The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts LANGUAGE and IDENTITY in ROMAN ANATOLIA: A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY IN ROMAN ANATOLIA: A STUDY IN THE USE AND ROLE OF LATIN IN ASIA MINOR A Dissertation in History by Andrea F. Gatzke © 2013 Andrea F. Gatzke Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2013 ii The dissertation of Andrea F. Gatzke was reviewed and approved* by the following: Garrett G. Fagan Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies and History Dissertation Adviser Co-chair of Committee Michael E. Kulikowski Professor of History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Head of the Department of History Co-chair of Committee Paul Harvey, Jr. Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Head of the Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Mark Munn Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies and History Phil Baldi Emeritus Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies David Atwill Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. iii ABSTRACT In this study, I argue that Latin was used in the inscriptions of Anatolia primarily by certain socially mobile groups within Anatolia in order to lay claim to the social benefits of identifying as a Roman. Unlike in the western Roman provinces, where Latin was unequivocally the language of the Romans, and therefore was regularly used to show one’s Romanitas, such a straightforward Roman-barbarian dichotomy did not exist in the East. Latin was not necessary to display one’s Romanness, especially since Greek had its own status as a language of culture and intellectualism. Residents of Anatolia who were confident in their Romanitas and their social position, such as high level Roman aristocrats and military personnel, were comfortable using the standard Greek as well as, or instead of, Latin, for Greek highlighted their education and connection to the Greek heritage. They did not need to use the Roman language to communicate their inclusion in Roman society. Instead, inscriptions with Latin were particularly coveted by groups that had special relationships with Rome and Roman power. This was particularly the case for Roman soldiers, veterans, and freedmen, whose elevated social statuses were direct results of their connections to Rome and their involvement in core Roman institutions. Much like religious converts, naturalized Roman citizens in the East were the most eager to use Latin, as it allowed them to lay claim to and express their newfound Roman identity instead of, or alongside, their native identity. Of particular interest in this project are the bilingual texts, for they were particularly effective in exhibiting one’s membership in both Roman and Greek societies. What is more, bilingual texts also delineate the differing cultures and values of these two worlds, as frequently details pertaining more to one’s Roman identity were put into Latin, while those pertaining to their life as a Greek or Anatolian remained in Greek. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures. ................................................................... vi List of Tables. .................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations. ....................................................... viii List of Epigraphic Conventions. ....................................... x Acknowledgments. ............................................................ xi Introduction. ..................................................................... 1 Limits to This Study. .............................................. 13 Project Outline. ....................................................... 18 Chapter 1. Language and Identity. .................................. 22 Language, Identity & Sociolinguistics. .................. 22 Greeks & Romans in Anatolia. .............................. 37 Romanization & Greek Responses. ........................ 42 Latin & Identity. ..................................................... 57 Inscriptions & Identity. .......................................... 62 Conclusions. ........................................................... 70 Chapter 2. The Inscriptions. ............................................ 72 Selection of Inscriptions. ........................................ 73 Types of Inscriptions. ............................................. 74 Geographical Distribution. ..................................... 87 Roman Colonies. .................................................... 98 Chronological Distribution. .................................... 102 Dedicators. .............................................................. 119 Conclusions. ........................................................... 125 Chapter 3. Latin and Roman Soldiers. ........................... 128 The Roman Military in Anatolia. ............................ 128 The Latin Inscriptions. ............................................ 134 Geographical Distribution. ...................................... 141 Chronological Distribution. .................................... 149 Types of Inscriptions. ............................................. 151 The Soldiers. ........................................................... 159 Conclusions. ........................................................... 162 Chapter 4. Roman Slaves and Freedmen. ...................... 168 Freedmen & Epigraphy. ......................................... 168 Slaves & Freedmen in the Latin Inscriptions. ........ 174 Geographical Distribution of Freedman Inscriptions. 179 v Types of Inscriptions. ............................................. 183 Bilingualism among Freedmen. ............................. 186 Conclusions. ........................................................... 200 Chapter 5. The Bilinguals. ............................................... 203 The Bilingual Inscriptions. ..................................... 210 Geographical Distribution of Bilinguals. ............... 211 Chronology of the Bilinguals. ................................ 217 Typology of Bilinguals. ......................................... 219 Dedicators. ............................................................. 222 Functional Bilingualism. ........................................ 233 Symbolic Bilingualism. .......................................... 236 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. .................... 236 Civic Pride. ............................................................. 244 Public vs. Personal Identities. ................................ 246 Conclusions. ............................................................. 249 Conclusions. ...................................................................... 256 Appendix. ........................................................................... 267 Bibliography. ..................................................................... 291 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Number of Private Inscriptions, by Type. ................................................. 74 Figure 2.2. Number of Public/Other Inscirptions, by Type. .......................................... 85 Figure 2.3. Geographic Distribution of Private Latin Inscriptions. ............................... 88 Figure 2.4. Frequency of Latin Inscriptions of the Empire, as published by Mrozek. .. 103 Figure 2.5. Distribution of Inscriptions over 50-Year Periods. ..................................... 109 Figure 2.6. Frequency of Inscriptions by Type. ............................................................. 112 Figure 2.7. Chronological Distribution of Imperial Dedications. .................................. 113 Figure 3.8. Chronological Distribution of Inscriptions Mentioning Roman Soldiers. .. 149 Figure 3.9. Military Inscriptions by Type. ..................................................................... 152 Figure 4.10. Language Distribution in Freedman Inscriptions. ..................................... 178 Figure 4.11. Geographic Distribution of Freedman Inscriptions. .................................. 180 Figure 4.12. Geographic Distribution of Freedman Inscriptions, without Ephesus. ..... 181 Figure 4.13. Imperial and Non-Imperial Freedman Inscriptions. .................................. 183 Figure 5.14. Distribution of Bilinguals over Time, by Century. .................................... 218 Figure 5.15. Honorific Inscription of Sex. Vibius Gallus. ............................................. 235 vii LIST OF TABLES Table. 2.1. Top Cities Ordered According to Total Number of Latin Inscriptions. ....... 90 Table 3.2. Number of Latin Military Inscriptions in Non-Colonies. ............................. 143 Table 3.3. Number of Latin Military Inscirptions in the Colonies. ............................... 145 viii ABBREVIATIONS The following list gives the standard abbreviations for modern epigraphic corpora and standard reference tools. The list is selective, including only those works which occur regularly throughout this work. AE L’Année épigraphique (Paris 1888-). BCH Bulletín de correspondance hellénique (Athens 1877-). CERP A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1971). CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, A. Boeckh et al. (Berlin 1828- 77). CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, T. Mommsen et al. (Berlin 1863-). H&T S. Hagel and K. Tomaschitz, Repertorium der westkilikischen Inschriften: nach den Scheden der Kleinasiatischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien 1998). IDidyma Die