations and characterized by an interest in expressing a series of nested identities via a public-facing medium. There is a concern for status in the votive offerings considered, and a concern for both status and family in the Roman Dacian funerary outlook, as apparent in epigraphic evidence from Caraș-Severin. The landscape hosts a lived reality of a society deeply influenced by the military world. The consideration then of discerning individual behaviors and trends in epigraphic traditions of the province is founded in the idea of social network formation as fluid and not limited to the military, but still very much the product of immigration and interaction as the result of conquest. The manner in which identities are expressed and experienced here appears in the epigraphic tradition as a dialogue between individual and collective preference.

44

Bibliography Ancient World Mapping Center. “À-la-carte”. http://awmc.unc.edu/awmc/applications/alacarte/. Accessed: May 9, 2019. Chappell, Stephen. “Auxiliary Regiments and New Cultural Formation in Imperial Dacia, 106- 275 c.e.” The Classical World 104, no. 1 (Fall 2010): 89-106. Dorutju, E. “Some Observations on the Military Funeral Altar of Adamclisi, Dacia.” In Revue d'Archéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne 5 (1961): 345-363. Ellis, L. “‘Terra Deserta’: Population, Politics and the [de]Colonization of Dacia.” World Archaeology 30, no. 2 (October 1998): 220-237. Fodorean, Florin. Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia in the Ancient Geographical Sources. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016. —“‘Spa’ Vignettes in Tabula Peutingeriana. Travelling Ad Aquas: Thermal Water Resources in Roman Dacia.” Ephemeris Napocensis 22 (January 2012): 211-222. —“Izvoare Epigrafice Privind Drumurile din Dacia Romană.” Revista Bistriței 16 (2002): 55-95. Gambash, Gil. Rome and Provincial Resistance. New York: Routledge, 2015. Gudea, Nicolae. “The Defensive System of Roman Dacia” Britannia 10 (1979): 63-87. Gudea, Nicolae and Thomas Lobüscher. Dacia: Eine römische Provinz zwischen Karpaten und Schwarzem Meer. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Labern, 2006. Hanson, W.S. and I.P. Haynes, eds. Roman Dacia: The Making of a Provincial Society. Dexter: Thomson-Shore, 2004. Hope, Valerie M. “Trophies and Tombstones: Commemorating the Roman Soldier.” In World Archaeology 35, no. 1, The Social Commemoration of Warfare (June 2003): 79-97. Horden, Peregrine and Nicholas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000. Jęczmienowski, Emil. “The Fortifications of the Upper Moesian Limes. Topography, Forms, Garrison Sizes.” Światowit: Rocznik Instytutu Archaeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 10, no. 51 (2012): 31-58. MacDonald, W.L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire, Vol. II: An Urban Appraisal. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Mata, Karim. “Of Barbarians and Boundaries: The Making and Remaking of Transcultural Discourse.” In Romans and Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers: Archaeology, Ideology,

45

and Identity in the North, edited by Sergio Gonzalez Sanchez and Alexandra Guglielmi. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2017. McCleery, Rachel. “Being Roman, Writing Latin? Consumers of Latin Inscriptions in Achaia.” Chronika 6 (2016): 41-57. Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Lucreţiu. Ex Toto Orbe Romano: Immigration into Roman Dacia. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2011. Russu, I.I., and D.M. Pippidi, eds. Inscripțiile Daciei Romane: Volumul III: Dacia Superior 1. București: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1977. Talbert, Richard J.A. 2010. “Peutinger Map: Seamless Whole, in Color, with Overlaid Layers (Map A).” Accessed April 29, 2019. http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a/. Walas, Anna H. “An Integrated Cognitive and Epigraphic Approach to Social Networks within the Community of a Roman Base.” TRAC (2014): 17-30. Wilkes, J.J. “The Roman Danube: An Archaeological Survey” The Journal of Roman Studies 95 (2005): 124-225.

46