The auxilia in Roman Britain and the Two Germanies from Augustus to Caracalla: Family, Religion and „Romanization‟
by
David Benjamin Cuff
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Toronto
© Copyright by David Benjamin Cuff 2010
The auxilia in Roman Britain and the Two Germanies from Augustus to Caracalla: Family, Religion and „Romanization‟
David Benjamin Cuff
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Classics University of Toronto
2010 Abstract
This thesis examines the cultural and social relationships cultivated by ethnically diverse auxiliary soldiers in the western Roman empire. These soldiers were enrolled in the Roman auxilia, military units that drew primarily on the non-Roman subjects of the empire for their recruits in numbers that equaled the legionaries. I argue that auxiliary soldiers could and did maintain large families, and demonstrate, from epigraphic data collected and presented in my dissertation, how foreign ethnic and religious identities were variously integrated into Roman military culture by both individual auxiliaries and the Roman state.
The history of the auxilia in Germany from the time of Augustus and in Britain from the time of Claudius is discussed, with extensive reference to epigraphic material provided in appendices to this work. Analysis of military diplomas from across the Roman empire demonstrates a significant phenomenon of auxiliary family creation that helps to contextualize the diploma data from Germania and Britannia. Research on further epigraphic evidence from
Germania and Britannia demonstrates a marked diversity in religious dedications by auxiliary soldiers and further evidence for auxiliary families. From a discussion of the history of the concept of „Romanization‟ and other theoretical models that can be applied to the study of the auxilia, the continued usefulness of the evolving concept of
„Romanization‟ to our understanding of auxiliary cultural integration is assessed. Auxiliary service is shown to have provided many non-Roman ethnic groups avenues of cultural and legal inclusion that each soldier, surely in his own way, could exploit.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to offer my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Prof. Christer Bruun for his expert and patient advice. My research and scholarly development have benefitted enormously from my participation in the Collaborative Program in Ancient History between York University and Toronto (COLPAH). At York my heartfelt thanks also go out especially to Prof. Jonathan Edmondson for agreeing to participate in my dissertation committee. My work was also read by Profs. Hugh Mason, Michel Cottier, and, in her capacity as Graduate Co-ordinator, Victoria Wohl, and I thank them all for their effort. Thanks for encouragement and help in matters academic and otherwise are also due to the Graduate Assisstant, Coral Gavrilovic, and Departmental Assisstant, Ann-Marie Matti. I am grateful for the observations of my external examiner, Prof. William Kerr. The suggestions of all who have read my work have improved it immensely and saved me from innumerable infelicities. It should hardly need to be stated that I bear responsibility for any errors remaining in the text.
I have been fortunate to have enjoyed generous financial support for my doctoral research from the Social Sciences and Humanities Resource Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship program. From the Department of Classics at Toronto I have also received additional support from the Bickell Fellowship and the Rene Efrain Memorial Scholarship in Roman History. The Norwood Travel Fellowship funded travel to Cologne, Germany in 2008, where I conducted research for this project as a resident scholar at the Universität zu Köln, Institut für Altertumskunde at the kind invitation of Prof. Werner Eck.
The love and support of friends and family have sustained me throughout my postgraduate career. My parents have never wavered in their encouragement of my studies here and abroad, and to them this work is chiefly dedicated. Among my graduate colleagues at Toronto I would specifically thank Gabriela Doroftei for her friendship throughout our shared experience as doctoral students striving to become better scholars. Not the least benefit of my decision to come to Toronto has been the fortuitous event of meeting my wife Linda on a very cold Canadian winter‟s night in 2005. Although not an academic, she has been unwavering in her support and encouragement of me throughout my doctoral research. Miluji tě, moje milovaná manželko.
iii
Table of Contents Introduction (1-22)
The origins of the auxilia
I Before the auxilia: 1st century BCE socii and the Strabo Decree
(1-4)
II Resistance and Integration: From Arminius to the Claudian
reform and beyond (5-7)
III The Augustan auxiliary unit‟s organization (7-12)
IV Intercisa: a case study of an auxiliary ethnic unit (12-19)
V General Remarks on the present work (19-22)
Chapter 1 (23-49)
Auxiliary Research and the „Romanization‟ Paradigm
1.I „Romanization‟: history and theoretical debate (24-34)
1.I.i Interdisciplinary approaches and challenges in the 1960‟s (29-
30)
1.I.ii „Resistance‟ as a theoretical answer to „Romanization‟ (30-32)
1.I.iii Postcolonialist approaches from the 1990‟s to the present (32-
34)
iv
1.II Roman army studies and the auxilia, late 19th – mid 20th
centuries (34-47)
1.II.i Later synthetic treatments of the auxilia by Holder and
Saddington (42-44)
1.II.ii Recent scholarship on the auxilia (44-47)
1.III Conclusion (47-49)
Chapter 2 (50-103)
Military Diplomas as evidence for auxiliary families and
„Romanization‟
2.I Soldiers‟ Privileges (51-56)
2.II Auxiliary diplomas from Britain and the Two Germanies:
General Observations (56-58)
2.III Family (58-69)
2.IV “Wives” recorded on diplomas (69-75)
2.IV.ii Observations on auxiliary wives‟ names, as recorded on
diplomas (75-77)
2.V Remarks on ethnic endogamy (77-80)
2.VI Remarks on children recorded in military diplomas (80-83)
2.VII Women inside and outside the forts: archaeology and epigraphy
(83-85)
v
2.VIII Children, exposure and infanticide (86-94)
2.IX Gender Imbalance and „Romanization‟ (94-97)
2.X The change of 140: A shift in imperial policy (97-102)
2.XI Conclusion (102-104)
Chapter 3 (105-156)
The Two Germanies: Family, Religion and „Romanization‟
3.I The auxiliary garrison of Germania from Augustus to Caracalla:
general observations (106-110)
3.II Family (110-120)
3.III Religion (120-140)
3.III.i Auxiliary religious co-dedications (135-138)
3.III.ii Interpreting peregrine deities in auxiliary contexts (138-140)
3.IV „Romanization‟ (140-154)
3.IV.i Legionary models in the funerary context in post-conquest
Germania (141-144)
3.IV.ii The legionary template for „Romanization‟ (144-147)
3.IV.iii “Barbarous camp-speech” (147-157)
3.V Conclusion (154-156)
vi
Chapter 4 (157-207)
Roman Britain: Family, Religion and „Romanization‟
4.I The auxiliary garrison of Britannia from Claudius to Caracalla: general observations (158-162)
4.II Family (163-172)
4.III Religion (173-197)
4.III.i Coh. I Tungrorum and Apollo Clarius (185-189)
4.III.ii Observations on peregrine and local gods in stone inscriptions (190-193)
4.III.iii The Syrian Goddess (193-195)
4.III.iv Remarks on Auxiliary Religion in Britain (196-197)
4.IV „Romanization‟ (197-206)
4.IV.i The King of the Batavians (198-205)
4.IV.ii Auxiliary ethnic integration in Britain: the cives of Vindolanda
(205-206)
4.V Conclusion (206-207)
General Conclusion (208-212)
Bibliography (213-245)
vii
List of Tables
Introduction: p. 8, p. 14
Chapter 2: p. 56, p. 57, p. 59, p. 70, p. 76, p. 78, p. 89, p. 90, p. 91, p. 92
Chapter 3: p. 110, p. 116, p. 120, p. 122, p. 135, p. 145
Chapter 4: p. 162, p. 167, p. 175, p. 176, p. 178, p. 180, p. 183, p. 186, p. 196
viii
List of Figures
Fig.1 (p. 50)
Fig. 2 (p. 132)
Fig. 3 (p. 142)
Fig. 4 (p. 150)
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix I (pp. 246-263)
Appendix II (pp. 264-273)
Appendix III (pp. 274-346)
x 1
Introduction
I. Before the auxilia: 1st century BCE socii and the Strabo
Decree
During the Republic, the Romans supplemented their own legionary armies with allied Italian troops and special foreign units.1 These two sources of recruitment – dependent and nominally independent „allied‟ troops – feature in Festus‟ succinct definition of the auxiliary soldier.2
auxiliares dicuntur in bello socii Romanorum exterarum nationum, dicti a graeco au)/chsij.
The allies from the Romans‟ foreign tribes are called „auxiliaries‟, so-called from the Greek auxēsis („help‟).
Festus‟ definition underscores that the Italian allies of the Republic would not become the true model of the Imperial auxilia.3 A document dating from the Social War, however, does
1 Roman citizenship was extended to non-Romans and freed slaves much more liberally than in the Greek world, but often the Romans gave partial citizenship grants to Italian and, later, provincial municipia. Such grants might include the voting rights (civitas optimo iure), or no voting rights (civitas sine suffragio) or exemption from taxation. This was the case with the ius Italicum, which exempted provincial cities from the tributum soli and tributum capitis. There were also various forms of the Latin cititizenship (ius Latii), which in the second century CE admitted the magistrates of towns granted ius Latii to full Roman citizenship. Cf. OCD³ 334-35 s.v. “citizenship, Roman” and 790-91 s.v. “ius Latii.” 2 Paul. Fest. p. 17. The etymology is false; auxilium was surely formed from the verb augere (to increase). Cf. Walde-Hofmann: 89 s.v. “auxilium,” TLL 1618-30 s.v. “auxilium.” 3 The main scholarly accounts of the auxilia are Cichorius 1893 and Cichorius 1900, Cheesman 1914, Holder 1980, Saddington 1982, and Spaul 1994 on the ala and Spaul 2000 on the cohors. Tacitus‟ Histories and Annals often refer to the auxilia in the course of his narrative, though with inconsistent terminology and vague references to tactical matters. Josephus‟ BJ contains some important references, e.g. BJ 3.67, the earliest attestation of a cohors milliaria. Holder 1980: 5 noted that Josephus‟ descriptions seem occasionally anomalous and provide no systematic overview of auxiliary units in Vespasian‟s army. Several ancient manuals survive: Vegetius‟ epitome rei militaris, Arrian‟s tactica and ectaxis, the latter of which details the units stationed in Cappadocia ca. 135. [Hyginus] de munitionibus castrorum, of Hadrianic date, contains brief references to the structure of auxiliary units.
2 foreshadow the Imperial auxilia more directly. The famous decree of Cn. Pompeius Strabo records a grant of Roman citizenship made virtutis caussa to a turma of Spanish cavalrymen.4 [C]n(aeus) Pompeius Sex(ti) [f(ilius) imperator] virtutis caussa / equites Hispanos ceives [Romanos fecit in castr]eis apud Asculum a(nte) d(iem) XIV K(alendas) Dec(embres) / ex lege Iulia in consilio [fuerunt] / L(ucius) Gellius L(uci) f(ilius) Tro(mentina) Cn(aeus) Octavius Q(uinti) f(ilius) [--]cius C(ai) f(ilius) Ani(ensi) L(ucius) Iunius L(uci) f(ilius) Gal(eria) Q(uintus) Minuci(us) / M(arci) f(ilius) Ter(etina) P(ublius) Attius P(ubli) f(ilius) Ouf(entina) M(arcus) Maiolei(us) M(arci) [f(ilius) --- Ae]mili(us) Q(uinti) f(ilius) Pal(atina) Cn(aeus) Corneli(us) Cn(aei) f(ilius) Pal(atina) T(itus) Anni(us) T(iti) f(ilius) / Ouf(entina) M(arcus) Aureli(us) M(arci) f(ilius) Vol(tinia) L(ucius) Volumni(us) L(uci) f(ilius) Ani(ensi) L(ucius) [---] f(ilius) Suc(cusana) T(itus) Pompei(us) T(iti) f(ilius) Cor(nelia) C(aius) Rabeiri(us) C(ai) f(ilius) Gal(eria) / D(ecimus) Aebuti(us) D(ecimi) f(ilius) Cor(nelia) M(arcus) Teiedi(us) M(arci) f(ilius) Pol(lia) C(aius) Fundili(us) C(ai) f(ilius) Q[ui(rina)] M(arcus) [F]aia[ni(us?)] M(arci) [f(ilius) Se]r(gia?) T(itus) Acili(us) T(iti) f(ilius) Vel(ina) Cn(aeus) Oppi(us) Cn(aei) f(ilius) Vel(ina) Q(uintus) Petilli(us) L(uci) f(ilius) Vel(ina) / L(ucius) Terenti(us) A(uli) f(ilius) Vel(ina) T(itus) Terenti(us) A(uli) f(ilius) Vel(ina) L(ucius) Vetti(us) L(uci) f(ilius) Vel(ina) C(aius) Fornasidi(us) C(ai) f(ilius) Pol(lia) Cn(aeus) Pompei(us) Cn(aei) f(ilius) Clu(stumina) Sex(tus) Pompei(us) S(uintus) Otacilius Suisetarten f(ilius) / Cn(aeus) Cornelius Nesille f(ilius) / P(ublius)
“Gnaeus Pompeius son of Sextus, commander, in recognition of valour made the Spanish cavalrymen Roman citizens in the camp at Asculum on 18 November in accordance with the Julian Law.5 In his council there were (names of Roman officers). The Salluitan Squadron: Sanibelser son of Adingabas, Illurtabas son of Bilustabas, Estoples son of Ordennas, Torsinno son of Austinco. Bagarensis: Cacususin son of Chadar. [---]licenses: [---] son of Sosimilus, [--- son of ---]irsecel, [--- son of ---]elgaun, [--- son of ---]iespaiser. Ilerdenses: Quintus Otacilius son of Suisetartenus, Cn. Cornelius son of Nesille, Publius Fabius son of Enasagin.
4 90/89 BCE (CIL 1², 709 = ILLRP 515 = ILS 8888). The authority to grant this privilege was provided by the lex Iulia de sociis et Latinis civitate danda. 5 The lex Iulia de civitate sociis et Latinis danda of L. Julius Caesar (cos. 90 BC). See Cicero, pro Balbo 8.21, Gellius, NA 4.4.3, App. BC 1.49.212.
3
Begensis: Turtumelis son of Atanscer Segienses: Sosinadem son of Sosinasa, Sosimilus son of Sosinasa, Urgidar son of Luspanar, Gurtarno son of Biurno, Elandus son of Enneges, Agirnes son of Bennabels, Nalbeaden son of Agerdo, Arranes son of Arbiscar, Umargibas son of Luspangibas. Ennegenses: Beles son of Umarbeles, Turinnus son of Adimels, Ordumeles son of Burdo Libenses: Bastugitas Adimels, Umarillun son of Tarbantu Suoconsenses: Belennes son of Albennes, Atullo son of Tautindals Illuersensis: Balciadin son of Balcibil(os)” Gnaeus Pompeius son of Sextus, commander, in recognition of valour presented the Salluitan squadron in the camp at Asculum with the horn, bracelet, torc, armilla, medals and double ration.”
Strabo‟s grant of citizenship and other privileges – medals and a double ration – were possible explicitly due to the recent promulgation of the lex Iulia de civitate sociis et Latinis danda, but only as a special grant in recognition of valorous service. Thus, his act was not an example of any formal system of reward for non-Romans serving in the military – much less a precursor to military diplomas, bronze documents containing a record of citizenship and privileges granted by the emperor to discharged auxiliary soldiers.6 Yet in awarding the turma with other privileges, Strabo‟s decree foreshadows the honorific titles that many later auxiliary units won. Moreover, its content is indicative of the Roman state‟s use of citizenship as a policy designed to reward loyalty, and there are some features that are evocative of auxiliary soldiers in the imperial period. The enfranchised Iberians provided their origines – hometown affiliations – and filiation, yet their names were so unfamiliar that a great many of them were not even superficially Latinized, particularly those of their fathers.
The Strabo decree is a striking early example of the Romans‟ use of allied, and likely conscripted, non-Italian provincial troops who possessed certain skills that the Romans lacked. Although the ancient terminology used to describe them varies, it is as auxilia (support troops) that they are commonly described in ancient sources and modern scholarship.7 Roman terminology for auxiliary units varied; often they used descriptive references to their equipment or use as cavalry (levis armatura,8 equites,9 equitatus).10 However, the generic term auxilia as describing military units furnished by non-Roman sources and commanded by their own leaders was sufficiently well established that Cicero, in his second Verrine oration, could say:11
6 Diplomas will be discussed in greater detail in ch. 2. 7 On variations of terminology in ancient sources, see Saddington 1982: 27-53. 8 E.g. Caes. Bell. Afr. 59.3: post… elephantos armaturas leves Numidasque auxiliares substituerat. 9 E.g. Caes. Bell. Gall. 1.15.3: quo proelio sublati Helvetii, quod quingentis equitibus tantum multitudinem equitum propulerant. 10 E.g. Caes. Bell. Gall. 1.18.10: equitatui Dumnorix praeerat. 11 Cic. Ver. 2.5.24.1 (Loeb Classical Library Trans. L. Greenwood).
4
Sumptum omnem in classem frumento stipendio ceterisque rebus suo quaeque nauarcho civitas semper dare solebat…. Erat hoc, ut dico, factitatum semper, nec solum in Sicilia sed in omnibus provinciis, etiam in sociorum et Latinorum stipendio ac sumptu, tum cum illorum auxiliis uti solebamus.
It had been the regular practice that each state should provide for its naval expenditure on provisions, pay, and all other such matters, by furnishing its own commander with the sum needed…. This, I repeat, was the invariable practice, and not in Sicily only, but in all our provinces, and even for the pay and maintenance of the Italian allies and the Latins in the days (i.e. before the Social War and the lex Iulia de civitate danda of 90 BCE) when they supplied us with auxiliary troops.
The use of Gallic and Germanic cavalry by Caesar is well attested in his War Commentaries,12 and contingents of auxiliary troops under native leadership took part in the epic battles of the dying Republic.13 The reorganization of the military initiated by Augustus famously included a drastic reduction in the number of legions maintained by the Imperial government. It is on the basis of his attested military reforms that Augustus is also credited with creating auxiliary units of infantry (cohortes) and cavalry (alae) recruited from peregrini (“foreigners” living within the imperium Romanum), often under the command of a „native‟ leader. With rare exceptions, the tradition of native command ceased in most auxiliary units during the Julio-Claudian period.14
12 The passage documenting the exact number of Caesar‟s auxiliary forces is corrupt. Caes. Bell. Gall. 1.39.2: auxilia peditum †nulla†, equitum III milia, quae omnibus superioribus bellis habuerat, et parem ex Gallia numerum, quem ipse paraverat nominatim ex omnibus civitatibus nobilissimo et fortissimo quoque evocato; huc optimi generi hominum ex Aquitanis montanisque, qui Galliam provinciam attingunt. For a discussion of this passage see Saddington 1982: 6-7.
13 E.g. Cic. Deiot. 13.1: Ad eum [i.e. Pompey] igitur rex Deiotarus venit hoc misero fatalique bello [sc. Pharsalico] quem antea iustis hostilibusque bellis adiuverat; Phil. 10.24: Quod idem in M. Bruto facere debetis, a quo insperatum et repentinum rei publicae praesidium legionum, equitatus, auxiliorum magnae et firmae copiae comparatae sunt.
14 The Batavian units, particularly in the case of coh. VIIII Batavorum at Vindolanda, have been intensely studied. Native leadership of these units is attested at the beginning of the second century at Vindolanda, and is explicitly described by Tacitus Germ. 29: Omnium harum gentium virtute praecipui Batavi non multum ex ripa, sed insulam Rheni amnis colunt, Chattorum quondam populus et seditione domestica in eas sedes transgressus in quibus pars Romani imperii fierent. manet honos et antiquae societatis insigne; nam nec tributis contemnuntur nec publicanus atterit; exempti oneribus et collationibus et tantum in usum proeliorum sepositi, velut tela atque arma, bellis reservantur. est in eodem obsequio et Mattiacorum gens; protulit enim magnitudo populi Romani ultra Rhenum ultraque veteres terminos imperii reverentiam.
5
II. Resistance and Integration: From Arminius to the Claudian reform and beyond
Roman citizenship was typically granted to a select few among the aristocracies of frontier tribes supplying auxiliary troops. These foreign leaders gained a detailed knowledge of the Roman army that occasionally created dangerous foes. The case of Arminius is instructive. The victory of Arminius over three Roman legions, XVII Classica, XVIII Libyca and XIX Paterna, was of lasting consequence to the history of Roman Germany and the Roman army.15 It should not be forgotten that he was also a veteran of the auxilia:16
Tum iuuenis, genere nobilis, manu fortis, sensu celer, ultra barbarum promptus ingenio, nomine Arminius, Sigimeri principis gentis eius filius, ardorem animi uultu oculisque praeferens, adsiduus militiae nostrae prioris comes, iure etiam ciuitatis Romanae ius equestris consequens gradus, segnitia ducis in occasionem sceleris usus est, haud imprudenter speculatus neminem celerius opprimi quam qui nihil timeret, et frequentissimum initium esse calamitatis securitatem.
“Thereupon appeared a young man of noble birth, brave in action and alert in mind, possessing an intelligence quite beyond the ordinary barbarian; he was, namely, Arminius, the son of Sigimer, a prince of that nation, and he showed in his countenance and in his eyes the fire of the mind within. He had been on campaigns, had been granted the right of Roman citizenship, and had attained the dignity of equestrian rank. This young man made use of the negligence of the general as an opportunity for treachery, sagaciously seeing that no one could be more overpowered than the man who feared nothing, and that the most common beginning of disaster was a sense of security.” [trans. Loeb Classical Library]
Velleius‟ description of Arminius‟ qualities include clear references to his high status in both Roman and barbarian terms. He belonged to Cheruscan royal lineage (stirps regia) and had established his authority among them as “one who had served in Roman camps as the leader of his people” and gained proficiency in the Latin language.17 Romans had commonly permitted early auxiliary units to be commanded by leaders of the tribe from which its troops had been
15 Kalkriese, where numerous Roman finds have been discovered, is now the site of a museum. The identification of it with the site of the battle at the Teutoburg forest is disputed by Wolters 2008: 161-173, arguing that its material should be connected with Germanicus‟ campaigns.
16 Vell. Pat. 2.118.2. On Arminius in ancient and modern contexts see the various contributions to Wiegels and Woesler 2003, and esp. 459-469 in the same work for a general bibliography of research on Arminius conducted from 1994-2003. Arminius, the ancient and modern image of the Germans, and recent scholarship on the Teutoburg Forest are the subject of much work by R. Wolters, most recently Wolters 2008 (cf. Cuff 2009), and Bleckmann 2009.
17 Tac. Ann. 2.10, Romanis castris doctor popularium meruisset; cf. Ann. 2.88 (military service and language). Arminius‟ noble lineage is to be inferred from Ann. 11.16, when Italicus, Arminius‟ nephew, is described as being the last survivor of the Cheruscan royal line: amissis per interna bella nobilibus et uno reliquo stirpis regiae, qui apud urbem habebatur nomine Italicus. paternum huic genus e Flavo fratre Arminii, mater ex Actumero principe Chattorum erat.
6 recruited. This practice was fossilized in the names of some early cavalry units, such as the ala Atectorigiana.18
Arminius‟ career as a Roman soldier had gained him access to the culture of the Roman army and, of course, Roman citizenship and the rank of eques Romanus, the rank typically held by auxiliary unit commanders.19 His career provides a number of instructive contrasts with the privileges granted by Claudius and seen in military diplomas. Although the chronology of Arminius‟ career is not clear from Tacitus‟ writings, his rewards are presented as being restricted entirely to himself. Arminius‟ brother Flavus had also received similar rewards, though the praise of their virtues is a Tacitean composition.20 These rewards for important and presumably well-connected local elites belong to an established Roman tradition of favouring local elites as a mechanism of political control, and should not be seen as an active promotion of citizenship. Indeed, Augustus was reputed to be parsimonious with citizenship grants to peregrines.21
During Claudius‟ reign, a system of reward was established whereby auxiliary soldiers, after completing 25 years of service and upon receiving an “honourable discharge” (honesta missio), were granted Roman citizenship by decree of the emperor, conubium with a “wife” (uxor), and citizenship also for his children born during his service. These decrees were copied and stored at Rome, but auxiliaries could also obtain a copy – either at request or automatically – which outlined these privileges, were witnessed, and inscribed on bronze tablets that listed their unit, the date of receipt, their unit commander, the provincial governor, and a list of all other auxiliary units in the province in which there were men eligible to receive a diploma on the date of issue. These documents are called military diplomas in modern scholarship, although their ancient name is not attested. Along with inscriptions on stone, they are a vital source for auxiliary families and unit personnel in the imperial period from 51 CE to 203 CE, the date of the latest extant auxiliary military diploma. After 140 CE, the privileges were altered significantly to exclude children from the grant of citizenship, although conubium remained. The
18 For a survey of the evidence for this unit, later ala I Gallorum Atectorigiana, see Spaul 1994: 48-49. 19 See Timpe 1970, cf. Wolters 2008: 90-93, summarizing theories regarding Arminius‟ career in the Roman army.
20 Tac. Ann 2.9: Flavus aucta stipendia, torquem et coronam aliaque militaria dona memorat, inridente Arminio vilia servitii pretia.
21 Suet. Aug. 40.3: et Liuiae pro quodam tributario Gallo roganti ciuitatem negauit, immunitatem optulit affirmans facilius se passurum fisco detrahi aliquid, quam ciuitatis Romanae uulgari honorem.
7 rationale behind this change, wrought early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, is not clear, and thus has occasioned considerable debate.22 Aside from a few written records preserved on writing tablets in Britain and Germania, inscriptions on stone and military diplomas provide our main firsthand written evidence for auxiliaries and their families.
III. The Augustan auxiliary unit‟s organization
The traditional Roman association of citizenship with legionary service precluded the inclusion of conscripted provincials in the legions, but the integration of subject provincials into military service had obvious benefits for the empire. The regularization of auxiliary units that occurred during Augustus‟ reign should be seen as a part of his greater reorganization of the army. From a tactical perspective, the auxilia continued to compensate for the legion‟s deficiencies by providing specialist troops like archers (sagittarii), Germanic soldiers skilled at swimming (the Batavi), and even camel riders (dromedarii).23 Certain ethnic groups with a traditional reputation for prowess in a certain skill, such as archery, continued to supply recruits to some units for generations, as attested at Intercisa (Dunaujvaros). Despite epigraphically recognizable trends of local recruitment in most auxiliary units, many troops continued to be drawn from particular groups or provinces in which the local peregrine populations had longstanding reputations for their warlike character, such as Hispania Tarraconensis, Thracia, and Germania. Relatively inexpensive to equip, auxiliaries were useful in both battlefield and policing roles, particularly in provinces with extensive borders.
A characteristic of the post-Augustan auxilia is their fixed unit size, although the exact numbers remain a point of debate. After the reign of Domitian, some units were doubled in size. These larger units were given the title milliaria, commonly used to distinguish them from their former status as quingenaria.24 Mixed units of infantry and cavalry, called cohortes equitatae,
22 This is discussed in more detail in ch. 2. 23 Attested on the eastern frontier as late as the third century CE (coh. XX Palmyrenorum), but not widely used in Europe after the first century. 24 This is commonly attested on inscriptions by the symbol ∞. The symbol Đ may denote quingenaria, but it is much rarer and some examples are disputed. See Holder 1980: 6.
8 were later devised, allowing for even greater tactical flexibility.25 As one would expect, the terms milliaria and quingenaria imply unit sizes of roughly 1,000 and 500 men respectively. However, these terms are not exact descriptions of any auxiliary unit‟s theoretical strength (Tab. 1).
Tab 1: Theoretical size of auxiliary units (after Holder 1980)
Unit Number of Men per Number of Men per Unit Size Centuries Century Turmae Turma (Theoretical)
c. ped. 6 80 0 -- 480
c. eq. 6 80 4 30 600
c. ped. ∞ 10 80 0 -- 800
c. eq. ∞ 10 80 8 30 1040
ala 0 -- 16 30 480
ala ∞ 0 -- 24 30 720
Cavalry and infantry were subdivided into smaller units of turmae and centuriae respectively, commanded by a decurio (turma) and centurio (century). These numbers were not strictly enforced and should perhaps be seen as a guide rather than a fixed system of organization; the ancient evidence for unit size is not always well attested and is occasionally contradictory.26 Units denoted men of high rank as principales27 and other soldiers, called immunes, also had special privileges, in that they were exempted from certain obligations normally required of troops. Units were housed in forts designed on the legionary model, several of which have been excavated.28 To give an example, the requirements for Britain in the Hadrianic period are well known. Each century required 1 barrack, while 2 turmae occupied 1 barrack and 1 stable. Accommodation was arranged by contubernia along the legionary model, normally making ten
25 On the sources for and size of these units see Holder 1980: 5-13. Spaul 2000: 528 offers a succinct summary of auxiliary duties in wartime. 26 The size of the turma is a particularly good example. Arrian Tact. 18.3 gives 32 as the turma strength, a hay receipt of ca. 130 (Fink 1971 no. 80) gives 31 (30 + decurion), and a fragmentary pridianum of Claudian date (ChLA 9 no. 501) gives 12 decurions and 434 men in the unit. This works out to 36 men per turma, but Holder 1980: 9, is surely right to question the reliability of this last statistic. Some scholars, e.g. Keppie 1984: 183-4, accept Arrian‟s number. 27 For detail on individual ranks Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 57-58 and Holder 1980: 90-96. 28 On fort accommodation of the auxilia see Holder 1980: 10-12. The auxiliary garrison at Vindolanda, while by no means being the only example of an excavated auxiliary fort, is surely the most famous for its corpus of epigraphic material, now edited in the volumes of Tab.Vindol. (see Bibliography under Bowman and Thomas) and VRR.
9 contubernia for infantry cohorts and eight for cavalry units, but Paul Holder rightly points out that fewer could serve the same purpose.29
The auxilia were recruited (i.e. conscripted, particularly in the first two centuries of the imperial era) from foreign peoples living primarily on the eastern and western frontiers of the Empire. Early in the Julio-Claudian period auxiliary units were named after either foreign30 or Roman commanders,31 and some units took the names of emperors during whose reigns they were created. 18 cohorts raised solely from among Roman citizens (campestres, ingenui, and voluntarii)32 are attested, and some units are designated not by the soldiers‟ ethnicity but by their military specialization, e.g. coh. I Sagittariorum.33 Much more commonly, however, the naming of units was based on ethnicity. 91 distinct ethnic groups are attested in the titles of cohorts alone. The tribes of even small provinces could provide cohorts. In Sardinia, for example, three ethnic groups, the Corsi, Nurritani, and Sardi, provided troops for four auxiliary cohorts.34 Peregrine tribes in the northern and western provinces of the Roman Empire alone provided 129 securely attested auxiliary cohorts provided by a total of 51 ethnic groups, all units which were originally raised in the first and second centuries CE.35 Even this is a deceptive statistic, since many units were named after generic ethnic terms like, for example, Aquitani, Galli or Thraces. Within these broad categories there were many individual tribes like the Azali (or Asali), a Thracian tribe attested as the origo of several auxiliary soldiers and their „wives‟ from military diplomas but which did not supply an auxiliary unit to the Roman army.
Auxiliary cohorts were named after ethnic groups (in the genitive plural) and usually given a number.36 For example, the four Sardinian cohorts were I Corsorum, I Nurritanorum, I
29 Holder, 1980: 9 n. 16. 30 E.g. ala Atectorigiana, after the unit‟s first prefect, Atectorix. (Mommsen 1910: 145). For a list of alae named after commanders, see. E. Birley 1988: 368-84. 31 These were usually cavalry, e.g. ala Patrui, apparently named after a man from Latium Adiectum ca. 43-31 (Demougin 1992: no. 26; cf. AE 1983, no 182), ala Rusonis (a rare cognomen), ala Scaeva, for which cf. Spaul 1994: 20. A coh. I Lepidiana is also attested; for references see Spaul 2000: 155. 32 Spaul 2000: 19-48. 33 Spaul 2000: 487. 34 Spaul 2000: 49-54. 35 Spaul 2000: 17-272, with the names of individual tribes and units provided by each. The “western and northern” provinces encompass Sardinia, Lusitania, Hispania, Gallia, Britannia, Germania, and the Alps. Note that the total 129 includes both coh. II Vasconum equitata civium Romanorum and coh. II Hispanorum. At some point in the second century, the former unit was absorbed into the latter (Spaul 2000: 189). 36 There are rare exceptions, e.g. the coh. Apula civium Romanorum. For references on this cohort, which was raised during the reign of Augustus, see Spaul 2000: 21. For discussion of the numbering system used by the Romans, see next chapter.
10
Gemina Sardorum et Corsorum, and II Sardorum. Many units which distinguished themselves in battle for valour or for loyalty in political crisis were awarded honorary titles, such as pia, fida, fidelis, torquata and civium Romanorum.37
Two trends have been observed. Units raised in the western provincial frontier zone took their names from tribes or regions, while units in the east, because of long local traditions of raising armies from the citizen body, often used nomenclature derived from city names, such as the cohortes Damascenorum, Antiochensium and Apamenorum.38 In the east there remain, however, cases of ethnic nomenclature in cohorts raised from among the Galatians and Syrians.
Units moved around frequently, and there is dispute about the identification and exact nomenclature of a significant number. Of the 8639 known auxiliary alae listed by Spaul, 21 are certain to have been stationed in at least three provinces, 33 in one province apart from where they were raised, and a mere two remained in the same province where they were raised.40 This does not include 27 “suspect units”, i.e. units that were raised in the fourth century CE or are based on dubious evidence. Similarly, Spaul‟s calculations of total auxiliary manpower for the first half of the second century CE exclude 37 cohorts on the basis either that no second century evidence exists or that they were raised later. When auxiliary units were stationed in new provinces, they drew recruits from the local population and often little regard was paid to the ethnic titles of a unit, although there were some exceptions. The Batavians in Britannia are one such exception, and there may be more.41 Overall surviving records of auxiliary units are overwhelmingly lacunose, although it is clear from what has survived in Syria, Egypt and Britain that Roman units kept detailed records of their personnel.
In the second century CE appear also the so-called numeri, units raised from non-Roman peoples that permitted recruits to keep their own traditional dress and weapons. The identification of these as „special units‟ distinct from the „regular‟ auxilia has had a long
37 On these titles, see Holder 1980: 30-41, and, generally, Maxfield 1989. 38 Keppie 1984: 182. 39 This is the number of alae listed by Spaul 1994: 257-260. 40 Spaul 1994: 268 notes that the only two alae to remain in their province of origin were II Flavia Hispanorum (Hispania) and perhaps II Syrorum (Mauretania Tingitana, if Roxan 1972 was correct in suggesting that it was formed from a pre-existing cohort of Syrians, coh. II Syrorum sagittaria ∞ equitata, already stationed there). However I Flavia Numidica should also be included, since it was based in the area of its recruitment also (Africa and Numidia, with detachments in Mauretania Caesarensis and Tripolotania, cf. Spaul 1994: 107-110). 41 For a recent summary of known Batavian personnel see A. R. Birley 2001a.
11 influence on scholarship. However, Michael P. Speidel has shown that the distinction is an anachronism imposed by modern classical scholarship.42 These units had ethnic titles like other auxiliary units and recruited only from the ethnic group, a phenomenon sometimes seen as starkly contrasting with “regular” auxiliary units. Thus Eric Birley, writing about the duties of soldiers stationed at Hadrian‟s Wall, wrote:43 While control of the Wall was entrusted to the numeri which garrisoned the milecastles and turrets, the alae and cohorts in their forts stood poised to defend the frontier district by operations… against any barbarians who might attempt to disregard Rome‟s authority.
In other words, Birley believed that the „numeri‟ policed the border while the more skilled troops of the alae and cohortes dedicated themselves to combat training and battle readiness. However, this distinction has no ancient basis. Numerus was not a technical term and was applied to alae, cohorts, and legions. It should thus be translated as “unit.”44
Soldiers serving in the auxilia were equipped differently than legionaries, as we know from ancient representations of them on auxiliary tombstones and monuments like the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius and Arrian‟s description of a cavalryman‟s equipment.45 Generally the equipment was lighter than a legionary‟s, and there was some variation. Some units were permitted to retain their native dress, but all auxiliary soldiers wore uniforms that bore common characteristics that distinguished them from legionaries. Auxiliaries used a standard long sword, called a spatha, instead of the gladius Hispaniensis. For both cavalry and infantry, auxiliary equipment was designed to be lightweight and permit ease of movement. This practice surely began with the non-Roman character of the lightly-armed troops employed as allies by generals in the Late Republic and is reflected in the foreign character of some of their weapons and armour. By the time of the Dacian Wars auxiliary equipment had been upgraded. This reflects both the increasing number and importance of the auxiliaries themselves.46
Since all auxiliary cohorts and alae may not yet be attested, one cannot provide exact numbers for the total auxiliary manpower of the Roman Empire. However, there is enough
42 M. P. Speidel 1984, esp. 119-123. 43 Cf. E. Birley 1988: 15; Cheesman 1914: 85-87 viewed the numeri as distinct from the auxilia. 44 OCD³ 1054 s.v. “numeri.” 45 Arr. Tact. 4; 34-41. A detailed accounting of military equipment cannot, for reasons of space be offered here. The overview of military equipment used by the auxilia provided by Cheesman 1914: 124-32 is still useful. The best standard work on equipment generally is Bishop and Coulston 2006, although it does not treat development of auxiliary equipment in a systematic manner. 46 See Bishop and Coulston 2006: 254-261 for basic discussion, with illustration.
12 information to give a clear impression of the immense size and tactical importance of the auxilia. Cheesman estimated for the period of 117-161 CE a total auxiliary force, including alae, cohortes, and numeri47 of 191,800 men, but felt that this number was far below reality and suggested 220,000 as a more accurate estimate of the standing auxiliary army of the second century CE.48 The former number compares well with the more detailed statistics of Spaul for CE 155. For that year he estimated 56,160 cavalry and 124,680 infantry, for a total theoretical capacity of 180,840 auxiliary soldiers.49 This figure is based on a more conservative reading of evidence for auxiliary units in the second century and thus falls short of Cheesman‟s estimate. Even more striking than the immense number of auxiliaries is their comparison to the maximum legionary capacity of only 140,000 in the provinces, an overall auxiliary to legionary ratio of 9:7.
IV. Intercisa: a case study of an auxiliary ethnic unit
Numerous auxiliary forts have been excavated, but in most cases the majority of information preserved about the soldiers stationed there at any given time is limited. This investigation is concerned primarily with the auxiliary garrisons of Germania and Britannia, but the corpus of evidence preserved at the Pannonian fort of Intercisa (Dunapentele-Sztalinvaros, now Dunaujvaros) in Pannonia provides a useful test case for my study. The issues on which I shall focus deal with the reconstruction of the ethnic diversity of an auxiliary unit, the evolution of these soldiers‟ sense of ethnic and religious identity, and their impact on their immediate geographic and social environment. All of these questions are pertinent to my own investigation of the material from Germania and Britannia discussed in the following chapters. The wealth of evidence preserved at Intercisa of the Syrian troops of coh. I ∞ Hemesenorum sag. eq. c. R. from the late 2nd - mid 3rd centuries CE makes this site particularly valuable for the study of auxiliaries in a frontier context.
47 As Cheesman divided the forces. 48 Cheesman 1914: 145-69. He also distinguished between cavalry and “mounted infantry”, but this was a false assumption; all cavalry were “true” cavalry. 49 Spaul 2000: 526. These calculations operate on the theoretical numbers for a century and turma outlined in Tab. 1 above.
13
Intercisa‟s fort and vicus have been thoroughly excavated.50 The site has yielded numerous inscriptions, most of which have been edited and published in 1991 by Fitz in the fifth volume of Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns (RIU), with subsequent discoveries and revised readings available in AE and other periodicals. The epigraphic record demonstrated that from the accession of Commodus until ca. 252 CE Intercisa was the home of a large concentration of Syrians and generally did not recruit from the local population. This was due to the special skills in archery required by their unit, coh. I ∞ Hemesenorum sag. eq. c. R, one of two auxiliary units raised from the population of Emesa in Syria.51 This unit, raised during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and stationed at Intercisa after the site was vacated by ala I Thracum Frontoniana, probably in the late 180‟s CE, remained at Intercisa until ca. 252 CE, the latest datable reference to the cohort.52
One of the most striking social features of the Syrian garrison at Intercisa is a concentration of Jews from the east large enough to construct a synagogue there: 53 Deo Aeter/no pro sal(ute) d(omini) / n(ostri) Sev(eri) [[A[lexan]]]/[[dri]] P(ii) F(elicis) Aug(usti) [[et Iul(iae)]] / [[Mamae]]ae Aug(ustae) mat(ris) Aug(usti) vot(um) / red(dit) l(ibens) Cosmius pr(aepositus) / sta(tionis) Spondill() a synag(oga) / I/u/de/or(um)
Spaul‟s claim that “it is difficult to imagine strict monotheists like the Hebrews tolerating the pantheistic Roman army” is not a convincing argument against these men having been either soldiers or relatives of soldiers. His characterization of the Roman army as “pantheistic” is puzzling. Moreover, his assumption that all ancient Jews would have harbored the same feelings about service in the Roman army does not merit serious argument.54 The presence of a synagogue at Intercisa provided ample opportunity for Jewish soldiers in the Roman army to practice their faith, just as the Syrians of the unit had temples to Sol Elagabalus for themselves.
Other vivid examples of non-Roman religious worship at Intercisa are provided. A temple to the patron deity of Emesa, Sol Elagabalus, was erected there. The likely date of the
50 Barkóczy 1954 and 1957. General surveys of Intercisa include Fitz 1972: 17-44 and Visy 1977. For a critical assessment of Fitz‟ approaches, see Mann 1972. 51 Spaul 2000: 411. Coh. II Hemesenorum was stationed in Arabia Petraea. 52 AE 1971, a building stone dedicated to the emperor Trebonianus. It is not clear where coh. I Hemesenorum was stationed prior to its post at Intercisa, cf. Mann 1974: 259.
53 RIU 1051; cf. Fülep 1966, Visy 1977: 33. 54 The famous example of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish general who defected to Vespasian‟s forces, offers a useful counter-example.
14 temple dedication was 202 CE, coinciding with an Imperial visit.55 This underscores the close connection between the emperor and the auxilia particularly in the case of Caracalla, whose mother came from Syria. The familiar invocation of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus in official unit dedications is attested at Intercisa.56 A brief survey of the extant references to other deities invoked at the site underscores the diversity of religious worship at Intercisa, particularly in the case of the Emesenes‟ native cult of Elagabal and the god‟s wife, associated with Diana Tifatina, a central Italic goddess.
Table 2: Alphabetical list of deities commemorated by auxiliary troops at Intercisa57
Reference Deity
RIU 1051 Deus Aeternus
RIU 1053 Deus Azizus
RIU 1062 Fortuna
RIU 1063 Hercules
RIU 1064-1080 IOM
RIU 1080-1081 IOM Culminaris
RIU 1061 Deus Dobrates
RIU 1083 IOM Dolichenus
RIU 1084 IOM Hero
RIU 1080 Juno
RIU 1079, 1085-1088 Liber
RIU 1089 Mercury
RIU 1054-1055, 1090- (Sol) Mithras 1092
RIU 1094-1096 Silvanus
RIU 1079 Tellus
RIU 1056-1059 Diana
55 Fitz 1972: 83-91. 56 RIU 1068. 57 AE 1965, 10 was discovered at Szabadegyháza.
15
RIU 1097-1103 Sol
RIU 1104-1107, 1139 Sol Elagabalus
RIU 1108 Venus
One might expect to see a divide between the deities honoured in official altars set up by the unit commanders (tribuni, in the case of this cohort) and the deities cultivated by lower ranking soldiers. In RIU 1059, a tribunus, Modius Rufinus, commemorated the efforts of his deceased predecessor Campanius Marcellus in erecting a temple to Diana Tifatina, a goddess with origins in Capua whose only other extant provincial inscription comes from Gallia Narbonensis.58 Her association with Diana, who represents the wife of Sol Elagabalus, demonstrates the complexity of relationship which could exist between Roman and peregrine religious identification. In addition, a contemporary inscription dedicated by a lower ranking soldier, Iulius Germanus, to the peregrine deity Azizus also attests the cultural strength of the unit‟s eastern soldiers, while a slave, Eutices, made a dedication to Dobrates (RIU 1061).59 The official aspect of Emesene religion, particularly during the Severan dynasty, should not be seen as a form of cultural resistance to Rome. This model of cultural interaction is, as will be argued in the next chapter, flawed. No inscriptions in an eastern language have been discovered at Intercisa; commemorations made both by unit commanders and lower ranking troops were always made in Latin.
Low-ranking soldiers, like Aurelius Mu[--]nus, could also honour the Roman god Liber as easily as they might worship Elagabal. The cult of Emesan Elagabal is well represented, as one would expect given the presence of a temple at Intercisa. These few inscriptions demonstrate the fallacy of lumping soldiers of different ranks into different categories of worship. The tribuni of this cohort were not natives of Emesa but could still set up religious dedications to the unit‟s popular Syrian deity. The obvious benefits of this action were the establishment of a greater rapport with the commander‟s troops and, during Elagabal‟s reign, a demonstration of loyalty to that emperor and his family.
58 Various epithets are applied to Diana, who is generally interpreted as the wife of Sol Elagabalus (Fitz 1991, 15). She appears as Diana Augusta (RIU 1056), Diana Pat(rensis?) (RIU 1058), and Diana Tifatina (RIU 1059). For other epigraphic attestations of the Italic deity Diana Tifatina, see CIL 10, 3795, 3828, 3924, 4564, ILS 3241 (at Allifae in Campania), CIL 12, 1705 (Le Pegue in Gallia Narbonensis), and RECapua 58. 59 A temple to Azizus bonus puer conservator was also built in Dacia by the praefectus legionis V Macedonicae, Donatus, at Potaissa / Turda in Dacia (CIL 3, 875).
16
The Syrians at Intercisa were thus free to practice religions of their choosing, provided that they also honoured the emperor and those cults of the Roman state religion which were scheduled for observance on the calendar. Certain cult practices that the Romans considered to be abhorrent, e.g. human sacrifice, were obviously not allowed, nor was participation in a religion that was proscribed by law.60 For this reason no evidence of auxiliary Christians has yet been discovered. The continuity of Syrian recruitment over multiple generations guaranteed continuity in eastern cult worship. Bökönyi argued that camel bones excavated from a pit dating ca. late 2nd – early 3rd cent. CE “in all probability” were sacrificial remains, especially given “the oriental touch [the Syrians gave] to the settlement through their eastern elements.” Since no Syrian parallels for this survive,61 the sacrificial context is not clear, however, and there are no auxiliary iconographic representations of this particular animal sacrifice that might illuminate the matter. The camel remains were excavated from the civil settlement, not the fort. This may be significant, since there is no reason to assume, with Bökönyi, that the auxiliary soldiers brought the camels with them. Although auxiliary units of dromedarii were raised in the first century CE, these units do not appear in the western garrisons of the empire in the second century.62 If camel meat was a Syrian delicacy, then the most straightforward explanation of the remains would be that camp-followers or traders supplied this culinary demand. This may have been done elsewhere on the German limes where camel remains have been found.63 Ethnic cuisine, therefore, arguably followed the movements of significant ethnic groups within the auxilia.
The epigraphic record at Intercisa also indicates that the children of auxiliary soldiers followed their fathers‟ careers. After obtaining Roman citizenship they would have been eligible for service in the legions. The career of one principalis, P. Aelius Proculinus, was recorded on a tombstone set up for him by his father P. Aelius Proculus, a veteran of the cohort. His son‟s remarkable 26-year career evidently began in the auxiliary unit until his transfer to legio II Adiutrix with the rank of eques legionis. Later he served in an urban cohort, coh. VII praetoria, and finally commanded the castellum Carporum.64 The transferable skills of auxiliaries to legionary service evident at Intercisa are significant. Although not all auxiliaries could, or did,
60 Bökönyi 1989, esp. 402-404. Tacitus (Germ.) famously mentions human sacrifice as being practiced by Germans, while the Carthaginians‟ practice of it was well documented in antiquity, especially by Polybius. 61 In pre-Islamic Arabia and Persia the practice is attested, in the latter case up to 1933; cf. Bökönyi 1989: 404. 62 For ala I Ulpia Dromedariorum milliaria, see Spaul 1994: 104-105. It is listed on CIL 16, 106. This unit was created by Trajan and stationed in Palmyra until at least 150 CE. All evidence of it is limited to the east. 63 At Vindonissa / Windisch, Vindobona / Vienna, and Abodiacum / Epfach; cf. Bökönyi 1989: 403 nn. 22-24. 64 RIU 1155.
17 experience the same career path as Proculinus, his experience underscores the attraction that legionary service might have for a Roman citizen, because of higher pay and, perhaps, the ambition of obtaining a higher rank.
Despite a large number of inscriptions at Intercisa attesting spouses and/or children of auxiliaries, it is impossible to quantify the number of families created at Intercisa. Many auxiliary inscriptions elsewhere do not contain the striking detail of RIU 1161: D(is) M(anibus) / Aureliae Barachae vixit / ann(os) XXXV et Aur
“To the Underworld Shades of Aurelia Baracha (who) lived 35 years and Aurelia Germanilla (who) lived 4 years and the other daughter (named) Aurelia Germanilla (who) lived 2 years and Immosta her mother (who) lived 40 years. Germanius Valens, soldier of the milliary cohort of Hemesenes, set this up to his wife, mother and children and did it for himself while alive.”
That the monument tells a sad tale, implying that Germanius was predeceased by his mother, wife and children, is only one important detail. This soldier had two daughters, both bearing the same name and being close in age. The lack of praenomina and the gentilicium Aurelius indicate a third century date, after 212 CE. Although the monument focuses on the deceased women, Germanius still clearly valued his military identity enough to mention it. The exact details of his time of service are missing, indicating that he was still in active service when he commissioned the monument. The Roman names may conceal a provincial, non-Roman ethnic heritage, but the monument, inscribed in poor Latin, speak to the Roman identity of this auxiliary family.
As will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter 3, auxiliary tombstones of the early first century display many of the characteristics of their legionary counterparts. Clearly legionary soldiers were not sequestered in their frontier fortresses, and legiones I and II Adiutrix are attested in the epigraphic record at Intercisa on brickstamps and stone monuments.65 Vexillations, or even lone centurions often appear among the auxiliary garrisons of Germania and Britannia throughout the period under investigation. The student of the auxilia should therefore be mindful of a legionary presence which was both personal and ideological, but not always visible from the archaeological or epigraphic record for every auxiliary site. An approach that encompasses the legionary influence has therefore been adopted for this investigation.
65 Leg. I Adiutrix: RIU 1185, 1204. Leg. II Adiutrix: RIU 1116, 1168, 1176, 1183-1185, 1189-1190, 1195, 1200, 1215, 1228, 1232, 1242 and 1253.
18
A final remark on the challenges posed by the Intercisa evidence regards culture and identity. Fitz used onomastic arguments to support his claim that the vast majority of individuals living at Interisa were Syrians, and therefore either soldiers or the relatives of soldiers. In doing so he produced a series of questionable statistics claiming that ubiquitous Roman names like Rufus, Julianus, Silvanus and Bassus indicated eastern origin, while ignoring a great many peregrine names.66 As is usually the case, it is impossible to provide a clear demographic analysis of Intercisa from epigraphic data alone, but enough evidence of non-Syrians survives to warrant closer attention. The Syrian community was not ethnically homogenous, a characteristic shared to a greater or lesser degree by all auxiliary units. In any fort, over a significant period of time, a number of cultural processes can be observed. These include non-Roman religious and cultural practices (such as peregrine “marriage”) and Roman religious and cultural practices (expressed in the context of auxiliary service in the fort and vicus). None of these categories should be seen as mutually exclusive. As the legionary career of Proculinus shows, an Intercisan Syrian auxiliary could look beyond his cultural enclave to a broader Roman military career, yet be buried back at home on the Pannonian frontier. Not just his Roman name or citizenship but also his career indicate the strong cultural influence of the military.
Although scholars have accepted that the Syrian cultural element at Intercisa was enduring and significant, daily cultural reality of this frontier community is still imperfectly understood. This situation can be further complicated if one views the Syrian population too exclusively. Criticizing Fitz, Mann pointedly observed that:67 It seems clear that the author has seriously underestimated the Pannonian element in the population of Intercisa (and perhaps the Thracian element also). Alongside his suggestion that the large number of inscriptions at Intercisa derives from the Emesenes‟ knowledge of writing (p. 247), must be placed the fact that not a single line in any Semitic script seems to have been recognized at Intercisa, and only one Greek inscription. Yet a strong Syrian element is certainly attested. The society of Intercisa still remains something of an enigma.
Mann‟s observation applies to a myriad of other ethnic groups that served in the auxilia on the frontiers of the Rhine and Hadrian‟s Wall. The Germanic, Celtic, Thracian or Spanish troops that dominated these garrisons had different cultural heritages, but when investigating their complex interaction between each other and their Roman authorities the same caution should be exercised. Intercisa‟s „strong Syrian element‟ is significant, but the complexity of the garrison‟s ethnic diversity can easily be masked if one should focus excessively on one ethnic group. As will be
66 Mann 1974: 260 caustically termed Fitz‟ methodology “derisory”. 67 Mann 1974: 260.
19 argued in the cases of Britannia and Germania, auxiliary units in both provinces were characterized by much more ethnic diversity than has been previously recognized, sharing many common traits. Intercisa may have been enigmatic, but its enigma should not be seen as an exception.
V. General Remarks on the Present Work
Intercisa‟s example of cross-cultural relations in the context of the Roman military frontier thus presents a useful microcosm of various aspects of peregrine auxiliary integration that feature prominently in this investigation of auxiliary family, religion and „Romanization.‟ As will be demonstrated, the personnel of these frontiers often, and not with consistent precision, adapted their practices to a military context by various means that have commonly been termed „Romanization.‟ As this is a subject in itself of recent debate among specialists in the field of ancient imperialism and archaeology – though less so among specialists in the field of auxiliary scholarship – the first chapter of this study thus begins with an evaluation of the „Romanization‟ model and an assessment of it use within the specialized studies of imperialism in general and the Roman army in particular.
The second chapter evaluates military diplomas in more detail, not only as evidence for the personnel and their families of Roman Britain and the Two Germanies but also as evidence, taken as a whole, for trends in family creation and „Romanization‟ among auxiliaries throughout the Roman empire. Military diplomas, when complete, provide a compelling amount of information not only about an auxiliary soldier but also his family, if he had one, his unit, and the administration of his province, and the usefulness of military diplomas from Britain and Roman Germany in particular will therefore be evaluated in the context of the large, and growing, corpus of diplomas from across the empire.
The third and fourth chapters focus on the diverse evidence for auxiliary family, religious practice and cultural change in the Two Germanies (Germania Inferior and Germania Superior) and Britain, taking into account both epigraphic and archaeological evidence. The evidence
20 considered is primarily comprised of inscriptions in stone, and these are provided in an appendix to this study. However inscriptions are not the only evidence for auxiliary life and identity in these provinces, as in Germania Superior and, especially, Britannia conspicuously detailed evidence for auxiliary daily life has been preserved at Vindonissa / Windisch and Vindolanda / Chesterholm. A summary of conclusions derived from this investigation as a whole concludes this study.
Detailed appendices of the auxiliary garrisons and epigraphic records of auxiliaries for the three provinces treated in this study – Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, and Britannia, are provided. Appendix I provides a list of auxiliary units attested in Roman Germany and Britain, with commentary on certain units provided in citations. Appendix II provides details on the recipients of all currently published diplomas for Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, and Britannia. Appendix III provides the texts and references for all auxiliary inscriptions that can be reasonably dated to ca. 27 BCE-212 CE. Images and tables have otherwise been incorporated into text.
Given the large number of inscriptions presented in Appendix III, I have employed a shorthand citation system to refer to inscriptions in the appendices based, primarily, on their province of origin: GI for Germania Inferior, GS for Germania Superior, and B for Britannia. Inscriptions are further subdivided by the rank of auxiliaries attested therein: P for inscriptions commissioned by praefecti, tribuni, and praepositi, i.e. auxiliary unit commanders, IP for immunes and principales, employed here as a blanket term for all inscriptions commissioned by officers above the rank of common soldier, U for collective unit dedications that do not explicitly mention a dedicant, A for inscriptions commissioned by auxiliary infantry and cavalry (or members of their families) and ARU for fragmentary inscriptions in which an auxiliary soldier is attested, but whose rank cannot be determined. As with the list of auxiliary units, I have commented on select readings or issues of interpretation on several inscriptions, some of which I discuss in greater detail in the text. Consular dates, when preserved, are also noted.
Military diplomas, being considerably fewer in number than inscriptions, are cited by their publication (CIL, RMD, RGZM, or editio princeps) unless otherwise indicated.68 I have also for convenience categorized the inscriptions based on their function: F for funerary (i.e.
68 Abbreviations for all published collections of inscriptions are expanded in the Appendices.
21 tombstones), V for votive dedications (or any inscription specifically of a religious nature), D for dedications made by auxiliary units commemorating the construction or restoration of a building, and O for inscriptions of another nature, such as, e.g. marks of ownership etched on military gear. The texts of all Vindolanda and Vindonissa tablets have not been reproduced verbatim in this study, as excellent collections of these have been published and, in the case of the Vindolanda tablets, are available online, with commentary.69 The bibliography, arranged alphabetically by author, follows the Appendices.
Finally it should be recognized that the study of the auxilia, as with other aspects of the Roman army, lends itself to comparison with modern military structures. For example, one scholar of the French Foreign Legion observed that “[f]rom earliest times, rulers… were glad to employ mercenary soldiers, preferably foreign ones, to fight their battles for them…. and they (sc. “mercenaries”) had their place in the Roman Army.”70 In the context of the British Army, the Gurkhas, as “archetype ethnic soldiers” who were nonetheless recruited from various Burmese and Tibetan tribes, have also occasioned comparisons with Roman precedents.71 In 2002, in a decision coincidentally evocative of the imperial constitutiones recorded on Roman military diplomas, the American government, through an executive order signed by George W. Bush, authorized the grant of U. S. citizenship to foreigners serving in the American military.72 The frontier narrative, more generally, has a resonance in a western world descended, ultimately, from an entity whose authority was enforced, in part, by thousands of auxiliary troops.
Nevertheless, I have refrained from such comparisons in this study.73 When comparative analysis is made, this is done exclusively within the ancient evidence for auxiliary daily life on the frontiers of the Roman empire. The evidence considered in this study spans over two centuries, from the death of Augustus to the edict, in 212 CE, of Caracalla, the constitutio Antoniniana.74 Although some post-212 material will be discussed, this date provides a useful
69 http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/ has digital records for Tab. Vindol. II, with Tab. Vindol. III soon to be uploaded. 70 O‟Balance 1974: 16. 71 Van Driel-Murray 2003: 202-204. 72 The executive order is referenced on the US military‟s website at http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/08/07/25610- us-government-offers-citizenship-through-military-service/ (Retrieved 4/9/2009). It should be noted that only individuals who already possess a „Green Card‟ (i.e. legal immigrants) qualify for this privilege; illegal immigrants remain excluded from this benefit. Nevertheless, the provision of this incentive seems remarkable for a military recruited entirely from volunteers in a modern nation of over 300 million people. It currently remains in effect. 73 On the Roman inspiration of Victorian and Edwardian commentators on British archaeological sites, see Hingley 2001. 74 On the constitutio, see Kuhlmann 1994.
22 terminus for this study. Following its promulgation, the last legal differentiations of auxiliaries from Roman citizens within the Roman state were removed, although, as this investigation will show, the process of integration had by then been much advanced.
23
Chapter 1 Auxiliary Research and the „Romanization‟ Paradigm
From the Augustan age until the promulgation of the Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE, the auxilia grew in size and importance for the military protection and policing of the provinces of the Roman empire. By virtue of their being Roman soldiers, the auxilia are inevitably drawn into a larger debate about their role as an agent of „Romanization.‟ The acceptance of this concept as an interpretative model in military studies is universal, and as a result current theoretical debates about the validity of „Romanization‟ as an interpretative paradigm have not had a strong impact on auxiliary studies. As such, there is no systematic defence of „Romanization‟ as a valid interpretative model for the development of the auxilia. Given the occasionally vociferous nature of this “dialogue of the deaf,” one might be tempted to view this as a blessing.1 However, the thrust of the „Romanization‟ debate is the healthy desire to test assumptions, and in so doing to refine and advance scholarly understanding of the ancient world. Therefore, the questions of what the „Romanization‟ debate is and how it pertains specifically to the study of the auxilia are central to a modern approach to the development of auxiliary units over the first two centuries of the Roman empire. These are considered next, followed by a survey of auxiliary scholarship, its engagement with the „Romanization‟ paradigm, and an assessment of the paradigm as a useful concept for future research.
1 Wheeler 2007: 237.
24
I. „Romanization‟: history and theoretical debate2
In the nineteenth century scholars began to discuss in detail the process by which the transformation of Western Europe under Roman rule took place. The challenge was to make sense out of the many ruins, inscriptions, and institutions that were known at the time. „Romanization‟ is a modern term used to describe a process by which non-Roman indigenous societies were incorporated into the social and political fabric of the Roman empire. This process may be analyzed in terms of archaeological material, e.g. the replacement, either immediately or gradually, of native pottery with imported Roman ware, or in terms of social assimilation, as many studies on the elite groups of native societies have done. The result can be seen to be the transformation of local cultures into new provincial „Roman‟ societies.
The concept of „Romanization‟ has its origins in the Renaissance, but it was with classical scholarship of 19th century Europe, during the age of the colonial powers, that the concept gave a new focus to the discipline of Roman history.3 The ideology of imperialism has long been acknowledged as featuring prominently in the earliest concepts of „Romanization.‟4 The process, in its earliest manifestation, is seen as parallel to contemporary 19th- and early 20th- century European opinions regarding the superiority of their own culture in contrast to the „barbarism‟ of colonial societies. These views were expressed further in the concept of the „civilizing mission,‟ the paternalistic concept which obligated the colonial master to civilize a barbarian culture that was seen as incapable of civilizing itself. At no point was the validity of European culture and values questioned, even if occasionally brutal tactics were employed against intransigent local populations.
2 For reasons of space the debate about the „Romanization‟ of the Greek world, and the parallel controversy regarding „Hellenization‟, cannot be discussed in detail here. Of course „Hellenization‟ is, like „Romanization‟ a modern term, first used (“Hellenismus”) by Droysen and originally it had much of the ideological baggage that has preoccupied the thought of many scholars on „Romanization‟. The process of „Romanization‟ is generally accepted to have occurred in the Greek east to a far lesser degree than in the western empire. Thus it is on the cultural change of the western, particularly western European, Roman empire that the most lively debate has recently been conducted. Evidence for this is generally taken to be the failure of Latin to replace Greek as the lingua franca in the Greek world combined with the well-known influence of Greek culture on the Roman elite, though even the Greeks would come to call themselves Rhomaioi. On the concept of „Hellenization,‟ and the „Hellenistic world‟, a term that is now used only to denote the historical period 323-30 BCE, see the useful discussion of Kaldellis 2007: 21-41. On the „Romanization‟ of the east, see Alcock 1997 and Kaldellis 2007: 45-61. 3 Freeman 1997: 45. 4 For a concise summary see Woolf 1998: 4-7.
25
Three scholars whose works were formative for the development of the concept of the „Romanization‟ of the western Roman empire were, in English, Francis Haverfield, in French, Camille Jullian, and, in German, Theodor Mommsen.5 Of these the earliest and most important is Mommsen. His contribution to the development of „Romanization‟ and the concept‟s close relationship to his own contemporary political world are clear, and merit some discussion. Mommsen was a keen student of Roman law, administration and epigraphy. Of his numerous publications the most famous and, perhaps, the most keenly felt was his Römische Geschichte. This was mainly a work of his youth, but, in regard to the debate about „Romanization,‟ the most important contribution was made in a later addition. This was the fifth volume, subtitled Die Provinzen von Caesar bis Diocletian.6 This history of the provinces was not concerned solely with politics. It was a work that brought to bear all of his expertise on Roman society, institutions, and law.
As a thorough description of the provinces of the Roman Empire covering three centuries of history, this volume broke new ground, moving away from a traditional approach centered on Rome. Instead, the gap caused by the absence of the Roman capital from narrative was filled by a systematic discussion, province by province, of Roman institutions.7 Throughout the book Romanisirung (sic) is invoked to explain the transformation of each province from a non-Roman conquered territory into an integrated part of the Roman Empire. Mommsen called the “Romanisirung des Occidents” one of the “weltgeschichtlichen Werke der Kaiserzeit.”8
This „Romanizing‟ was emphasized by a consistent focus on the development of institutions, i.e. propagation of citizenship, law, language, coinage, and colonization, which gave his narrative a unifying theme.9 The penetration of Roman culture into the various provinces could be measured quantitatively by using archaeological remains and studying the legal administration of provincial cities and governments. Thus were the Roman provinces in Britain, Spain, Germany, and Gaul united under the cultural similarities caused by „Romanization.‟
5 Haverfield 1923, Jullian 1908-26, and Mommsen 1885. For useful summaries of their contributions see Woolf 1998: 4-7. Hingley 2005: 31-37 summarizes this early phase of scholarship on „Romanization‟. 6 Mommsen 1885. The work stands on its own as a history of the provinces. 7 Freeman 1997: 31, on Mommsen‟s approach. 8 Mommsen 1885, 61. 9 Freeman 1997 (n. 3 above).
26
Mommsen‟s work was critically acclaimed as “a marvelous effort of constructive historical investigation. In a series of brilliant chapters the Principate was shown actually at work.”10
The study of the provinces provided a positive antithesis to commonly held beliefs about the decadence of the provinces. Thus,11 to focus on the provinces was… to suggest the relatively limited influence of individual actions upon the decadence of the Empire…. as he detailed the complex and triumphantly efficient functioning of Roman administration in the provinces, Mommsen described the vitality and continuity of Roman institutions.
Mommsen‟s approach had been to tell the history of the provinces from the provincial point of view. Throughout the book, however, the perspective of Rome remains pervasive. „Romanization‟ provided a unifying theme, and it was documented by using archaeological, epigraphic, legal and administrative material alongside the written historical tradition. His conclusion was that in all provinces of the west the process of Romanization was strongly felt. The unity of provincial culture was effected through the „Romanizing‟ process. The spread of Roman institutions and culture created unity in the provinces.
This approach left a deep impression on Francis Haverfield. Like Mommsen, Haverfield combined a knowledge of epigraphy and Roman history to produce a work that, although brief, uses examples of art, epigraphy, literature available to him at the time. To interpret these disparate pieces of evidence Haverfield used „Romanization‟ as an umbrella term. His short essay The Romanization of Roman Britain12 does not compare to Mommsen‟s history of the provinces in terms either of length or of scope, for Mommsen treated all provinces whereas Haverfield was concerned only with Britain. However, in terms of its importance to subsequent British scholarship it remains fundamental.
Taking inspiration from Mommsen, Haverfield discussed „Romanization‟ in Britain from the viewpoint of the provincial administration, avoiding a Rome-centered focus. He identified and discussed the „Romanization‟ of the empire generally, before beginning his discussion of the process in Britain. Like Mommsen, Haverfield dealt systematically with the „Romanization‟ of British language, „material civilization,‟ art, a chapter on „town-life, local government, and land-
10 Pelham 1911: 22. Cf. Haverfield 1923: 10. 11 Dowling 1985: 595-96. 12 Haverfield 1923, originally published in 1912 and based, as stated in the Preface, on a paper read to the British Academy in 1905.
27 tenure,‟ religion, and the chronology of British „Romanization.‟ He concluded with a discussion of the „Celtic revival‟ in the later empire.
This approach had clear antecedents in Mommsen‟s survey of the provinces, as Haverfield himself acknowledges:13
The greatest work of the imperial age must be sought in its provincial administration. The significance of this we have come to understand, as not even Gibbon understood it, through the researches of Mommsen. By his vast labours our horizon has broadened beyond the backstairs of the Palace and the benches of the Senate House in Rome to the wide lands north and east and south of the Mediterranean, and we have come to realize the true achievements of the Empire. The old theory of an age of despotism and decadence has been overthrown….
Haverfield recognized the multicultural aspect of the Roman empire, and saw a modern parallel, as well as stark contrast in the Austrian Empire, stating that “[the Empire] resembled modern Austria rather than France or Germany. But it gained – what Austria has missed – a unity of sentiment and culture which served some of the purposes of national feeling.”14
The unity of the Roman empire so fundamentally treated by Mommsen Haverfield thus accepted. The key to its achievement was „Romanization.‟ But could „Romanization‟ be observed equally throughout the empire? Haverfield concluded that it could not.15 Haverfield elaborated on how the east did not adopt Roman civilization, while the west, which was “not yet civilized,” did. He drew a distinction between the Roman experience and the European colonial rule over both “uncivilized Africans” and “civilized white men.”16 In the Roman case, the peoples of the west possessed neither advanced culture nor racial diversity. Therefore he concluded that “it was possible, it was easy, to Romanize these western peoples.” Haverfield implies that the process was actively promoted by the Roman administration, and he later argues explicitly for this view, using the example of Agricola‟s career.17 Haverfield‟s concept of „Romanization‟ was based primarily on the spread of institutions and products and did not preclude survival of both Roman and non-Roman cultural traits.18 He provided examples of both in his discussions of Agricola‟s career and of the archaeological remains mentioned earlier. In
13 Haverfield 1923: 9-10. 14 Haverfield 1923: 11. 15 Haverfield 1923: 12, “[Romanization] was… not altogether uniform and monotonous.” 16 Haverfield 1923: 13. as an example of the latter Haverfield offers the Prussian rule of Poland. 17 Haverfield 1923: 75-76, in an influential passage. 18 Haverfield 1923: 22.
28 starting from the material remains rather than from conceptual abstraction, Haverfield set an example that was followed by most of his successors.
Camille Jullian‟s monumental Histoire de la Gaule, like Mommsen‟s Römische Geschichte, is an acknowledged classic that has had an enduring legacy for French studies.19 Jullian devoted two of his eight volumes to “la civilization gallo-romaine,” and drew heavily, though not exclusively20 on archaeological material, in which his own patriotism is apparent. In stirring prose, he describes the Roman empire as the embodiment of the “natural order” whose legacy to Gaul endures in the continued reception of Roman “ideas” and “sympathies” by the Romans‟ descendants:21 Quand cet Empire fut achevé, et avec lui l‟unité du monde méditerranéen, il parut à tous que l‟histoire de ce monde arrivait à sa conclusion naturelle…. Cet Empire est mort sur la terre, mais il vit quand même en nous par les idées et les sympathies qu‟il a imposées sans répit à nos aïeux et à nous.
In the west, these descendants were of course the European nations that once were part of the Roman empire. Roman civilization thus triumphed, while the Celtic culture of pre-Roman Gaul succumbed meekly:22 La Gaule, en s‟oubliant ainsi elle-même, contribuait à détruire son propre passé. Elle mourait une seconde fois. Après avoir perdu l‟existence dans la vie présente, elle la supprimait dans la vie d‟autrefois.
It is clear that there is a general impression in these early provincial histories that non- Roman cultures were seen to be of inferior value to the Roman culture. In addition to the example provided of Jullian‟s view of Celtic culture, we may add Haverfield‟s claim23 that “the Roman Empire was the civilized world; the safety of Rome was the safety of all civilization. Outside roared the wild chaos of barbarism.” „Romanization‟ could allow western European historians to look with pride on a shared Roman heritage. Those who so wished could also draw further parallels with the contemporary experience of colonialism, although in essence „Romanization‟ was held to be a straightforward explanation of what seemed to be the patently obvious and thorough expansion of Roman civilization in the west, an expansion that differed in degree, but not in kind, from province to province.
19 Woolf 1998: 4 n. 10. 20 Jullian 1920 v. 6: 151, discussing Pompeius Trogus as evidence of the loss of Gallic tradition. 21 Jullian 1920, v. 6: 543-4. 22 Jullian 1920, v. 6: 154. 23 Haverfield 1923: 11.
29
I.i. Interdisciplinary approaches and challenges in the 1960‟s
This view of „Romanization‟ did not remain static. The first serious challenges to the traditional view came in the 1960‟s.24 There began a trend, which is still very much in force, of moving away from the study of provincial history from the „Roman‟ point of view to an attempt to recover the „native‟ or „local‟ perspective. Also, the objection of anachronism was leveled against traditional „Romanization.‟ The fact that the concept had often been phrased in the terminology of European imperialism and colonialism did it little favour in a world undergoing monumental political changes following the conclusion of the Second World War. This is not to say that all people who advocated, or might still advocate, the traditional concept of „Romanization‟ are imperialists, but, as has been shown, the original concept carried what seemed to many to be a dated and embarrassing ideological baggage. In subsequent debate this fact has been the subject of frequent, and perhaps excessive, comment.
The influence of the neighbouring disciplines of anthropology and sociology on the debate has been keen. Classicists borrowed from these disciplines the concept of „acculturation‟ in an attempt to describe processes of cultural change in a less loaded manner.25 „Assimiliation‟, defined as the complete replacing of one culture by another, was also cited in connection with a formal „policy‟ of „Romanization.‟ In an important article, Erich Swoboda recognized the „problem‟ presented by „Romanization,‟ and used the work of Vergil as the basis for an interpretation of „Romanization‟ as a political program.26 His approach would later be taken up by scholars working on the auxilia and will be discussed later.
Drawing on the theoretical work of Structuralist anthropologists, Ramsay MacMullen attempted to examine rural contexts for „Romanization‟ in language and culture.27
24 On the reservations expressed in the 1930‟s by R. G. Collingwood to Haverfield‟s approaches, see Collingwood 1932 and Hingley 2005: 35-36. 25 Cf. Woolf 2001b: 1123 and Woolf 1998: 14 n. 44 for general references on the concept, which is, as he notes, “no longer a major focus of research among anthropologists.” 26 Swoboda 1954 and 1963, cf. Ver. Aen. 6.851-852, tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento – haec tibi erunt artes – pacique imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. 27 MacMullen 1968.
30
„Acculturation‟ has received a more enduring application among Classical scholars than in the studies of anthropology, and it would not be the last time that scholars of Roman imperialism borrowed from other disciplines.28
Such a „native-focused‟ approach was novel, and necessarily raised the question of „Romanization‟ as an imperial ideology. MacMullen never questioned the validity of the term itself. In a study of “rural Romanization,” he saw the process as quite evident.29 MacMullen questioned not the prospect that non-Romans could use Roman goods or imitate Roman habits but rather the view, which had prevailed since Mommsen, that the legal structures of the Roman state gave rise to a thoroughly „Romanized‟ provincial society. His pointedly ironic summary of this traditional approach in a later publication is worth quoting at length: Everywhere Mommsen looked he found, and scholars have for long after him also found, legal structures giving shape to life. If men who could build military camps and roads declared that things must be done in such-and-such a manner, surely they were obeyed. If they declared a census and a rate of tribute to be exacted, surely “all went to be taxed, every one into his own city”; and if it was laid down in Italy that registration in municipalities, colonies, and prefectures should list their citizens by nomen, praenomen, father or patron, tribe, cognomen, and age,30 then surely it followed throughout the provinces that registrants would adopt Roman names and thus identify themselves in epitaphs. From warfare to political organization and to a person‟s very name, the civilizing process moved forward as straight as any Roman road.”31
This focus on centralized Imperial structure accorded well with a view of an equally centralized Imperial policy of promoting „Romanization.‟ In other words, government policy included a conscious „civilizing mission.‟ Beginning in the 1960‟s, MacMullen questioned the capacity of the Roman government to impose policy effectively in several works.32
I.ii. „Resistance‟ as a theoretical answer to „Romanization‟
Later work tackled this problem by reintroducing agency into the debate. In the 1970‟s two distinct solutions were proposed. Non-Romans, often characterized as „natives,‟ either
28 It is impossible to discuss all attempts here, for reasons of space. A noteworthy recent example of interdisciplinary borrowing is Roymans 1996, interpreting the Batavi under the rubric of Structuralist „holism.‟ 29 MacMullen 1968. 30 Luke 2:3; FIRA² 1.151. 31 MacMullen 1984: 161. 32 MacMullen 1964, 1976, 1984.
31
„Romanized‟ themselves or never really „Romanized‟ at all; they even consciously resisted the imposition of Roman culture. The former process eventually came to be described as „self- Romanization‟ while the latter developed into the „Resistance‟ model. Peter Brunt, in an influential article, saw non-Roman provincial elites actively taking on Roman culture, motivated by the status and advantages created by its adoption.33 The Roman government did not really need to impose its culture; the local elites became willing participants in it. Brunt‟s approach allowed for continued use of „Romanization‟ but switched the focus to local initiative.
„Acculturation‟ in Classical scholarship had served, essentially, to offer a neutral qualification to the more conceptually loaded aspects of „Romanization,‟ but „Resistance,‟ as articulated in the work of Bénabou34 on the Roman provinces in North (western) Africa posited that, far from being passive recipients of Roman culture, „native‟ communities actively resisted „Romanization.‟ The Roman archaeological remains are, in this approach, seen as the works of the invaders and collaborating local elites; thus they should not be viewed as representative of the entire provincial culture. „Resistance‟ thus, in the theoretical model, can be both military and cultural. Beneath a „thin veneer,‟ as it were, of Roman civilization the „native‟ tradition and beliefs „fought on,‟ in some cases rising up overtly to attempt to reassert itself.
The model provided a new theoretical framework with which to analyze inscriptions, art, and archaeological material. More importantly, it promised to give a voice to those too poor, illiterate, or indifferent to set up stone monuments proclaiming their desires, worldviews, or identities to posterity. A focus on the cultural elites, especially Roman elites, is also criticized as being either too excessive or forgiving. “We are to believe,” writes Hingley, “that the less rich and powerful aped Roman culture because of its positive social message.” 35
The model‟s aim is not a priori misguided, but it has suffered, as have other theoretical approaches, from similar flaws as traditional „Romanization.‟ The most important critique has been conducted by Woolf.36 Also, „Resistance‟ did not preclude a parallel and ongoing process of „Romanization.‟ It borrowed further from the language of anthropology. Thus views of provincial culture were framed in the terms of „Romans‟ and the „Other,‟ i.e. the abstract concept
33 Brunt 1990: 267-281. 34 Bénabou 1976. 35 Hingley 1997: 84. 36 Woolf 1998: 20-23.
32 of non-Roman “barbarians” in Greek and Latin literature. This invites a tendency to interpret silent archaeological material as conscious evidence of „Resistance‟ to Roman cultural influence. It also requires a somewhat rigid view of „Romanization‟ as an inexorably uniform, Rome- centered process imposed on an unwilling, resisting public. „Resistance‟ served only to entrench this less nuanced concept of „Romanization.‟37
The „Resistance‟ approach viewed any „failure‟ to adopt Roman culture whenever possible as cultural „resistance.‟38 The qualification that “those who were controlled found new ways of resisting, or at least reacting”39 however seems rather weak. Even cases of armed rebellion against Rome do not easily fit a model of cultural „Resistance‟, since not all peregrine troops joined rebellions against Rome, even though many serious rebellions against the Romans are known to have been organized by men who had served in the Roman army or were descended from men who had done so, such as Arminius, Julius Civilis and Julius Vindex.
I.iii. Postcolonialist approaches from the 1990‟s to the present
The continuing debate into the 1990‟s demonstrates the continuing specialization of terminology for cultural change. In the works of that decade „Romanization‟ received some of its staunchest critics as well as some new defenders. Among the latter must be considered Martin Millett. His The Romanization of Britain recalls Haverfield‟s famous book of a similar name. Millett‟s study, which included detailed archaeological evidence, focused on the provincial elite – understandably, given the greater amount of literary, epigraphic, and iconographic evidence left behind by them – concluding that adoption of Roman culture in Britain was a matter of prestige. Millett‟s approach to „Romanization‟ in Britain was influenced by the work of Brunt.40
37 Woolf 1998: 22-3. 38 Woolf 1998: 20 n. 64, cf, Bénabou 1976: 368. 39 Hingley 1997: 96. 40 Hingley 2005: 41.
33
Millett‟s conclusion that the result of „Romanization‟ was that the cultures of the western provinces became indistinguishable accords well with the theme of unity discussed earlier.
Together with Woolf‟s publication in 1998 of Becoming Roman: The Origins of Roman Provincial Civilization in Gaul, a general view, which Richard Hingley has described as a „new orthodoxy,‟41 sees non-Romans as adapting the culture of their Roman rulers to create a synthesized provincial culture. Thus the binary opposites of „Roman‟ and „native‟ become meaningless; both groups were participants in the gradual creation of new provincial societies.
Two important collections of papers, one edited by David Mattingly and the other co- edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, illustrate the consequences that one‟s choice of definition can have on one‟s assessment of Roman rule in specific contexts.42 „Romanization‟ is increasingly studied in narrower contexts, e.g. “Gallo-Roman,” and “Romano-British” religion, and language, or in narrower territories, such as van Dommelen‟s study of Sardinia.43 Numerous alternative models and concepts have been posited, often employing alternate terminology.44 Some have advocated supplanting „Romanization‟ with terms, like e.g. „creolization‟, „Globalization,‟ and „discrepant experience‟ that are claimed to provide a “more nuanced” view, which moves beyond “the inherited perspectives [that] are holding the discipline back.”45 „Resistance‟ failed to gain traction even among postcolonialist scholars of Roman Imperialism because, despite the occurrence of armed resistance against Roman rule in the provinces, the model does not claim that provincials ultimately rejected Roman ways.
Obviously the circumstances surrounding the spread of Roman civilization were frequently violent and exploitative in nature. One of the great achievements of the postcolonial perspective has been the debunking of a popular assumption that Roman rule as necessarily benevolent, and therefore not something that provincials would want to rebel against. It is commonly accepted that Roman rule had different benefits for different people, or groups of people. The auxilia, a corps of largely peregrine soldiers, often conscripted against their will, pose complex questions about conflicting and changing identities.
41 Woolf 1998, arguing that humanitas was the ancient Roman concept of civilization, Hingley 2005: 47-48. 42 Mattingly 1997, Keay and Terrenato 2001. Important studies focusing on „Romanization‟ in an urban context are also collected in Fentress 2000. 43 In Keay and Terrenato 2001. 44 See Mattingly 2002 for a summary. 45 Hingley 2005: 2. For Britain, see now Mattingly 2006: 14-16, discussed also in chapter 4.
34
Thus the debate cannot simply be reduced to a „pro-Romanization‟ and „anti- Romanization‟ side of a coin. Those who study the spread to Roman civilization may hold:
A1 – that the Roman government actively and consciously spread Roman culture and institutions throughout the provinces (Theodor Mommsen, Francis Haverfield, and Camille Jullian).
A2 – that the Roman government did very little; „Romanization‟ just happened (acculturation, Structuralism, Ramsay MacMullen‟s early work).
A3 – that the Roman government did very little; the native provincials embraced and promoted it („self-Romanization,‟ represented by the influential works of Peter Brunt, Martin Millett, and also Greg Woolf, in some respects).
B1 – People may not want to study the ways in which Roman institutions and culture advanced. They study „native resistance‟ instead (often called „nativist‟ because of its focus on „natives‟ provincials living under Roman rule. This is the origin of the school of „Resistance‟ scholarship).
B2 – People reject the concept of „Romanization‟ and „culture‟ as a modern construct of Classical scholarship, and propose new theoretical models designed to supplant it entirely (the „abolitionist‟ school, as represented by Greg Woolf, Richard Hingley, Peter van Dommelen, and others).
II. Roman army studies and the auxilia, late 19th – mid 20th centuries
Romanization‟ has played an important role in scholarship on the auxilia, but in this context it has not been systematically defined. Since the vast majority of evidence for the auxilia is epigraphic and archaeological, the relevance of this concept as a model for our understanding of social change in areas where large concentrations of auxiliary soldiers resided is obvious. Epigraphy and archaeology provide at best only an imperfect access to what auxiliary soldiers
35 felt about themselves, their lives and their families. The rest of this chapter will survey the work of Roman army scholars generally, with particular focus on auxiliary scholarship.
Conrad Cichorius‟ extensive contributions to Pauly-Wissowa on the known units of the auxilia constitute the first extensive study of these troops in modern scholarship, and remain useful, if not up-to-date, summaries of the military organization of the auxilia.46 Alfred von Domaszewski‟s nearly contemporary Die Rangordnung des römisches Heeres47 remains an essential reference work for all ranks of the Roman army.48 Two of his earlier studies provided thorough discussion of Roman standards and religion in the army, drawing largely on epigraphic material.49 The Rangordnung‟s impressive, but not complete, collection of epigraphic evidence was organized further into an appendix containing a collection of military texts “which enables us not only to check von Domaszewski‟s own reasoning, but to investigate fresh lines of thought by quick reference.”50
Von Domaszewski‟s study did not simply discuss the levels of rank in Roman military units. As his earlier work on religion in the army indicates, von Domaszewski also had an interest in understanding Roman military culture.51 His approach included a focus on the “römisch-italische Herkunft.” The “barbarization” (“Barbarisierung”) of the army in the post- Trajanic period, indicated by the so-called numeri and the awarding of torcs to units, was part of a topos, which Mommsen‟s history of the provinces sought to refute but that was still very much alive.52 Von Domaszewski accepted the concept of „Romanization,‟ particularly in the case of the army, though he never defined it or referred to Mommsen‟s work on the subject.53
We have seen how historians of the Roman provinces might see renewed vitality in the transformed cultures of the west. The military historian was faced with traditional accounts of military decline. For von Domaszewski, the reason for this was the eventual absence of Italian
46 Cichorius 1893 and 1900. 47 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967 was originally published in 1903. The pagination of Dobson‟s introduction to the second edition is given in Roman numerals (i-lxii). 48 More recent general introductions to the Roman army are Watson 1960, Campbell 1984, Webster 1985, Davies 1989, Keppie 1998, Le Bohec 2002, and Goldsworthy 2003. 49 Domaszewski 1885 and 1895. On the importance of these works see E. Birley 1988: 397. 50 As noted by E. Birley 1988: 5, and in the foreword to Domaszewski-Dobson 1967. 51 Domaszewski 1895. 52 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: iii-vi, 83-90, 192-196 (“Herkunft”), cf. 61 (the “Zusammenbruch des römisch nationalen Heeres”, 70 (torques), xvii-xviii. 53 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 124-125, 133.
36 participation in the army. This was seen as contributing to a decline of old Roman discipline, as the once offensive-minded military became defensive in outlook in the second century, precipitating the eventual collapse of the “Roman” character of the army in the west under the Severan dynasty. Thus,54
Der Preis, den Septimius Severus den Provincialen Legionaren für die Krone bot, war die Ausrottung der Centurionen italisch-römischer Herkunft.
The turning point is commonly seen in the accession of Hadrian, who put an abrupt end to his predecessor Trajan‟s aggressive policy of expansion. The further implication is that this transition is a symptom of the imperial Niedergang and an increasing departure from both the military and society of Augustus.55
The cause of the decline seemed internal. As long as the army was „Roman‟, security seemed assured; the barbarian influence sealed its fate. But whence came, exactly, the barbarian element that replaced “die römisch-italische Herkunft”? The auxilia might seem an obvious answer, but they were not blamed for this. In their case, „Romanization‟ was seen to have done its job. Commenting on von Domaszewski‟s approach, Dobson states:56 Hadrian nahm dem Heere auch dadurch die Schlagkraft, daß er die limites schuf und auf den Offensivgeist verzichtete. Dazu schuf er die numeri, Truppeneinheiten, die – im Gegensatzt zu den auxilia – nie romanisiert wurden.
The obvious answer was the numeri, set in apposition to the auxilia. The contrast is telling. The auxilia and the concept of Romanization seem, for Dobson, clearly linked, though in his comments elsewhere he admits the paucity of evidence concerning these units.57 So different seemed the soldiers of the numeri that they must have been special units, set apart from the auxilia. This was a convenient distinction, for it allowed one to minimize the non-Roman aspect of the auxilia. The link between the notions of ethnic unity in the army and Imperial military and administrative security are also important themes in von Domaszewski‟s study. Thus:58 Die Vorherrschaft Italiens über die Provinzen war nur dann gesichert, wenn dieses Söldnerheer auch nach seiner Herkunft den Charakter eines italischen Bürgerheeres bewahrte…. Deshalb nahm (Julius Caesar) bei
54 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 90, cf. Dio 75.2.5-6. 55 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: vi sums it up rather nicely: “Das ganze Heer war von Angriffslust durchdrungen. Dies war das Meisterwerk des Augustus, das freilich auf der republikanischen Praxis aufbaute.” Cf. von Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 193-196, part of which is discussed below. 56 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: v. 57 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: xviii, “Dies alles zeigt nur, wie wenig wir über die numeri wissen.” 58 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 193.
37
der Werbung im Westen wie im Osten auch die Angehörigen jener fremden Völker an, die nach ihrer nationalen Eigenart die Bürgerschaft boten, dass eine lange Dienstzeit die Fremden zu Römern werden liess. So dienen in dem Bürgerheere des Westens auch Iberer und Gallier, in dem des Ostens Galater…. Die zahlreichen aus Peregrinen gebildeten Truppenkörper, die als Auxilia die Grenzheere der Bürgertruppen verstärkten, erhielten nach einem Grundsatz, den die Republik ausgebildet hatte, in den Unteroffizieren römischer Herkunft einen Stamm, der auch diese Truppen mit italischer Art erfüllte. So ist das augusteische Heer in allen seinen Teilen römisch geblieben.
Though „Romanization‟ is not explicitly named, the process is clearly discussed. In particular the auxilia are cited as a positive force for this change. The „Roman‟ aspect of the command structure of the army, which von Domaszewski asserted elsewhere,59 and the promise of citizenship reward seemed vital components of this Romano-Italian military.60 „Provincialization‟, by contrast, promoted disunity. Und doch war es unmöglich, die Einheit des Heeres und damit die Einheit des Reiches zu wahren, ohne den römischen Charakter des Heeres neu zu festigen.61
This approach was comparable to the work of „Romanization‟ scholars discussed earlier, where the theme of unity was stressed in socio-political contexts. The concept of civilization as a unifying factor is emphatically expressed by the Rangordnung. Some of von Domaszewski‟s claims would be questioned by later scholars,62 but the concept of unity, created and promoted by Roman authorities and commanders, has proved lasting. „Romanization‟ was now established in the discourse of Roman military scholarship, along with the „Romanizing‟ role of the auxilia.
Though important, von Domaszewski‟s observations on the auxilia were not extensive. As it happened, scholars would not have too long to wait for a comprehensive synthetic account of the auxilia as both a military organization and a factor for social change in the Roman empire. Published in 1914, G. Leonard Cheesman‟s The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army was the first work to treat comprehensively not only the details of unit deployment and organization but also the social roles and everyday lives of auxiliary soldiers in the Roman empire. In the book‟s detailed appendices,63 Cichorius‟ work was updated and organized into a much more readable form. For many decades it was not superseded at all, and as a concise introduction to all aspects of the auxilia it remains useful.
59 Esp. Domaszewki-Dobson 1967: 83-90, on the centurionate. 60 Cf. Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 75 n. 2, asserting without proof that the privilege was only awarded ob virtutem. 61 Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 195. 62 See generally Domaszewski-Dobson 1967, esp. lix-lxi. 63 Cheesman 1914: 146-190.
38
His work was not only a discussion of military organization or realia. It demonstrated convincingly the important military and social position of the auxilia in the Roman provinces. His estimate that the auxilia numbered ca. 220,000 total forces in the Empire by the mid-2nd century was not, as noted in the Introduction, extravagant. Even if the estimate were proved to be high, Cheesman‟s main point, that the auxilia relatively quickly came to outnumber the legions in the provinces, was correct. He understood the ramifications of this fully. The first line of frontier defense and policing was held not by the legions but by the auxilia. His appendices provided comprehensive lists of known auxiliary units, their origins, and their stations; these alone were not to be superseded for many decades. Thus the subject was not ancillary to more „important‟ topics of Roman history, but rather was, as he claimed with a certain degree of understatement, “a subject of some interest and importance to all students of the Roman Empire.”64
Cheesman‟s study of the cultural role played by the auxilia was of equal significance as his study of their military organization. He correctly noted that exploitation of subject manpower was nothing new for Rome, remarking:65 The extent to which a ruling race can safely use the military resources of its subjects and the effect on both parties of such a relation, the advantages and dangers of a defensive or an aggressive frontier policy, these are questions of universal historical interest…. As a preliminary consideration it must be considered that the use of troops drawn from the subject races was not an invention of the imperial government, but goes back to the most flourishing days of the Republic.”
Imperial policy, however, did not seem to be simply a question of the practical application of manpower resources. By virtue of their location on the empire‟s fringe, the auxilia served not only the Roman state but also “the cause of civilization.”66 The cause was served, moreover, not unconsciously. A footnote of Cheesman‟s is telling: 67 “The locally raised troops in the East started as a rule at a higher level of culture, but possibly a similar advance was made by Trajan‟s regiments of Paphlagonians, Galatians, and Arabians, although here Hellenization, not Romanization, was of course the goal.”
Thus the study of the auxilia and the concept of „Romanization‟ again re-appear as two closely linked subjects. Cheesman did not offer any definition of the concept of „Romanization‟ as he understood it. It would not have occurred to him to do so. By that time, as we have seen from our earlier discussion, that work had been done principally by Mommsen and Haverfield.
64 Cheesman 1914: 190. 65 Cheesman 1914: 7. 66 Cheesman 1914: 144. 67 Cheesman 1914: 117 n.1 (emphasis added).
39
The contributions of these scholars to the concept of „Romanization‟ are never discussed by Cheesman. This might prima facie seem odd, especially since Haverfield was a colleague of Cheesman at Oxford.68 The reason for this would seem, as we have observed in other uses of „Romanization,‟ that the process was sufficiently obvious to Cheesman‟s contemporary audience as to require no definition. His study also had a topical relevance. British politics clearly informed his work. European colonialism in Africa seemed an appropriate parallel for the empire under Augustus that69 had not as yet reached hardly any of its natural boundaries, although by means of the system of client kingdoms and „protected‟ tribes it was asserting its claims and intentions in much the same fashion as the modern powers of Europe are doing in Africa to-day.
There is no question as to the legitimacy, in this comparison, either of Rome‟s or of the European powers‟ conduct. The reference to “natural boundaries” should also be noted, as it speaks to the belief in the legitimacy of expansion. The British Empire also seemed to provide fruitful ground for comparison specifically with the “Romanization” of the auxiliaries. In his discussion of the equestrian militiae,70 Cheesman remarked that these regiments contained in the second century far fewer representatives of the governing class than the native corps in our own Indian army. With the exception of the praefectus, who himself was not necessarily an Italian, the officers – that is, the centurions and decurions – were practically all, as we have seen, promoted from the ranks. But to the Roman Empire, in which rulers and ruled, never separated by any deep racial or religious gulf, were gradually made closer akin by the bond of common civilization, our rule in India affords in this respect no real parallel.
The assumption of racial homogeneity here is a theme we have encountered elsewhere both in the context of comparisons with European colonial empires and in the specialist study of von Domaszewski. The implication is clear: as Roman civilization replaced non-Roman culture, the provinces gained cultural unity. This, too, we have encountered in generalist studies of the provinces. Cheesman developed this theme in a discussion of life spent on the frontier in military service. With a few exceptions for times of war, life in auxiliary service was seen as routine. Thus, in the second century,71 The progress of Romanization had raised the majority of the provincials, even in the frontier districts, to a level of culture which placed them far above their ancestors of three generations back, although they might still seem barbarous to a cultured Greek or Italian. In the conditions of service there was nothing to prevent
68 Cheesman was a Fellow and Lecturer at New College when he published his book on the auxilia. Haverfield returned to Christ Church College, Oxford, in 1892. For further biographical information on Haverfield, see Freeman 1997: 37-39. 69 Cheesman 1914: 105. Cheesman‟s reference is certainly to the colonial protectorates, but his readers might also be reminded of the Boer War, still fresh in the British memory. 70 Cheesman 1914: 94. The sequence of praefectus cohortis – tribunus militum – praefectus alae constituted the tres militiae. There are some variations, as well as dispute over the addition of a fourth militia. 71 Cheesman 1914: 117.
40
the auxilia from participating in this general advance, and the soldiers who spent their best years of their lives in these little frontier stations gathered around them all the amenities of provincial life which would have been found in any country town in the neighbourhood. On the sheltered side of the fort a civil settlement, technically known as the canabae, sprung up… it was here that the soldiers placed their wives and children, that retired veterans settled near their old comrades, and traders erected their shops. A bath house or two and a few small shrines… satisfied the highest material and spiritual needs.
This rather picturesque description expressed concisely a vision of auxiliary service that has had an enduring quality in specialist scholarship. This view of the civilized, cultured auxiliary soldier could be seen as the result of the toning down of the provincials‟ non-Roman traits. On the other hand, Cheesman was also giving an interpretation that in many respects seemed borne out by the archaeological evidence. In the aftermath of Haverfield‟s contribution to „Romanization‟ scholarship, it would not have seemed necessary for Cheesman to tone down traits which were not apparent from the available evidence.
An overall view of the auxilia as both „Romanized‟ and „Romanizing‟ is in the work of Cheesman emphatically expressed. The auxilia become the epitome of cultural transformation. Many assumptions that lay at the basis for this assessment have not been questioned by later auxiliary scholarship. Of course, to accept the proposition that the auxilia were a „Romanizing‟ factor is not to endorse imperialism, and the many undeniably Roman features of both the auxilia and the cultures of the Roman provinces generally justify the characterization of „Romanization.‟ It should also be evident that Cheesman‟s study did not consider the possibility that there might be limits to „Romanization.‟ That this should be a feature of his approach should not be taken as a point of opprobrium; Cheesman was not a „Romanization‟ scholar and was in fact applying a conceptual framework developed by Mommsen and Haverfield to a specialist topic. In doing so Cheesman discovered the important role played by the auxilia in the provinces of the Roman empire.
Cheesman‟s then novel study was read eagerly by an undergraduate student of the Roman army in the 1920‟s. That it also left a profound impression on him was personally attested many years later by that student, who had by then become Roman military history‟s most accomplished scholar. Eric Birley devoted his study to a multitude of topics concerning the Roman military, and many of his most important papers have been collected in a more easily accessible volume.72 Birley‟s work, by his own admission, was also deeply influenced by his service in British Intelligence during World War II. “I found myself asking questions,” he wrote
72 E. Birley 1988.
41 in 1986,73 “about [the Roman army‟s] organization and methods which I would probably never have thought of, but for my practical experience of the ways in which modern armies work.” Birley frequently referred to his military experience in his scholarly papers. They provide useful insights into his methodology, the auxilia, and „Romanization.‟
Birley regarded prosopography as an extremely useful approach to the study of the Roman military. In one of his more famous papers, originally published in 1952,74 he acknowledged the success of von Domaszewski‟s Rangordnung in establishing the relative seniority of rank in the Roman military, highlighting the importance of inscriptions both for von Domaszewski and any future study of the army. Where von Domaszewski‟s study fell short was his failure to “consider them sufficiently from the point of view of the men who were promoted, or the officers who promoted them,” and Birley suggested that “a prosopographical approach will yield the richest dividends, and the origins – geographical and social – of all ranks are as important as the careers of individuals.”75
While noting the fundamental importance of epigraphy to the study of the Roman army, Birley gave less focus to the study of theoretical models. He did not write much about „Romanization‟ and never systematically outlined the process as it seemed to him. In a paper published in 1965 he did provide an analysis of what he viewed to be the „frontier policy‟ on the British frontier in the reign of Hadrian.76 Drawing, in part, on his past experience in British Military Intelligence,77 he interpreted the function of Hadrian‟s wall to be primarily social, not military, “to separate Romans from barbarians,” and proceeds to describe it as “a boundary within which romanization (sic) was to be developed.”78 The suggestion was a novel explanation of the function of the Wall in a frontier context. However, Birley‟s analysis stressed an official policy “to romanize (sic) all the people who lived inside the [Wall], not that it marked an existing boundary between civilized and uncivilized people; and when we come to examine the
73 In the Introduction to E. Birley 1988. Other references to his military service are E. Birley 1988: 12, 75. 74 E. Birley 1988: 3-11. 75 E. Birley 1988: 5. Cf. ibid: 93 (originally published in 1957), “[The study of careers that involved service in Pannonia and Britain is] a technical and complicated subject, depending on minute attention both to epigraphy and the principles of prosopographical research.” 76 E. Birley 1988: 12-20. 77 E. Birley 1988: 12, “my special interest in the Roman army has inevitably led me to devote much attention to other frontiers of the Roman empire as well, and some wartime experience in Military Intelligence has suggested to me some fresh trains of thought in the study of their purpose and their military organization. 78 E. Birley 1988: 14-15.
42 evidence (scanty though it is) from the hinterland of Hadrian‟s Wall, and from the vici which in due course grew up outside most of its forts, we find clear indications of the extent to which Hadrian‟s intent was realized.”79
Birley‟s primary concerns were not, of course, the theoretical aspects of the concept of „Romanization.‟ He clearly applied what was the standard interpretative model for cultural change in the Roman empire. He never attempted to write a synthetic history of the auxilia.
II.i. Later synthetic treatments of the auxilia by Holder and Saddington
The rapid progress in archaeological discoveries and techniques did much to enhance the sophistication of study in the field. None had attempted, however, to consolidate these new discoveries and techniques into a new synthetic history of the auxilia that might surpass, or at least update, Cheesman‟s study. Paul A. Holder‟s Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan was a landmark work that did much to reverse this trend.80 He did not cover all the themes that Cheesman did, nor was the chronological scope of his studies as broad as Cheesman‟s.81 In approach, however, there were important similarities.
Holder‟s work remains an excellent introduction to the structure and distribution of auxiliary units. It is primarily a work of military history, concerned with unit organization, deployment, and recruitment. In the course of his work he deals extensively with epigraphic and documentary material alongside available literary evidence for the military‟s various social roles. In the latter case, the evidence presents more complex interpretative difficulties than might originally be apparent. Holder showed that Gallic auxiliaries named on diplomas either wrote or had their names inscribed according to the ancient Gallic practice of filiation by the father‟s
79 E. Birley 1988: 15 [author‟s emphasis]. 80 Holder 1980. 81 Holder concluded his discussion with Trajan‟s reign, whereas Cheesman went down to the third century.
43 cognomen.82 This is an ancient practice whose continued use into the first half of the second century CE indicates a conscious effort by ethnic Gauls to differentiate themselves from standard Roman naming practice.83
Holder was not the first to employ onomastic evidence in order to document a long term regional practice, but he did so without insisting on a strict or undefined process of „Romanization‟ to explain the phenomenon. In his view, the purpose of his study was to remedy “an imbalance of knowledge” that had been caused by “individual studies” on specific aspects of the Roman army.84 Any attempt at a comprehensive account of the auxilia would be encumbered by the nature of the available evidence. The archaeological evidence is “fragmentary” while “the literary record is good as long as there is Tacitus to refer to.”85 In light of later scholarship on Tacitus and the historiographic genre, Holder‟s approach to that author can seem simplistic.86 Holder included several appendices of inscriptions cited in his study, creating, as von Domaszewski had many decades previously, a very useful corpus of military and auxiliary inscriptions to complement an updated list of known auxiliary units.
„Romanization‟ had been used in auxilia scholarship commonly, as we have seen, but after Holder‟s study the study of social historical subjects involving the auxilia began to surge, and „Romanization‟ as a scholarly concept finally began to be discussed. Important contributions in the 1980‟s in this regard were made by Denis Saddington. In 1982 he published his own synthetic history of the auxilia from Julius Caesar to Vespasian. Although even more restricted in chronological scope than Holder, Saddington provided detailed discussions of the role of epigraphy in the study of the auxilia and, more importantly, a specific discussion of „Romanization.‟87 In 1988 he discussed further the ways in which, in his opinion, „Romanization‟ should be applied.88
An acknowledgement of the larger debate about the process is evident in this discussion. He remarks that “Romanization was never complete, and allowance must be made for the
82 Holder 1980: 46, 52. 83 Holder 1980: 52. The examples quoted by Holder are CIL 16, 76, 84, and 112. 84 Holder 1980: 1-2. 85 Holder 1980: 2. 86 On Tacitus‟ accounts of the auxilia see Saddington 1982: 27-45, illustrating the variation in detail (31-32) and the occasionally distorting influence of Tacitus‟ “rhetorical slant” in the Histories especially (42-43). 87 Saddington 1982: 55-76 (“The Epigraphical Evidence”), 187-192 (“Romanization”). 88 Saddington 1988.
44 survival of barbarian features in varying degrees in different stages of development.” Saddington also remarks that “citizenship may be regarded as formal recognition of the fact that, at first certain auxiliaries, then all auxiliaries, had reached an adequate level of Romanization.”89
In subsequent work, Saddington follows up on his views of „Romanization‟ in a much clearer fashion.90 His approach here owes much to the debate about „Romanization‟ and focuses on the borrowed anthropological terms like “acculturation” and “center and periphery.”91 He questions the applicability of these borrowings92 and criticizes the „Resistance‟ scholars‟ propositions of „Germanization‟ and „Africanization‟ on the frontier as “perhaps going too far.”93
The majority of the epigraphic evidence of auxiliary alae (1994) and cohorts (2000) was collected, edited and arranged according to the province of the unit‟s original recruitment by John Spaul94. These works have not been updated to include subsequent publications of material, but each entry contains useful concordances and references to secondary scholarship. His volumes on auxiliary alae and cohorts are conscious updates of Cichorius‟ articles on the subjects over a century earlier, although his concordances are already out of date, particularly in regard to military diplomas.
II.ii. Recent scholarship on the auxilia
The debate about „Romanization‟ thus had finally begun to leave a deeper impression on the field of auxilia scholarship. This may be understood not only as a response to the polarizing theories of „Resistance‟ scholarship but also as an aspect of a wider trend towards the writing of what is commonly referred to as „social history.‟ Throughout the 1980‟s and 1990‟s many studies employing this approach were conducted. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most important
89 Saddington 1982: 191. 90 Saddington 1988. 91 Saddington 1988: 416. 92 Woolf 1998:14 n. 44, “like many approaches adopted by archaeologists from neighbouring disciplines, acculturation no longer a major focus of research among anthropologists.” 93 Saddington 1988: 417. The Germanization of the Roman army is usually assumed, even by scholars critical of „Romanization, e.g. Mattingly 2006. 94 Spaul 1995 and Spaul 2000.
45 contributions in the field were the result of colloquia. The publication of Heer und Integrationspolitik: die römischen Militärdiplome als historische Quelle, edited by Werner Eck and Hartmut Wolff in 1986 was a watershed. The studies of this volume were not only concerned with the challenges of editing and publishing military diplomas, but rather approached these documents as sources for various historical problems: military history,95 provincial administration,96 onomastics,97 family,98 ethnicity and identity.99 The “politics of integration” unmistakably meant integration of peregrines into a Roman way of life. The editors noted in their introduction that about 60% of the Roman army was comprised of non Roman (peregrine) units (i.e. auxilia and navy).100 Although not all of these auxiliarii were peregrine recruits, they go on to say: Dürfte es von großer historischer Bedeutung sein, zu wissen, wie denn die in den römischen Staat integriert wurden. Nicht allein die erwähnten Einflüsse während des 25jährigen oder längeren Lagerlebens, die kulturellen Vorbilder nicht nur der Offiziere, sondern auch der Legionare sowie Praetorianer und die unbestrittene Normativität der hellenistisch-römischen Zivilisation machen es äußerst wahrscheinlich, daß weitaus die meisten Soldaten als “Römer” die Truppe verließen; vielmehr zeigen dies auch allenthalben die epigraphischen und archäologischen Űberreste.
The term Integrationspolitik did not have staying power, but the social-historical focus taken by most of the contributors is an enduring feature for much subsequent work on the auxilia of all provinces. Le Roux viewed Roman identity in the auxilia as being culturally driven by the legionary example, particularly in regard to status, while the auxilia played a “secondary but real role” in the policing of the limes and in the early and final stages of battle.101 The role of military hierarchy and its influence on the military and social identity of the auxilia is a consistent aspect of auxiliary scholarship. Military hierarchy, as an homage to von Domaszewski‟s groundbreaking work, was the subject of the contributions to the proceedings of another conference, published almost a decade later.102 Margaret Roxan‟s contribution to this volume summarized scholarship on the auxilia ca. 1975-1995 (overlooking, however, Saddington‟s book), evaluating auxiliary ranks and opportunities for promotion. Subsequent colloquia, particularly the (now) triannual limes conferences and the MAVORS series, which as Roxan noted, “saves so much time and effort in hunting down articles and also allows scholars to make
95 Alföldy 1986, Dobson 1896, Isaac 1986 and Le Roux 1986. 96 Eck 1986 and Lörincz 1986. 97 Mócsy 1986. 98 Mann 1986, Mirkovic 1986, and Roxan 1986. 99 M. P. Speidel 1986 and Vittinghoff 1986 100 Eck and Wolff 1986b: 6. 101 Le Roux 1986: 372. Not all auxiliary units saw the same level of combat operations, however. 102 Le Bohec 1995, esp. Roxan 1995.
46 additions and provide revisions of their work,” are important venues for diverse current and past research on the Roman army.103
A more recent publication in the MAVORS series, focusing on military diplomas and edited by M. A. Speidel and H. Lieb, updates many of the subjects covered in Heer und Integrationspolitik.104 Many of the contributors to Heer und Integrationspolitik also published research in the 2007 volume – the proceedings of a conference held at Bern in 2004. While avoiding the concept Integrationspolitik, the term “Bürgerrechtspolitik,” as the subject of Wolff‟s contribution to the volume, clearly approaches similar themes of analyzing how diplomas particularly document the Roman state‟s use of citizenship to manage its considerable number of non-citizen soldiers. Also of particular interest to this investigation is Mirkovic‟s study of auxiliary origines and settlement that explicitly echoes the 1986 study of M. P. Speidel in Heer und Integrationspolitik. These studies, along with Phang‟s 2001 study of marriage in the Roman army, provide essential information about auxiliary identity as expressed in military diplomas. The 2007 volume includes a particularly detailed contribution by Le Bohec and Gallet on auxiliary recruitment that demonstrates the continuing presence of ethnic recruitment among auxiliary units in the second century, further debunking the myth that ethnic units ceased completely to recruit from among their tribes within a generation of their original levy.105 Eck provides a meticulous study of the changes in 140 to auxiliary privileges recorded in military diplomas, a subject covered by Roxan in 1986.
Both militaria and social subjects are covered in the recent Companion to the Roman Army, edited by P. Erdkamp, and the sixth volume in the Impact of Empire series, edited by L. de Blois and E. Lo Cascio.106 The Companion gathers the work of scholars with diverse fields of interests and treats the historical, archaeological, demographic and socio-historical topics in a thematic fashion. As a result, the scope of study can be limited. Although useful as a basis for
103 Roxan 1995: 140 n. 4. Also important are Le Bohec 1995, Goldsworthy and Haynes 1999, and Alföldy, Dobson, and Eck 2000, and Wilkes 2003. The limes congress publications occur under a variety of names, and not all the proceedings have been printed. These are provided in the bibliography under the heading Limes, and are cited in this study by year of publication due to gaps in the published series. 104 M. A. Speidel and Lieb 2007. 105 Evidence of the Tungrians and Batavians at Vindolanda (see ch. 4) also offers a useful example of later traditions of ethnic recruitment. 106 Erdkamp 2007, De Blois and Lo Cascio 2007. In Erdkamp 2007, of particular relevance to the auxilia are the contributions by Thorne (tactics and the western limes), Phang (literacy and military documents), Kehne (logistics), Ando (military relations with urban elites), Hanel (camps and vici), Scheidel (demography), and Stoll (religion).
47 subsequent research on the auxilia, the papers collected in the Companion treat only certain aspects of the auxilia, with little detailed discussion of auxiliary forces in provincial contexts. Occasional lack of focus is a consequence perhaps of the series‟ identity as a „companion.‟
In contrast, the Impact of Empire series‟ recent volume on the Roman army, edited by de Blois and Lo Cascio, adopted a chronological and geographic division of subjects, proceeding from the “Impact of the Roman Republican Army” to the 3rd century. Significant sections of the volume are specifically dedicated to the Roman army in the provinces, divided into discussions of the western (including Italy) and the eastern (including Africa) provinces. These divisions do not treat the provinces systematically, however, and none deal specifically with the auxilia. The value of a multi-provincial perspective is, however, accepted by Birley, noting that “Britain cannot be viewed in isolation, and Hadrian created far longer artificial frontiers elsewhere, notably between the Rhine and Danube, where work was already in progress before he came to Britain”.107 For reasons of space, however, this volume only treats certain aspects of frontier life, and specifically of auxiliaries on the frontier.
There remains a certain lack of engagement with the debate about „Romanization,‟ despite these publications. Some of the issues have permeated scholarly discourse, but there is a need to reconcile more recent „Romanization‟ scholarship with the field of auxilia studies. This discussion has stressed that to engage in the debate is not to invalidate the work of previous generations or to attempt to assert the absurd. There is no question that the subjects of the Roman empire saw themselves, on varying levels, as Roman, and frequently described themselves as such. The postcolonial perspectives advocated by some scholars have not gained traction in the field of auxiliary scholarship.
III. Conclusion
The increased specialization and refinement of scholarship not only on the auxilia but also in other relevant fields, such as epigraphy and archaeology, make a synthetic history of all
107 A. R. Birley 2007: 358.
48 auxiliary units in every province of the empire over a significant period of time difficult to do comprehensively. My investigation cannot, for reasons of space, treat all provinces of the Roman empire. However, in combining the evidence of two similar and geographically close concentrations of auxiliary units, I shall examine the religious and family practices of auxiliary soldiers. Integration at the fort and vicus level is seen as representative of the larger and evolving integration of the auxiliary garrisons of Germania and Britannia. These aims belong to an established yet evolving scholarly field that does not focus solely on militaria as a subject of study.
In evaluating the evidence discussed in this chapter, I accept the premise that „Romanization‟ is valid as an interpretative concept. The auxiliary experience was a shared one on several levels. As recruits or conscripts serving in the military organization of the Roman army, auxiliaries were inundated by the imagery of Roman culture as represented by the Roman state. In practice, this meant not merely the memorization of routine orders in the Latin language. In auxiliary forts, as in all military installations, the daily routines included consistent reminders of the emperor‟s power and patronage, particularly in the list of imperial festivals.108 This experience cannot be held to have had no effect on the lives of auxiliary veterans, even in the case of those who, based on the findspots of military diplomas, are known to have returned to their native lands following discharge.
As this chapter has shown, postcolonial critiques have served to advance scholarship on „Romanization‟ considerably, but have not consigned the term to obsolescence. It remains an important tool for understanding the ancient world, and, moreover, an apt model for evaluating the evidence for both the short and the long term cultural change wrought by the auxilia on the frontiers of Germania and Britannia. The influence of Roman military culture was aided, in some respects, by the warlike nature of many of the peoples compelled to provide auxiliary service to the army. It is not a coincidence that the largest series of auxiliary units belong to peoples viewed as having a reputation for a warlike nature, such as the Batavi, Galli (i.e. various Gallic peoples), and Hispani. Auxiliary service provided an opportunity for these peoples, whose culture was certainly no less warlike than that of the Romans, to reinterpret and, in some cases, invent new cultural identities. In the context of this study, „Romanization‟ as experienced by auxiliaries
108 On the feriale Duranum, the famous papyrus that partially preserves a list of festivals celebrated throughout the Roman army, see chapter 3.
49 should be seen as a process by which preceding cultural and martial traditions are broken by Roman conquest and subsequently redefined by analogous traditions as practiced by the Roman army. A sense of cultural tradition, thus redefined, was encouraged by the very structure of the auxiliary units themselves, which were usually named after the peoples from which they were raised. In Britain and Germany, as will be shown in the following chapters, examples of this process will be discussed.
Yet „Romanization‟ encompassed many other aspects in the life of the auxiliary soldiers who will be investigated in the following chapters. Changes took place, for instance, in how auxiliaries related to religious phenomena and in the way they structured their family life, changes which show an unmistakable influence from cultural patterns that ultimately derived from Italy and the centre of the Roman world. How this process developed in Britain and Germany will be shown in the following chapters.
50
Chapter 2 Military Diplomas as evidence for auxiliary families and „Romanization‟
This chapter discusses auxiliary „military diplomas‟ both generally and with specific focus on Roman Germany and Britain. This is a modern term applied to a Latin epigraphic document detailing a copy of a constitution issued by an emperor to an auxiliary soldier or to any other non-citizen serving in the Roman army. As noted in the introduction, these documents were introduced by Claudius. As fig. 1 below shows, they were inscribed on bronze, witnessed and bound together by wires. The inner sides were inscribed with a copy of the decree, meant to prove the document‟s authenticity when opened.1
Fig. 1: military diploma (Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Inv. O.38990; photo: author)2
1 On the witnessing of diplomas, see Saddington 1997 and Frei-Stolba 2007. 2 This diploma (RGZM 12 = RMD 9) was issued to M. Spedius Corbulo, infantryman (pedes) of coh. II Ituraeorum, by Trajan on 24 Sept., 105 CE.
51
The nature of these documents is such that little can be said about auxiliary religion in connection with them. This chapter therefore will discuss them generally as evidence for families of auxiliaries and „Romanization.‟ In both cases the evidence provided by them has been recognized as significant, but there are important debates concerning the interpretation of these documents. Many of the records provided are fragmentary; however, this chapter will argue that the diplomas of Germany and Britain can be useful sources for the auxiliary garrisons of these provinces. They shed important light on the families created by auxiliary soldiers which, for various reasons, are not sufficiently illuminated by stone epigraphy, particularly in regard to family sizes. Thus, it will be argued, military diplomas provide an important contribution, for instance, to the debate over ancient child-exposure rates. Ultimately, an interdisciplinary approach to their study yields striking information regarding the daily lives lived by auxiliaries in the Roman empire and, particularly, the provinces of Germania and Britannia.
I. Soldiers‟ Privileges
The primary purpose of diplomas was to record the privileges granted by the emperor to the recipient, a soldier serving either in the auxilia, Praetorian Guard, fleet, or the equites singulares Augusti; legionaries, being Roman citizens, did not receive them.3 Of the extant diplomas hitherto published, the vast majority were issued to the cavalry, infantry and mixed (equitata) units of the auxilia, with many examples also of diplomas issued to sailors. The establishment of regular grants of auxiliary privileges represents a radical departure from previous approaches to Roman rewards for auxiliaries. This is clear from the list of privileges listed on these epigraphic documents. The earliest extant example, despite numerous recent discoveries, remains CIL 16, 1 (52 CE):
Ti(berius) Claudius Caesar Augustus / German{n}icus pontifex maxim(us) / trib(unicia) potestate XII imper(ator) XXVII / pater patriae censor co(n)s(ul) V / trierarchis et remigibus qui mili/taverunt in classe quae est Miseni / sub Ti(berio) Iulio Augusti lib(erto) Optato et / sunt dimissi honesta missione / quorum nomina sub scripta sunt / ipsis liberis posterisque eorum / civitatem dedit et conubium cum / uxoribus quas tunc habuissent / cum est civitas iis data aut // siqui caelibes essent cum iis / quas postea duxissent dum/taxat singuli singulas / a(nte) d(iem) III Idus Decembr(es) / Fausto Cornelio Sulla Felice / L(ucio)
3 See also n. 7 below for exceptional cases of legionary recipients of military diplomas.
52
Salvidieno Rufo Salviano / co(n)s(ulibus) / gregali / Spartico Diuzeni f(ilio) Dipscurto / Besso / descriptum et recognitum ex tabula / aenea quae fixa est Romae in Capi/tolio aedis Fidei populi Romani / parte dexteriore //
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, in the 12th year of his tribunician power, imperator for the 27th time, father of the fatherland, censor, consul for the fifth time, to the captains and the oarsmen who have served in the fleet which is (based) at Misenum under Tiberius Julius Optatus, Imperial freedman, and (who) have been dismissed with honourable discharge, the names of whom have been written below, and to their actual children and their descendants has given citizenship and conubium with the wives whom they had had at that time when citizenship was given to them, or, if any were unmarried, with those (wives) whom they had married later, provided that one man married one woman.
(Date) 29 November in the consulships of Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix and Lucius Salvidienus Rufus Salvianus (52 CE).
(Recipient) To Sparticus Dipscurtus, son of Diuzenus, Bessian, common soldier.
Copied and approved from the bronze tablet which was affixed on the Capitol on the right side of the Temple of the Faith of the Roman People.
Although CIL 16, 1 is likely not the first diploma ever issued, it seems clear that Claudius should be credited with approving the first widespread issuing of these peculiar documents. When complete, they contain a stunning wealth of information of interest to students of military, social, and provincial history: consuls, provincial governors, witnesses, detailed imperial titles and lists of auxiliary units stationed in a province clarified the history of the Roman administrations in numerous provinces.4 Though formulaic, they can be reasonably well dated even when fragmentary, due largely to the detailed titulature of the Roman emperor invariably provided. The emperor is a constant feature of all types of diplomas, with extensive lists of his imperial titles inscribed on the documents. The significance of this should not be underestimated. Although diplomas were a Claudian reform, regular auxiliary units were a feature of Augustus‟ army. His attention to military matters was well known in antiquity and he is known to have instituted sweeping reforms to the army, such as banning marriage for Roman soldiers.5 As with the cult of the imagines present in every Roman unit, military diplomas promoted the emperor‟s important roles as military commander and benefactor to his soldiers. In the latter respect, they are impressive testimony to his status as the guarantor of auxiliary privileges.
Whether the military diplomas introduced by Claudius were „special grants‟ (and therefore issued only occasionally) or regular awards given to eligible recipients for honesta
4 The procedures for recording and issuing military diplomas are surveyed in brief by Eck 2007a:104-108. On the chronology of provincial governors in the two Germanies, see Eck 1985. 5 On this subject, see Phang 2001, who argues persuasively that Augustus‟ primary motive in doing this was to enforce an ideology of discipline that, from his perspective, would be weakened if soldiers were allowed to be married.
53 missio (in which case they will have been much more commonly produced), has been a point of recent scholarly debate. Von Domaszewski believed that the diplomas were issued only ob virtutem, a view rejected by most scholars, and the attempt by Dušanić to reassert von Domaszewski‟s views, as will be demonstrated below, can and has been effectively refuted.6 That military diplomas could be used to record special grants of Roman citizenship for acts of bravery and loyalty in battle is not in doubt; the titles of many ethnic auxiliary units retained with pride the honorific c(ivium) R(omanorum) generations after the original grant. However, only those serving at the time when a unit won this distinction were eligible to receive it. The formula of regular diplomas, despite alterations over time, never combined the phrase ob virtutem, the specific sign of a special grant, with a reference to the 25 (or 26) years of service required for honesta missio. The obvious answer is that two distinct classes of legal document are represented: one diploma formula was used for „special grants‟ of auxiliary privileges, the other for regular discharges. Both types provided the same privileges to a soldier‟s “wife” and children, if he had them.
The argument that diplomas were issued exclusively ob virtutem fails in a number of respects. First, diplomas typically do not mention meritorious or loyal service as a necessary prerequisite for receipt of the privileges outlined in the veteran‟s terms of discharge. Second, rare examples of diploma grants to soldiers ob virtutem issued by Trajan survive, along with earlier examples of diplomas issued to veterans of leg. I and II Adiutrix, the only examples of diplomas issued to legionaries.7 It is difficult to see why these diplomas had to include a phrase describing the soldiers‟ virtus if all diplomas were, by definition, grants ob virtutem.
Third, a better case can be made that auxiliary military diplomas were inspired by ancient precedents for granting Roman citizenship ob virtutem (or virtutis causa). Claudius‟ studies of Rome‟s historical and legal traditions would have given him the necessary background to adjust a long-standing Roman practice of reward for loyal „allies.‟ The preponderance of early first century provincials in Germany with the names C(aius) Iulius for those who received their
6 Domasweski-Dobson 1967; von Domaszewski‟s views were strongly defended by Dušanić 1986. Phang 2001: 64, accepting the thesis of Maxfield 1986, rejected this interpretation. 7 Two examples of a special grant, CIL 160 and RMD 343, record its issue to the troops of coh. I Brittonum milliaria on Aug. 11, 106 CE. After the grant, the unit‟s nomenclature was changed to coh. I Ulpia Brittonum milliaria torquata pia fidelis civium Romanorum. Seven diplomas issued to legionary veterans of the two Adiutrices are extant. Four, all issued by Galba to veterans of leg. I Adiutrix, date to 22 Dec. 68 CE (CIL 16, 7-9 and RMD 136; the other three were issued by Vespasian to veterans of leg. II Adiutrix on Mar. 7, 70 CE (CIL 16, 10-11 and RMD 323).
54 privileges from Augustus and Ti(berius) Iulius for those who received the same from his successor may attest to the local elites who had benefited from their associations with Roman campaigns there. Although Augustus may have denied Roman citizenship to “a certain tributary Gaul” (quodam tributario Gallo) out of reluctance to see Roman citizenship “debased” (vulgari),8 there are, as E. Birley noted, a “striking” number of Ti. Iulii of high stipendia.9 It seems that the privilege of Roman citizenship was reserved for only very few and well-connected peregrine aristocrats during Augustus‟ reign; the extension of citizenship through Imperial patronage subsequently expanded among his successors. Claudius‟ policy of granting civitas Romana to his non-citizen soldiers represents a clever innovation that would make Roman citizenship a difficult goal to attain. Barring exceptional circumstances (such as would merit a „special grant‟), Roman citizenship would be granted only after the auxiliary met steep requirements: he needed an honourable discharge after 25 years of service, essentially all of the best years of his life, assuming that he did not die from combat or disease. From an ideological perspective, this would be sufficient time for a peregrine to demonstrate loyalty, while the authority to grant citizenship remained with the emperor. In the aftermath of his invasion and conquest of Britain, which had required and continued to require thousands of auxiliaries, his reform had obvious political benefits. The number of auxiliary troops serving in the Roman military was steadily growing; in 52 CE, the date of our earliest diploma, the Roman province was still young, with potential for future expansion at the expense of neighbouring and allied British tribes. If the honor of Roman citizenship was to be “debased,” then in the provinces particularly the ideal recipients were the auxilia and the military generally, on whose support Claudius had secured not only his victories, but his own imperial position.
Military diplomas are and continue to be exceptionally well edited and published. They were the life‟s work of Margaret Roxan, who published several volumes, entitled Roman Military Diplomas, that collected all diplomas published since 1954. Her work was a continuation of Herbert Nesselhauf‟s supplement to his own edition of CIL 16.10 Nesselhauf had collected the diplomas, some of which had been previously edited by Mommsen and published in CIL 3, into their own volume. Roxan, inspired by Eric Birley, continued Nesselhauf‟s
8 Suet. Aug. 40.3; cf. E. Birley 1986. 9 Birley 1986: 252-253. i.e. who served more than 25 years. 10 CIL 16 was published in 1936.
55 project.11 In 1978 she published the first of what would be five volumes (so far) of her Roman Military Diplomas, and the second volume had already appeared when Heer und Integrationspolitik was published.12 The fourth volume was published posthumously in 2004, with contributions by Paul Holder. The fifth volume appeared in 2006, also edited by Holder, with promise of a sixth in the future.
The name of the recipient of citizenship (usually peregrine), as well as the names of his “wife” and, until 140 CE, his “children” were always inscribed on military diplomas. Being formulaic, even fragmentary diploma texts occasionally allow a careful observer to restore the text in order to yield information about family members. A recipient‟s rank is always given (gregalis, eques, pedes),13 thus allowing observations to be made on various ranks of the auxilia. This has consequences for our understanding of family creation in the auxilia, as will be demonstrated in this chapter. After 140 CE, children were no longer included in the grant of privileges, a subject that will be discussed later.
When complete, diplomas thus offer a wealth of information about their recipients and their families. This wealth of detail is, however, beguiling. Serious issues of interpretation remain: how representative a sample of diplomas survives, and what factors contribute to their survival? Pertinent to this investigation are the value of diplomas for analyzing the development of auxiliary families and the long-term process of „Romanization‟. They are, however, of practically no value for the study of auxiliary religious practice, since they record only the names of the recipient and, if he claimed any, his „wife‟ and children.
Nevertheless, the study of diplomas is vital to the analysis of the Roman auxilia, since they often preserve important details about soldiers‟ families that may have been omitted in stone monuments. Thus, the following discussion will evaluate the families which have been preserved (a) on diplomas discovered throughout the Roman empire, (b) on diplomas discovered in the Two Germanies and Britain, and (c) propose a new approach to assessing the degree of
11 On Birley‟s influence, see the foreword to RMD vol. 1. 12 The dates of publication for the four volumes are 1978, 1985, 1993, 2004 and 2006. Military diplomas are also the subject of a more recent collection of papers originally presented in 2004, Speidel and Lieb 2007 (see ch. 1 above). 13 When the diploma was issued to a serving soldier, the rank was given in the dative case (gregali). If that soldier had already been discharged, as was normal from the late first century, a prepositional phrase with ex (ex gregale) was used (cf. ch. 3 below).
56
„Romanization‟ both of auxiliary soldiers and of their families, based in the onomastic data preserved by diplomas.
II. Auxiliary diplomas from Britain and the Two Germanies: General Observations
A complete list of military diplomas for Germany and Britain has been compiled and presented in Appendix II.14 For this study I have considered 36 diplomas issued to veterans of the auxilia of Roman Germany and 35 issued to veterans of the auxilia of Britain. Many were too fragmentary to preserve concrete details about the recipient and/or any family members: 21 from Germania (leaving 14) and 16 from Britain (leaving 19). Of the remaining diplomas those which do preserve clear information as to whether or not a soldier included a wife and/or child(ren) are provided below:
Diplomas from Germania (DG) attesting a wife and/or offspring
A – Auxiliary unit (ala or cohort), which cannot be restored; C – Classis, i.e. diploma could belong to a sailor); [R] – „Roman‟ name; [P] – „Peregrine‟ name; [M] – Mixed (Roman and Peregrine names identifiable among children); X – None; FSU – Findspot unknown
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Name Offspring (Dative) ‘Family’ Province Name and Origo and Origo Classification (Dative) (Dative)
DG 1, RMD Elst; Germania Ala I Batavorum [---] Gaveri f., [--- Pere]grini Incertae ? 216, 20 Feb. Inferior Batavo [P] fil., Batavae 98 [?] Incertae
DG 2, FSU (lower Coh. I civium Mucacento Zyasceli X X RGZM 9, 11 Danube?); Romanorum pia Eptacentis f., Polydori fil., Mar. 101 Germania fidelis Thraci [P] Thraci [P]
14 I am grateful to Prof. W. Eck for allowing me, while a visiting scholar in Germany during 2008, to view an early draft of a publication, with A. Pangerl, of two new diplomas for Germania Inferior. At the time of writing this publication is in press, and I refer to these diplomas tentatively as FSHell 1 and 2 (see also Appendix II under “Abbreviations”).
57
Inferior
DG 3, CIL Wiesbaden; Cohors II Cn. Cornelio [---] Pra[---] [?] X R/M 16, 62, 8 [Germa]nia Raetorum [R] 15 Sept. 117 Superior
DG 4, RMD FSU; A [---] f. Auluseno, [--- fi]l. Incertae M 348, (6 Mar. [Germania Besso [M / P] Valentinae, / 15 May), Superior] Besso [M] 118
DG 5, FSU [Coh. I [---] Daubasgi [f., [---]namesis X P RGZM 24, (Balkans?); Latobicorum et] ---] [P?] fil. [P?] [20 Aug.] [Germania Varcianorum 127 Inferior]
Diplomas from Britannia (DB) attesting a wife and/or offspring
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Name Offspring (Dative) ‘Family’ Province Name and Origo and Origo Classification (Dative) (Dative)
DB 1, RMD Middlewich; Ala Classiana [---]o Ramni f., [- Amabili Firmi X R 8, [1 May / [Britannia] civium --] [P/M] filiae [---] [R] 13 Jul.] 105 Romanorum
DB 2, ZPE FSU ; (eastern A [---]V[---]aecesto X Vannio [P] P/M 162 (2), 119 Balkans?); N[--- f., ---] [P?] /127 [Britannia] Incertae/o
DB 3, ZPE FSU A [---] f., V[---] ? Incertae/o16 P/M 162 (4), pre (Balkans?); 140 [Britannia] Bi[---] (m/f) [P?]
DB 4, ZPE FSU A [---], Cornovio [?] X Incerto/ae ? 162 (5), 127 (Balkans?); / 140 [Britannia]
A Thracian couple (DG 2) is recorded on a diploma of what was nominally a citizen cohort: coh. I civium Romanorum pia fidelis. This cohort, which lacks an ethnic affiliation, was originally levied solely from Roman citizens during the Augustan period. Such cohorts were evidently conceived as units for Roman citizens who either could not or would not serve in the
15 Provinces listed in square brackets belong to texts that have been either partially or fully restored, based on other data preserved on the diploma. Findspots are given when known; findspots in parentheses are the suggestions of diploma editors. 16 Possibly designates a wife. As the editors note, the naming of two individuals (signified by the appearance of et twice) clearly places this diploma before 140. Little else remains of the names, unfortunately. The second name Bi[- --] clearly denotes a child. A peregrine expansion seems likely, perhaps Bi[tho], from Bithus, a common Thracian name (see n. 37 below).
58 legions, but as this diploma demonstrates strict exclusion of peregrines was evidently not practised. Greater integration of peregrines into those auxiliary units that had originally been the province of Roman citizens alone was a sensible policy in Germania, a young province with a large military garrison and relatively low proportion of Roman citizens among the provincial population.
The five German and four British diplomas all predate 140 CE. DB 4 is a rare example of a diploma issued to a native Briton identified by a specific tribal affiliation (the Cornovii). Usually British recruits were recorded as Brittones.17 If the Balkan provenance is correct, then this Cornovian did not return to his homeland in Wales following his discharge.18 The presence of a son or daughter, almost certainly born during his service in Thrace, may have been one significant influence on his decision not to move back to Britannia. Two diplomas, DG 1 and DG 4, record details of both a wife and child(ren). DG 1 records a Batavian couple and their two children, both of whom were female, while DG 4 records a Bessian couple and their daughter. The presence of female offspring in auxiliary families on diplomas is not a statistical anomaly. In the discussion of evidence from military diplomas presented later in this chapter it will be argued that there appears to be no significant general tendency among auxiliaries to favour one gender over another, as one might perhaps expect.
III. Family
As CIL 16, 1 (cited above, pp. 50-51) demonstrates, not every military diploma mentions the name of a „wife‟ or child, despite the formulaic nature of the citizenship grant. The name of the recipient, his rank, and his tribal / hometown origo were invariably given. When a „wife‟ was
17 ZPE 162 (2007): 233-234. 18 Although British recruits were recorded as Brittones, auxiliary units raised in Britain were variously styled coh. Britannorum, coh. Brittonum and one coh. Britannica. With the exception perhaps of coh. VI Brittonum (possibly stationed in Cappadocia), all the British units were stationed in Balkan provinces, particularly Dacia and Moesia. The significant presence of British recruits in the Balkans may supply the answer to the question of why the Cornovian elected to stay in the province of his service, since not only his comrades but also a significant number of fellow Britons with similar life experiences were there. On the garrison history of these units, see Spaul 2000: 193- 204.
59
included in the text of a diploma, her name, like her „husband‟s‟ was recorded according to standard conventions of Roman onomastics. In the case of Roman citizens, in the first two centuries CE this meant the explicit recording of the tria nomina, filiation, voting tribe, and origo. On diplomas the voting tribe was omitted, perhaps because there was no possibility of confusion with a peregrine‟s name or because the act of enrolling in the Roman tribe was done subsequently in the presence of local civil or military officials. Peregrines were recorded with one, occasionally two, personal names, filiation, and origo. Moreover, their peregrine names were dutifully recorded on the diploma, despite their right to assume the Roman tria nomina granted by diplomas. As will be shown, several examples of Roman tria nomina are recorded on diplomas, but most of these examples were issued to recipients serving in the Praetorian Guard. Auxiliary diplomas, the largest category of military diplomas, were issued to recipients whose names overwhelmingly conform to peregrine forms. Children were invariably listed with only one name. Presumably the recipient would take a new name bearing, at least the same praenomen and gentilicium as the emperor mentioned on the diploma plus a cognomen that might derive from his peregrine name.
The study of Roman onomastics has a long tradition and is particularly relevant for the study of ethnic diversity and cultural development in the provinces. Diplomas, with their reliable standards of onomastic records, provide good opportunities for the study of trends in family creation and formation among the auxiliaries. In Diploma Table 1 below I have collected a list of all diplomas of the Roman empire which mention either a „wife,‟ children, or both.
Diploma Table 1: Diplomas With Children (to ca. 140 CE), numbered sequentially in bold19
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Offspring ‘Family’ Province Name and Name and (Dative) Classification Origo Origo (Dative) (Dative)
1.1: CIL Sremska Cohors II Dasenti Lorae / Iorae Emerito [R] M 16, 2; 13 Mitrovica; Hispanorum Dasmeni f., Prososii fil. Feb. pre- [Illyricum] Cornacati [P] [---] [P] Turunae [P] 54 Emeritae [R]
1.2: Vukovar; Ala II Dasio Carmai X Proculo [R] R RMD Illyricum Hispanorum et f., Breuco [P] 202, 2; Arvacorum Priscillae [R]
19 For abbreviations, see pp. 56 and 68.
60
July, 61 Proculae [R]
Procellae [R]
1.3: CIL Geiselbrechting; Ala Gemelliana Cattao Bardi Sabinae Vindelico [R?] M 16, 5; 16 f., Helvetio Gammi fil., Jun, 64 [Raetia or [P] Helvetiae Materionae [P] Noricum] [M]
1.4: CIL Split; Delmatia Cohors III Veneto Diti Madenae Gaio [R] R 16, 38; Alpinorum f., Daverso Plarentis fil., 13 Jul. [P] Deramistae 94 [P]
1.5: Viminacium; Cohors VI Dolenti X Valenti [R] R RMD 6; Thracum Sublusi f., 12 Jul. Moesia Superior Besso [P] 96
1.6: FSU Ala I Flavia Lucio X Mucasei [P] P RMD (Romania?); Gaetulorum Satur[nini? f.] 337; [9 [Moesia Inferior] [R] Sept.] 97
1.7: Dunáujváros; A [C?]iv[---] Incertae? Incerto/ae? ? RMD [R/M] 80; [20 [Pannonia] Feb.] 98
1.8: Elst; Germania Ala I Batavorum [---] Gaveri [--- Incertae ? RMD Inferior f., Batavo [P] Pere]grini 216, 20 fil., Batavae Incertae Feb. 98 [?]
1.9: CIL Oltina; Moesia Cohors II M. Antonio X Marco [R] R 16, 44; Inferior Gallorum M. f. Rufo, 14 Aug. Abrettensi 99 [R]
1.10: FSU (“lower Ala I Asturum Urbano Crispinae Attoni [P] M RGZM Danube”); Ateionis f., Eptacenti fil., 11; 13 Moesia Inferior Treviro [M] [M] Iulio [R] May 105 Crispino [R]
Praetiosae (sic) [R]
1.11: Szöny; Britannia Cohors I Lucconi Tutulae Simili [R] R CIL 16, Britannica ∞ Treni f., Breuci fil., 49; 12 civium Dobunno [P] Azala [P] Luccae [R] Jan. 105 Romanorum Pacatae [R]
1.12: Wels; [Noricum] Cohors I Clementi A[- Secciae Saturnino [R] R
61
CIL 16, Asturum -- f., ---] [R / Sabini[fil., -- 52; 106 M] -] [M]
1.13: Weissenberg; Ala I Mogetissae Verecundae Matrullae [R] R CIL 16, Raetia Hispanorum Comatulli f., Casati fil., 55; 30 Auriana Boio [P] Sequanae Jun. 107 [M]
1.14: FSU; [Moesia Ala I Flavia C. Annio [---, Saturnin[ae?] Saturnin[o?] [R] R RGZM Inferior] Gaetu[lorum] ---] [R] [R] (possibly wife) 14; [Sept. – (possibly Astico [R] Dec.] son) 107 Norbano [R]
1.15: FSU (“Balkans”; A Talaic[-- --- f, Iusti[---] [R] Iusti[---] [R] R RMD prov. inc. ---] [P] (possibly (possibly wife) 147; 99 / offspring) 108?
1.16: Banasa; Ala I Hamiorum Bargati Zaei Iuliae Iuli Zenae [P] M CIL 16, Mauretania sagittariorum f., Hamio [P] fil., Deisatae, 161; 14 Tingitana Surae [M] Saturnino [R] Oct. 109
1.17: Pernik; Ala I Augusta Sitali Cultra[- Iuniae Martiali [R] R RMD Mauretania civium -- f., ---] [P] Gaditani fil., 84; [14 [Tingitana] Romanorum M[---] [R] Oct.] 109
1.18: Ranovac; Dacia Cohors I M. Herennio X Ianuario [R] R RMD Montanorum M. f. 148; 14 Polymitae, Marcello [R] Oct. Berensi [R] 10920 Lucanae [R]
1.19: FSU Ala I Augusta Thaemo X Nal [P] M CIL 16, (“Hungary”); Ituraeorum Horati f., 57; 17 Dacia Ituraeo [M] Marco [R] Feb. 110 Antonio [R]
1.20: Cluj; Dacia Cohors I M. Ulpio X Vitali [R] R CIL 16, Brittonum ∞ Sacci f. 163; 2 Ulpia torquata Longino, Jul. 110 civium Belgo [M] Romanorum
1.21: FSU; Raetia Ala Arvacorum Dasenti Matenae Atulli [P] M RMD et Hispanorum Liccai f., Etdeidatis 223; 3 Pannonio [P] fil., Azalae Rumae [P] May 112 [P]
20 The last two names, although fragmentary, must attest women as the abbreviation fil(iae) has been preserved on the diploma. The second daughter has an indeclinable name ending in –ru, surely of Bessian origin.
62
Sibullae [P]
Ianuariae [R]
1.22: FSU; [Dacia] A Ti. Claudio X Torquato [R] M RMD [--- f. --- , ---] 225; (17 [R/M] Dizalae [P] Dec.) 113 / (2 / Torco [P] 3 May) 114 Tertullae [R]
Quintae [R]
1.23: Bostanluk; Cohors IIII C. Iulio C. f. X Iulio [R] R RMD Thracia Gallorum Valenti, 227 / Trallibus [R] Valentinae [R] RMD 14; 19 Gaiae [R] Jul. 114
1.24: Carnuntum; Ala Nertomaro Custae Victori [R] R CIL 16, Pannonia Frontoniana Irducissae f., Magni fil., 61; 1 Inferior Boio [P] Aquinco [R] Propinquo [R] Sept. 114 Bellae [R]
1.25: FSU A [---]loni f. X [---]liae [R] R RMD 16 (“Thamusida”?); Flavo, / CIL 16, [Mauretania Virovesca 166; [28 Tingitana] [R/M] Mar. 118]
1.26: FSU; [Germania A [---] f. [--- fi]l. Incertae M RMD Superior] Auluseno, Valentinae, 348; (6 Besso [M / P] Besso [M] Mar. / 15 May), 118
1.27: Tricornium; Cohors V Flavia M. Antonio Doroturmae Secundo [R] R CIL 16, Macedonia Bessorum Timi f. Timi, Dotochae fil., 67; 29 Hieropolitano Tricornio [P] Marcellinae [R] Jun. 120 [M]
1.28: Volubilis; Ala [---] civium [---] Fusci f., [---]ae Rufi Fuscinae [R] R RMD [Mauretania Romanorum [---] [R/M] fil. Rufinae 18; 114 / Tingitana] [R] 120
1.29: Karaivanov, A / C [---], Besso Incertae Incerto/ae ? RMD Miroljubov; [?] 19; prov. inc. Incerto/ae [Mar. /
63
Apr.] 121 Incerto/ae
1.30: FSU; Cilicia Coh. IIII Alexandro X Maximo [R] M RGZM Gallorum Andronici f., 19; 9 Antiochia [P] Iambae [P] Aug. 121 Heraclide [P]
Alexandrae [P]
1.31: FSU (“lower Ala I Claudia Bolliconi Icci X Aprili [R] R RGZM Danube”); Gallorum f. Icco, 20; 17 [Dacia Inferior] Capitoniana Brittoni [P] Iulio [R] Jul. 122 Aproniae [R]
Victoriae [R]
1.32: Banasa; Ala Gallorum M. Antonio Valeriae Maximo [R] R CIL 16, Mauretania Tauriana civium Antoni f. Messi fil. 169 / 16, Tingitana Romanorum Maximo, Messiae, Maximae [R] 73; 18 torquata victrix Syro [R] Transducta Nov. [R] 122
1.33: Românaşi; A / C [M. U]lpio [---]acherae [---m]aro [P] P? RMD [Dacia Landion[is Anma[--- 20; 118 / Superior?] f.,] [M] fil.] [P] Sur[---] [?] 122 Solorigi [P]
Cr[---] [R?]
Suruccae [P]
1.34: Urfa; Dacia Coh. II Flavia Zaccae Iuliae Bithi Arsamae [P] M RGZM Superior / Dacia Commagenorum Pallaei f., fil. 22; 14 Porolissensis Syro [P] Florentinae, Abisalmae [P] Apr. 123 Bessae [M] Sabino [R]
Zabaeo [P]
Achilleo [P]
Sabinae [R]
1.35: Alba Iulia; A [---]o, Incertae, Incerto/ae ? RMD [Dacia Hadrumeto Pannoniae 26; [16 Superior?] [?] Incerto/ae May / 13 Jun.] 124
1.36: Banasa; Ala Gemelliana [---]ni Daci [---]e Luci Dacio [R] M
64
CIL 16, Mauretania [f., ---] [P/M] fil. Sat[---] 171; Tingitana [R] [Sept. / Dec.] 124
1.37: FSU; prov. inc. A / C [--- f.,] Incertae, Incerto M? RMD Scordisco Sordiscae 234; 118 / 124?
1.38: FSU Ala I Flavia [---]lo Iresi? [---]iu Incerto M RMD (“Bulgaria”?); Gaetulorum f., Besso Lucosis fil., 235; 1 [Moesia [P/M] Bessae [P] Gaio [R] Jun. 125 Superior] Incerto
[--]VN[---]
[---]ru [P]
1.39: FSU Ala I Ulpia Ulpio M[--]I X Incerto ? RMD (“Balkans”?); Contariorum f. Valenti, 236; 1 Dacia Superior Besso [R/M] Jul. 126
1.40: FSU; Moesia Ala I Flavia Veladato Iuliae Titi fil. Fortunato [R] M RMD Superior Gaetulorum Dialonis f., Eraviscae [R] 241; 20 Eravisco [P] Atrecto [P] Aug. 127 Ianuario [R]
Magno [R]
Ianuariae [R]
1.41: FSU Coh. I Thracum Calo Papi f., X Mocimo [P] M RGZM (“Balkans”?); Syriaca Cyrro [P] 23; 20 [Moesia Inferior] Frontoni [R] Aug. 127 Rumae [P]
Rufo [P]
Carisae [R]
Rufinae [R]
1.42. FSU [Coh. I [---] [---]namesis X P RGZM (“Balkans”?); Latobicorum et] Daubasgi [f., fil. [P?] 24, [20 [Germania Varcianorum ---] [P?] Aug.] Inferior] 127
1.43: Manching; A Flavio Al[--- X Flacco [R] M RMD [Raetia] f., ---] [R/M]
65
32; 118 / 121 or Nic[---] [?] 125 / 128 Syrill[ae] [P]
1.44: FSU (Hungary?); Coh. VIII Demuncio X Primo [R] M RMD Dacia Supe[rior] Raetorum Avesso[--- 351; 12 f.], Eravisco Su[---] [?] Nov. [P] 119 Potenti [R]
Incertae/o [?]
Comatum[arae?] [P]
1.45: FSU; Dacia Ala [---] [---]oli f., X Incertae M / P RMD Inferior Besso [M / P] 361; 17 Jul. 122
1.46: FSU; [---]a Coh. [---]orum [---]rmo, [---] [---]ris fil., [- Crescen[t--- f./ M? RMD Superior [?] --] [M / P] fil] [R] 366; 1 Jul., 126 Incertae
1.47: FSU; [Africa] A Flavio X Nattopori [P] P RMD Steri[ssae? f., 368; Daco] [M] Incertae/o (Oct. / Dec.) Duccidavae [P] 127
1.48. FSU ; (eastern A [---]V[--- X Vannio [P] P/M ZPE 162 Balkans?); ]aecesto N[--- (2), 119 [Britannia] f., ---] [P?] Incertae/o /127
1.49: FSU; Incerta A Flavio Fr[--- Sangon[--- Frontoni [R] M RMD f., ---] [M] fil.,] 370; 118 Be[ssae?] Incerto / 120 or 126 / Frontinae [R] 128 Incertae
1.50: Enns; prov. inc. A [---]beri f., [An?]gulati Incertae/o P / M RMD P[annonio?] fil., 245; 114 [P] N[oricae?] Atecinae [P] / 129? [P]
1.51: Buciumi; prov. A Incerto X Incertae ? RMD 89, inc. 110 / Incertae 129?
66
1.52: FSU; Dacia Coh. I ∞ [---] X [---]sio [?] M? RMD Inferior Brittonum Asclepiadis 374; 119 Augusta [f., ---] [M / [---]riae [?] / 129 Nerviana P] Pacensis
1.53: Banasa; Ala Tauriana M. Publilio X Saturnino [R] R CIL 16, [Mauretania civium Publili f. 173; 18 Tingitana] Romanorum Saturnino, Prisciano [R] Aug. Tingitano [R] 129 or 130
1.54: Mautern; Cohors II Octavio Wife or Wife or ? CIL 16, [Noricum] Batavorum ∞ Octavi f. [---] Offspring Offspring 174; 132 [R]
1.55: Györ; [Pannonia Ala I Ulpia Claudio X Secundo [R] R CIL 16, Superior] Contariorum ∞ Motti f. 76; 2 Novano, Jul. 133 Helvetio [M]
1.56: Giurgiu; Moesia Cohors I L. Sextilio X Lucio [R] R CIL 16, Inferior Claudia Sextili f. 78; 2 Sugambrorum Pudenti, Valerio [R] Apr. 134 Stobis [R] Petronio [R]
Valenti [R]
Luciae [R]
Anniae [R]
1.57: Pappenheim; Ala I [---, ---]uli f., [---]ini fil., Incerto/ae [?] R/M CIL 16, [Raetia] Hispanorum Frisio Batavae [?] 105; 129 Auriana [R/P/M] [---]ellinae [R] / 134
1.58: Pomet; Dacia Cohors [---] [--- P?]alladi X Incerto ? RMD Porolissensis civium f., D[---] 248; (14 Romanorum [P/M] Incerto Nov. / 1 Dec.) 135
1.59: Thamusida; Ala Gemelliana Aemilio Flavi X Fortunato [R] R RMD [Mauretania civium f. Flavo, 382, 31 Tingitana] Romanorum Tingitano [R] Gemelliano [R] Dec. 135
1.60: FSU; prov. inc. A / C [---]eisunti X Incerto P/M RMD [f.?, ---] 255; 117 [P/M] Incerto / 137
67
[---]ni [P]
Incerto
Dourpinae? [P]
1.61: Tirnovo; Moesia Cohors II Clagissae X Spor [P] P CIL 16, Inferior Mattiacorum Clagissae f., 83; 28 Besso [P] Derzizeno [P] Feb. 138 Eptacento [P]
Zinae [P]
Eptaperi [P]
1.62: Vásony; Cohors I Sex. Iulio X Primo [R] R CIL 16, [Pannonia Thracum Primi f. 84; 16 Supe]r[ior] Primo, Jun. 138 Treviro [R]
1.63: FSU, prov. inc. A / C [---]ae f. [---] [---]s fil. [?] Incerto ? RMD [?] 254; 98 / Incerto/ae 138
1.64: FSU (Bulgaria); Coh. I Flavio Ialysi X Senecae [R] R RMD Thracia Cisipadensium f. Valento, 385 / Perintho [M] Marciano [R] 260; 10 Oct. 138 Bruttiano [R]
1.65: Albertfalva; Ala I Thracum Octavio Q. f. Mariccae Octaviano [R] R CIL 16, [Pa]nnon[ia veterana Vi[---] [R/M] Curin[--- fil.] 175; Inferior] sagittaria [P] Octav[---] [R] [Mar. / Oct.], 139
1.66: Volubilis; A [---] Lucei f. X Incerto/ae ? RMD [Mauret]ania [---] [R/M] 43; 138 / [Tingitana] 140
1.67: FSU; prov. inc. A [---]isu [f.? -- Incertae [-]naeo? [R?] R / M RMD -] [P/M] 262; 90 / [---]ori [R?] 140? [---]ral [?]
[---]si[-] [?]
1.68: FSU; Sy[ri]a Coh. [---] [---]i Stai f., X [---]ri [?] P?
68
RMD PIT? [P] 388; 114 D[--- f. / fil.] [?] / 140
1.69: FSU; Dacia Coh. [---] [---] Lucii f., X [---]ttarae [P] M RMD Inferior [---] [P / M] 389; 120 Incertae/o / 140 Incertae
Incertae
1.70. FSU (Balkans?); A [---] f., V[---] ? Incertae/o P/M ZPE 162 [Britannia] (4), pre Bi[---] (m/f) [?] 140
1.71. FSU (Balkans?); A [---], X Incerto/ae ? ZPE 162 [Britannia] Cornovio [?] (5), 127 / 140
1.72: Volubilis; A Cocceio X Co[cceio?] [R] R RMD [Mauretania Co[ccei f.?, -- 41; Tingitana] -] [R] Sat[---] [R] before 7 Aug. 133 / 143
73: FSU; prov. inc. A / C [---], Besso ? Incerto ? RGZM [P?] 71; (+ other [134- children?) 137]
The names listed here are given as they appear on the diplomas. They are in the dative case (indirect object), since the formula of the citizenship grant, despite later changes in form during the first and second centuries CE, was always Imperator …. civitatem … (recipient) dedit. The classifications R(oman), P(eregrine) and M(ixed) are based on the presence or absence of recognizably „Roman‟ names among the recipient, his „wife‟ or any of the children. These will not necessarily correspond to an individual‟s ethnic background – rather, this data represents individual choices, particularly in the case of „Roman‟ names, that could appear among auxiliary troops or their families.
Several classes of non-citizens could be represented in this collection of data: a peregrine (“foreigner”), a non-Roman living within the territory of the Roman empire, or a „Romanized‟ peregrine, who had been given by his parents or had assumed a Roman name, or a Junian Latin.
69
In some cases the name of the auxiliary recipient conforms to the onomastic practice among Roman citizens, but the majority of diplomas that provide data about the recipient‟s name preserve the name used prior to enlistment.
Phang accepted the testimony of literary sources, principally Tacitus (Ann. 14.27), Libanius (Or. 2.39-40), and Tertullian (exh. cast. 12), that soldiers were not accustomed to marrying or raising children and remained unmarried during the Principate.21 It is not surprising, however, that this trend should be observed in literary sources, since it was common knowledge that, due to the marriage ban instituted by Augustus, soldiers could not marry. It was difficult to maintain families within the fort itself except for the unit commanders, whose principia provided ample space for their wives and children.22 Roman barracks were hardly spacious enough to house even small families, so any soldier who chose to raise a family would by necessity have housed it in the vicus.
However, the option of creating a family, whether or not it was sanctioned officially by the Roman state, clearly appealed to a great many auxiliaries. Tacitus focused on legionaries, who already possessed the privilege of Roman citizenship, while Libanius‟ declaration that soldiers during the Principate did not marry is clearly an exaggeration. Rather, creating a family was a viable option for many auxiliaries across the empire. It is impossible to be certain about the degree to which a non-Roman cultural impetus might have motivated some individuals to „marry.‟
IV. “Wives” recorded on diplomas
A brief survey of auxiliary diplomas clearly mentioning a „wife‟ yields the following results.
21 Phang 2001: 195. 22 Unsurprisingly much evidence from Vindolanda in Britain for the prefect‟s family, including leather shoes, have been discovered there. This will be discussed in chapter 4.
70
Diploma Table 2: Auxiliary Diplomas recording a ‘wife’
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Name and Origo Province Name and (Dative) Origo (Dative)
2.1: CIL 16, 2; 13 Sremska Cohors II Dasenti Lorae / Iorae Prososii Feb. pre-54 Mitrovica; Hispanorum Dasmeni f., fil. [---] [P] [Illyricum] Cornacati [P]
2.2: CIL 16, 5; 16 Geiselbrechting; Ala Gemelliana Cattao Bardi Sabinae Gammi fil., Jun, 64 f., Helvetio Helvetiae [M] [Raetia or [P] Noricum]
2.3: CIL 16 38; 13; Split; Delmatia Cohors III Veneto Diti Madenae Plarentis fil., Jul. 94 Alpinorum f., Daverso Deramistae [P] [P]
2.4: RMD 80; [20 Dunáujváros; A [C?]iv[---] Incertae? Feb.] 98 [R/M] [Pannonia]
2.5: RMD 216, 20 Elst; Germania Ala I Batavorum [---] Gaveri [--- Pere]grini fil., Feb. 98 Inferior f., Batavo [P] Batavae [?]
2.6: RGZM 11; 13 FSU (“lower Ala I Asturum Urbano Crispinae Eptacenti May 105 Danube”?); Ateionis f., fil., [M] Moesia Inferior Treviro [M]
2.7: CIL 16, 49; 12 Szöny; Britannia Cohors I Lucconi Tutulae Breuci fil., Jan. 105 Britannica ∞ Treni f., Azala [P] civium Dobunno [P] Romanorum
2.8: CIL 16, 52; 106 Wels; [Noricum] Cohors I Clementi A[- Secciae Sabini[fil., ---] Asturum -- f., ---] [R / [M] M]
2.9: CIL 16, 55; 30 Weissenberg; Ala I Mogetissae Verecundae Casati fil., Jun. 107 Raetia Hispanorum Comatulli f., Sequanae [M] Auriana Boio [P]
2.10: RGZM 14; FSU; [Moesia Ala I Flavia C. Annio [---, Saturnin[ae?] [R] [Sept. – Dec.] 107 Inferior] Gaetu[lorum] ---] [R] (possibly son)
2.11: RMD 147; 99 / FSU; Incerta A Talaic[-- --- f, Iusti[---] [R] (possibly 108? ---] [P] offspring)
2.12: CIL 16, 161; Banasa; Ala I Hamiorum Bargati Zaei Iuliae Iuli fil., 14 Oct. 109 Mauretania sagittariorum f., Hamio [P] Deisatae, Surae [M] Tingitana
2.13: RMD 84; [14 Pernik; Ala I Augusta Sitali Cultra[- Iuniae Gaditani fil., Oct.] 109 Mauretania civium -- f., ---] [P] M[---] [R]
71
[Tingitana] Romanorum
2.14: RMD 223; 3 FSU; Raetia Ala Arvacorum Dasenti Matenae Etdeidatis fil., May 112 et Hispanorum Liccai f., Azalae [P] Pannonio [P]
2.15: CIL 16, 61; 1 Carnuntum; Ala Nertomaro Custae Magni fil., Sept. 114 Pannonia Frontoniana Irducissae f., Aquinco [R] Inferior Boio [P]
2.16: RMD 348; (6 FSU; [Germania A [---] f. [--- fi]l. Valentinae, Mar. / 15 May), 118 Superior] Auluseno, Besso [M] Besso [M / P]
2.17: CIL 16, 67; 29 Tricornium; Cohors V Flavia M. Antonio Doroturmae Dotochae Jun. 120 Macedonia Bessorum Timi f. Timi, fil., Tricornio [P] Hieropolitano [M]
2.18: RMD 18; 114 / Volubilis; Ala [---] civium [---] Fusci f., [---]ae Rufi fil. 120 [Mauretania Romanorum [---] [R/M] Rufinae [R] Tingitana]
2.19: RMD 19; Karaivanov, A / C [---], Besso Incertae [Mar. / Apr.] 121 Miroljubov; [?] Incerta
2.20: CIL 16, 169 / Banasa; Ala Gallorum M. Antonio Valeriae Messi fil. 16, 73; 18 Nov. 122 Mauretania Tauriana civium Antoni f. Messiae, Transducta Tingitana Romanorum Maximo, [R] torquata victrix Syro [R]
2.21: RMD 20; 118 / Românaşi; A / C [M. U]lpio [---]acherae Anma[--- 122 [Dacia Landion[is fil.] [P] Superior?] f.,] [M]
2.22: RGZM 22; 14 Urfa; Dacia Coh. II Flavia Zaccae Iuliae Bithi fil. Apr. 123 Superior / Dacia Commagenorum Pallaei f., Florentinae, Bessae Porolissensis Syro [P] [M]
2.23: RMD 26; [16 Alba Iulia; A [---]o, Incertae, Pannoniae May / 13 Jun.] 124 [Dacia Hadrumeto Superior?] [?]
2.24: CIL 16, 171; Banasa; Ala Gemelliana [---]ni Daci [---]e Luci fil. Sat[---] [Sept. / Dec.] 124 Mauretania [f., ---] [P/M] [R] Tingitana
2.25: RMD 235; 1 FSU Ala I Flavia [---]lo Iresi? [---]iu Lucosis fil., Jun. 125 (“Bulgaria”); Gaetulorum f., Besso Bessae [P] [Moesia [P/M] Superior]
2.26: RMD 241; 20 FSU; Moesia Ala I Flavia Veladato Iuliae Titi fil. Aug. 127 Superior Gaetulorum Dialonis f., Eraviscae [R] Eravisco [P]
72
2.27. RGZM 24, [20 FSU [Coh. I [---] [---]namesis fil. [P?] Aug.] 127 (“Balkans?”); Latobicorum et] Daubasgi [f., [Germania Varcianorum ---] [P?] Inferior]
2.28: RMD 366; 1 FSU; [---]a Coh. [---]orum [---]rmo, [---] [---]ris fil., [---] [M / P] Jul., 126 Superior [?]
2.29: RMD 370; 118 FSU; Incerta A Flavio Fr[--- Sangon[--- fil.,] / 120 or 126 / 128 f., ---] [M] Be[ssae?]
2.30: RMD 245; 114 Enns; Incerta A [---]beri f., [An?]gulati fil., / 129? P[annonio?] N[oricae?] [P] [P]
2.31: CIL 16, 174; Mautern; Cohors II Octavio Wife or Offspring 132 [Noricum] Batavorum ∞ Octavi f. [---] [R]
2.32: CIL 16, 105; Pappenheim; Ala I [---, ---]uli f., [---]ini fil., Batavae [?] 129 / 134 [Raetia] Hispanorum Frisio Auriana [R/P/M]
2.33: RMD 254; 98 / FSU, Incerta A / C [---]ae f. [---] [---]s fil. [?] 138 [?]
2.34: CIL 16, 175; Albertfalva; Ala I Thracum Octavio Q. f. Mariccae Curin[--- fil.] [Mar. / Oct.], 139 [Pa]nnon[ia veterana Vi[---] [R/M] [P] Inferior] sagittaria
2.35: RMD 262; 90 / FSU; Incerta A [---]isu [f.? -- Incertae 140? -] [P/M]
At all periods during which military diplomas were produced, women‟s filiation was abbreviated fil(ia). The majority of women listed had names which adhered to Roman standards applied to peregrines: one name followed by filiation and origo, the latter invariably in the form of the Latin adjective of her tribe: Tutulae Breuci fil(iae), Azala(e), “to Tutula, daughter of Breucus, an Azalan.”
The privileges granted (retroactively if needed) to auxiliary soldiers and reflected in the military diplomas throughout the first century CE were conubium with one current or future „wife‟ and civitas liberorum, Roman citizenship for any children he might have.23 Conubium, properly ius conubii, is not to be confused with Roman citizenship. A person to whom this right was granted was permitted to contract a legal Roman marriage and create a legal Roman family.
23 Roxan 1986: 271-281. On conubium, see Mann 1986. For the Claudian reform, see E. Birley 1986 and Beutler 2007.
73
The diplomas use the telling word uxor to describe the „wife‟ of the soldier, yet the female partner, under Roman law, could only become a true uxor once her husband received his auxiliary privileges. Until that time, their union was technically illegitimate and the relationship would have been viewed by the authorities as either concubinatus or matrimonium iniustum.24 There is a dearth of pre-Severan juristic evidence for the legal definition of soldiers‟ „marriages‟ prior to 197 CE, but the diplomas themselves, all of which predate the Severan dynasty, identify in their formulae these women universally as uxores, a common Latin term for a legal wife, though others are attested epigraphically.25 While they became legal „wives‟ through the grant of conubium, the formula recognizes that they were de facto uxores prior to the grant, now legitimated by the emperor.
Until the privilege was granted, the legal status of a de facto wife compared to a de iure wife could create problems, particularly in regard to “divorce” and inheritance. Striking evidence has been preserved in a papyrus record of court proceedings, the Cattoui Papyrus (P.Catt. and BGU 114).26 In one case from Jan. 5, 117 CE, a woman named Lucia Macrina requested her „deposit‟ from the account of her deceased husband Antonius Germanus, a soldier perhaps of the auxiliary coh. I Thebaeorum.27 The request was denied, as the judge Lupus interpreted the „deposit‟ to be a dowry and observed that “if you had demanded a dowry and I give a judgment, then I will seem to have been persuaded that the marriage is legal.”28 The general legal principle that children of serving soldiers‟ marriages were illegitimate was recognized explicitly in the judgment of a case recorded in August 142: “whether this man enlisted in a legion or in a cohort or in an ala, he is not able to have a legitimate son.”29
When both parents were Roman citizens, military service was a bar to the creation of a legal Roman family, but not necessarily to the creation of Roman citizen offspring. Another case from P.Catt. demonstrates this. Longinus Hy[---], a soldier of coh. I Thebaeorum, petitioned for
24 Phang 2001: 199-201, arguing persuasively against the suggestion that soldiers‟ „wives‟ were concubines. 25 See below, p. 85. 26 For text and translation, see Phang 2001: 395-401; for a survey of the cases and bibliography on the papyrus, see Phang 2001: 23-34. Translations given here are those of Phang. 27 P.Catt. and BGU 114 were published separately, but are fragments of the same papyrus; the two fragments were subsequently edited together as M. Chr. 372. Other cases tried in these records attest soldiers of the Theban cohort, Longinus and Iulius Martialis, the latter of whom is also identified by the Greek name Isidorus, but who likely only received Roman citizenship after being discharged (Phang 2001: 27). 28 M. Chr. 372 i.10-14. 29 M. Chr. 372 v. 4-6: Ἐcerxome/nou ei)/te e)n ta/cei ei)/te e)n spei/r# ei)/te e)n ei)/lv o( gennhqei\j ou) du/natai ei)=nai no/mimwj ui(o/j.
74 the certification of his children, two boys named Longinus Apollinaris and Longinus Pomponius, as citizens, since he “was himself a Roman citizen … [and] had cohabited with a Roman citizen.” Although the text is fragmentary, is seems that the judge recognized citizenship status for the boys, but could not recognize Longinus Hy[---] as their „legal father.‟30 The absurdity of this situation would only be enhanced by the fact that Longinus Hy[---], as an auxiliary soldier, could still name his sons as heirs to his estate.31
No equivalent texts from Britain or Germany survive, but, while some of the terminology would doubtless have been different32 such disputes over money or status can hardly have been resolved differently. The evidence from Egypt implies that significant numbers of „married‟ soldiers and women were unaware of the marriage ban‟s legal complications on their lives. While this was likely true for an indeterminate number of cases, it seems difficult to accept that soldiers were not generally well informed about what legal rights and benefits auxiliary service could provide. The exchange of dowries clearly shows that soldiers did „marry‟ according to customs typical of ancient, and many modern, marriages. Such relationships surely were viewed in everyday life as a marriage, yet carried none of the legal rights of marriage in so far as the spouses were concerned. For the woman, the choice to marry carried significant financial risks. As it seems likely that most peregrine women, typically the „wives‟ of auxiliary soldiers, will not have recognized this fact, it seems likely that many dowries exchanged in good faith by the brides of soldiers were lost, in the event of divorce. As the Egyptian evidence shows, since no legal marriage had been contracted, no legal dowry could be held to have been provided – a principle upheld in the judgments preserved in papyrological records. Thus a „wife‟s‟ family could not recover what they surely considered to be a dowry through the Roman legal system. Therefore low marriage rates for soldiers need not be explained simply as a reflection of
30 M. Chr. 372 iii.11-22: ...Longi/nou U..[..]ou ei)pontoj “Rwma[i=]on e(auto\n o)/nta e)stra[teu=sqai e)n] spei/rv prw/tv Qhbai/wn u(po\ Seouh=[ron], sun%ke/nai de\ e)n tv= stratei/# gun[ai]ki\ “Rwma[i/]# e)c ῄ=j pepaidopoih=sqai Lon[ge]i=n[o]n Apolina/rion kai\ Longei/nion Pompw/[ni]on ou(/sper a)cioi= e)pikriqh=nai, Lou=p[oj] lalh/saj meta\ tw=n nomikw=n ei=)pen: “.[....].h[..]ntai oi( pai=dej w(j e)k “Rwmai/aj [gegenhme/]noi. Su\ au)tou\j kai\ q[e/]lei[j] e)c epi[...... ]mouj katalei/pen, no/mimon de\ p?a?t?e/ra au)tw=n poiei=n ou) du/?nama[i] (emphasis added). 31 Cf. M. Chr. 372 iv.13-15, where the validity of the will of Julius Martialis, deceased soldier of coh. I Thebaeorum, naming his son Theodorus as heir, was upheld. This text refers to Martialis by his peregrine name, Isidorus, except when quoting the final judgment: “Ou)k e)dunato Martia/l[ioj] strateuo/menoj no/mimon u(io\n e)xei=n, klhrono/mon de\ au)to\n e)/grayen nomi/[mwj].” 32 For example, neither province was governed by a praefectus, and the governors of these western provinces would certainly not “delegate the strategos of the city as a judge” (M. Chr. i.1-4).
75
„military culture.‟ The financial risks for the bride, if fully appreciated by her family, might provide a strong deterrent to „marriage‟ with an auxiliary soldier, particularly in the case of women from a higher social class than a potential peregrine auxiliary suitor.
The proportion of auxiliary diplomas before 140 CE which record an auxiliary family, including a wife, is about 10% - a low figure (but on this see 2.IX below). This has been commented upon by previous scholars,33 and several explanations have been proposed for this phenomenon. Saller and Shaw concluded that there was a low level of family formation and maintenance of family ties among soldiers.34 As noted previously, their conclusions have not been widely accepted, largely on the basis of their failure to account for local biases against inscribing in stone. More recently, Phang has argued that soldiers married later in life, around their thirties, and consequently later in their period of service. On the basis that many auxiliaries died young, either as casualties of war or through illness or injury, many such soldiers simply did not have „wives‟ to mention on their monuments. Instead, these soldiers would tend to be memorialized by siblings or parents, if not by their fellow soldiers, in the epigraphic record.35 However, this conclusion has been criticized by Serrati as being based on an unrepresentative sample of evidence that also does not account for regional practices, such as preference given to parents over unofficial wives.36 Thus, military diplomas provide an important insight into auxiliary families by providing more detailed records than is often the case with inscriptions on stone. Diplomas, as records of legal privileges, by necessity included the names of all those eligible to benefit from the veteran‟s rewards.
IV.i Observations on auxiliary wives‟ names, as recorded on diplomas
33 See Roxan 1991. 34 Saller and Shaw 1984: 142. 35 Phang 2001: 164-176. 36 Serrati 2005.
76
The occurrence of duo nomina is apparent in four cases, nos. 2.12, 2.18, 2.20, 2.22. The presence of Roman names in these cases is a telling characteristic:
2.12: CIL 16, 161; Banasa; Ala I Hamiorum Bargati Zaei Iuliae Iuli fil., 14 Oct. 109 Mauretania sagittariorum f., Hamio [P] Deisatae, Surae [M] Tingitana
2.18: RMD 18; 114 / Volubilis; Ala [---] civium [---] Fusci f., [---]ae Rufi fil. 120 [Mauretania Romanorum [---] [R/M] Rufinae [---] [R] Tingitana]
2.20: CIL 16, 169 / Banasa; Ala Gallorum M. Antonio Valeriae Messi fil. 16, 73; 18 Nov. 122 Mauretania Tauriana civium Antoni f. Messiae, Transducta Tingitana Romanorum Maximo, [R] torquata victrix Syro [R]
2.22: RGZM 22; 14 Urfa; Dacia Coh. II Flavia Zaccae Iuliae Bithi fil. Apr. 123 Superior / Dacia Commagenorum Pallaei f., Florentinae, Bessae Porolissensis Syro [P] [M]
If the text of the diploma breaks off after the woman‟s filiation, then the possibility that a lost second name, particularly in second-century CE cases where the fragmentary extant names are Roman, must be entertained. The duo nomina indicate that these women were either Roman citizens or Junian Latins.37 Three examples of duo nomina pertain to „wives‟ of soldiers who were discharged in Mauretania Tingitana, two of whom came from Syria. For example, Iulia Deisata, listed only as a “Syrian” (Sura), was married to another Syrian, Bargates, son of Zaeus, a Hamian recruit of ala I Hamiorum sagittariorum. Since the diploma was found in Mauretania, it seems likely that she followed her „husband‟ to his military post. There is no certainty that they were married prior to Zaeus‟ enlistment, since it is possible that their meeting and subsequent „marriage‟ occurred when Bargates was at home on leave.
Also Syrian were the husbands of Valeria Messia and Iulia Florentina, although Messia‟s husband did not serve in a unit that had originally been recruited from the eastern Roman empire. The derivation of Messia‟s second name from her father‟s parallels the names previously
37 Phang 2001: 193.
77 discussed. Her hometown was Colonia Iulia Traducta, near Tarifa in Hispania Baetica.38 Florentina‟s father was clearly a peregrine, as shown by his name, and Bithus is a Thracian name well attested elsewhere.39 It has been noted that the overall number of „wives‟ with the duo nomina is quite small, even in comparison to the total number of extant military diplomas which mention a „wife.‟40 The obvious conclusion is that auxiliaries tended to „marry‟ women who belonged to the same legal status as they, although not necessarily of the same ethnic background. Service in the Roman army might have brought prestige and a regular income, but it seems not to have compensated for lack of Roman citizenship. At least one of the husbands of the four women discussed was a Roman citizen while serving in the auxilia, and in his case no clash of status would have occurred.
V. Remarks on ethnic endogamy
Diplomas are useful sources for assessing the phenomenon of marriage among a given ethnic group. As noted in the previous section, marriage within the group was not exclusively practiced; since auxiliaries were normally stationed far away from their homelands, specific cases of endogamous ethnic marriage are rare, but by no means unattested. Previously discussed evidence for „wives‟‟ homes has already demonstrated this in a number of cases. Peregrine wives are easily distinguishable on military diplomas, often from fragmentary references. Diplomas regularly abbreviate fil(iae) as opposed to f(ilio), although in the late second and third century diplomas issued to praetorians fil(io) occasionally appears. As a result, even a fragmentary text of an auxiliary diploma containing the abbreviation fil(--) allows one to infer that the recipient claimed a „wife‟ in the original text. Peregrine wives and their husbands are listed in the following table:
38 CIL 16, 169 comm. ad loc. 39 In Italy, e.g. AE 1988, 310 (Misenum) : Lucio Flavio Bitho / veter(ano) ex scrib(a) / cl(assis) pr(aetoriae) M[is(enensis)] natio(ne) Bessus vix(it) ann(os) LXIII / Flavi(a) Potamilla et / Flavi(us) Bithus patri f(ecerunt), noting two generations of Bithi. Cf. AE 1933, 103 (Taurianum), D(is) M(anibus) / Hedistes vix(it) an(nos) / XIII m(enses) V / Bithus et Successa parent/es piisimae posue/runt provinciale[s] contubern(ali) carissim(ae) / faciund(um) curaver(unt). On the Thracian origins of Bithus, see Detschew 1957 s. v. „Bithus.‟ 40 Phang 2001: 193.
78
Diploma Table 3: Auxiliary peregrine ‘husbands’ and ‘wives’41
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Name and Origo Province Name and (Dative) Origo (Dative)
3.1: CIL 16, 2; 13 Sremska Cohors II Dasenti Lorae / Iorae Prososii Feb. pre-54 Mitrovica; Hispanorum Dasmeni f., fil. [---] [P] [Illyricum] Cornacati [P]
3.2: CIL 16, 5; 16 Geiselbrechting; Ala Gemelliana Cattao Bardi Sabinae Gammi fil., Jun, 64 f., Helvetio Helvetiae [M] [Raetia or [P] Noricum]
3.3: CIL 16 38; 13; Split; Delmatia Cohors III Veneto Diti Madenae Plarentis fil., Jul. 94 Alpinorum f., Daverso Deramistae [P] [P]
3.4: RMD 216, 20 Elst; Germania Ala I Batavorum [---] Gaveri [--- Pere]grini fil., Feb. 98 Inferior f., Batavo [P] Batavae [?]
3.5: RGZM 11; 13 FSU (“lower Ala I Asturum Urbano Crispinae Eptacenti May 105 Danube”); Ateionis f., fil., [M] Moesia Inferior Treviro [M]
3.6: CIL 16, 49; 12 Szöny; Britannia Cohors I Lucconi Tutulae Breuci fil., Jan. 105 Britannica ∞ Treni f., Azala [P] civium Dobunno [P] Romanorum
3.7: CIL 16, 52; 106 Wels; [Noricum] Cohors I Clementi A[- Secciae Sabini [fil., --- Asturum -- f., ---] [R / ] [M] M]
3.8: CIL 16, 55; 30 Weissenberg; Ala I Mogetissae Verecundae Casati fil., Jun. 107 Raetia Hispanorum Comatulli f., Sequanae [M] Auriana Boio [P]
3.9: CIL 16, 161; 14 Banasa; Ala I Hamiorum Bargati Zaei Iuliae Iuli fil., Oct. 109 Mauretania sagittariorum f., Hamio [P] Deisatae, Surae [M] Tingitana
3.10: RMD 84; [14 Pernik; Ala I Augusta Sitali Cultra[- Iuniae Gaditani fil., Oct.] 109 Mauretania civium -- f., ---] [P] M[---] [R] [Tingitana] Romanorum
3.11: RMD 223; 3 FSU; Raetia Ala Arvacorum Dasenti Matenae Etdeidatis fil., May 112 et Hispanorum Liccai f., Azalae [P] Pannonio [P]
41 On the designations [P], [M] and [R], see pp. 40 and 68 above.
79
3.12: CIL 16, 61; 1 Carnuntum; Ala Nertomaro Custae Magni fil., Sept. 114 Pannonia Frontoniana Irducissae f., Aquinco [R] Inferior Boio [P]
3.13: RMD 348; (6 FSU; [Germania A [---] f. [--- fi]l. Valentinae, Mar. / 15 May), 118 Superior] Auluseno, Bessae [M] Besso [M / P]
3.14: CIL 16, 67; 29 Tricornium; Cohors V Flavia M. Antonio Doroturmae Dotochae Jun. 120 Macedonia Bessorum Timi f. Timi, fil., Tricornio [P] Hieropolitano [M]
3.15: RMD 20; 118 / Românaşi; A / C [M. U]lpio [---]acherae Anma[--- 122 [Dacia Landion[is fil.] [P] Superior?] f.,] [M]
3.16: RMD 26; [16 Alba Iulia; A [---]o, Incertae, Pannoniae May / 13 Jun.] 124 [Dacia Hadrumeto Superior?] [?]
3.17: RMD 235; 1 FSU Ala I Flavia [---]lo Iresi? [---]iu Lucosis fil., Jun. 125 (“Bulgaria”?); Gaetulorum f., Besso Bessae [P] [Moesia [P/M] Superior]
3.18: RMD 241; 20 FSU; Moesia Ala I Flavia Veladato Iuliae Titi fil. Aug. 127 Superior Gaetulorum Dialonis f., Eraviscae [R] Eravisco [P]
3.19. RGZM 24, [20 FSU [Coh. I [---] [---]namesis fil. [P?] Aug.] 127 (“Balkans”?); Latobicorum et] Daubasgi [f., [Germania Varcianorum ---] [P?] Inferior]
3.20: RMD 370; 118 FSU; Incerta A Flavio Fr[--- Sangon[--- fil.,] / 120 or 126 / 128 f., ---] [M] Be[ssae?] [P]
3.21: RMD 245; 114 Enns; Incerta A [---]beri f., [An?]gulati fil., / 129? P[annonio?] N[oricae?] [P] [P]
3.22: CIL 16, 105; Pappenheim; Ala I [---, ---]uli f., [---]ini fil., Batavae [P] 129 / 134 [Raetia] Hispanorum Frisio [P?] Auriana
3.23: CIL 16, 175; Albertfalva; Ala I Thracum Octavio Q. f. Mariccae Curin[--- fil.] [Mar. / Oct.], 139 [Pa]nnon[ia veterana Vi[---] [R/M] [P] Inferior] sagittaria
Most of the names in the extant diplomas, for both recipient and „wife‟, adhere to peregrine conventions: name, filiation and origo. The only pair clearly attested on a military diploma from
80
Germania Inferior were both Batavians, whose territory lay on the lower Rhine (Table no. 3.4).42 The location of the recipient‟s unit was also Germania Inferior, indicating that the recipient had known his wife from a young age, perhaps prior to enlistment. Auxiliary service was a consistent reality of these groups‟ participation in the military of the Roman empire. In the case of the Batavi, whose contributions to the Roman army were considerable, it will be argued in chapter 4 that military service promoted the development of a coherent Batavian identity influenced by the culture of the army. The bonds of family were particularly easy to maintain, given both the proximity of the recipient‟s province of service (Germania Inferior) to the Batavian homeland and surely the presence of many other Batavians in his unit, ala I Batavorum.
A diploma of Germania Superior records a pair of Bessi, whose territory was located in the Haemus mountains of Thrace (3.13).43 Other Bessi, both male and female, are attested elsewhere on military diplomas from other provinces in close proximity to Germania Superior. Another pair of Bessi are attested on a diploma issued to a veteran of ala Flavia Gaetulorum from Moesia Superior, and the wife of another unknown auxiliary soldier was also a member of this Thracian tribe. The intra-tribal marriage phenomenon is attested in several other diploma records. Occasionally, these connections might be obscured by conventions in Roman military record-keeping, such as the recording of a Pannonian soldier‟s origo as Pannonius when he was stationed outside of his home province. Thus, the Pannonius Dasens (3.11) and his Azalian wife Matena could both have belonged to the Pannonian tribe of the Azali.
VI. Remarks on children recorded in military diplomas
A feature of the majority of military diplomas is the absence of either a „wife‟ or a child, and as such the low numbers of attested auxiliary families from Germania and Britannia are examples of this empire-wide trend. Part of this may be due to “a disinclination to shoulder
42 On the Batavians, see Roymans 2004. For a summary of references to the Batavi in literary sources, see Spaul 2000: 205-206. Pliny, HN 4.15.101 noted that their homeland was an island in the Rhine, perhaps modern Betuwe. 43 For a summary of literary evidence about the Bessi, see Spaul 2000: 339-340.
81 burdens or cling to outworn ties.”44 However, the examples cited above of auxiliary „wives‟ from similar tribal backgrounds demonstrate that this was not a universally felt sentiment among the auxiliary soldiery. Other factors are possible:
1) Any “family” that the veteran may have had perished prior to his discharge.
2) The veteran would have been reluctant to acknowledge a relationship that was illegal.
3) The soldier‟s „wife‟ was already a Roman citizen.
4) The soldier had children, but refused to acknowledge them.
5) The soldier was already married according to his own native customs, and did not feel the need to „register‟ his marriage in Roman terms.
It seems to me that mortality rates, particularly among women of childbearing age, should not be discounted. This may be the case with diplomas (and other monuments like tombstones) which record children, but no spouse. Even auxiliaries had a high mortality rate, with roughly 50% failing to reach their 25 year goal;45 auxiliary tombstones, the vast majority of which commemorate soldiers who died before reaching 25 stipendia, reinforce this broad statistic.
It seems unlikely that points (3) and (5) account for many missing auxiliary families in the diploma records. It would be rare for a peregrine auxiliary to marry a Roman citizen, particularly in the first century CE. Marriage at or below the same social status as the soldier was the norm in antiquity.46 In the case of peregrines, it is not surprising to observe that women of the same or a geographically close ethnic origin as their „husbands‟ are well attested among diplomas. The location of a unit‟s garrison obviously altered this dynamic, particularly when soldiers were stationed far from their homelands.
In regard to point (4), a letter of Hadrian on August 4, 119 CE is pertinent:47
‟An[ti/]gra(fon) e)p?is?t[ol(h=j) tou= kuri/ou me]qhpm[hn]eu---me/nhj [...... ]w [h)/] [(e)/touj)] gV Trai[a]no[u= ‛Adriano[u= Sebasto]u= [Pou]p?li/ou ‟A[ili/ou to\ gV kai\ „Rou]stikou=
44 Roxan 1986: 269. 45 Roxan 1986: 269 n. 8. 46 Alston 1995: 65-66, 138. 47 BGU 140, slightly reformatted. The translation is that of Phang 2001: 402-403.
82
[u(pa/]toij proe[te/qh e)n...... en ‟Alecandrei/# t$=] parembol($=) th=[j] xeimasi/a[j legiw=no(j) tri/thj] Ku[rhnaikh=j k[ai\] legiw=no(j) [B] k[ai\ ei)ko]st[h=]j D$ioterianh=j pri/die no/[n]aj ‟Aougo[u/s]taj, o(/ e)stin Mesorh\ iVaV e)n prinke[p]i/oij.
‟Epi\stamai, „Ra/mmie/ mou, t[o]u/touj, o[u(\]j oi( gonei=j au)tw=n t%= th=j stratei/aj a)nei/- - lanto xro/n%, th\n pro\j ta\ patrika\ [u(pa/r]xonta pro/sodon kekwlu=sqai, k[ai\ t]ou=to ou)k e)do/kei sklhro\n e[i)=]nai [tou)n]anti/on au)tw=n th=j stratiw[ti]kh=[j] [dida]xh=j pepoihko/twn. ῞Hdista de\ au)to\j proei/enai ta\j a)forma\j di‟w(=n to\ au)sthro/teron u(po\ tw=n pro\ e)mou= Au)tokrato/rwn staqe\n filanqrwpo/---ter[o]n e(rmhneu/w. ῞Onper toigarou=n t[ro/p]on ou)/k ei)sin no/mimoi klhro --- [no/m]oi tw=n e(autw=n pate/rwn oi( t%= [t]h=j strate[i/]aj xron% a)nal[h]mfqe/n---tej, o(/mwj kat[o]xh\[n] u([pa]rxo/ntwn e)c e)kei/nou tou= me/[r]ouj tou= diata/gma---toj, ou(= kai\ toi\j pro\j [g]e/nouj sungene/si di/dwtai, ai)tei=sqai du/nasqai kai\ au)tou\j kre[i/n]w. Tau/thn mou th\n dwrea\n kai\ toi=j stratiw/taij e)mou= kai\ ou)e---tranoi=j eu)/gnwsto/n se poih=sai deh/---sei, ou)x e(/neka tou= dokei=n me au)touj e)nlogei=n, a)lla\ i(/na tou/t% xrw=ntai, e)a\n a)gnow=si.
Copy of a letter of the emperor, translated48… which was publicly displayed in the third year of Trajan Hadrian Augustus, in the consulship of Publius Rusticus… in the winter camp of the III Cyrenaica legion and the XXII Deiotariana on the 4th of August which is the 11th of Mesore, at headquarters.
I know, my dear Rammius, that those whom their parents in their period of military service acknowledged as their children have been debarred from succeeding to their fathers‟ property, and this measure did not seem harsh since their action was contrary to military discipline. But I find it most pleasant to put forward precedents through which I may interpret more liberally the rather harsh rule established by emperors before me. For although those acknowledged in the period of military service are not legitimate heirs of their fathers, nevertheless I decide that they can also claim possession of property from that clause of the edict which gives this right to cognate relatives. It will be your duty to make this grant of mine well known both to my soldiers and to the veterans, not to enable me to be exalted in their eyes, but so that they may profit by this, if they are unaware of it.
As is evident from Hadrian‟s letter, the ideological nature of Augustus‟ marriage ban was not a secret. The belief that a married soldier would necessarily lack the discipline and concentration of an unmarried soldier is primarily, as Phang has demonstrated, an ideological construct that is a feature of both ancient and modern commentators of the Roman army.49 Although even peregrine auxiliary soldiers enjoyed the right to make legally recognized Roman wills,50 their children were not legitimate heirs to their estate. The letter helps to explain why sons of auxiliaries rarely appear as heirs on auxiliary tombstones, and perhaps why so many auxiliary diplomas and monuments lack family references. Diplomas, like stone inscriptions,
48 I.e. from Latin into Greek, as was commonly done in military units stationed in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire. 49 Phang 2001: esp. 372-377; cf. Pflaum 1969: 97. 50 Aside from the fact that this is stated on numerous tombstones that include the terms heres/heredes and/or testamentum, a soldier‟s ability to make a legal will that could bequeath property and money to Latins and peregrines was noted by Roman jurists, e.g. Gaius, Inst. 2.11.1-11; Note, however, that Hadrian revoked a woman‟s ability to benefit from a soldier‟s will if she had engaged in turpis suspicio (Dig. 29.1.41.1), adultery or stuprum (Dig. 34.9.14). On soldiers‟ wills, see Phang 2001: 217-221 (military wills) and 38-40 (intestate succession).
83 were Roman forms of cultural expression. While Roman law could not prevent auxiliaries from having families, it did not have to recognize them.
Hadrian clearly recognizes that the children of soldiers was significant enough to warrant a shift in away from to\ au)stero/teron u(po tw=n pro\ [Hadrian] Au)tokrato/rwn staqe\n, a harshness of Augustus that his successors had, as with many other elements of his policy, maintained. Clearly the number of soldiers with children was sufficient enough to have gotten Hadrian‟s attention. His decision reflects the importance of family among his troops, in whose good graces, despite the emperor‟s apparent modesty, it was wise to stay.
VII. Women inside and outside the forts: archaeology and epigraphy
Military diplomas alone sufficiently demonstrate that women and children were a feature of daily life in frontier contexts, and clearly lower-ranking auxiliaries shared with fellow soldiers of higher ranks the widely tolerated ability to maintain a family while still serving in the army. This topic has received further attention in a recent archaeological study, namely Allison‟s catalogue of „gendered‟ artifacts at Ellingen, which attempted to identify women within the walls of the fort.51 The archaeology of this site, as will be shown later, can be given further context when discussed alongside auxiliary family data preserved in the military diploma record.
Nestled on the frontier of Roman Germany near Weissenberg, Ellingen (whose ancient name is currently unattested) has been the subject of extensive excavation.52 Built near the end of the 2nd cent. CE, it covered only 0.7 ha, small even for an auxiliary fort in Germania.53
It is well known that commanders and officers could bring their families with them on campaign; Germanicus, Agrippina and Gaius in his little boots are perhaps the most famous
51 Allison 2006. 52 The standard study of the fort is Zanier 1992, which includes a thorough inventory of the site‟s archaeological finds. 53 For surveys of auxiliary forts in Germania, see Schönberger 1969 and 1985.
84 example,54 but the Vindolanda tablets also contain numerous private correspondences from the wife of the prefect of the coh. VIIII Batavorum. The discovery at Ellingen of well preserved perinatal remains invites further discussion of this topic.55 Given the low number of well excavated forts, this is not a question which archaeology alone can answer in a fully quantitative manner. Although the same problems of quantification apply to the surviving corpora of diplomas and epigraphy, the Ellingen remains should be evaluated alongside these sources. An interdisciplinary approach to the evidence will yield the best possible illustration of how the Ellingen remains relate to more general trends in the family practice and structures of the auxilia, also regarding infant mortality.
The extent to which women were permitted inside the walls of a fort is discussed in Phang‟s study, which dealt in detail with a particularly relevant aspect of current research on auxiliary soldiers, namely the illegal but widely tolerated phenomenon of marriage among Roman soldiers from the time of Augustus to the lifting of the ban in 197 by Severus. Phang, however, was circumspect regarding the possibility of women living inside Roman forts:56 The archaeological evidence suggests that some women were occasionally present in the barracks, but we know nothing about the origin, status or occupation of the women… were the women prostitutes, as at Numantia in 134 BC (Appian, Iber. 85; [Frontinus] Strat. 4.1.1)? Were the women the soldiers‟ “wives”, some soldiers being allowed to “live with” their wives before Severus (Herodian 3.8.5)? Perhaps the women were slave women, of low enough status to be ignored, as native Asian concubines were tolerated in Dutch Indonesia…. It seems improbable that cohabitation in the barracks can have been allowed on a large scale; it would suggest that units were not kept up to strength, unless some soldiers, “married” or not, were lodged elsewhere.”
This approach owes more to modern military practices than to ancient evidence, as modern military historians read back into antiquity the military practices of their own day. Allison proposed a different model. Using GIS mapping techniques, she classified various artifacts excavated and catalogued from three forts in Germany according to the likely gender of
54 Suet. Cal. 9.1 and, famously, Tac. Ann. 1.41: Augusti avi memoria, socer Drusus, ipsa insigni fecunditate, praeclara pudicitia; iam infans in castris genitus, in contubernio legionum eductus, quem militari vocabulo Caligulam appellabant, quia plerumque ad concilianda vulgi studia eo tegmine pedum induebatur, but see also Ann. 1.69: id Tiberii animum altius penetravit: non enim simplicis eas curas, nec adversus externos
85 its ancient user, a process which she called “engendering.” Allison‟s approach is concerned primarily with ascertaining the ownership and function of archaeological remains like brooches and spindle-whorls. Phang had noted the difficulties involved in assigning ownership to objects discovered in a military context, and the methodology of Allison‟s later work has been criticized.57 Soldiers did not need a wife to fasten their brooches, and other menial tasks could be performed by them, their slaves, or by lixae attached to the fort.58 The work of both scholars, however, invites more investigation into the role of women, and soldiers‟ wives within the auxiliary fort context. The most unambiguous evidence for such women – and their children – is in the epigraphic record.
The evidence for officers‟ wives living inside Roman forts, including centurions and decurions in the auxilia, is extensive, and has been recently surveyed by Hassall.59 Allison and Phang are both concerned with the possibility that this privilege was not limited strictly to the officer class, but also involved common soldiers. Here it becomes relevant to include Roxan‟s analysis of the epigraphic record of women in military contexts60 Although she is not able to shed more light on the question of where women who accompanied auxiliary soldiers lived, she does marshall evidence for firm ties between these soldiers and their male companions.
In the inscriptions collected by Roxan61 spanning the 1st – 3rd centuries, in the case of monuments set up by serving auxiliary soldiers or their wives, coniunx appears 45 times, uxor 11 times, matrona 1 time, maritus/a 5 times, sponsa eius 1 time, hospita 1 time, liberta 7 times, vir / suus 4 times. In the case of monuments from the same time period set up by auxiliary veterans or their wives, coniunx appears 36 times, uxor 8 times, maritus/a 8 times, conpar 1 time, liberta et coniunx 3 times, liberta 5 times, vir / suus / eius 3 times. Despite the small sample,62 the variety of terms employed offers useful hints to the families created in these military contexts. The appropriation of coniunx – again, sensu stricto illegally – is noteworthy, since this term, along with uxor, is the most common term for wife in most other contexts. This tendency to commemorate a coniunx and uxor provides a useful insight into these relationships as they were
57 Several responses were published in the same issue of Archeological Dialogues in which Allison‟s paper was published. 58 Phang 2001: 127-128. 59 Hassall 1999: 35-39. 60 Roxan 1991. 61 For references, see Roxan 1991. 62 Texts on perishable materials such as wood have obviously not been preserved, as pointed out by Serrati 2005.
86 viewed by the participants, as opposed to their Roman legal definition. One supposes that the wives were of different backgound, some may have been local, and some foreign peregrine women; while some soldiers may have married their freedwomen, a practice well attested in numerous civilian contexts.
VIII. Children, exposure and infanticide
When discussing what the presence or absence of children of Roman auxiliary soldiers in our evidence can tell us about the formation of families, the question of child exposure and infanticide becomes important.63 Although child exposure is generally accepted as being a widespread phenomenon in the Roman world,64 the extent to which various ranks of soldiers practiced it is debatable. There were no laws against Roman soldiers having children, only against their marriage, and even then only after enlistment.65 The Ellingen remains are a vivid reminder that a soldier‟s mind at a Roman fort was not solely focused on military matters, although “marriage” might reasonably be assumed not to have been desired by all auxiliary troops. Thus, when assessing soldier‟s families, scholars often point to what is termed “military culture,” the consequences of which were numerous abandoned women, children and broken hearts. This approach has been the subject of recent criticism by Phang, who notes that this is a long-standing tradition in the scholarship dating to Otto Seeck‟s conclusions that infanticide in the army was a common phenomenon.66 Seeck‟s interpretations derived from a questionable interpretation of Tacitus Ann. 14.27, in reference to soldiers who are neque coniugis suscipiendis
63 For a summary of research on this topic, “one of the most emotive and debated topics in the Greco-Roman world,” see Phang 2001: 296-305, esp. 296-297 nn. 1-3. 64 Phang 2001: 296 n.1 observes that the scope of child-exposure in the Roman period is less hotly debated than in the Classical period of Greek history. Roman historians are in broad agreement that this practice was common and widespread, as argued by W. Harris in a well-known paper (Harris 1994). This was partly a consequence of high birth rates, since ancient methods of contraception were ineffective (Harris 1994: 57-58, Phang 2001: 296 n. 2). There is debate, however, as to whether the majority of exposed children were enslaved (Harris 1994 and Harris 1999), rescued (Boswell 1984: 1988: 42-43, 128-131) or simply died (Phang 2001: 297, noting the significance of the miraculous rescue of the exposed infant in many ancient myths). 65 Hassall 1999. 66 Seeck 1893: 620.
87 neque alendis liberis sueti.67 Phang‟s observations are valid, although susceptible to overgeneralization. Ellingen played host not to Roman legionaries, who were the subject of Tacitus‟ remark, but to auxiliaries, many of whom belonged to provincial ethnic groups, and who were perhaps less eager to practice infanticide for cultural reasons.68
Without unambiguous evidence of the history of the fort‟s garrison, it is pointless to speculate on the degree of ethnic diversity which might have existed in the garrison community. In general, the list of 69 diplomas presented and discussed above illustrates the ethnic diversity of the auxilia, a fact also well attested in the epigraphic record. Birley‟s study of the personnel at Vindolanda revealed a collection of names deriving from Greek, Latin, Celtic and Germanic origins.69 Even though it is difficult to pinpoint exact places of origin from names alone – the Celtic names may belong to local Britons or to Celts from the Continent, for example70 – the continued presence of peregrines bearing non-Roman names in the auxilia remained a common feature of the lower ranking personnel of this section of the army well into the second century. Of course Roman citizens too could serve in auxiliary units, but even auxiliary units that were originally restricted to Roman citizens admitted peregrines, such as Liccaius Vinentis f. and Valens Iangali f., both serving in the coh. III Campestrorum stationed in Moesia and Dacia.71
Thus, the peregrine factor should not be dismissed when discussing attitudes to exposure and infanticide; it would be a mistake to assume that all Roman soldiers, regardless of rank, status or citizenship had the same cultural view of family structure. With the auxilia, where one unit could bring together recruits from several ethnic groups, one might expect greater diversity in family structure. The lack of wives named on many auxiliary tombstones is one example; regional variation, as recently observed by Serrati,72 could account for a great many absences, particularly in the case of soldiers who were not, under Roman law, married, and many
67 As Phang 2001: 298 n. 8 observes, “[Seeck] assumes a modern-European degree of prejudice against bastards.” 68 Ellingen‟s occupation history is not well documented; it is impossible to be exact about the ethnic character of its auxiliary garrison. 69 A. Birley 2001a. 70 The dichotomy is well illustrated by an inscription of the coh. IIII Gallorum from Vindolanda, mentioning cives Galli and cives Britanni (see ch. 4.IV.ii). 71 Liccaius was beneficiarius tribuni militum (AE 1897, 93), while Valens, a miles, (CIL 3, 7289), was buried in Athens where perhaps, as Spaul suggests (2000: 31), he died while on detached service. On the personnel serving in so-called “citizen cohorts” see M. P. Speidel 1984: 91-100. 72 See n. 62 in this chapter.
88 tombstones from Germania, as Roxan demonstrated,73 name other family members besides a wife.
There are few sources about family practice among peregrines, including evidence for exposure and infanticide. In addition, evidence for these practices is invariably filtered through the medium of Roman historians, whose claims may owe more to ethnographic conventions than to close study of foreign cultures. Tacitus‟ claim that the Germani were less willing to expose infants is a good example of this interpretative ambiguity, since the Germans supposed concern for family is explicitly contrasted with Roman practice.74 This approach is a hallmark of Tacitus‟ style, and of ethnographic approaches generally, of which Caesar‟s famous excursus about the customs of the Germani in the Gallic War is only the most obvious comparandum.75
To this debate auxiliary military diplomas can make a useful contribution. Roxan did not use military diplomas in her 1989 study, which was based on stone inscriptions; she argued that that diploma evidence must be read in conjunction with the stone epigraphic record.76 This is certainly so, and has been reiterated by Derks and Roymans more recently,77 and with a recent upsurge in the publication of diplomas, and given the wealth of specific detail which they can provide about the families of auxiliary soldiers spanning low ranks to officers, this material merits fresh assessment. In Diploma Table 1 all diplomas published up to 2008 that preserved evidence for a child were provided.78 These data are summarized in three tables below, recording
73 Roxan 1991.
74 Tac. Germ. 19 (cf. Rives 1999 comm. ad loc.): numerum liberorum finire aut quemquam ex agnatis necare flagitium habetur, plusque ibi boni mores valent quam alibi (i.e. among the Romans) bonae leges (i.e. the lex Papia Poppaea). 75 Caes. BG 6.14-28, contrasting the Germani with the Gauls; cf. Harris 1994, 7 n. 50 for other examples of cultural digression regarding the family practices of foreign peoples: Jews and agnati (Tac. Hist. 5.5), Diodorus 1.80.3; 40.3.8 = Hecataeus Abd., FGrH 264 F6 (Egyptians raise all young). 76 Roxan 1991 (in Limes 1991). 77 Derks and Roymans 2006. 78 Diploma publication has continued, with important evidence published especially in ZPE and Chiron by Eck and Pangerl. These will likely be included in future volumes of RMD. In Chiron 2008 Weiss published 16 diplomas for Moesia, all of which are too fragmentary to provide any information for their recipients‟ wives and/or children. In the same journal Eck and Pangerl (2008) published another 3 diplomas for veterans of Moesia and 17 for veterans of Moesia Superior. Of these 36 diplomas, the following preserved information about children: Eck and Pangerl Chiron 2008: nos. (1), (2) and (10). (1) was issued on 8 May 100 CE to Aulusenus Densetralis f. of the Bessi, a Thracian tribe; he had one son, Densetralis, obviously named after his grandfather. On May 16, 101 CE (Eck and Pangerl Chiron 2008 (2)) was issued to Ciagitsa Sitae f., another Bessan, and mentions three male offspring, Valens, Valerius, and Sabinus. His name is cognate with Clagissa (CIL 16, 83). Eck and Pangerl Chiron 2008 (10) was issued in 115 to L. Iulius L. f. Claudianus, who had a son Iulius and a daughter Domnina. As he had served in the ala praetoria singularium on Trajan‟s Parthian campaign, he may have received citizenship upon enlistment; the
89
(a) definite instances of female offspring listed on military diplomas, (b) definite instances of male-only offspring listed on diplomas, (c) definite instances of female-only offspring listed on diplomas and and (d) diplomas that may or must have listed a child or children, but are too fragmentary to be listed in (a)-(c). (a) Diplomas that attest both genders among offspring. Numbers in the left-hand column correspond to Diploma Table 1 provided above.
Definite Female Offspring / “Wife” Total Offspring recorded?
1.1 (1/3) Yes
1.2 (3/4) No
1.3 (1/2) Yes
1.10 (1/4) Yes
1.11 (2/3) Yes
1.18 (1/3) No
1.21 (2/4) Yes
1.22 (2/5) No
1.23 (2/3) No
1.24 (1/3) Yes
1.27 (1/2) Yes
1.30 (3/4) No
1.31 (2/4) No
1.32 (1/2) Yes
1.33 (1-2/5) Yes
1.34 (1/6) Yes
tria nomina indicate that he was either a Latin or a Roman citizen. It seems odd that his daughter does not bear a name derived from her father‟s gentilicium; perhaps this is a Latin form of an individual peregrine name; following her father‟s receipt of his privileges, her formal „Roman‟ name would perhaps have been Iulia Domnina. Also noteworthy are four diplomas including soldiers‟ siblings and parents in their privileges: RMD 19, RMD 357, ZPE 165: 213-218; ZPE 166: 276-284. This, however, was a unique special grant (ante emerita stipendia) made by Hadrian to the troops of the ala Ulpia contariorum based in Dacia.
90
1.38 (2/5) Yes
1.40 (1/5) Yes
1.41 (2/6) No
1.42 (1-2/3) No
1.43 (1-2/5) No
1.46 (1-2/3) No
1.48 (2/4) Yes
1.51 (1/2) No
1.55 (2/6) No
1.59 (1/5) No
1.60 (2/6) No
1.68 (1-2/4) No
Total: 42-47 females / 69- Yes: 13, No: 15, 64 males in 28 families ?: 0
(b) Diplomas that attest male-only offspring
(Total Offspring) Wife recorded?
1.4 (1) Yes
1.5 (1) No
1.6 (1) No
1.9 (1) No
1.12 (1) Yes
1.14 (2-3) ?
1.16 (2) Yes
1.17 (1) Yes
1.19 (3) No
91
1.20 (1) No
1.36 (1) Yes
1.37 (1) Yes
1.39 (1) No
1.52 (2) No
1.54 (1) No
1.57 (2) No
1.58 (2) No
1.61 (1) No
1.63 (3) No
Total: 28-29 males in 19 Yes: 6; No: 12; families ?: 1
(c) Diplomas that attest female only offspring
(Total Offspring) Wife recorded?
1.8 (2) Yes
1.13 (1) Yes
1.25 (1) No
1.26 (1) Yes
1.28 (1) Yes
1.44 (1) Yes
1.50 (2) No
Total: 9 females in 7 Yes: 5, No: 2, families ?: 0
92
(d) Fragmentary diploma records of auxiliary families; genders provided when known
(Total Offspring) Wife recorded?
1.7 (1) ?
1.15 (1?; may be “wife”) ?
1.29 (3) Yes
1.45 (2) Yes
1.47 (2, including 1 male) No
1.49 (2, including 1 female) Yes
1.53 (1?; may be “wife”) ?
1.56 (2, including 1 female) Yes
1.62 (2, including 1 male) Yes
1.64 (2, including 1 male) Yes
1.65 (1) No
1.66 (4, including 3 males) ?
1.67 (2, including 1 male) No
1.69 (2) ?
1.70 (1) No
1.71 (2) No
1.72 (x ≥ 1) ?
Total: x ≥ 31, including 6 Yes: 6, No: 5, males, 2-4 females in 17 ?: 6 families
As copies of legal documents, diplomas are formulaic, and, although the wording of the formula was altered in various ways at various times, the structure of these documents remained largely the same.79 The one major exception is a change which happened in 140, after which
79 One of the privileges granted by the Roman emperor was conubium – the right of legal Roman marriage. “Wives” did not get Roman citizenship. The soldier could use this conubium for one woman, with whom he currently had a relationship (cum uxoribus quas tunc habuissent), but this grant of conubium was granted also to all „unmarried‟ soldiers (caelibes), each of whom could form a legal marriage with the first woman whom he subsequently married.
93 children were no longer included in auxiliary diplomas, except in the case of junior officers like centurions and decurions.
If Roman “military culture” also involved common infant exposure, and if that exposure was biased specifically against females, one might expect to observe this trend in the auxiliary diplomas. As mentioned above (in 2.IV), it is commonly held that military diplomas which mention a family constitute a very small proportion of the total. The argument that auxiliary families were statistically infrequent, based on diploma records is, however, weak. All diplomas published in major collections to date (CIL 16 and its supplement, five volumes of RMD, one volume of RGZM) total 710, of which 69 clearly attest the presence of auxiliary soldiers‟ children. However, once all non-auxiliary diplomas are excluded (i.e. diplomas issued to praetorians, the urban cohorts, seamen, the equites singulares Augusti) this total is reduced; it is further reduced by the exclusion of diploma fragments too incomplete to permit the reconstruction of any information about the recipient and/ or any possible family members.80 The total number, with which diplomas citing children are compared, must necessarily be reduced further, since all post-140 diplomas should be excluded, as they under no circumstances can preserve any information about children. Ultimately, the percentage of pre-140 auxiliary diplomas that preserve information about children is 69/222, or 31%.81 Another 38 diplomas may be either auxiliary or fleet diplomas, but are too fragmentary to provide a definitive identification. Even if all were issued to auxiliaries, the total increases only to 69/260 (27%); it therefore seems prudent to estimate that around 30% of extant pre-140 military diplomas issued to auxiliary soldiers attested a family. This is a significant figure, very different from the one commonly cited in the scholarly debate. The evidence from military diplomas clearly does not support the notion that auxiliary soldiers tended not to maintain family ties.
Tables (a) – (d) demonstrate that boys and girls are not equally well represented in the auxiliary families. Leaving aside table (d), which contains uncertain cases, it turns out that 19 families attest male-only offspring, while only 7 families have exclusively female offspring. The
If a soldier were to divorce and attempt to remarry, any future bride, if peregrine, would be unable to enter into a legal Roman marriage. 80 Occasionally even tiny fragments can yield useful evidence for an auxiliary family, based on the presence of the abbreviation fil(io / ia). associated with „wives‟ and children, so caution must be exercised when evaluating diploma fragments for demographic purposes. 81 Pre-140 diplomas, by collection: CIL: 102; RMD: 261; RGZM: 16. Possibly auxiliary, by collection: CIL: 9, RMD 28, RGZM: 1.
94 total number of children, all families (a)-(c) included, is 92-98 boys and 51-56 girls. This results in a ratio of almost 2 males for every female, which clearly cannot reflect a natural demographic situation.
Roxan suggested that the gender gap separating boys from girls in the epigraphic record could be partially explained by marriage: by the time the auxiliary completed 25 years of service, many children would have come of age. If these were daughters, then they were probably already married off, and “would no longer be his legal responsibility; indeed under Roman law he might well not be allowed to name them on diplomata.”82 This is an important contribution to our understanding of the data, and may explain at least part of the inequality in the gender distribution among children. Yet it is warranted to continue our discussion of the evidence, and bring in the question of ethnicity.
IX. Gender Imbalance and „Romanization‟
The diploma tables provided in this chapter (see sections 2.III-IV) include a column for family classification. Families are classified based on the onomastic trends observable in the soldier‟s offspring. Children‟s names on diplomas are the names that they bore as peregrini, so the incidence of Roman names and peregrine names is also significant as an index of Roman cultural influence. The designation M (mixed) refers to onomastic evidence for the mingling of individuals bearing Roman and peregrine names. The benefit of this approach is that it will clearly demarcate, when sufficient information has been preserved, cultural backgrounds. Auxiliary families of two peregrine parents and children with both peregrine and Roman- influenced names provide vivid examples of a fundamental transitional experience clearly facilitated by the cultural impact of auxiliary service in the provinces.
Children are listed in the sequence that they appear on the diplomas, i.e. males first, in order of birth, and females second, in order of birth. Table 1.22 (above, pp. 61-62) gives a likely indication of this arrangement, for the fifth name is Quinta, “Fifth,” which may be owed to the
82 Roxan 1991.
95 status of being the youngest child of five. She and her sister have Roman names; two of her brothers do not.
A perceptible gender gap among some families preserved on military diplomas raises questions about child exposure in auxiliary contexts. As noted earlier (above, p. 93) Roxan suggested that many female children would have reached adulthood by the time their father completed his 25 years of service; presumably they would have already been married by that time and not eligible for inclusion in the diploma. Evidence of female infant exposure may be found in incidents of families with only one male child or, on the other extreme, families with a large number of children, few or none of which are female.
12 of the 19 entries in table (b) on pp. 90-91 above attest just 1 male. Most of these “only” children bore Roman names, although even a „Roman‟ name could be used to express ethnic identity. A notable example of this is Dacius, the son of a Dacian soldier (1.36), whose name is clearly based on the Latin Dacus. These one-child fathers seem likely candidates for potential expositors of unwanted infants. In families where females are present, the reverse trend is evident. Table (c) on p. 91 attests 5 cases where only 1 daughter was listed on a diploma, and two cases of multiple daughters. Moreover, table (a) on pp. 89-90 provides another 27 families that included offspring of both genders; of these, 12 certainly included multiple females, with another 4 possible cases of multiple female offspring.83 As noted above, scholars have generally assumed a high rate of female exposure in the ancient world. For example, Brulé argued that an arresting 65.9% of female children may have been exposed among the Greek populations of Hellenistic Miletus and Ilion. The statistic, derived from registration lists of new citizens, surely gives a false sense of accuracy and is of dubious applicability to the practices of Roman auxiliary soldiers who came from much more diverse origins.84 Yet in general there is the suspicion that exposure of females must have been widely practiced. There is no reason to assume that an
83 In all cases it is impossible to account for any children who may have been reared but simply died in childhood. 84 Brulé 1990: 242-244. His sample, derived from lists of citizen registration, includes all social strata of Hellenistic Miletus and Ilion from the late third-second centuries BCE; even if his statistical analysis were accurate, one cannot extrapolate later auxiliary practices from such the specific cultural context of Brulé‟s analysis. Brulé‟s statistic is by his own admission (244) an estimate, and other authors are more cautious about extrapolating general cultural practices among Greek cities from this evidence; see Phang 2001: 297 n. 4 on this controversy, and also Phang 2001: 298 n. 10, “[b]ecause they commemorate enfranchisements, they are not an unbiased source.” Moreover, the number of sons recorded on the Milesian citizen lists may be artificially inflated, since families would have retained sons longer than daughters, many of whom would have been married early in their adolescence (cf. Phang 2001: 303).
96 auxiliary soldier would not elect to commit an act which was legal under Roman law but possibly proscribed by his own ethnic cultural norm. Nevertheless, the number of auxiliary families that include females outnumbers the number of male-only families significantly, demonstrating that the exposure of females was practiced by a minority of those auxiliaries for whom the creation of a family was important.
The lack of wives attested on diplomas adds another factor, for of the single male children, only 5 had mothers included on their father‟s diploma. This absence is a further problem for which the evidence provides no easy solution. Half of the auxiliary families recorded on diplomas lack wives. Either the child‟s mother was dead or not recognized by the father, although, in cases where the latter circumstance is the case, the father was not reluctant to claim the son as his own. Significantly, in some cases the sole child could be female, and the diplomas would not apply to girls who had already married by the time their father received his diploma (in which case she would fall under the potestas of her husband),85 but the overall trend for one-child families in the diplomas seems prejudiced toward males. Such families are not the majority, however, of attested auxiliary families, and the diploma evidence attests several examples of large numbers of children of both genders.
As the evidence shows, simply counting the number of male children and comparing it to the number of female children does not tell the entire truth; family size must also be taken into account.86 Auxiliary soldiers claimed multiple children frequently. The largest families attested list 6 offspring and another 6 families contain 5 children. In the case of large families girls are underrepresented, but this need not be due to child exposure. Large auxiliary families have been cited by Wolff as a possible indication of fraud, perhaps leading to the eventual cancellation of this privilege for auxiliary soldiers.87 In addition, it should be reiterated that large families such as these are what demographers expect from ancient families, given the unreliability of contraceptives.88 Girls are well represented in families that number 2-4 offspring, and of the
85 Roxan 1986. 86 Phang 2001: 300-302 focuses on the sex ratio, ignoring the evidence of large families and gender distribution, particularly on the diplomas. 87 Wolff 1974. 88 Riddle 1992 argued that certain plants were effective contraceptives and abortifacients, but was attacked by Harris 1994: 57-58 and Frier 1994: 318-333; see Phang 2001: 296 n. 2 for references. The legality of infant exposure will have obviated the fears of parents regarding unwanted children but not the risk of the mother‟s death during labour.
97 cases where more than one child is recorded, only 7 list no girls.89 Thus the diploma evidence indicates that auxiliary soldiers could support large families if they chose to do so, and that these large families could include girls. An absence of daughters in diplomas was attributable, as Phang argued, to “social roles [where] sons commemorate soldier fathers because sons carry on the family name; sons appear more often in the diplomas because the Roman citizenship is traditionally associated with military service and political participation, from which women were excluded.”90 However, the current diploma evidence implies a more complex picture, with more daughters in onomastically diverse families, reflecting both ancient social norms (large families or small, predominantly male one-child families) and the „Romanizing‟ effect of military service. Families could be mixed, particularly in regard to children, in regard to „Roman‟ and peregrine names, further demonstrating the point of transition which „Romanization‟ as a cultural process represents.
„Mixed‟ families, as designated in the above tables, therefore should not be interpreted as „resisting‟ Roman culture, but rather as indicative of the dynamic process of cultural change gradually effected by their father‟s auxiliary service.
X. The change of 140 CE: A shift in imperial policy
Along with the low incidence of „wives‟ attested on diplomas, a feature of the diploma records of Germania and Britannia particularly, one of the most significant interpretative puzzles posed by military diplomas is provided by an alteration in the document‟s formula regarding citizenship privileges granted to children ca. 140 CE. By this time some very large families are preserved by military diplomas. Until this date the diploma formula adhered to the construction Imperator … eis … qui militaverunt in .. ipsis posterisque eorum civitatem dedit et conubium cum uxoribus quas tunc habuissent aut, si qui caelibes essent, cum iis, quas postea duxissent dumtaxat sunguli singulas …. “The emperor x … has given citizenship to those … who served in (unit), to their children and their descendants and right of marriage with their wives whom they
89 See table (b) on p. 89 above. 90 Phang 2001: 302.
98 then had, or, if any were unmarried, with those whom they married later, one man to one woman”. After 140 CE the phrases ipsis posterisque and si qui caelibes essent were removed and the formula rewritten as Imperator … (eis) qui militaverunt in … civitatem Romanam, qui eorum non haberent, dedit et conubium cum uxoribus, quas tunc habuissent, cum est civitas iis data, aut cum iis quas postea duxissent dumtaxat singuli singulas. “The emperor… has given Roman citizenship to (those)91 who served in (units), who of them did not have it, and the right of marriage with their wives whom they then had when the citizenship was given to them, or with those whom they married later, one man to one woman.” As the purpose of this chapter is to evaluate what the military diplomas can tell us about the integration and acculturation of auxiliary soldiers in the Roman state and about the imperial policy in this regard, it is clear that this event needs to be assessed.
This simple change of 140 CE has been the subject of scholarly debate since Cheesman, who assessed it as a “curiously retrograde” act,92 expressing puzzlement at the elimination of children from inclusion in their fathers‟ privileges. More recent treatments of the change have variously understood is as a measure to eliminate fraudulent cases in which bogus “children” were offered by the veteran for inclusion in his privileges, or scholars have argued that it was designed to encourage the children of auxiliaries to enroll in auxiliary units. Most recently, Weiss has focused on the personality of Antoninus Pius, the emperor under whom the change was effected, arguing that the change reflects an aspect of his policy – aequitas – and is part of a larger political campaign that highlighted images of marriage during his regime.93
Wolff‟s „fraudulent children‟ argument rests on the evidence for large families included in military diplomas. The inclusion of large families in diploma grants, however, cannot be clearly demonstrated to be fraudulent in any specific case, and the presence of significant numbers of female offspring among the large families of 5 or more children is a telling statistic against the proposition that these are bogus families. Surveying previous treatments of the 140 change,94 Phang noted that the recruitment theory is generally the more popular one. This argument assumes that there was a clear recognition by the imperial authorities that auxiliary
91 Typically the terms for cavalry and infantry were used: equitibus et peditibus. 92 Cheesman 1914: 34. 93 Weiss 2008, esp. 30-37. 94 Phang 2001: 76.
99 soldiers were supporting families of sufficiently significant numbers to be effective sources of military recruitment.
However, this interpretation has been criticized on the basis that the „internal replacement‟ of army personnel, i.e. exclusive recruitment from within military families and communities, was simply insufficient to compensate for losses caused by desertion, death, disease or retirement. Phang in particular has demonstrated the continuing need for other sources of recruitment during the imperial era.95 As has been demonstrated, diploma evidence particularly bears out the fact that auxiliary families could be very large, and there is clear evidence that traditions of military service were established in many cases, particularly in contexts where a single ethnic group experienced a prolonged period of service in a given location. Enfranchised children could serve either as auxiliaries or legionaries, helping to fill gaps in all military classes. Such children would often bear the origo castris (“from the camp”). While pre-140 diplomas do not mention the origines of children, they must have been born during the recipient‟s time of service and would have borne this designation.96
The arguments articulated against internal replacement have been effectively made by Phang and others.97 It is obvious, for example, that Augustus “by no means intended to create or even encourage … a hereditary army,”98 since such a policy must assume both a low mortality of serving troops and a high percentage of family creation among the troops to produce enough illegitimate male offspring to meet the army‟s recruiting needs. This approach, as a general interpretation, has effectively been demonstrated to be false. One should not deny, however, that multi-generational military service was a visible phenomenon that created close attachments of soldiers‟ families to their forts and vici – a phenomenon that will be explored in future chapters more closely. Along with other sources of recruitment, a limited phenomenon of internal replacement could provide useful recruits, since soldiers‟ sons, having grown up around forts, could reasonably be assumed to have acquired a familiarity with military routine. The propensity of peregrine auxiliaries to give Roman names to their children, a phenomenon that increases steadily until the change of 140, can be seen in this light. By removing the citizenship grant from
95 Phang 2001: 337-342. 96 On origines as recorded on diplomas, see Mirković 2007: 327. 97 Phang 2001: 326-337, and 329 n. 9 with references to previous critiques, accepted by both specialist works on diplomas and generalist treatments of the Roman army. 98 Carrié 1993: 108.
100 auxiliary soldiers‟ children, a valuable pool of potential new recruits, who required less basic training or guidance to military life, was created.
Certainly there was no shortage of new peregrine recruits, as can be seen from military diplomas which continued to be issued to auxiliary soldiers for another 63 years after the change.99 By 140 CE, unlike in Augustus‟ time, auxiliary ranks and provincial populations had more „Romanized‟ people, both in terms of names and familiarity with the army and, in Britain and Germany in particular, familiarity with auxiliary service. Removing this privilege thus did not evoke widespread outrage and encouraged continuing recruitment among auxiliaries, as there is no single recorded event of military unrest that can be linked to it; the change is so called only on the basis of the diploma record.
The arguments discussed so far have essentially viewed the 140 change as an event motivated by actions among the auxilia, but Weiss has sought an answer to the problem by focusing instead on the personality and policy of the emperor who granted the privileges, and concludes that the change in 140 CE should be understood as a manifestation of Pius‟ conservative Roman views, especially concerning marriage. In 138 the diploma formulae underwent a brief change (changes in bold type):
Previous: civitatem dedit et conubium cum uxoribus, quas tunc habuissent, cum est civitas iis data, aut si qui caelibes essent cum iis, quas postea duxissent.
28 February 138 CE100: civitatem dedit et conubium cum uxoribus, quas nunc habent, cum civitas iis datur, aut si qui caelibes sunt cum iis, quas postea duxerint.
This change was ephemeral; by 139 the previous diploma formula was again in use, since the privilege itself was not altered by the change in wording. Weiss suggests that this first change was likely not suggested by Hadrian, who was then gravely ill and who had not, in any case, proposed anything similar hitherto during his reign. Pius, however, had clearly been designated Hadrian‟s successor by this time, and had been proclaimed as such in January of 138 to leading senators.101
99 As noted in chapter 1. 100 CIL 16, 8; RMD 253. 101 Weiss 2008: 31-32 n. 105; cf. Dio 69.20.1, SHA Hadr. 26.6, Pius 4.4.
101
Whether or not one accepts the suggestion that these early changes were motivated by Pius during the last days of Hadrian‟s life, the more substantial change of 140 must have been approved, if not suggested, by the emperor. Cheesman had been puzzled by the change in 140 partly because it was not congruous with the image of the emperor as a patron of an army that had a long tradition of spreading Roman culture in the provinces. Weiss‟ treatment of Pius views the emperor‟s approach to the army differently, as a conservative aristocrat concerned with fairness (aequitas). This is a variation on a theory that the auxiliary discharge privileges were too generous and a relic of earlier generations when the loyalty of peregrine units was suspect. Striking examples of the shaky fides of first century auxiliary units abound: the famous Batavian revolt of 69-70 CE included eight units from the Batavi alone, while another unit conscripted on the Rhine, the coh. Usiporum, was recorded by Tacitus as rebelling soon after its transfer to Britannia.102
After 140, children could only be included in an auxiliary veteran‟s privileges if they were born prior to their father‟s enlistment, or if their father was a centurion or decurion. Their children by concubines – since no „marriage‟ ceremonies, peregrine or otherwise, between a serving soldier and a woman were recognized by the state – could not be considered liberi (“freeborn children”). Instead, these children could only be biological children (filii). One diploma, RMD 39 (December 140 CE), contains two versions: the post-140 version inscribed on the outer face, and another version including the phrase ipsis liberis posterisque. This diploma preserves a striking example of a bureaucracy in transition, and illustrates the careful choice of terminology used in diploma texts. Soldiers in other ranks who remained eligible for inclusion of children in their privileges were given Latin citizenship upon enlistment: namely recruits to the navy, the horseguards (equites singulares Augusti) and the Praetorian cohorts. Auxiliary recruits at this time would have held either peregrine or Latin status, as would their „wives.‟ Legally, however, liberi were the offspring of a Roman citizen father who was married, i.e. in a relationship where conubium applied. Weiss‟ approach assumes that the status of being a Roman citizen was not, in Pius‟ view, one which could be retroactively conferred either on the father or the children.
102 Tac. Hist. 1. 59. On the Usipi (i.e. Usipetes), see Tac. Agr. 28.
102
Although some aspects of his reconstruction are doubtlful, Weiss‟ argument is generally compelling.103 Throughout the history of military diplomas one aspect remained consistent: the direct role of the emperor in granting the veteran‟s privileges. Diplomas were only copies of imperial constitutiones, and Pius‟ reform eliminates the legal question of whether status can be granted retroactively. Although auxiliary units by this time almost equaled the legions in total manpower, Pius could make this change without fearing any serious discontent among the auxilia. By 140 the processes of „Romanization‟ evident in the auxiliary families discussed in this chapter demonstrates that auxiliary units had clearly changed: their peregrine elements were less pronounced, or if they were, they were drawn from various ethnic groups. In this respect Eck has observed that the changes of 140 also reflect Antoninus‟ attention to the concept of disciplina militaris.104 Aequitas and disciplina would naturally encourage concordia among the various ranks of the army, a concordia that, as Weiss observed, is evident in Pius‟ presentation of his own marriage‟s insignis concordia.105 The 140 change indicates that the auxiliary peregrine paradigm of the first century had shifted.
While the argument from imperial ideology, as noted above, cannot in every respect be proven, it provides a compelling solution to the puzzle of the 140 change. Moreover, it also allows for the possibility that recruitment among families was a factor. Pius‟ legalistic definition of Roman citizenship, now applied evenly to all ranks of the Roman army, meant that auxiliary children of either Latin or peregrine status would have an equal incentive to enlist in their father‟s units in order to obtain the status of Roman citizenship. While not a solution to the army‟s recruitment needs, this group provided an experienced base of recruits who were thoroughly familiar with army life. Numerous peregrine recruits, largely – though not exlusively - from the Danubian provinces106 could still look forward to the reward of Roman citizenship, now explicitly stated in the formulae of post-140 diplomas. The application of imperial aequitas thus demonstrated the power, prestige, and moral authority of the auxiliaries‟ patron in unmistakeably Roman terms.
103 Weiss does not explain why the minor changes in 138 were so short-lived; it may be because these were initiated by Hadrian himself, despite Weiss‟ argument that Pius had directed this change. If Pius was responsible, it is not clear why the old formula‟s use was quickly reinstated. 104 Eck 2007b: esp. 90-91, 101-102. 105 Weiss 2008: 38-39. 106 Danubian recruitment as demonstrated from diplomas is the subject of Eck 2008 (FSHell in press). However, as eastern Europe has been the source of most recent diploma discoveries (for which see Weiss 2003), it is possible that Danubian recruits are overrepresented among the extant auxiliary personnel known from diploma records.
103
XI. Conclusion
From the evidence discussed in this chapter, it is possible to use the diplomas from Britain and Germany for writing history more broadly than one might prima facie assume. It has been shown, for instance, that auxiliaries were willing and able to maintain large gender-diverse families, which militates against an assumption, held in some ancient and modern sources, that soldiers were unwilling or unable to raise families: hence the two daughters of a diploma from Germania (DG 1; see section 2.II above) should not be seen as an anomaly.
In the auxiliary context, unrecognized marriages to women were a common sight, and not all marriages were local. Some ethnic groups maintained long traditions of service, and marriages of two members of the same tribe are preserved on some diploma records. DG 1, DG 2, and DG 3 all illustrate this type of ethnic marriage. Dating from the end of the first century or the early second century, they alone demonstrate that relationships were not necessarily limited to „local‟ women. Many more obviously were, and it seems likely that the Cornovian recipient of DB 4 retired to the Balkans because of personal ties to that area, most likely his place of service and, perhaps, the land where his wife was born. Only one of the families attested on the diplomas from these provinces can be fully classified as „peregrine‟ based on the information surviving [P] – DG 5, with perhaps DG 1. All cases, however, experienced „Romanization‟ in tangible respects, since the recipients and their families, of these and all diplomas, were transformed in the eyes of the state by the privileges granted by imperial decree, of which military diplomas were only a copy.
The overall study of military diplomas in this chapter demonstrates that auxiliary families were a much more frequent phenomenon than has been appreciated. Also, in studying these families it is possible to observe large, gender-diverse families. The significant presence of female offspring in diploma records provides an important rebuttal to the assumptions that auxiliary soldiers were reluctant to raise families and that they were reluctant to raise girls. Indeed, large families especially are fairly balanced in the case of children‟s gender. Examples of sole male offspring are present; these may reflect exposure or neglect of subsequent children. Nevertheless, they are a clear minority.
104
As the priviliges attested in military diplomas were granted by the emperor himself, these documents shed important light on the emperor‟s relationship with the army. This relationship had a long tradition that could be traced back to Caesar and Augustus, and the change in 140, which removed children from the grant of citizenship, should be seen as a manifestation both of the emperor‟s influence and the changing nature of auxiliary soldiers in the second century CE. By 140 military service had helped to spread Roman citizenship in the German and Danubian provinces particularly since Tiberius‟ lifetime, and diplomas themselves represent an innovation of an emperor, Claudius, that explicitly connected the rewards of service with loyalty to the princeps. Antoninus Pius, whose auxiliary units in 140 contained many more Latin and Roman citizens than Claudius‟ had, was in a position to impose his own concepts of citizenship and service on these ranks. One result was an ideological emphasis of the emperor‟s virtues of fairness and morality that, for a minority of auxiliaries, meant a redefinition of their own tradition. Another result was that auxiliary units might get some new recruits from the peregrine or Latin children of post-140 auxiliary veterans, though this was not, as has been argued, a primary motivation, for the diplomas also show that peregrines were receiving the emperor‟s privileges of honesta missio into the third century.107
107 The last extant auxiliary diploma was issued on Aug. 31, 203 CE (RMD 187). Two examples of shorter bronze „discharge certificates‟, issued not by the emperor but by the unit commander, date to 215 and 240 respectively. They record only honesta missio and no privileges, since after 212 CE none were required; see RMD vol. 4, “Appendix 1” (609-613). This may explain the sharp decline in diploma issues in the later second century. A larger number of Roman and Latin recruits (cf. e.g. CEL 140, discussed in ch. 4) may have reduced the need for diplomas, documents which must have been expensive, particularly if they were issued to all veterans (i.e. not on request; no evidence currently exists to confirm or disprove the notion that diplomas were “standard-issue”).
105
Chapter 3 The Two Germanies: Family, Religion and „Romanization‟
In this chapter I will analyze the evidence, mainly derived from epigraphic material, of auxiliary soldiers and their families known to have served in Roman Germany from the period of its initial conquest in 12 BCE until the promulgation of the constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE, a period of over two centuries. This significant period of time includes numerous Roman military campaigns both within the province and elsewhere. One such subsequent campaign, the conquest of Britannia, will constitute the opening of the following chapter.
The objective of this study is to trace the evolution of auxiliary diversity, both in terms of unit personnel and individuals‟ families and descendants. As such, my analysis focuses on three broad aspects of the evidence – family, religion, and „Romanization‟ – which have traditionally characterized much modern scholarship on auxiliary soldiers. Following some general observations on the auxiliary garrison of Germania, I shall present the results of my research in these areas.1
1 As noted in the Introduction (pp. 20-21), I have employed a citation system for inscriptions pertaining to the auxilia from Germania Inferior and Germania Superior classified by province (GI and GS). The distinction between Lower and Upper Germany is applied, for sake of convenience, to all auxiliary inscriptions regardless of whether they antedate the division of Germania in 89 CE. The inscriptions are further subdivided by their content: P = inscriptions that record unit commanders, i.e. praefecti, tribuni, or praepositi; U = “unit dedications” that record an auxiliary unit but no specific personnel, IP = inscriptions that record immunes and principales, i.e. all individuals above the rank of common solder, A = inscriptions that mention an auxiliary soldier (i.e. at the rank of miles gregalis), and ARU = “auxiliary rank uncertain,” for inscriptions too fragmentary to classify in the previous categories. Inscriptions are also classed in the appendix as F for “funerary,” V for “votive” and D for “dedications, typically for construction / restoration of buildings,” although this information, where self-evident, is omitted from the text of this chapter. All inscriptions are provided in Appendix III and listed alphabetically by findspot, with publication references and explanatory notes where appropriate.
106
I. The Auxiliary Garrison of Germania from Augustus to Caracalla: general observations
Characterized by a large concentration of Roman legions and auxiliary units, Roman Germany was a set of provinces where the army comprised a significant portion of the population.2 Following the Varian disaster of 9 CE, the province of Germania was garrisoned by eight legions, each of which accompanied by two auxiliary units, plus other auxiliaries. Following 89 CE, almost certainly as a result of a brief rebellion instigated by L. Antonius Saturninus, Germania was divided into two provinces, with four legions assigned to each province.3 The new provinces, geographically delimited in the east by the Rhine and in the west by Gallia Belgica and Gallia Lugundensis, were named Germania Inferior and Germania Superior.
Both provinces had governors whose residences were established at important Roman cities. In Germania Inferior Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (CCAA) / Köln / Cologne was a former legionary fortress protected by the nearby legionary garrison at Bonna / Bonn. The original settlement, Ara Ubiorum, was famously established as a refuge on the left bank of the Rhine for loyal members of the Ubii, although the Ubius ethnonym itself was soon displaced by the civic origo Agrippinensis in the first century CE.4 In Germania Superior Mogontiacum /
2 On the history of modern research and for general references for introductory works on Roman Germany, see Creighton and Wilson 1999b, where the authors note that “Roman Germany has regrettably seen very little substantial publication in English during the past few decades.” For more recent bibliography on the archaeology of Roman Germany and the limes see Wilson 2006c. Subjects discussed by the contributors to Creighton and Wilson 1999a include „Romanization‟ (A. Wigg 1999 and Krausse 1999), agriculture (Kreuz 1999), and fort design and expansion (Sommer 1999a; cf. Sommer 1999b). The subject of pre- and post-Roman coinage, a subject relevant to the dating of the German-Raetian limes, is the subject of Körtum 1998. His work has revolutionized the understanding of the development of the fortifications on the limes; Cf. Sommer 1999a: 177 and Wilson 2006c, the latter of whom refers to Körtum‟s work as “required reading.” On general method and approaches see Herz 1989. The history of auxiliary and legionary forts has been dealt with by Schönberger 1985 in a seminal work that was conspicuously absent from Spaul‟s studies of the ala and cohort; Spaul instead used Schönberger 1969, an English article that Schönberger 1985 rendered obsolete. For the onomastic evidence of provincials in Germany, OPEL can be supplemented by Kakoschke 2002, 2004, and 2006. 3 On Saturninus‟ rebellion, see Dio 67.11, Suet. Dom. 6.2; 7.3 and Aur. Vict. Epit. 11; a summary of the primary source evidence is provided by Syme 1984: 1081-1082. 4 In accordance with common practice in the majority of scholarship on Roman Germany, e.g. Schönberger 1985 with now standard maps, modern place-names are used here. When an ancient name is known, it is provided when a site is first mentioned; subsequently modern names are used. On the settlement of the Ubii and their subsequent
107
Mainz was the site of a permanent legionary garrison occupying a strategically important position on the Rhine. Although a Roman city grew up in the vicinity of Mogontiacum, the settlement, named after Mogons, a Germanic deity, remained an active military installation throughout the period studied in this investigation.5 Roman campaigns in the second century CE significantly increased the territory of Germania Superior and its neighbouring province of Raetia, resulting in a series of fortifications east of the Rhine; these are collectively termed the limes by modern scholarship and were primarily garrisoned by auxiliaries. The Germanic limes, the remains of which are now a UNESCO World Heritage Site, began from the eastern bank of Rhine at the point where the borders of Germania Inferior and Superior met and extended east and south to the Danube in Raetia. Although it greatly reduced the length of the German frontier, it required considerable forces to maintain, and ultimately collapsed in the mid 3rd century, resulting in the loss of all Roman territory east of the Rhine and Danube.6
The total number of units needed to protect the Rhine frontier that had been established following the conclusion of Drusus‟ campaigns in 16 CE was considerable. In 98 CE, the date of a military diploma discovered among a coin hoard at Elst, that document records 31 auxiliary units, and at least 3 others are known to have been stationed in Germania Inferior at that time, yielding 34 units in Germania Inferior alone.7 In Germania Superior a diploma from late in Trajan‟s reign attests to the presence of 19 units in that province, and it is likely that the total garrison of this province is underrepresented as well.8 In absolute numbers, the total number of auxiliary troops stationed in the two Germanies rivaled the legions, and, as noted in the Introduction, overall the auxiliaries‟ numbers had not only matched but had surpassed those of the legions by the second century. appellation as Agrippinenses, see Tac. Hist. 4.28. The history of CCAA has most recently been covered extensively by Eck 2004. The latest auxiliary inscriptions recording an Ubius is GS A 79, a tombstone of Fronto Dregeni f., eques of the ala Indiana and a tombstone from Moesia Superior (ILBulg 137 = AE 1925, 70) recording Blandus Singiberti f., an eques of the ala Bosporanorum. A coh. I Ubiorum continued to exist at least until 179 CE (RMD 123), although the Ubius ethnonym itself had died out by this time (and the unit, in any case, was based in Dacia Superior). 5 For a useful survey of the history of Mogontiacum‟s history and archaeology, see Selzer 1988 and more recently Spickermann 2006. 6 On the chronology, which can be precisely dated from numismatic evidence from the limes forts, see below, pp. 108-109. 7 RMD 216. The unit list on a diploma, as previously mentioned, contains only those units in which there was at least one soldier eligible to receive discharge privileges at the date of issue. The three additional units are the ala Augusta Vocontiorum, coh. VI Ingenuorum c. R., and coh. XV Voluntariorum c. R. (see Holder 1980 comm. ad loc.). 8 CIL 16, 62, 8 Sept. 117. Baatz 2000: 353-354 lists 25 cohorts and four alae for Germania Superior, plus legions, provincial guards (singulares) and numeri.
108
The archaeological sites that have yielded the largest concentrations of auxiliary stone monuments are the large urban centres of Roman provincial administration, CCAA and Mogontiacum, with numerous remains deriving from the frontier garrisons on the Rhine and the limes.9 In this sense, the provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior may be considered to be “military zones.” The auxiliary garrison of Germania is known primarily from a small number of military diplomas issued to soldiers who received their discharge while serving there; these have been discussed in chapter 2.
A large number of auxiliary units either served or are likely to have served in Roman Germany. In the pre-Diocletianic period these include 35% of all known Roman alae (31 of 89) total and 13% of known cohortes (51 of 391).10 In the first century of the Imperial period many military units on this frontier could expect to be transferred around the province or even the empire,11 although at any given time the concentration of auxiliary units in Germania was considerable. This concentration was due, as previously noted, to the large number of legions stationed there and the length of the provincial frontier, which stretched from the Rhine‟s mouth in the north to the south and west toward the Agri Decumates, which were gradually fortified by the limes fortifications. The practice of frequent transfers changed during Hadrian‟s reign, however, when auxiliary units on the frontier became, as Holder has stated, “sedentary,” although wars did not cease.12
Roman coins were closely connected to the military presence, and the connection between coinage and Roman culture was proverbial.13 Prior to the establishment of the Roman frontier natives living on both banks of the Rhine had employed their own coinage, as early as
9 For general surveys of the limes, see Baatz 2000, Cyzysz et al. 2005 and Wilson 2006c. 10 The totals are based on the number of units listed in the Appendix I tables, “Auxiliary units of Germania Inferior” and “Auxiliary units of Germania Superior.” These numbers attest units known to have been stationed in Germany within the period covered by this investigation – not all units served in Germany at the same time. 11 Two extreme examples would be coh. VI Thracum which served, in order, in Britannia, Germania, Pannonia, Moesia Superior, and Dacia / Dacia Porolissensis, or the ala I Flavia Britannica, which served in Germania, Britannia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Dacia, Pannonia Inferior and finally Syria, and was stationed at Ariminum / Rimini in Italy by Vitellius‟ generals in 69 CE (Tac. Hist. 3.41). See Spaul 2000: 380-382. 12 Holder 1980: 142. 13 See M. A. Speidel 1996: 54, Wolters 2008 on the association of coins primarily with the military, especially in the first century. Tacitus Germ. 5.2-3 remarks that the Germani do not use money, though those living near Roman territory had acquired from the Romans the practice of exchanging currency in coins, preferring “the old and well- known money (i.e. coin issues of the Late Republic), the coins with notched edges and pictures of chariots” (trans. Rives 1999). Rives also notes (pp. 134-135) that this description is reflected in coin hoards from the area, although this likely reflects the larger number of late Republican coins in circulation.
109 the 2nd century BCE.14 These types had already been in declining use, due primarily to upheavals among the Celtic and Germanic settlements, by the date of the first invasion of Germania in 12 BCE, while after 15 CE, with the firm establishment of permanent Roman garrisons on the Rhine, native coinage in Gaul and Germany began to be supplanted by Roman types.15 Since soldiers were typically paid in bronze coinage, the most commonly attested metal for native coinage of this period as well, the Romans integrated native circulations into their own system, “in spite of the fact that rainbow cups must have appeared very strange to an Italian legionary” – but not, perhaps, to recruits from among the Treveri and Germanic tribes supplying auxiliaries to the provincial armies.16 Körtum‟s work on coin distribution on the limes in Germania Superior and Raetia has demonstrated the close connection between coins and forts, as seen particularly in the vici.17 Analysis of the chronology of coins has led to the striking discoveries that vici quickly appeared adjacent to new forts, and that an extension of the limes to the Taunus – Wetterau – Main – Odenwald – Neckar line previously attributed to Domitian should in fact be dated to the reign of Trajan, ca. 105 – 111 CE. Though it remains unclear when precisely the fullest extent of the limes was finally reached, its collapse in the mid 3rd century, with the evacuation of the Agri Decumates territory, is evident in the numismatic record.18
The dynamic of social interaction among native tribes created by the presence of the auxilia was more complex than that created by legionaries. Early recruitment of auxiliary units drew heavily on provinces either neighbouring or distant from the early forts of the first century. Occasionally such recruitment was enforced as conscription, a practice never abolished in the Imperial period.19 The conscription of local men of fighting age, combined with the assimilation of local elites as commanders of early units, fit a long-standing Roman pattern of adapting recently conquered territories to their own administrative needs. However, auxiliary garrisons were not exclusively manned by local recruits, and the military culture of the auxilia itself was adapted from the cultural practices and bureaucracy of the legions. The ala Afrorum brought
14 D. Wigg 1999: 102-104. The territory has been attributed to the Leuci, present in the first century BCE; subsequently the Treveri were dominant in the same territory, and Wigg surveys their pre-conquest coinages as well, with numerous examples dating to the period of Caesar‟s Gallic Wars. 15 D. Wigg 1999: 108-114, noting that native coin types were not demonetized. 16 D. Wigg 1999: 112, cf. 118, fig. 11, referring to Bochum rainbow cup coins, so named from the distinctive image struck on them. 17 Körtum 1998. On the vici see Hanel 2007, Sommer 1999 and Sommer 2006. 18 On the collapse of the limes, see Körtum 1999: 58-60. Spaul 2000: 306 n. 2, failed to take Kortum‟s study into account. 19 Tac. Ann. 4.49 records a Thracian revolt inspired by a dilectus commissioned among their tribe.
110 with it one Anno Imiclonis f., while another individual who identified himself as an Afer is attested at CCAA.20 Thus, investigations of auxiliary vici, or auxiliaries stationed near major urban centres like CCAA or Mogontiacum, should avoid the limitation of the „Roman‟-„native‟ dichotomy.
II. Family
When assessing the diversity of families evident from the surviving evidence of auxiliary soldiers in Germania, it is necessary to observe whether soldiers have a tendency to marry (a) within their tribe (b) within their social status group and, (c) how they represented themselves on their monuments. The detailed observations of family data in military diplomas presented in chapter 2 need not be repeated here. Other epigraphic data can provide potentially more information about a soldier‟s extended family. An auxiliary‟s immediate family may be identified epigraphically from any text which records a “wife” and/or children of an auxiliary. Parents, siblings or other member of a soldier‟s extended family might also be mentioned – most of which information is not recorded on diplomas. The information from these monuments is provided in two tables below:
Table 1: Auxiliary inscriptions recording ‘wives’ and /or offspring in Germany21
Reference Text
Germania Inferior
1.1: (GI A 6), Bonna Vellaunus Nonni / f(ilius) / Biturix eques / ala Longiniana / turma L(uci) Iuli Reguli / an(norum) XXXVIII stipendio/rum XVIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / ex testamento factu / cura(ve)runt L(ucius) Iulius Reg/ulus decurio et Macer Aspadi / f(ilius) eiusde(m) turma // L C T
1.2: (GI A 10), Bonna [---] ex c[oh(orte)] / [--- T]rhaecum(!) / ann(orum) XXX sti[p(endiorum)] / VIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / Mucasius f(ilius) p(osuit)
1.3: (GI ARU 3), CCAA D(is) M(anibus) / Aprilioni qui vixit m(enses) XI / et dies VII / et Inno/centiae qui vixit
20 Spaul 1994: 23; cf. CIL 13, 8335. The lack of aspiration in both names (viz. Hanno Himiclonis) is notable. 21 On the shorthand citation system employed here, see either n. 1 of this chapter or the legend provided in Appendix III.
111
an/nos VII et dies XXXXVIII / Verinius Friattius / miles et Apra / fili(i)s dulcissi/mis curavit faciun/dum
1.4: (GI A 18), Houten Ti(to) Iul[lio C(ai) f(ilio) An(iensi)] / Pro[bo(?) Foro] / Iuli m[issicio(?)] / c(o)hort(is) [---] / an(norum) [---] / Iulia Ti(ti) [f(ilia?) ---] / Mater[nus(?) h(eredes) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt?)]
1.5: (GI ARU 6), Rigomagus [---] f(ilius?) Ma[---] / [---]x coh[---]
1.6: (GI A 59), M(arco) Cassio Verecu/ndo veter(ano) ex coh(orte) I His/pano(rum) sibi et Anniae / Rigomagus [A]vitae uxori et Cassio / Verecundino Firmo / fil(io) suo vivos(!) fecit
Germania Superior
Reference Text
1.7: (GS A 1), Altiaea Faustinio Faustino Sennauci Florionis fil(io) mil(iti) / coh(ortis) I F(laviae) D(amascenorum) ped(iti) sing(ulari) co(n)s(ularis) Gemmellinia Faustina mat(er) / et Faustinia Potentina sor(or) her(edes) secundum volumt(atem!) / testamenti pos(uerunt) vixit an(nos) [---]V decidit in flore iuvent(a)e / f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
1.8: (GS A 24), Leubius Claupi / f(ilius) eq(ues) missicius / ala Sebosiana / an(norum) LXXXI h(ic) Borbetomagus s(itus) e(st) / Gratus f(ilius) miles / ex t(estamento) f(ecit)
1.9: CIL 13, 7057, [Severius? ---] / [eq(ues) si]ngul(aris) miss(us) [hone]sta / [mi]ssione Severi Ursus Mogontiacum22 S[er]/[v]andus Fabricius fili(i) / [et] heredes patri pientissi/[mo f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)]
1.10: (GS ARU 9), Dis Man(ibus) / Q(uinto) Favonio / Varo fil(io) / Q(uintus) Favoni/us Varus / coh(ortis) Mogontiacum XXXII / Vol(untariorum) pater / et Terenti/[a
1.11: (GS A 64), Paulla Ti(beri) / Iuli Selvani / ex c(o)hor(te) Sur(orum) / anno(rum) XXIIX / h(ic) s(ita) Mogontiacum e(st) / (h)ospes si vacum / est tumuli cog/noscere cassus / perlege nam mo/rtis [[---]] caussa(!) / dolenda fuvit / dic rogo nu(n)c iuve/nis sit tibi terra / levis
1.12: (GS P 26), D(ecimo) Iul(io) L(uci) f(ilio) Vol(tinia) Ripano / Capitoni Bassiano / equo publico Noviodunum honorato / praefect(o) fabrum / trib(uno) mil(itum) coh(ortis) I Gal[l(ica)] i[n Equestrium Hi]sp(ania) / L(ucius) Iul(ius) Brocchus / Valer(ius) Bassus / filio
1.13: (GS IP 36), In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) / I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Attius Terti/[u]s Stockstadt |(centurio) coh(ortis) II His/[pa]norum p/[ro] salute sua / [et] Cissonis / coniugis su/ae et filior/um suoru/m v(otum) s(usceptum) p(osuit) / l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
Auxiliary military diplomas, as noted in the previous chapter, typically record the families of the lowest ranking soldiers of the auxilia. While diplomas issued to centurions and decurions are attested, they are a minority. The auxiliary stone epigraphic record, however,
22 This inscription is omitted from the appendix, as it documents an eques singularis appointed to the governor‟s bodyguard in Mogontiacum. The soldier‟s previous affiliation cannot be ascertained, though his status as eques indicates that he may have been originally a member of an ala.
112 attests a lower ratio of gregales to soldiers of higher pay ranks (duplicarii and sesquiplicarii) and military ranks (centurio, decurio, tribunus, praefectus). Table 1 above lists inscriptions attesting at least one child – not necessarily a „wife.‟ There are examples of a parent commemorating a child, as in the case of the deceased prefect of coh. I Gallica (1.12), buried at Noviodunum / Nyon despite his unit‟s official attachment to the army of Spain. His father did not identify himself as being a soldier, but both are clearly Roman citizens enrolled in the Voltinia tribe. Lower ranking soldiers are represented in this epigraphic record however, and as with the diploma evidence they are not devoid of references to women.
Paulla and Tiberius Iulius Selvanus (1.11), a soldier noted ex cohorte Surorum were married. Both bear Roman names, with Selvanus‟ tria nomina indicating that he received Roman citizenship during the reign of Tiberius. Paulla‟s tombstone has an added rare detail for an auxiliary tombstone, an epitaph that bewails in a very personal fashion the unfortunate circumstances of her death. The text itself bears a number of linguistic oddities deriving from provincial influences – Selvanus for Silvanus, the insertion of an intervocalic v in fuit, repetition of s in cassus and caussa, the latter of which is an archaism. The epitaph hints at the “grievous cause” of her death, perhaps in childbirth. The formula of the monument, as well as the onomastic details of Selvanus‟ names, places this in the early first century. Its detail, clearly intended to communicate personal experience to a Roman audience in a sophisticated manner, attests that the early potency of Roman culture in early 1st century Mogontiacum was not necessarily limited to the upper ranks alone. The text is a striking example of a provincial carmen epigraphicum that illustrates the value placed by this couple on the verse epitaph, a monument that, as was the case with Vergil, advertised to posterity the deceased‟s literary learning. This type of epitaph was also commissioned in Germany by an auxiliary prefect stationed at Cliviae / Kleve in the 3rd century, although his unit of service is not clear.23
As noted in connection with the diplomas, soldiers‟ consorts were regularly described as “wives” (uxores, coniuges) in both official and unofficial records. Where a soldier himself mentions that he has a “wife,” however, one of the following scenarios must apply:
(1) The soldier was already married upon his enlistment.
23 GI P 7: Cla[udius A]eli[anus (?)] / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) I I(ngenuorum) (?) OR (H)i(spanorum) (?) / quem [g]enuit / terra / Mauretania / p(raefectum) obruit / terra. On this inscription, and its Vergilian inspiration, see the note ad loc. in Appendix III. Neither GI P 7 nor GS A 64 were included, however, in CLE.
113
(2) The soldier had “married” a woman in accordance with a peregrine ceremony, not recognized by the state.
(3) The soldier and his “wife” did not formally marry in any ceremony, but self-identified as married.
In the imperial period most peregrine recruits will have entered military service before their 20th birthday;24 those auxiliaries who mention their families on inscriptions in most cases will have formed these families after enlistment. Table 1.13 illustrates this pattern: an auxiliary centurion bearing a Roman name, Attius Tertius of the coh. II Hispanorum set up an altar to Jupiter Optimus Maximus to pray for the welfare (salus) of himself, his wife Cisso, and their children. Cisso‟s name is peregrine, while Attius Tertius‟ cognomen is Latin.25 Since Tertius‟ does not bear an imperial gentilicium (e.g. Iulius or Ti. Iulius), he evidently did not descend from enfranchised auxiliaries and may have already been a Roman citizen, in which case his „marriage‟ to the peregrine Cisso would be noteworthy also as an example of a union between socially unequal individuals. The reference to more than one child („filiorum’) indicates that this monument was set up at least 2-3 years into their „marriage‟, which likely began following his enlistment.
Two auxiliary families (1.5, 1.6) are attested epigraphically at Rigomagus in Germania Inferior, although only one of these is sufficiently preserved to discuss. A veteran of coh. I Hispanorum with the tria nomina of a Roman citizen or Junian Latin, Marcus Cassius Verecundus saw to the establishment of the funerary monument while alive (vivus) for himself, his wife Annia Avita and their son Verecundinus Firmus. The the cognomen Verecundinus clearly was derived from the cognomen of his father Verecundus, a feature, as Holder has noted,26 of Celtic onomastic practice. Verecundus‟ name indicates that he did not receive Roman citizenship from a Roman emperor. Annia Avita is explicitly designated as his uxor, as was legally possible following his discharge from service.
The internal replacement of auxiliary units through sons following their fathers‟ lead by serving in the auxilia, as noted in the last chapter, is a well attested phenomenon among lower
24 M. A. Speidel 2000. 25 This cohort was moved to Germania Superior by Trajan, and later (between 130 – 179 CE) moved to Britannia; Spaul 2000: 125. 26 Holder 1980.
114 ranking auxiliaries, who occasionally commissioned detailed funerary epitaphs. A grave from the auxiliary fort of Altiaea / Alzey records the resting place of Faustinius Faustinus (1.7), a bodyguard of the governor and son of Sennaucus Florio. His gentilicium interestingly seems to derive from his mother‟s cognomen Faustina, as did his sister‟s. Both women were named in his will as his heirs. This, along with the statement that he “died in the flower of youth” (decidit in flore iuvent(a)e), indicates that he died “unmarried,” perhaps at the age of 25.27 A father and son are also attested at Borbetomagus / Worms (1.8). A discharged peregrine cavalryman named Leubius, son of Claupus, was commemorated by his son, who bore the Roman name Gratus. Although families with only one child are attested elsewhere, Leubius‟ advanced age of 81 illustrates the difficulties of assuming that the entire family is mentioned on the monument. Leubius had obviously been discharged for a considerable time before his death. As he was still in active service when Leubius died, Gratus must have been born when his father was nearing the end of his service, probably when his father was in his forties. This is not, therefore, sound evidence for the argument, challenged in the previous chapter, that auxiliary families were necessarily small.
The potential for auxiliary soldiers to establish large families has been clearly demonstrated by the diplomas.28 Yet occasionally their closest ties may have been to fellow soldiers. The esprit de corps or „regimental identity‟ felt by auxiliaries has been investigated by various authors.29 A. R. Birley has referred to the equestrian commanders of the auxiliary units at Vindolanda as a “band of brothers,” employing a phrase usually applied to modern militaries.30 This is accurate not only in the habit soldiers had of referring to each other as “brother” (frater) but perhaps also in the allocation of inheritance. Many tombstones bear only the vague formula heres ex testamento faciendum curavit. In these cases the heir concealed might be a parent, sibling, freed slave or fellow soldier. The inscriptions discussed above represent those which
27 The deceased age is only partially preserved as [---]V, which may be restored [XX]V. 28 See Ch 2. 29 Most recently by Saddington 2009: 87-88, emphasizing shared unit standards and religious identity. For a discussion of Spanish units stationed in Britain, see Bidwell 2005 and, on the subject of regimental identity generally, Coulston 2004. 30 A. R. Birley 2001a.
115 attest specific family members; many auxiliary inscriptions refer simply to an heir or heirs (heres, heredes, typically abbreviated): 32 for Germania Inferior and 45 for Germania Superior.31
It seems reasonable to assume that much of an auxiliary‟s income would be spent on his family‟s needs, if he had these personal commitments. The lower status of the auxilia compared to that of the legions is reflected in their pay – although the difference is not as great as was once assumed. The auxilia‟s ancient connection with the legions was never fully broken in the Imperial period, even in the case of units stationed on frontier posts distant from legionary garrisons. The status difference that existed between the legions and the auxilia, particularly regarding citizenship but also regarding equipment and pay, has been well attested; the known figures are given below (following page).
31 See Appendix III for texts of auxiliary inscriptions. Obviously, not all heirs mentioned on a tombstone were related by blood to the deceased, but the ratio of e.g. family heirs vs. soldier heirs cannot be reconstructed from formulaic tombstone data.
116
Table 2: Roman Army annual basic pay in denarii (after M. A. Speidel 200032)
Rank 13 BCE 83/84 CE 197 CE 212 CE 235 CE
mil. leg. 225 300 600 900 1800
mil. coh. 187.5 250 500 750 1500
mil. coh. c. R.33 225 300 600 900 1800
eq. leg. 262.5 350 700 1050 2100
eq. coh. 225 300 600 900 1800
eq. alae 262.5 350 700 1050 2100
cent. leg. 3375 4500 9000 13500 27000
cent. coh. 937.5 1250 2500 3750 7500
cent. coh. c. R.34 3375 (?) 4500 (?) 9000 (?) 13500 (?) 27000 (?)
dec. coh. 1125 1500 3000 4500 9000
dec. alae 1312.5 1750 3500 5250 10500
primi ordines35 6750 9000 18000 27000 54000
primus pilus36 13500 18000 36000 54000 108000
The standing army that manned Germania‟s provincial garrison was a creation of Augustus‟ military reforms, and the annual salaries to be paid to the Praetorians, urban cohorts, vigiles, legions and auxilia were fixed at this time.37 The cornicularius or librarius of the unit
32 Multiply by 1.5 for a sesquiplicarius, by 2 for a duplicarius. Such soldiers kept the same rank, but received higher pay. Auxilairy pay has been hotly debated. Alston 1994 argued that legionaries and auxiliaries were paid equally, but was rejected by M. A. Speidel 2000: 79-83, esp. 79 n. 93: “Alstons Beitrag ist leider oft fehlerhaft im Einzelnen sowie in der Methode und im Ergebnis widersprüchlich und irrig.” Southern 2007: 122 summarizes the debate, but does not cite M. A. Speidel 2000. Speidel‟s work indicates, however, that an auxiliary‟s pay was no les than 5/6 of the sum paid to a legionary – hardly a pittance – while cavalry troops received the same annual pay as a legionary. 33 This pay grade of cohortes civium Romanorum excludes those units which acquired the title c. R. subsequent to their formation. Originally conceived during Augustus‟ reign as auxiliary cohorts manned exclusively by Roman citizens, these units were entitled, on the basis of the citizenship of their personnel, to the same pay as the citizen- manned legions. The pay rates remained unchanged after this recruiting restriction broke down in the first century. 34 Pay rates for centurions serving in cohortes civium Romanorum are not directly attested, but a salary equal to a legionary centurion‟s seems probable. The salaries for centurions serving in the Urban and Praetorian cohorts are also not definitively attested, but were higher than those paid to legionary and auxiliary centurions. 35 The primi ordines were the centurions in a legion‟s first, and therefore most prestigious, cohort. See Parker 1961: 34 and M. P. Speidel 1984: 40-42. 36 Centurion of the first century of the legion‟s first cohort. This rank later often came to be designated by the term primipilaris. See Dobson 1978; Wolff 2004 presents all evidence for the terms primus pilus and primipilaris. 37 Dio 54.25.5 reports that Augustus‟ new regulations for service in the army were instituted in 13 BCE; cf. Suet. Aug. 49.2; M. A. Speidel 2000: 66. Legionary pay had been doubled by Caesar (Suet. Jul. 26) and Watson 1969: p.
117 was in charge of managing accounts, distributing pay, and maintaining detailed records of the unit‟s finances, but detailed records for units in Germania are lost. Few pay records exist; a writing tablet from Vindonissa preserves a receipt for pay to a cavalryman, but offers no insight into the recipient‟s finances.38
Some conclusions can be made, however, based on what is known about general practice in the Roman army. Gilliam has argued that some military records from Egypt can be cited appropriately as parallels for what must have been common practice in Germania, although his cautious assertion that this approach can be attempted only in “few” cases should be remembered. An important piece of evidence is a receipt given to Semphasies for the depositum of her deceased auxiliary soldier (stratiw/thj) son Ammonius Ammoni f.39 At the time of his death he had accumulated 235 denarii, 14 ½ obols, most of which his mother inherited, almost as much as an entire year‟s salary for a miles coh. in 143 CE.40 The army deducted from a soldier‟s salary small amounts for various items and services (such as upkeep of armour, tents and socks), but also compelled each soldier to leave a portion of his pay in deposito. Soldiers had been required to pay for their equipment since the origins of the army, and the ability to pay for one‟s own equipment was a major factor in determining the military assignment of annual recruits during the Republic.41 Traditionally the siege of Veii was the catalyst for the introduction of salary in the Roman army, along with other military reforms.42 Augustus fixed new salary rates,
89, working back from the Augustan basic pay rate of 225 denarii places the pre-Caesarian legionary pay rate at 112.5 denarii. For estimated amounts in sesterces, see M. A. Speidel 1996: 66. 38 M. A. Speidel 1996, no. 2: 94-97. Asinio Ce[l]ere Non[io] co(n)s(ulibus XI k(alendas) / Aug(ustas) [22 July 38 CE]. S(upra) s(criptus) Clua, eq(ues) Raetor(um) / tur(ma) Albi Pudentis, ac(c)epi (denarios) L / [e]t stipendi proximi (denarios) 75. [Actum Vindonissae (?)]. The odd payment of 50 denarii may be due to an absence from the fort, as Speidel suggests, but this does not explain why 50 and not 75 denarii were paid out. If this is a cavalryman from coh. VII Raetorum equitata, as Speidel suggests, then Clua‟s annual salary would be 225 denarii, the amount suggested by the 75 denarii of his stipendium proximum. If Clua served in an ala, his stipendium proximum should be higher. Deductions for camp expenses are not recorded on this brief document, but would have been recorded by the librarius. 39 P. Columbia 325; cf. Gilliam 1967: 233, speaking originally to an audience at the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, states that “[m]any papyri from Roman Egypt may have little direct value for students of Roman Germany. Others, in substance or form, at least suggest what has been lost with the complete disappearance here of countless thousands of official and private documents on papyrus that each year, in Germany as elsewhere, recorded and made possible administration and much of the pattern of daily life… in particular, we may assume that military clerks prepared precisely the same kind of documents each day in posts along the Rhine as in those along the Nile.” 40 The date is preserved on the papyrus. 15 denarii were subtracted as a legacy for Silvanus, optio of coh. II Thracum equitata, and another 10 as a legacy for Flavius Mevianus. Both men had been named as procuratores (“executors”) in Ammonius‟ will. It is impossible to ascertain the length of Ammonius‟ service at the time of his death. 41 Livy 1.43; Diodorus 23.3, referring to oi( ta\ o(/pla parexo/menoi. 42 Livy 5.7.5; Plut. Cam. 40. Cf. Parker 1961: 11.
118 and subsequent pay increases in the Imperial period maintained his original ratio of pay for the various ranks of the army.
Basic pay for a miles gregalis in the auxilia was originally set by Augustus at 187.5 denarii per year, or five-sixths of the basic pay for a legionary of the same rank. This same ratio was maintained during subsequent pay increases. Auxiliary cavalry serving in a cohors equitata were also paid five-sixths the salary of a legionary eques, but the cavalry in the alae were paid a salary equal to that of their legionary counterparts. Studies of army pay rates43 demonstrate that auxiliary pay was not as far below the legionary salary rates as had once been thought. Watson‟s assessment of auxiliary pay led him to conclude that auxiliary soldiers kept very little in savings, forcing him to explain away the large sum of savings that a cavalryman had accumulated.44 The legacy of Ammonius discussed above also argues against the notion that auxiliary soldiers were so poorly paid as to have little in the form of savings. The section of a soldier‟s pay forcibly set aside as savings, the deposita, must account for part of these accounts; since soldiers were required to pay for the maintenance of their equipment, forcing them to set aside a portion of each stipendium as savings was a prudent financial measure, and some records of soldiers petitioning for pay advances from their savings have survived.45 Vegetius claimed that the main motivation for collecting soldiers‟ deposits was to forestall the tendencies of soldiers to waste all their money on extravagant purchases and the like.46
The overall picture therefore is hardly one of auxiliary penury versus legionary wealth. The lavish nature of many auxiliary tombstones also provides vivid evidence for one outlet of a soldier‟s salary and savings. Famous examples from Germania include the tombstones of Silvanus (GI A 62), which contained a verse epitaph to himself and his sister, and Pintaius (GI IP
43 M. P. Speidel 1973, M. A. Speidel 2000. 44 Watson 1969: 101 placed auxiliary basic pay rates at 100 denarii in the period spanning Domitian to Severus, or one third that of a legionary. 45 See Fink 1971 no. 73, a summary of withdrawals, amounts owing, and sums on deposit; no. 74 includes receipts for deposits made by auxiliary soldiers; these were written in Greek and several were witnessed by another soldier, as the recipient was stated to be illiterate (cf. also Fink 1971 no. 76). 46 Veg. Epit. 2.20 (trans. Milner 1993): Illud uero ab antiquis diuinitus insitutum est, ut ex donatiuo, quod milites consecuntur, dimidia pars sequestraretur apud signa et ibidem ipsis militibus seruaretur, ne per luxum aut inanium rerum conparationem ab contubernalibus posset absumi. Plerique enim homines et praecipue pauperes tantum erogant, quantum habere potuerint. “It was a divinely inspired institution of the ancients to deposit with the standards (apud signa) half the donative which the soldiers received, and to save it there for each soldier, so it could not be spent by the troops on extravagance or the acquisition of vain things. Most men, the poor especially, spend as much as they can get.” Vegetius‟ term “donative” refers to the fourth century payment distributed on imperial birthdays and dies imperii. The traditional stipendia at this time paid insignificant amounts; cf. Milner 1993: 53 n. 6. The reference to the “ancients” clearly indicates that this was a well-established practice.
119
1), which preserves a detailed representation of the deceased. Auxiliary soldiers throughout the empire were paid well, and this allowed them leave more than the minimum, if they so desired.
Peregrine families clearly stood to benefit from the income of auxiliary soldiers, and even premature death of a soldier during service could, as in the case of Ammonius, still leave a family with a large sum of money. Occasionally fellow soldiers of the deceased auxiliary could pay for his tombstone. Although in most cases the identities of the deceased‟s heirs remain hidden, it seems clear that enough money was left behind in many cases for his will‟s beneficiaries to pay for his tombstone. Family members are rarely mentioned explicitly, yet this does not prove that auxiliary wills rarely named family members; in this case, the formulaic nature of tombstones offers a strong argument against the argumentum ex silentio.
It seems reasonable to conclude that even low ranking auxiliary soldiers could have significant sums of money saved in the fort strongroom despite the costs of living associated with camp and family life. While many auxiliary soldiers dedicated funds to the production of funerary monuments, their heirs could still inherit sums of money significant enough to occasion disputes in court over inheritance. Numerous examples of these actions exist, along with clearly defined rules for soldiers‟ wills in ancient juristic literature.47 Before 119 CE, when Hadrian granted the illegitimate children of soldiers inheritance rights, only those children explicitly acknowledged by the soldier as testamentary heirs (i.e. heres / heredes, as stated on tombstones) could legally inherit property from their father.48 Hadrian‟s edict seems to respond to disputed inheritances that would have arisen following the death of soldiers with children – if their father had not documented his wish that his children be included in his will, the law hitherto did not grant this inclusion. In general, the ability to make legal wills and the advantages of military service beyond the acquisition of Roman citizenship directly affected the home life of many auxiliaries, whether their families were living in the vicus of a fort or far away in another Roman province.
47 Gaius Inst. 2.11.1-11; cf. Phang 2001: 214, “[i]t seems that the soldiers, who were not able to legally marry (sic), were both given complete capacitas to receive inheritances and legacies [irrespective of the restrictions laid out in the lex Iulia et Papia] and also were permitted to bequeath freely to caelibes and orbi – the soldiers‟ comrades and their “wives” (author‟s emphasis). 48 Hadrian‟s letter (BGU 140) was translated into Greek and displayed publicly at Alexandria on August 4, 119. It had been addressed to Rammius, the prefect of Egypt. See Phang 2001: 38-40 for a translation of the letter and explanation of how this change in policy effectively removed the need for a soldier to name explicitly a child as an heir; though marriages remained unrecognized by the army, biological children retained the ability to inherit.
120
Thus no discrepancy between the evidence of auxiliary families on diplomas and on tombstones can be observed. Both indicate a culture where families, sometimes large ones, were not only tolerated by the state but also could be supported by the resources of individual auxiliaries.
III. Religion
There was great diversity in the ethnic origins of many auxiliary units in Germania, particularly in the first half of the first century. As noted earlier, in terms of absolute numbers the total of votive inscriptions extant from Germania Inferior is less than those from Germania Superior. This is the case largely because of a much larger number of ancient sites in Germania Superior, particularly along the limes established in the Agri Decumates during the first two centuries of the Imperial period.49
Table 3a: Auxiliary votive dedications in Germania Inferior, alphabetically by findspot
Reference and Findspot Text (ancient Names given first, if known)
1. GI P 1, Alphen aan [Coh(ortis)] VI Breuc(orum) cui prae/[est] Vitel(lius) Ampliatus pr(aefectus) der Rijn
2. GI A 12, Cliviae / [---] / eq(ues) [alae] / Afror(um) [tur(ma)] / Crescen[tis] / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) Cleve [m(erito)]
3. GI IP 2, Deae Nehale/niae Sumaro/nius Vitalis / sesquip(licarius) alae / Noric(orum) Averini/us 50 Colijnsplaat Secundus / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito)
4. GI IP 5, CCAA Deae Hariasae / HDTI Ulpius / Acutus du[p(licarius)] al(ae) / Sulp(iciae) sing(ularis) co(n)s(ularis) / cives Traianenses51 / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Crispino et / Aeliano co(n)s(ulibus)
5. GI A19, CCAA Herclinti / sacrum / Petitor Piro/bori mil(es) / coh(ortis) II Var(cianorum) / sing(ularis) co(n)s(ularis) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
49 For the chronology, see Körtum 1998, and generally Baatz 2000. 50 Currently the only dedication to Nehalennia made by an auxiliary soldier, in this case, a sesquiplicarius. 51 i.e. civis Traianensis. The alternate spelling for the nominative of the third declension is attested in numerous other inscriptions from Germania.
121
6. GI IP 6, CCAA In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) / diabus Malvisis / et Silvano / Aur(elius) Vere/cundus ordi(narius) Brito(num) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
7. GI A 20, CCAA Simplex Sepli / eques a(lae) Af[r](orum) / sing(ularis) co(n)s(ularis) / Matribus Ma/sanabus sa/crum l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
8. GI A 21, CCAA Quadrivi[s] / Trivis Viis / Semitis ex / voto M(arcus) / Cocceius / Dasius vet(eranus) / alae Noric(orum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
9. GI ARU 2, CCAA [--- coh]ortis / [---] Class(icae) / [---] P(iae) F(idelis) f(ecit)
10. GI P 6, CCAA I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / pro salute / imp(eratoris) T(iti) Aeli An/tonini Aug(usti) Pii / p(atris) p(atriae) et M(arci) Aurel(i) / Caes(aris) fili(i) eius / T(itus) Fl(avius) Firmus / praef(ectus) eq(uitum) / [alae No]ric(orum)
11. GI A 42, CCAA Deae Matri App/ius Mercato/r Attonis eq/ues coh(ortis) I Lato(bicorum) / stator Pompei / Honorati pr(a)ef(ecti) eq(uitum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
12. GI A 43, CCAA Matronis / sacrum / Victor eques / alae I Astur(um) / militat in Mysia (sic) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
13. GI A 15, Deo Soli Imp(eratori) s(acrum) T(itus) Sura[---]is Didil[---] / dup[l(arius)] al(a)e Durnomagus / Noricorum c[ivi]s T(h)rax v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito)] Dormagen
14. GI ARU 1, Gelduba Matribus Octocannis / Albinius Gratinus Albinius / Albulus / Albinius Ursulus / Albinius 52 / Gellep Paternus milis (sic) / Oglannius Lubainus mil(es) / [O]glannius Messor milis(!) / [-- ]issinius Verinus / pro se et suis ex iussu ip/sarum v(ota) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito)
15. GI IP 4, Hemmen Deae Vagdavercusti Sim[p]li/cius Super dec(urio) alae Vocontior(um) / exerci[t]uus(!) Britannici
16. GI P 3, Herwen I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / M(arcus) Val(erius) Ch/alcidic[us] / praef(ectus) c[oh(ortis)] / II c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) p(iae) [f(idelis)]
17. GI IP 17, [---]nnis / [Lon]ginius(?) / Aeternus / d(ecurio) s(ingularis) c(onsularis) al(ae) Mohnheim Noric(orum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
18. GI A 52, [---]TO[---] / [---]o eq(uiti?) [---] / [---]IT [---] / [---] co(n)s(ulibus) Monterberg53
19. GI U 2, Rigomagus [Fortuna]e coh(ors) Flavia / Remagen
20. GI IP 23, Vetera / Dupl(icariis) / et sesquipl(icariis) / alae veter(anae) / Flav(ius) Simplex / vet(eranus) ex Xanten dup(licario) / al(a)e eiusd(em) / d(onum) d(edit) // R
21. GI IP 24, Vetera / [---] / dupl(icariis) et sesquipl(icariis) / alae veter(anae) Flav(ius) / Simplex Xanten vet[e]r(anus) ex / dup(licario) al(a)e eiusd(em) d(onum) d(edit)
52 The actual unit of service is not stated, but the peregrine name Oglannius of this family, combined with the ambiguity of expression, may suggest auxiliary service. 53 Although it is unclear whether this individual served in an auxiliary unit from the text alone, the context suggests association with the ala Vocontiorum (cf. CIL 13, 8671).
122
Table3b: votive inscriptions in Germania Superior, alphabetical by findspot
22. GS A 4, Marti / Loucet(io) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito) / Fittio Cond/olli f(ilio) Argentorate / eq(ues) al/a Petri(ana) Treve(rorum) Strasbourg
23. GS IP 1, Baden- Matri Deum / C(aius) Sempronius / Saturninus |(centurio) / coh(ortis) XXVI Baden vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
24. GS P 1, Baden- Minervae / sacrum / Nympheros / L(uci?) Lolli(?) Certi / praef(ecti) coh(ortis) V Baden Sp(anorum?) / [---]
25. GS P 2, Benningen Campestribus / sacrum / P(ublius) Quintius L(uci) fil(ius) / Quir(ina) Terminus(?) / domo am Neckar Sicca / Veneria / trib(unus) / coh(ortis) XXIIII vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum)
26. GS P 3, Fortunae / Respicienti sacr(um) / Nasellius Pro/clianus |(centurio) leg(ionis) / VIII 54 Böckingen Aug(ustae) prae/positus c(o)hor(tis) / I Helvetiorum / Torquato et / Iuliano co(n)s(ulibus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
27. GS P 4, Böckingen Seno(nibus) / Matro(nis) / coh(ors) I / Helvet(iorum) / [c]ui [p]ra[e]/est V[a]l(erius) / Ci[t]us [|(centurio)] / leg(ionis) [V]III [Aug(ustae)] / P(iae) F(idelis) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) [m(erito)]
28. GS P 5, C(aius) Baburius / Festus Pom(ptina) Ar/retio trib(unus) leg(ionis) / VII G(eminae) Borbetomagus / F(idelis) / praef(ectus) / alae Scubu/lorum / Iovi Worms
29. GS P 6, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Octavius / Celer praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) VII Borbetomagus / Breu(corum) / et coh(ortis) I Thrac(um) Worms
30. GS P 7, Brohl Herc(u)lenti / vexel(l)atio(!) c/o(ho)rts Ti(beri) Astur(i) / votum retul(l)i(t) / l(---) l(aeta) lib(ens) s(olvit)
31. GS P 8, Brohl Her[c]u[li Sax(ano?)] / vexillari(i) / [lim(itanei)] l[e]g(ionis) [VI] Vic(tricis) et / l(egionis) X G(eminae) P(iae) F(idelis) et al(ae) co[h(ortis) / [---]L q(uae) s(ub) Q(uinto) Acut(io) / [s]u(nt) [cu(r)a] M(arci) Iu[l]i / [C]ossuti |(centurionis) l(egionis) V[I] / Vic(tricis) P(iae) [F(idelis)]
32. GS IP 4, Brohl Herc(u)li Saxa/no Gemell/us im[a]ginif(er) / coh(ortis) III Astu/rum P(iae) F(idelis) D(omitianae) et / vexil(latio) s(?) coh(ortis) / eiusdem / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
33. GS IP 5, Brohl Herc(uli) Saxsan(o!) sacr(um) / Iulius Verecund(us) / centurio c(o)ho[r(tis)] II Var/cianorum(?) ex voto
34. GS IP 6, Brohl I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Iun(oni) / Marti Her(culi) / [s]acrum C(aius) / Domitius / Rufinus d(ecurio) / coh(ortis) II c(ivium) R(omanorum) P(iae) F(idelis) D(omitianae) / [e]t commilitones / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
35. GS U 2, Brohl Herculi / Saxano / vexellatio(!) / cohortis / I c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
54 148 CE.
123
36. GS U 3, Brohl Herculi Sa/xsano(!) sac/ru(m) coh(ortis) II / [---]VM / [---]
37. GS P 9, Brohl I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Her(culi) Sax(ano) / vexil(latio) / l(egionis) VI Vic(tricis) P(iae) F(idelis) l(egionis) X G(eminae) P(iae) F(idelis) / et al(ae) coh(ortis) cla{g}(ssis) / P(iae) F(idelis) q(uae) s(ub) Q(uinto) Acut(io) / su(nt) cu(ra) M(arci) Iul(i) / Cossuti |(centurionis) / l(egionis) VI Vic(tricis) P(iae) F(idelis)
38. GS U 4, Brohl55 I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Hercu/li vexil(l)a/ti[o] c(o)ho(rtis) [X]V / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
39. GS IP 7, Burgbrohl Nimphis(!) et A[p]/ollini sacr[.] / [.] Iunius Ela[..]/us |(centurio) coh(ortis) I ci[v(ium)] / Romanor[u]/m v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
40. GS A 26, Freidberg Victor/iae / M(arcus) Iuni[us] / Iovin[ia]/[n]us m[il(es)] / [c]oh(ortis) I Aq(uitanorum) (v(otum) [s(olvit)] / l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
41. GS P 10, [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo)] Doliche/[no ---] / [---] / [---] / [---] / [---]RIA [---] / [---] Grosskrotzenburg Fl(avius) [A]ntio[chia]n(us) / [p]raef(ectus) coh(ortis) I c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) / P(iae) F(idelis) [p]raep(ositus) coh(ortis) IIII V(indelicorum) / d(omo) PRILASEC [--- Cae]/sarea p[ro concor]/dia coh(ortium) [s(upra) s(criptarum) Aproni]/ano(?) et B[radua(?) co(n)s(ulibus)]56
42. GS IP 10, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) P(---) / M(--- ) |(centurio) c(o)h(ortis) IIII / Vin(delicorum) / ex Grosskrotzenburg iu(ssu) d(edit)
43. GS A 27, [--- eques] / coh(ortis) II Aug(ustae) / C[y]ren(aicae) eq(uitatae) / tur(ma) Au[r]el(i) Heidelberg Res/titut(i) v(oto?) a(nimo?) l(ibens?) f[e]c[i]t
44. GS P 11, [In h(onorem)] d(omus) d(ivinae) deo Marti / c[oh(ors) I]I Treverorum / sig(num) Holzhausen [M]artis de suo / inst[auraver]unt l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito) / inst(ante) Fl[avio Pate]rnio(?) |(centurio) l(egionis) XXII
45. GS IP 12, Iona57 C(aius) Oc(tavius?) Provin/cialis sign(ifer)
46. GS P 12, Ingelheim [--- p]raee[s]t C(aius) ILI/[---]ius Secun/dus praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) am Rhein l(aeta) m(erito)
47. GS P 13, [In] h(onorem) [d(omus) d(ivinae)] / di(a)e(!) Fortu[nae ---] / [---]i trib(unus?) [---] / [-- Jagsthausen -]anu[---]
48. GS IP 13, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Iunoni Reg(inae) / L(ucius) Petronius / Tertius |(centurio) Jagsthausen coh(ortis) / I Ger(manorum) ex voto / suscepto pro / se et suis pos/uit l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
49. GS P 16, Fortunae / C(aius) Mogillo/nius Prisc[i]/anus pra/ef(ectus) coh(ortis) II Raet(orum) / Kapersburg c(ivium) R(omanorum) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
50. GS U 8, Sulevis so/roribus L(ucius) / Gallionius Ianuar(ius) / dec(urio) al(ae) I Cannanef(atium) / Lopodunum /
55 Although present with no epithet, comparison with other inscriptions from Brohl suggest that Hercules Saxanus was understood to be the deity mentioned. 56 191 CE. 57 A rare example of a soldier failing to identify his unit.
124
Ladenburg v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
51. GS P 19, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Astur(um)58 eq(uitata) / cura(m) agente M(arco) Mainhardt Mevio M(arci) f(ilio) Fab(ia) / [C]apriolo praef(ecto) / fec(it)
52. GS P 20, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Ast(urum) / cui prae(e)st / C(aius) Iul(ius) Arte/mo Mainhardt praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
53. GS P 21, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) Ast(urum) / cui prae/est C(aius) Iul(ius) / Artemo / 59 Mainhardt praef(ectus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
54. GS P 22, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / c(o)h(ors) I Astur(um) / eq(uitata) cura(m) / agente / Diodoto Mainhardt
55. GS P 23, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Astur(um) eq(uitata) / cura(m) agente M(arco) / Mainhardt Mevio M(arci) f(ilio) Fab(ia) / [C]apriolo praef(ecto) / fec(it)
56. GS P 24, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I / Astur(um) / eq(uitata) cur(am) a[g(ente)] / [---] / Mainhardt [---]o prae[f(ecto)]
57. GS P 25, [In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae)] / [Victoriae] / [Perpetuae sacrum] / sub cur(a) Sexti 60 Miltenberg Cat[i] / Clement[ini] / co(n)s(ularis) p[r(ovinciae) G(ermaniae) s(uperioris)] / [C(aius) Semproni]/[us Martialis] / [praef(ectus)]
58. GS U 9, Miltenberg I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [ // coh(ortis) I] / Seq(uanorum) et Rauracor/um curaverunt
59. GS IP 16, [I]n h(onorem) [d(omus) d(ivinae)] / Mercur(io) Cimb[riano] / Mansuetinius Se[---] / 61 Miltenberg |(centurio) coh(ortis) I Seq(uanorum) et R[auric(orum)] / sigil(lum) Mercur(i) [posuit?] / Apronian(o) et Bra[dua co(n)s(ulibus)]
60. GS IP 18, In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) deo / Mercurio / C(i)m{a}briano(?) / aed(em) cum 62 Mogontiacum si/gillo et ar/am posuit / Marcellin/ius Marcianu/s cor(nicen?) coh(ortis) IIII Aq(uitanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) mer(ito) Fau/stino et Ru/fino co(n)ss(ulibus)
61. GS ARU 7, In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) Genio c(o)hor(tis) I / Septimi(a)e Bel(garum) [[---]] Mogontiacum p(ecunia) s(ua) / pos(uerunt) / Clau(dius) Valerius / Genti(lius?) Augustus / Simili(us?) Pat[e]rnus / Senec(ionius?) F[---]inus / Hibern(ius?) Agilis / Iunian(us) Rogatus / S[--- I[---]M[---]S / Resti(tutius?) Patruinus / [ // [G](e)ntius Verinus / S[enu]r(ius?) Maternus / P(ublius) Ae[lius] Moderatus / Aquin(ius) M[---]nus / [(A)e]lius Lupionis / Decemi(us?) Florinus / [---]V[---]
62. GS U 10, D(eo) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / pro salute / [tu]r(mae) equi[tum] / [coh(ortis) I Mogontiacum I]tur(aeorum?) / [---] / [---] / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
63. GS A 77, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Meloni/us Nigr/inus vex(illarius) / [coh(ortis) I Lig(urum)] / Mogontiacum / Kastel [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)] // I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Meloni/[us Nig]/[rinus] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)]
58 AE erroneously reads Astur(ia). 59 A rare example of an auxiliary cohort identified without a numeral; cf. the almost identical GS P 20. 60 The identity of this prefect‟s unit is uncertain, but it may be coh. I Sequanorum et Rauricorum (GS U 9). 61 191 CE. 62 210 CE.
125
64. GS P 30, Murrhardt S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / Sex(tus) Iulius / D(ecimi) f(ilius) Hor(atia) Flo/rus Victori/nus trib(unus) co[h(ortis)] / XXIIII V(oluntariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) tem[p(lo)] / a solo restitu/to votum pro / se ac suis solvit
65. GS IP 24, Muttenz Tib(erius) Cl(audius) Andecamulus / dec(urio) alae Gem[ell(ianae)] / veteran[us] / Apol(lini) et M[inervae?] / v(otum) [s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]
66. GS A 82, Nida / Divabus SO[---]63 / Solimarus m[il(es)] / coh(ortis) IIII Vind(elicorum) [ex i]/us(su?) Heddernheim l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) s(olvit?)
67. GS IP 25, Nida / I(ovi) O(ptimo) [M(aximo)] / Doli[che]/no Tib(erius) Cl(audius) |(centurio) co(hortis) / I 64 Heddernheim Dam(ascenorum) [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]
68. GS IP 26, Nida / D(eo) in(victo) C(aius) / Lollius / Crispus]/ |(centurio) coh(ortis) XXXII / Heddernheim Vol(untariorum)
69. GS IP 27, Nida / Deae Candidae / Reginae / L(ucius) Augustius / Iustus |(centurio) coh(ortis) / II Heddernheim Raetorum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
70. GS IP 28, Nida / I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Sextius Ur/sus vetera/nus ex dec(urione) / c(o)ho(rtis) I Heddernheim Damas/cenorum in / suo ex voto / posuit Albi/no et Maximo co(n)s(ulibus)
71. GS A 83, Nida / Deo Dol(icheno) / Atilius / Tertius / ex coh(orte) / II Aug(usta)
72. GS A 84, Nida / Fortu[n(ae)] / sacrum / Tacilus eq(ues) / alae I Fla(viae) / t(urma?) Cl(audi) Amici / Heddernheim v(otum) [s(olvit)] l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
73. GS P 31, Fortunae / Gn(aeus) Calpurnius / Verus praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) VII Raetor(um) / Niederberg eq(uitatae)
74. GS U 13, [Genio l]oci |(centuria) coh(ortis) VI[I] / [Raetor(um) eq]uit(atae) Anton(inianae) / [--- Niederberg ]irio
75. GS P 32, Fortunae / Cn(aeus) Calpurnius / Verus praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) VII Raetor(um) Niederberg eq(uitatae)
76. GS U 14, [Genio l]oci coh(ors) VI[I] / [Raetorum eq]uit(ata) Anton(iniana) / [votum solvit m]erito Niederberg
77. GS IP 29, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et Iu/noni reg/[i]nae Titio/niu[s] Prim/us |(centurio) Niederberg [c]oh(ortis) VII / Rae[t(orum)] eq(uitatae) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [l(aetus)] m(erito)
78. GS IP 30, L(ucio) Valerio Alb/ino dom(o) IIIISI[---] / |(centurio) c(o)ho(rtis) I Trhacu[m] (!) / Niederberg ann(orum) LXV sti(pendiorum) XXIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
79. GS P 33, Nieder- [I(ovi] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [c]oh(ors) IIII Aquit(anorum) / [e]q(uitata) c(ivium) Ingelheim R(omanorum) cui / [praeest C(aius) Tet/[t]ius Secun/dus praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
63 So[leviis]? 64 227 CE, included because the soldier is a veteranus, and therefore recruited before the constitutio Antoniniana.
126
80. GS P 36, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Petronius / Florentinus / domo Saldas / praef(ectus) Obernburg am Main coh(ortis) IIII / Aq(uitanorum) eq(uitatae) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
81. GS P 37, Campestr/ibus sacrum / L(ucius) Petron[ius] / L(uci) filius Ste[l]/latina / Florentinus / Obernburg am Main domo Sald/as(!) praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) IIII Aq(uitanorum) / [[Commodia]]/[[nae]] eq(uitatae) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
82. GS P 38, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Apollini et Aes/culapio Saluti / Fortunae sacr(um) / pro salute Obernburg am Main L(uci) Pe/troni Florenti/ni praef(ecti) coh(ortis) IIII / Aq(uitanorum) eq(uitatae) c(ivium) R(omanorum) M(arcus) Ru/brius Zosimus / medicus coh(ortis) s(upra) s(criptae) / domu Ostia / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
83. GS IP 32, Genio t(urmae) I[us]/ti At[ti]an[i] / Iustius At/tianus d[ec(urio)] / de suo pos(uit) [---] Osterburken
84. GS ARU 16, In h(onorum) d(omus) d(ivinae) deae / Victoriae / [V]erinus(?) V[---]/[---]cal[---] / Osterburken equit[um] / coh(ortis) III Aq/uitanorum / ex voto po/suit l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
85. GS U 16, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Al(a?) Valle/nsium / posue/runt / ex voto / l(ibens) l(aetus) Rottenburg m(erito)
86. GS P 42, Saalburg, [For]tuna[e]/ [S]extiu[s] / [Vi]cto[r] / [p]ra[ef(ectus)] / [coh(ortis) II Raet(orum) Bahnhof
87. GS P 43, Saalburg, [I(ovi)] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [et Geni]o loc[i] / [in] h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) pr[o] / Bahnhof [sa]lute Impp(eratorum) L(uci) / [Sep]t(imi) Severi [P(ii)] / [Pertinac(is)] Aug(usti) et [M(arci)] / [Aur(eli) Antonini Aug(usti)] / [et P(ubli) Sept(imi) Getae Caes(aris)] / [et Iuli]ae A[ug(ustae)] / [mat(ri) Aug(ustorum)] Q(uintus) A[---]/[---]ndr[us] / [praef(ectus) coh(ortis) II Raet(orum)]
88. GS U 19, Saalburg, I(ovi) [O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / Do[lich]en(o) / [sacru]m coh(ors) / [II Raet]or(um) cu[i] / Bahnhof [praeest ---]
89. GS P 44, Saalburg, Numfhis(!) / sacrum / coh(ors) II Raet(orum) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) cui / pr(a)eest / [--- Bahnhof S]exti/[us V]ictor / [prae]fect(us) / [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
90. GS U 18, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / vexil(latio) / coh(ortis) I / Seq(uanorum) et Raur(icorum) / Schlossau eq(uitatae) sub cur(a) / Antoni Nata/lis |(centurionis) leg(ionis) XXII P(rimigeniae) / P(iae) F(idelis) ob burg(um) ex/plic(atum) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
91. GS U 17, Minervae / aeneatores / coh(ortis) I Seq(uanorum) / et Raur(icorum) eq(uitatae) / v(otum) 65 Steinbach s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
92. GS A 98, [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et] Ion[on(i)] / [Reg]in[ae pr]o sal(ute) / L(uci) Dur[i] A(uli) 66 Steinheim [f(ilii)] Pereg/rini vet(erani) ex |(cohorte) vol(untariorum) / et suorum omni/um voto (!) suscepit l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
93. GS IP 34, Stettfeld I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Florentini(us) / Quintianus / vet(eranus) coh(ortis) XXIIII /
65 An aeneator specialized in playing a bronze trumpet; cf. OLD 64 s.v. “aeneator.” 66 This altar was most likely set up while the unit was in transit or on detached duty. There is no further epigraphic record of this unit at Steinheim.
127
vol(untariorum) ex corni/cul(ario) pr(a)ef(ecti) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
94. GS P 47, [I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / Helio[p]oli[ta]/no V[e]ner[i F]/elici Merc/urio Stockstadt [A]ug[ust(o) M(arcus?)] / Iulius Ma[rci] / fil(ius) Fab[i]a R[uf]/us Pap[irianus?] / Sentiu[s] Gem[el]/lus do[m]o B[---] / praef(ectus) c[oh(ortis) I] Aqu[it(anorum)] / castris [---]III[---] / [---]N[---] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus)] m(erito)
95. GS IP 35, [I]n h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) Herc[ul]]i/no Adn(amatius) Superstis(!) / dec(urio) Stockstadt coh(ortis) II Hisp(anorum) v(otum) / s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
96. GS IP 36, Minervae / [P]apias sig/[n]if(er) coh(ortis) I / [Aquit(anorum) vet(eranae) eq(uitatae) --- Stockstadt ]
97. GS IP 37, In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) / I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Attius Terti/[u]s |(centurio) Stockstadt coh(ortis) II His/[pa]norum p/[ro] salute sua / [et] Cissonis / coniugis su/ae et filior/um suoru/m v(otum) s(usceptum) p(osuit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
98. GS P 48, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Doliche/no coh(ors) / I Aquit(anorum) / vet(erana) eq(uitata) Stockstadt / cui prae/est T(itus) Fa/bius Libe/ralis praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
99. GS P 49, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Dolicheno / L(ucius) Caecilius Cae/cilianus praef(ectus) / Stockstadt coh(ortis) I Aquitanor(um) / domo Thaenis / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
100. GS P 50, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Dol[i]chen(o) / L(ucius) Caecilius L(uci) f(ilius) / Quirina Stockstadt Caecili/[a]nus praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / [I Aq]uit(anorum) domo Th[a]/[enis] Afric[ae --- ]
101. GS A 100, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Val(erius) Qua/rtus vet(eranus) / ex coh(orte) II Stockstadt H/isp(anorum) pro sal(ute) / et suorum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
102. GS IP 38, Marti et Victo/riae / Soemus67 Severus / cornicul(arius) coh(ortis) Fl(aviae) / Strassheim Damas(cenorum) |(milliariae) eq(uitatae) sag(ittariorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
103. GS A 108, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Iul(ius) Iblio[m]/arus [mil(es)] / coh(ortis) I[I His]pan(orum) Wimpfen b(ene)f(iciarius) [pra]/ef(ecti) v(otum) [s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)]
104. GS IP 40, I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Quintioni/us Severian/us veteran(us) / ex Wolfersheim |(sesquiplicario) al(a)e In/dianae Ant/oninian[ae] / [---]
105. GS ARU 27, [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo et Iuno]ni Reg(inae) [---] / [--- A]ug(usti) M(arci) [A]ure[li --- Zugmantel ] / [---] et cast(rorum) [ // [---]IM[---] / [--- co]h(ors) I [Trever(orum)] // ] s [---] / [---] sacer[dote(?) ---]
Of the 105 inscriptions listed, 21 originate from Germania Inferior, reflecting the generally lower number of extant inscriptions from that province compared to Germania Superior. Within each province the pattern of distribution varies. In Germania Inferior 8 of the 21 votive inscriptions derive from CCAA, as one might expect, but only 4 of the 84 auxiliary
67 I.e. “Sohaemus.”
128 stone inscriptions from Germania Superior derive from Mogontiacum. The paltry number of votive inscriptions from Mogontiacum is clearly outnumbered by e.g. those from the small fort of Brohl, which boasts an interesting array of Hercules dedications discussed below.
Not all auxiliary votive dedications were made to a deity. Dedications could also be made on behalf of a fellow soldier and/or unit, such as nos. 1, 20 and 21. Two of these (20 and 21) were set up by the same individual, an auxiliary duplicarius named Flavius Simplex on behalf of his colleagues in the ala veterana: “(Dedicated to/for) the duplicarii and sesquiplicarii of the ala veterana. Flavius Simplex, veteran and former duplicarius of the same ala gave the gift.” The abbreviations duplic(---) and sesquiplic(---) pose an interpretative problem. They cannot be expanded to nominative singulars agreeing with Simplex as one might typically expect in an inscription such as this, since a soldier could not simultaneously hold these ranks.68 In this case, Flavius seems to have given a grant to his unit, most likely out of a sense of close affinity with his comrades. This affinity, as a manifestation of the „military‟ family of the soldiers‟ brotherhood, was, as argued above, a characteristically Roman aspect to military service. As such, it is not surprising to see commemorations of “gifts” (dona) made by individuals on behalf of their unit. In Simplex‟ case, however, his gift was restricted to soldiers distinguished by the rank of “double-pay” (duplicarius) and “pay-and-a-half” (sesquiplicarius). The attendant status of these designations, the higher of which Simplex himself held, underscores the hierarchical culture of the Roman army. The prevalence of auxiliary soldiers of a higher rank among stone monuments is not surprising: lower ranking soldiers, as discussed previously, had significant incomes – but not sufficient to commission regular votive monuments in stone.
However, even if votive inscriptions dedicated by auxiliaries are not representative of all ranks, they preserve a broad selection of deities from both Roman and peregrine backgrounds. The following deities are attested by these inscriptions:
Apollo, occasionally with Minerva (GS)
Campestres (GS)
Dea Candida Regina (GS)
68 I can find no parallels attesting a soldier as both sesquiplicarius and duplicarius. If he were a former sesquiplicarius and current duplicarius, one would expect ex sesquiplic(ario) et duplic(arius); cf. the common diploma formula ex gregale for veteran milites gregales.
129
Fortuna (GS)
Fortuna cohortis (GI)
Fortuna Respiciens (GS)
Genius loci (GS)
Hariasa (GI)
Herclintus (GI, GS)
Hercules (GS)
Hercules Maponus (GI)
Hercules Saxanus (GS)
Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (GI, GS)
Iuno Regina, usually with IOM (GS)
IOM Dolichenus (GS)
IOM Heliopolitanus, with Venus Felix and Mercury Augustus (GS)
Malvisi, with Silvanus (GI)
Mars and Victory (GS)
Mars Loucetius (GS)
Mater(GI)
Mater Deum (GS)
Matr. Mases (GI)
Matr. Otocannae (GI)
Matronae (GI, GS)
Matronae Senones (GS)
Mercury Cimbrianus (GS)
Minerva, occasionally with Apollo (GS)
Mithras, Sol Invictus Mithras (GS)
Nehalennia (GI)
Numfae (i.e. Nymphae)
Quadrivae, Trivae Viae Semitae (GI)
130
Sol Imperator (GI)
Sulevae (GS)
Vagdavercustus (GI)
Victoria (GS)
This evidence alone provides insights into the religious diversity present in many auxiliary camps, which is exclusively documented in Latin commemorations. Many of these deities were worshipped in both provinces, and this holds true particularly for Roman deities whose worship was regularly celebrated by the army. Auxiliary religious activity coexisted with numerous military festivals that had their own traditions. The feriale Duranum, a partially preserved record of festivals celebrated by the Roman army in the third century CE from Dura Europus in Syria, includes several references to previous and contemporary members of the imperial house.69 The prominence of the emperor is of course unsurprising, however the list included other members of the imperial house popular in specific regions of the empire. Two centuries after his death, a supplicatio in memory of Germanicus in this list attests to his enduring popularity in the army.70 The list also records the celebration of other festivals of a non- military, yet quintessentially Roman, origin: the Vestalia (June 9) and the dies natalis Romae aeternae (April 21). The veneration of many deities was explicitly connected to the emperor‟s welfare and the continued existence of the Roman empire:
[III Nonas Ianuarias quod solvantur ac nuncupentur v]ota et ob salutem / [domini nostri M(arci) Aureli(i) Severi(i) Alexandri Aug(usti) et ob aetern]itatem / [impe]ri(i) P(opuli)[R(omani) Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) b(ovem) m(arem), Iunoni Reginae b(ovem) f(eminam), Iovi Victori] b(ovem) m(arem) / [Iunoni] Si[spiti b(ovem) f(eminam), Saluti b(ovem) f(eminam), Marti Patri taurum, Marti Victori ta]urum / [Vict]oriae b(ovem) [f(eminam) …]
January 3. Because vows are paid and undertaken both for the welfare of our Lord Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander Augustus and for the eternity of the empire of the Roman nation [to Jupiter Optimus Maximus an ox, to Juno Regina71 a cow, to Minerva a cow, to Jupiter Victor] an ox, [to Juno Sospes72 a cow, to Health a cow, to Mars Pater a bull, to Mars Victor] a bull, to Victoria a cow.
Many Roman deities commemorated in auxiliary inscriptions are also attested in the feriale, and could thus be considered “official” military cults. Altars to Iuppiter Optimus
69 Fink 1971 no. 117, col. i.1-5. Latin texts are based on those of Fink, with editorial changes. 70 Col ii.12-13: viii Kal(endas) Iunias ob natalem G[er]mani[c] Cae[sa]ris sup[pli]cat[i]o / [me]mori[ae Ge]rm[anici] (“May 24: For the birthday of Germanicus Caesar a supplication to the memory of Germanicus”). 71 Schleiermacher 1933:110 notes that IOM and Iuno Regina were a typical pairing in many inscriptions from Roman Germany. Cf. Spickermann 2003: 237. 72 On the restoration for Juno Sospes / Sospita, and the following deities up to Mars Victor, see Fink 1971 comm. ad loc. nn. 4-5, noting that the epithets Seispes and Sispes were in use during the Severan period (ILS 9246).
131
Maximus (henceforth IOM) were ubiquitous in auxiliary forts and vici, as they were in legionary contexts also. Auxiliaries could set up such altars either individually or as a unit, in the latter case usually dedicated by the equestrian unit commander. “Jupiter Best and Greatest” was obviously the chief deity of the state religion, whose imagery was adopted by Roman emperors in their own representations. One famous example of this is the Jupiter column, a common monument peculiar to the German provinces.73 These columns, topped with an image of the god, were often elaborately decorated with scales and set on bases which frequently displayed images of four other deities and representations of planetary deities.
73 Woolf 2001a: 116-121 gives a good introduction to this type of monument. In German scholarship the scaled columns are often referred to as Schuppensäule, while Viergötterstein refer to the bases. The planetary gods often depicted on a second base block (Zwischensockel) were connected with the days of the week; hence the characterization of these as Wochengötterstein.
132
Fig. 2: Schuppensäule, with representation of IOM enthroned (Bonn: Rheinisches Landesmuseum; photo: author)
This “typical Roman cult”74 obviously affirmed one‟s (or a group‟s) loyalty to the Roman order represented by the chief deity, not only of Roman state religion, but also of the Roman army. Few who spent much time around significant concentrations of auxiliary soldiers will have failed to notice that the cultivation of IOM was conspicuous among all ranks of the army. Along with obvious veneration of the emperor, by whose authority the privileges of Roman citizenship were granted, the setting up of this type of monument represented an official act of loyalty.
74 Woolf 2001a: 117.
133
One should be wary, however, of restricting the columns‟ cultural relevance to that of a detached, official act. Indeed, some have seen close connections to the pre-Roman indigenous religious order in the iconography of some German columns.75 Tenuous reconstructions of hidden Germanic identities, an approach similar to the „Resistance‟ model critiqued in chapter one, should, however, also be rejected.76 A “Celtic renaissance” in the cultivation of deities in Roman Germany was implied by Ruger, based on a long-standing tradition in German scholarship. Yet Celtic deities, when mentioned in votive inscriptions, are overwhelmingly incorporated into the religious system of the privileged class in monuments inscribed in coherent Latin.
A blending of Roman and non-Roman traditions in some, but by no means all, of the Jupiter columns illustrates the dynamic cultural reality of provincial society. The „Romanization‟ of these monuments is expressed by the explicit acceptance by the dedicator(s) of Roman rule with a column whose main effect was the glorification of the primary deity of military stationed on the German frontier. The investment of time and money into a column depicting the chief Roman deity was hardly an ideal vehicle for Germanic / Celtic cultural „Resistance.‟
The official aspect is reinforced by the absence of any specific reference to a wife or child by any dedicant of a monument set up to a Roman deity. Occasionally related soldiers might set up a monument, as in the case of a dedication to the Matres Octocannae by seven men, four of whom bearing the gentilicium Albinius and two named Oglannius.77 Three of the seven explicitly referred to themselves as soldiers (milites), implying that the others were not members of the army. It is likely that the „civilians‟ were relatives from the vicus of Gelduba / Gellep, fulfilling a vow pro se et suis, a phrase which could, but did not need to, include families.
The exclusion of family from official religious cult was an inevitable feature of a ritual whose raison d‟etre was the cohesion and loyalty of a military unit whose soldiers, until 197 CE, were prohibited from marrying. Since official Roman policy typically viewed families as a hindrance to the creation of an effective soldier (peregrine or otherwise), it never occurred to a
75 Müller 1975, criticized as “speculations” by Woolf 2001a, 119 n. 8. 76 Ruger 1991: 230; cf. Spickermann 2003: 238 n. 411, noting it pre-WWII tradition German scholarship 77 Table 3a no. 14.
134 prefect to erect a monument to a Roman deity on behalf of the troops‟ families or children.78 Nevertheless the provincial reality was clearly different. Tacitus mentions that soldiers stationed in Syria sueto … contubernio gaudebant, plerique necessitudinibus et propinquitatibus mixti, et militibus vetustate stipendiorum nota et familiaria castra in modum penatium diligebantur.79 There is nothing in this statement indicating that this sentiment was limited to Syrians, though the marriage patterns among Syrians in Germany noted previously largely concur. This contrasts with Tacitus‟ more well known reference to legionary soldiers being unaccustomed to having wives, though the context of both remarks is different.80 In practice, families were more integrated into the daily routines of auxiliaries on the frontier than was prima facie the case. In regard to religious practice, similar circumstances prevailed. Non-Roman religious worship was not prohibited by the army, and thus a great diversity on religious practice is observable in the epigraphic record.
Regional expressions of Roman deities, i.e. the Jupiter columns, have already been noted. Other regionalisms in religious expression have also been identified. For Germany detailed analysis has been conducted in recent studies, particularly by Spickermann.81 He observed that the cult of the Matronae (qualified with various epithets and easily recognizable in stone monuments) characterize particularly the epigraphic record of Germania Inferior among both military and civilian sources.82
Other non-Roman deities were commemorated by auxiliaries, and occasionally offer insights into the cultural background of their dedicants. Often these appear without a reference to a Roman equivalent. A Dacian enfranchised by Trajan, Ulpius Acutus, set up a dedication to Hariasa at CCAA (tab. 3a no. 4). Vagdavercustus, a Celtic female deity, was honoured by Simplicius Super, a soldier of the ala Vocontiorum that belonged to the garrison of Britannia (tab. 3a no. 15). Both of these monuments were set up by decurions, men with higher rank and leadership responsibilities for general auxiliary recruits in cavalry units. Most of the extant
78 Prefects might set up altars to peregrine deities, but this was infrequent. No extant examples from Germany survive. 79 Tac. Hist. 2.80. Phang 2001: 16 notes that this does not indicate whether or not soldiers could marry, yet this is not surprising; a ban on marriage, as previously noted, was in effect since Augustus‟ reign. See also Wells 1998: 180-190. 80 Tac. Ann. 14.27. 81 Spickermann 2001, and, for Germania Superior especially, 2003. For the Celtic deities in Germania Inferior, see Spickermann 2005. 82 Spickermann 2005: 126.
135 inscriptions to both Roman and peregrine gods were set up by soldiers above the ranks of mere eques or miles, perhaps a consequence of the costs involved in procuring stone monuments. The larger number of lower ranking auxiliary tombstones seems to affirm the impression that commemoration in stone of personal religious practice, Roman or peregrine, was not frequently practiced by lower ranking auxiliaries.
III.i. Auxiliary religious co-dedications
Legionary soldiers, either individually or as vexillations, were often assigned to oversee an auxiliary unit that had been ordered to repair a road or a building.83 At Brohl in Germania Superior nine inscriptions involving both legionary and auxiliary units were dedicated to Hercules Saxanus, a cult of Italian origins patronized overwhelmingly by military personnel in Germany.84 Those that attest auxiliaries explicitly are given reproduced below.85
Tab. 4: Auxiliary (co-)dedications at Brohl
GS P 7, Brohl Herc(u)lenti / vexel(l)atio(!) c/o(ho)rts Ti(beri) Astur(i) / votum retul(l)i(t) / l(---) l(aeta) lib(ens) s(olvit)
GS P 8, Brohl Her[c]u[li Sax(ano?)] / vexillari(i) / [lim(itanei)] l[e]g(ionis) [VI] Vic(tricis) et / l(egionis) X G(eminae) P(iae) F(idelis) et al(ae) co[h(ortis) / [---]L q(uae) s(ub) Q(uinto) Acut(io) / [s]u(nt) [cu(r)a] M(arci) Iu[l]i / [C]ossuti |(centurionis) l(egionis) V[I] / Vic(tricis) P(iae) [F(idelis)]
GS P 9, Brohl I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Her(culi) Sax(ano) / vexil(latio) / l(egionis) VI Vic(tricis) P(iae) F(idelis) l(egionis) X G(eminae) P(iae) F(idelis) / et al(ae) coh(ortis) cla{g}(ssis) / P(iae) F(idelis) q(uae) s(ub) Q(uinto) Acut(io) / su(nt) cu(ra) M(arci) Iul(i) / Cossuti |(centurionis) / l(egionis) VI Vic(tricis) P(iae) F(idelis)
GS IP 4, Brohl Herc(u)li Saxa/no Gemell/us im[a]ginif(er) / coh(ortis) III Astu/rum P(iae) F(idelis) D(omitianae) et / vexil(latio) s(?) coh(ortis) / eiusdem / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
GS IP 5, Brohl Herc(uli) Saxsan(o!) sacr(um) / Iulius Verecund(us) / centurio c(o)ho[r(tis)] II Var/cianorum(?) ex voto
83 On vexillations in the Roman army, see Sayer 1964, Holder 1980: 80-81. 84 On the cult, see Bauschenss 1986 and Bendlin 1996. 85 Legionary soldiers acting alone are attested in CIL 13, 7698-7704, 7709-7710, 7712, 7717-7720, and Finke 251.
136
GS IP 6, Brohl I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Iun(oni) / Marti Her(culi) / [s]acrum C(aius) / Domitius / Rufinus d(ecurio) / coh(ortis) II c(ivium) R(omanorum) P(iae) F(idelis) D(omitianae) / [e]t commilitones / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
GS U 2, Brohl Herculi / Saxano / vexellatio(!) / cohortis / I c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
GS U 3, Brohl Herculi Sa/xsano(!) sac/ru(m) coh(ortis) II / [---]VM / [---]
GS U 4, Brohl86 I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Hercu/li vexil(l)a/ti[o] c(o)ho(rtis) [X]V / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
Brohl is the only place in Germania Superior where evidence for the veneration of this deity is found, and, as Sauer has recently argued, the specific regionalism of this “represents a hybrid between native and classical traditions rather than just the classical Hercules.”87 The overwhelming majority of the Brohl inscriptions involve the Roman military, six of which mention auxiliary units either exclusively or in connection with legionary units. Two can be securely dated to late in Domitian‟s reign (GS IP 4 and GS IP 6), a rare example of an inscription escaping Domitian‟s damnatio memoriae.88 Hercules‟ popularity in the Roman army and across the provinces of Germania notwithstanding, the concentration of inscriptions to Hercules “of the stone” (from saxum) primarily derives from Brohl‟s importance as a quarry, a fact in line with earlier manifestations of this deity in Italy. As one would expect, Hercules Saxanus was not venerated here to the exclusion of Roman gods, as common examples of vows exclusive to Roman deities have also been found at Brohl.89 No low-ranking soldier‟s names are recorded in these inscriptions, all of which seem to be standard vows taken by commanders, decurions or centurions of units for the general well-being of the unit. The lowest ranking auxiliary soldier is Julius Verecundus (GS 1P 5), whose name is common among peregrine soldiers enfranchised in the first century, and whose cognomen is commonly recognized as being a Latin translation of a Celtic / Germanic name.90 Another inscription (GS P 7) includes a reference to limitanei, a term that came into use in the third century. Among the provincial populations and non-Roman peoples across the empire Hercules was a god of many faces, with the result that his cult was
86 Although present with no epithet, comparison with other inscriptions from Brohl suggest that Hercules Saxanus was understood to be the deity mentioned. 87 Sauer 2007: 39. 88 This reference was, of course, very slight, since it was represented on the stone by only a single letter among the other abbreviations of the cohort‟s titles. 89 Cf. GS IP 6, contemporaneous with GS IP 4. Other inscriptions at Brohl which record auxiliary units and mention Hercules alone, lacking the epithet Saxanus, are GS P 6 and GS U 4. 90 Kajanto 1965: 264.
137 equally acceptable to legionaries and auxiliaries, as is particularly evident from joint legionary and auxiliary dedications (e.g. GS P 9).
In contrast there is a unique example from Ganuenta / Colijnsplaat in Germania Inferior (tab. 3a no. 3). A dedication to the local goddess Nehalennia, a deity associated with trade, was made by a sesquiplicarius of the ala Noricorum:91
Deae Nehale/niae Sumaro/nius Vitalis / sesquip(licarius) alae / Noric(orum) Averini/us Secundus / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito)
To the goddess Nehalennia, Sumaronius Vitalis, sesquiplicarius of the ala of Norici (and) Averinius Secundus happily, deservedly fulfilled this vow.
One of these individuals was an auxiliary, but his connection with Averinius Secundus is unclear. If the latter were an auxiliary soldier he would most likely have recorded it on this monument. Both men bear gentilicia of peregrine origins.92 On the one hand it is possible to take this as evidence of the opportunity for auxiliaries to engage in commercial activities, although it is not clear what business in this case involved a serving auxiliary soldier of fairly high rank. What is clear, however, is that this is an outlier among the corpus of Nehalennia dedications, which currently number over 120 in total.93 In contrast with evidence from the Hercules Saxanus at Brohl discussed earlier, this rarity seems noteworthy. Sumaronius‟ dedication to Nehalennia is not representative of auxiliary religious or economic practices.
These inscriptions, when placed in the context of daily use in auxiliary sites, underscore an important aspect of Roman religious toleration of non-Roman cults. The diversity of worship rarely corresponds to the diversity of auxiliary soldiers‟ origins; thus it it not the case that all auxiliaries either adapted or could adapt native beliefs to the cultural media of the Roman army. The Roman state had a long tradition of proscribing certain religious practices which it deemed offensive or subversive, such as the suppression of the Bacchanalian cult, Druidism and certain rituals such as human sacrifice or, perhaps, circumcision.94 This is not sufficient to explain other gaps in evidence. For example, the ala Parthorum et Araborum, originally from ancient
91 Sumaronius‟ unit was stationed at Durnomagus / Dormagen. 92 AE reports a Celtic origin for Sumaronius. Averinius is a rare name, recorded elsewhere perhaps as Averenius (CIL 8, 21726), although Solin and Salomies 1988: 29 s. v. „Averenius?‟ were not certain of that inscription‟s reading. While Sumaronius‟ gentilicium was recorded (Solin and Salomies 1988: 178) they did not record Averinius‟ name in their repertorium of gentilicia and cognomina. The cognomina recorded in this inscription, however, are quite common. See Kajanto 1965: 274 (Vitalis), 292 (Secundus). 93 On Nehalennia, see de Bernardo Stempel 2004. 94 Circumcision: SHA vit. Had. 14.2.
138
Armenia, has left no trace of local eastern deities in Germany, where it was stationed in the first century.95 Few ethnic deities in the auxiliary context can invariably be connected with auxiliaries on this frontier. An important factor in this phenomenon was the cost of stone monuments. The regular practice of unit dedications in stone to IOM by the unit commander were made on behalf of the entire unit, as were numerous other festivals. In the Roman army there were several religions, as has recently been stressed,96 but the resources of auxiliary units in Germany were invested in the celebration of the deities of the Roman state and military. In the auxiliary military communities of Germany, expensive and conspicuous monuments to the worship of peregrine deities seems to have struggled to compete with the more visible and accepted military cults supported by the army. Unless a recruit practiced a religion that was exclusionary, and recognized as such by his superiors,97 all peregrine soldiers, in terms of religious worship, partook by necessity in multiple religious worlds: his own, the state‟s, and, in the case of ethnically diverse units, those of his fellow soldiers.
III.ii. Interpreting peregrine deities in auxiliary contexts
Epigraphic evidence represents high ranking soldiers partaking in various cults which would have belonged to the visible space of the auxiliary vicus. Most units, and their subsequent recruits, came from the various Celtic, Germanic or Thracian peoples of the Balkan region, but there was also a need for the specializations of certain eastern units as well. The ala Parthorum et Araborum, raised in Armenia Minor, served in both Dalmatia and Germania. However, the potential diversity of cultural practice among the Gallic, Germanic and Thracian auxiliaries
95 Cf. Spaul 1994: 176-178. Spaul suggests that it was originally recruited from Parthians and Arabs, although there has been debate, based on variations in the unit‟s nomenclature, about whether the evidence attests more than one unit of Parthians and/or Arabs and Spaul may be correct to suggest that the unit‟s title was shortened to ala Parthorum while still in Germany. Attested at Mogontiacum as ala Parthorum et Araborum, there is clear evidence for its residence at Novaesium / Neuss from a silver ring inscribed ala P(a)rthor(um) vet(erana), CIL 13, 10024, 35 in the first century. From there it was transferred to North Africa, where an inscription dedicated to the local Dei Mauri Salutares at Altava / Lamoricière is the only extant reference to a deity by the troops of this unit (CIL 7, 2172). 96 Stoll 2007. 97 Judaism is one such example; the significance of the synagogue excavated at the auxiliary fort at Intercisa has already been discussed (Introduction).
139 could have been equally as great, if somewhat less exotic, than the Parthians‟. Auxiliary soldiers were free to name a Roman or peregrine god, and many inscriptions equated a peregrine deity with a Roman equivalent. This practice is often described, after Tacitus‟ reference to a Germanic priest, as interpretatio Romana, but was not systematically applied by any central Roman authority.98 The classification of this practice as interpretatio Romana is now seen as a complex process, and not simply a case of replacing, as Tacitus did, a nameless or barbarian deity‟s name with one (e.g. Castor or Pollux) that a literate Roman audience would understand.99 Rüpke, although focusing on Celtic dedicants, described three manifestations applicable to any peregrine cult:
1: The Romans equated a peregrine deity as a manifestation (Erscheinung) of a Roman god. The connection was drawn not on the basis of related names but rather on the existence of similar ritual and cult practices.
2: Peregrines adopted the use of Latin and Roman iconography to represent and worship their gods. This need not have required the peregrine worshipper to give the peregrine deity a „Roman‟ name; a Latinized version (e.g. Maponus) or an anonymous Latin dedication would suffice.
3: Particularly in the case of Thracian and Syrian auxiliaries,100 one peregrine deity could be equated with another. This could involve Roman cult practices, but need not have included the invocation of a „Roman‟ deity‟s name.
Since the auxiliary garrison of Germania, particularly in the first century CE included recruits from diverse backgrounds, it is not surprising that peregrine and Roman religious traditions adapted, in part, to conform broadly with the protocols of the military culture. As in the case of eastern recruits stationed in Germany and, as will be shown in the next chapter, Britain, the accommodation of foreign cults was often in the interest of the unit‟s command structure. Once auxiliary units largely began to be commanded by leaders of tribal groups, respect for foreign religious practices was a convenient mechanism for equestrian unit
98 Tac. Ger. 43.4: apud Naharvalos antiquae religionis lucus ostenditur. praesidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu, sed deos interpretatione Romana Castorem Pollucemque memorant. Cf. Beard et. al. 1997: 317. 99 Rüpke 1990: 257-258. 100 Rüpke 1990: 258.
140 commanders to establish their authority among their subordinates. This would be especially true for units that continued to recruit either exclusively or significantly from a particular ethnic group, a practice that is attested for certain eastern and western units throughout the first and second century. All the models described by Rüpke are nevertheless compatible with the established order of the military hierarchy. Thus, while an auxiliary‟s freedom to worship peregrine deities was considerable, he was not relieved of his obligations to the state religion cultivated by the army. As will be discussed further in the following chapter, the „Romanizing‟ effect of military culture even over units that maintained traditions of ethnic recruitment and command were deeply transformed by military service.
IV. „Romanization‟
The evidence of auxiliary families and religious practice in Roman Germany surveyed above demonstrated trends in „Romanization‟ that were possible, in part, because auxiliary commanders were willing to ignore regulations concerning marriage and the traffic of women in a fort.101 There is no evidence that soldiers were punished for „marrying‟ while still in service.102 A similar situation applied in regard to the production of children, whose support was not the unit‟s responsibility. The rewards of service listed on the diplomas seem rather to have encouraged unofficial families, all of whose members, at the time of the father‟s honesta missio, stood to benefit from the veteran‟s privileges. These privileges, civitas Romana for father and children (until 140) and conubium with his current or future “wife” (uxor), created legal Roman families and spread the names of the Iulii, Flavii, Cocceii, Ulpii, and Aurelii throughout the provinces. Many of these names, in various altered forms, remained popular in antiquity following the deaths of the emperors who bore them. The spread of such names surely owes much to the emperor‟s role as provider of military privileges to the auxilia of the provinces.103
101 The “legal awareness” of soldiers, as well as the general population of the empire, is difficult to quantify, though marriage disputes in papyri from Egypt are known (cf. Phang 2001: 22-49 for the most relevant examples). 102 Phang 2001: 50, noting that “dowries were not confiscated, as was done in the case of some other illegal marriages.” 103 This seems particularly the case with Aurelius, the name of many citizens enfranchised by the constitutio antoniniana, from peregrine auxiliaries at Dura Europus to the family of Zenobia.
141
An auxiliary soldier‟s savings could be legally bequeathed to an heir, and many such heirs are mentioned by name in the monuments from Roman Germany.
IV.i. Legionary models in the funerary context in post- conquest Germania
As has been observed, auxiliary service provided non-Romans living within the Roman empire access to important privileges otherwise restricted to Roman citizens. Clearly these privileges were valued and access to them desirable, since Claudius saw fit to grant Roman citizenship to all auxiliaries who completed 25 years‟ service in the army, with the added incentive of „special grants‟ of citizenship in return of valourous and / or meritorious service. Yet many auxiliaries failed to reach that milestone, dying before the completion of their term of service. Their tombstones, however, offer dramatic evidence that, although they died peregrines, they viewed their military service as worth commemorating in a Roman style similar to that of the legionaries. This is particularly the case in Germania, where a number of impressive auxiliary tombstones from early in the history of the imperial period have been discovered.104
In the first decades of Roman rule in Germania, the legionaries had been recruited almost exclusively from Italy and Gallia Narbonensis.105 Since religious dedications to both Roman and peregrine deities used the same formulae on monuments, they should thus be seen as monuments that consciously adapted unfamiliar or foreign peregrine deities to the cultural practices of the dominant military culture of military vici and towns. The archetypes for the auxiliary monuments discussed in this study were the tombstones and votive dedications of Roman legionaries. Auxiliary tombstones are divided into two broad categories of figured and plain tombstones,
104 Particularly impressive examples survive of cavalrymen on horseback, as well as depictions of the Totenmahl (“banquet of the dead”) motif. 105 Mann 1983: 25-28.
142 found in both Germania Inferior and Superior, and a sub-category of figured stones depicting a funeral banquet, the Totenmahl type, which appeared during the Flavian period (fig. 3).106 Fig. 3: GI A 28, Totenmahl monument for Longinus Biarta, Bisae f., eques alae Sulpiciae. The individual in the lower scene attending to the horse may be either the deceased or his calo107 (Köln, Römisch-Germanisches Museum; photo: author)
Images of the deceased are typically carved in a niche in the shape of a small shrine (aedicula), the decoration of which eventually became more abstract over time. Half-figured tombstones set in a niche with an aedicula belong to the latter part of Tiberius‟ reign.108 Full figured tombstones are similarly set, and belong to the mid-first century or later. The aedicula
106 Surveys of inscriptions from Germania are Weynand 1902 (a comprehensive study of funeral stelae), Gerster 1938, and the seminal study of Gabelmann 1972, all of which used by Holder 1980. The subsequent art historical study of Boppert 2001 has dealt with the overall corpus of figured tombstones, but not comprehensively. For a survey of legionary and auxiliary figured tombstones, also edited by Boppert, see CSIRD 2.5. On the Totenmahl monuments, see now Stewart 2009, who surveys the Totenmahl motif in both military and civilian contexts. 107 As argued by Mattern 2003 and accepted by Stewart 2009: 257. 108 Holder 1980: 145.
143 style was developed in Italy and attained widespread use in Roman Germany. These tombstones represent examples of models that, presumably, the customer might order from the lapidarius of a specific shop; thus the inclusion of certain images, such as the Totenmahl type common in Germania, may not reflect a rejection of a particular identity so much as a participation in a current fad in funerary design among the general population of Germania.109 It should be noted that no single style is exclusive to military tombstones. As noted earlier, there is no extant example of an auxiliary tombstone inscribed in any language other than Latin, even by auxiliaries from whom inscription in a language other than Latin might be expected. A particularly striking example is the tombstone of Heliades Adrasti f. from Antioch, whose tombstone commemorated 34 years of service.110
It would be too simplistic to say that auxiliaries merely emulated their legionary colleagues, although a close relationship between the monuments of early legionaries in Roman Germany and early monuments of auxiliaries is clear, differing only in the average size. Monumental tombs were set up by legionaries like L. Poblicius L. f. Tere(ntina).111 This monument, set up ca. 40 CE, far outstrips the largest extant auxiliary tombstones, yet just as impressively demonstrates the importance of family to that soldier‟s life. Poblicius takes care to mention his military career in the leg. V Alaudae, a feature of auxiliary tombstones, as well as his family members. Yet he represented himself as a Roman citizen, electing to highlight his possession of this privilege. Auxiliaries who died while still serving did not have this option; Roman citizenship was not awarded posthumously, so the military identity is more pronounced among auxiliary monuments than among legionary tombstones. The explicit references to family and military service nevertheless were adopted in numerous auxiliary monuments, and those with sufficient funds could commission elaborate tombstones that, if not able to compete with the likes of Poblicius, could hold their own against those of their auxiliary peers.
109 Stewart 2009: 257 notes that the Totenmahl monument in Germany began to evolve, in the second century, into a Familienmahl scene, which are “more familial [and] less sympotic.” The Totenmahl style persisted in Britannia until the third century, however, although evidence for its presence there in the first century remains slim (cf. Stewart 2009: 258-267, arguing that some monuments may be much earlier than previously thought). 110 GI A 64. 111 RSK 216 = IKoeln 311 = Schillinger 172 = AE 1979, 412: L(ucio) Poblicio L(uci) f(ilio) Tere(tina) / vet(erano) leg(ionis) V Alauda(e) ex testamento / et Paullae f(iliae) et vivis / [--- coniugi] / [et L(ucio?) Poblicio --- f(ilio)] / [et libertis] / [L(ucio) Poblici]o Modesto L(ucio) P[oblicio ---] / [h(oc)] m(onumentum) h(eredem) [n(on) s(equetur)]. An impressive reconstruction of the complete monument is on display in Köln at the Römisch-Germanisches Museum.
144
As will be shown, the auxilia embraced the ancient Roman cultural vehicles for status manifestation that were reinforced by the military hierarchy and, perhaps, by aspects of their own cultural backgrounds, of which peaceful and not so peaceful competition may often have been a part. The image of the barbarians as constantly warring with each other in Roman literary sources has some corroboration in archaeological studies of the German frontier.112 D. Wigg notes that burial customs abruptly shifted in the Rhine area, surely due to violence among the tribes that resulted, historically, in the relocation of the Ubii in particular to the left bank of the Rhine prior to Drusus‟ invasion of Germania in 12 BCE. In the Roman period, many German tribes living near the Rhine were exploited for auxiliary units and/or troops.
IV.ii. The legionary template for „Romanization‟
There were plenty of opportunities for auxiliaries to interact with their legionary colleagues. The history of legionary garrisons in Roman Germany is well known and may be summarized briefly. The Roman invasion of Germania began in 17-16 BCE and represented a massive investment of soldiers, supplies and money. XVII Classica set up a fortress at Fectio / Vechten, XVI Gallica and the XVIII Libyca established a joint fortress at Vetera / Xanten (later Colonia Ulpia Traiana), V Alaudae and XXI Rapax established the fortress at Novaesium / Neuss, and I (Germanica) established a fortress at Mogontiacum / Mainz.113 Drusus expanded Roman territory to the Elbe before his death in 9 BCE, but Germania was left with four legions to occupy the new province. After the clades Variana the Elbe frontier was abandoned and the Romans retreated to the Rhine, where CCAA, Vetera and Mogontiacum each became home to two legions, with attendant auxiliary units. Strategically important forts on the new frontier were occupied by auxiliary units.
The following table illustrates how itinerant certain legions were in the first century of Roman occupation in Germania.
112 D. Wigg 1999. 113 Formerly Augusta, the cognomen which this legion lost in 19 BCE for reasons which remain obscure. XIX set up in 14 BCE a short-lived fortress at Dangstetten to guard the Raetian frontier. The site was evacuated in 8 BCE following Drusus‟ death.
145
Tab. 5: Occupation History of Legionary Bases in Germany (Legions destroyed at Kalkriese in bold)114
Site Legion Occupation
Aliso / Haltern XIX 8 BCE-8 CE
Argentorate / Strasbourg II Augusta 15-43 CE
--- VIII Augusta 90-406 CE
Bonna / Bonn I Germanica 35-69 CE
--- XX1 Rapax 70-86 CE
--- I Minervia 86-359 CE
Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium XIX 8-9 CE
--- I Germanica 9-35 CE
--- XX Valeria 9-35 CE
Dangstetten XIX 14-8 BCE
Fectio / Vechten XVII 17 BCE-7 CE
Noviomagus / Nijmegen XVII 7-9 CE
--- II Adiutrix 70-71 CE
--- X Gemina 71-101 CE
--- IX Hispana 121 CE
Vetera / Xanten XVI Gallica 17-11 BCE
--- XVIII 17 BCE-9 CE
--- V Alaudae 9-69 BCE
--- XXI Rapax 10-46 CE
--- XV Primigenia 46-69 CE
--- XXII Primigenia 70-102 CE
--- VI Victrix 102-122 CE
114 The standard reference works on the Roman legions are RE s.v. “legio”, Forni 1963, Parker 1961, Dobson 1978. Farnum 2005 also offers convenient tables of reference, but with little commentary and no reference to secondary scholarship. He is confident that legiones XVII, XVIII and XIX bore the cognomina Classica, Libyca and Paterna (Farnum 2005: 24), but this confidence is not shared by other scholars who have denied that these legions even had cognomina (e.g. Webster 1985: 106). Without direct epigraphi evidence, one cannot assume that these cognomina, perhaps first applied during their campaigns under Antonius during the civil wars, were retained by Augustus. For the history of specific legionary camps, see Schönberger 1985. Other briefly occupied legionary camps must have existed, but relatively few are known, and only those sites where the identity of the legion stationed is known are included. For recent research on one such fortress, the site Marktbreit in Germania Superior (140 km east of Mogontiacum), see Pietsch 2003.
146
--- XXX Ulpia 122-355 CE
Novaesium / Neuss XXI Rapax 17 BCE-11 CE
--- V Alaudae 17 BCE-9 CE
--- XX Valeria 35-43 CE
--- XVI Gallica 43-69 CE
--- VI Victrix 70-102 CE
Mogontiacum I Germanica 16 BCE-9 CE
--- II Augusta 10-15 CE
--- XIV Gemina 10-43 CE
--- XVI Gallica 15-43 CE
--- IV Macedonica 43-69 CE
--- XXII Primigenia 43-69 CE
--- I Adiutrix 70-86 CE
--- XIV Gemina 70-102 CE
--- XXI Rapax 86-89 CE
--- XXII Primigenia 102-355 CE
Mogontiacum / Mainz-Weisenau XV Primigenia 39-46 CE
--- XXII Primigenia 39-43 CE
Vindonissa / Windisch XIII Gemina 16-45 CE
--- XXI Rapax 46-69 CE
--- XI Claudia 70-101 CE
Two new legions, XV and XXII Primigenia, were recruited here for Gaius‟ attempted British campaign,115 the latter staying in Germania permanently. CCAA existed only briefly as a legionary fortress but nevertheless, due to its importance as a Roman colonia and center of provincial administration, preserves many monuments of legionary and auxiliary soldiers. After the revolt of Saturninus against Domitian was suppressed in 89 CE, a long-standing practice of stationing two legions in one camp in Germania was discontinued and one old fortress at
115 Dio 59.21, 25.2-5.
147
Vindonissa was closed in 101 CE.116 The reduction in the legionary presence in the German provinces coincided with greater expansion of the limes.117
IV.iii. “Barbarous camp-speech”
Thus representation in the Roman manner is the common thread linking auxiliary religious dedications and tombstones. Even personal dedications to Celtic and Germanic gods are universally inscribed in Latin and conform to standard Roman formulae. While this does not necessarily mean that auxiliaries chose between their culture and Roman culture, the evidence suggests that auxiliaries clearly understood their status disadvantages vis à vis their Roman counterparts, and actively sought to compensate for this by conscious and costly funerary monuments. Admission to the status and privileges of the empire‟s ruling class was an attractive prospect. Pre-Claudian auxiliaries could not depend on regular citizenship grants, although individual distinctions were possible. Self-representation in Roman cultural media, however, allowed auxiliaries to participate in the culture of the ruling elite, to which they might be and, after the Claudian reform, would be admitted.118
Access to Latin language and literacy in early Roman Germany would, for most peregrines, be available mainly through service in or association with the army. All military units appointed competent soldiers to keep detailed records of personnel, orders, and accounts. Such soldiers held the rank of an immunis with the title cornicularius, though the rank gradually developed into a bureaucratic position.119 Although one might expect a large degree of uniformity in the terminology of military terms, in Germania a regional peculiarity of pre-
116 The practice of billeting two legions in one fortress was not abolished, however, and [Hyginus] Munit. explains how one can station not two but three legions, with auxiliaries, Praetorians and even an Imperial bodyguard in one fortress; see von Domaszewski 1972: Tab. 2. for an illustration. This was especially practical in the later imperial period, when legions were manned by fewer soldiers. 117 See Schönberger 1986 Map C (Flavian) and D (Hadrianic) for chronological presentations of Roman sites. 118 On the pre-Claudian practice, see E. Birley 1986. The significant prerequisite of 25 years of service, however, made this a difficult goal to achieve. 119 For a survey of tombstones of soldiers employed as record-keepers in the army, see Stauner 2004.
148
Flavian tombstones from Germania is the formula mil(es) ex coh(orte), which ordinarily would designate a veteran of the unit.120
This formula provides a useful insight into a Latin regionalism. In Germania, this formula is used in the case of soldiers who died during service and were not, therefore, discharged; a veteran would use vet(eranus) ex coh(orte). One would expect miles cohortis (“soldier of the cohort”). Mommsen‟s explanation of this as an example of “barbarische Lagersprache” on the Rhine has generally been accepted, but it remains speculative and does not explain why to date no comparable example from the alae have been securely attested, along with a few legionary cases.121 Many contemporary cavalry inscriptions use a similar ablative without a preposition, eques ala, usually expanded by editors to the more „correct‟ eques ala(e). Still, the absence of an exact parallel formula in cavalry monuments on the Rhine is curious, since, if Mommsen‟s suggestion is taken at face value, it would imply that a different “barbarische Lagersprache” was in use among the cavalry, but not among certain legionaries, for their funerary monuments.122
This, indeed, proposes a more significant inconsistency, and perhaps the focus should be adjusted away from the “barbarity” of the Latin formula. Mommsen‟s suggestion no doubt resonated with the image of the “barbarous” auxiliaries learning Latin in the camp, with varying degrees of success. Kraft was more explicit in this reasoning, citing “Barbariserung” as the reason why children were excluded from the privileges of Roman citizenship in the diplomas in 140 CE, while Holder passed over the issue in silence.123 Yet the miles ex cohorte formula is not unintelligible,124 and it is used on some of the most intricate auxiliary tombstones from Germania, such as the monument of Annaius Pravai f. from Bingium / Bingen which preserves a well preserved sculpture of the deceased in full military uniform.125 Regardless of the formula‟s
120 Cf. the diploma formula ex gregale (“former trooper”) as opposed to gregali (“serving trooper”). For what follows, see M. A. Speidel 1993, esp. pp. 193 and 196. 121 Mommsen 1965: 429-430, M. A. Speidel 1993: 193 n. 22 (list of pre-Flavian mil ex coh tombstones). The legionary parallels are CIL 13, 6946, 8284 and possibly 1122, although the text is uncertain (cf. Speidel ad loc.). Speidel also notes that the only potential example from an ala is also restored (D(is) M(anibus) S(acrum) C. Iulius Donatus, eques [ex?] ala Pannon[i]orum I em(eritus)…), and rightly notes that the restoration proposed by Le Bohec 1989: 47 is redundant with em(eritus). 122 For the rare examples of mil(es) ex leg(ione) see M.A. Speidel 1993: 193 n. 22. 123 Kraft 1951: p. 120, “[s]o fügt sich die Änderung in den Diplomen der Alen und Kohorten einerseits ein in die Bestrebungen, den Dienst allmählich erblich zu machen, anderseits äußern sich darin Maßnahmen gegen eine Barbarisierung.” See also ch. 1. 124 In classical Latin the use of ex with the ablative to denote the part of a whole, an expression synonymous with the use of the partitive genitive, was commonly used with numerals. 125 GS A 7, who died aftr 15 years of service.
149 origins and the reasons for its continued use until the Flavian period, the detailed Roman iconography of the mil(es) ex coh(orte) tombstones testifies to the sophistication which auxiliary infantry could demand in their funerary monuments during the Julio-Claudian period.
Jonathan Edmondson has remarked on “the almost suffocating sameness of Roman epigraphy around the western provinces,”126 and, indeed, many auxiliary tombstones, and their epitaphs, have common attributes. Auxiliary epitaphs such as the text cited above, however, can offer some less formulaic and local perspectives. Another feature of auxiliary Latin from Germany and paralleled in Britannia is the rendition of civis as cives. This is a consistent feature of the epigraphic record, regardless of rank. As such, it must reflect common usage. Such regionalisms are important evidence for the diversity of Latin in the provinces, offering hints at what the “German” provincial dialect would have been, analogous to dialects that were recognized in other provinces in antiquity.127
The following tombstone (GI IP 1) was commissioned in the Claudian or Neronian period, and Pintaius‟ unit seems to have been stationed in Bonna, where it would have served as one of the auxiliary units attached to legio I Germanica stationed there. The stone depicts a peregrine as a Roman soldier, represented in his role of signifer, through the Roman media of the funeral stele, Latin inscription, and sculpture (Fig. 4).
126 Edmondson 2001: 57. 127 On Latin bilingualism and dialects, see Adams 2003 and 2007. Adams 2003: 600 questions the characterization of Latin as the army‟s “official language,” citing papyrological evidence from the eastern empire. While the usage of Greek for communication of orders or other “official” documents is notable, the context helps to explain such instances. Given both the widespread usage of Greek in the east and Greek‟s status as a language of learning among Roman elites, it was a convenient second language, conceivably useful for equestrian commanders of eastern auxiliary units. In any case, there can be no doubt, as Adams admits, that Latin in the army was a “super-high” language whose usage served to reinforce the imperial order among the troops and in the provinces (Adams 2003: 608-609). Other languages might result in Latin accents that carried a social stigma. The most famous example (cf. Adams 2007: 260) is the “African” dialect of Septimius Severus, the inspiration of a dubious reference to his embarrassment at his sister, who could “hardly speak Latin” (SHA vit. Sev. 15.7). The truth of the account is beside the point, as it demonstrates that there was a recognizable African accent to Latin.
150
Fig. 4: Tombstone of Pintaius (Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum; photo: author)
Pintaius Pedilici / f(ilius) Astur Trans/montanus caste(l)lo / Intercatia signifer / c(o)ho(rtis) V Asturum / anno(rum) XXX stip(endiorum) VII. / h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit) / ave.
“Pintaius son of Pedilicus, Asturian from across the mountains, from the fort of Intercatia, standard-bearer of the Fifth cohort of Asturians, thirty years old, seven years‟ service. The heir saw to this monument‟s construction, in accordance with the terms of the will. Farewell.”128
This, like other examples of auxiliary representations from Germania, indicates that auxiliary service, even if compelled by conscription – a practice which, as Haynes recently reminded us, was never abolished in the auxilia129 – was worth recording in Latin and in sculpture. Pintaius, although living in the company of fellow Asturians on the frontier of Germania, was
128 In the auxilia careers meant that not only individuals, but entire ethnic groups accompanied their units to frontiers of the Roman empire that could be thousands of miles distant from their homes. The unit most likely did not long outlive Pintaius, although the question whether it was disbanded. Bonn was destroyed during the revolt; if this cohort joined Civilis‟ rebellion, it might have had a hand in the destruction. See Spaul 2000, comm. ad loc. and Schönberger 1985: 441 for a summary of the evidence for destruction at the fort. 129 Haynes 1999: 166 n. 2.
151 monumentalized in an unambiguously Roman monument, the style of which, as art historians such as Gabelmann have demonstrated, was deeply influenced by Northern Italian models, particularly in the first half of the first century.130 Pintaius‟ epitaph belongs to an important period in the cultural history of Roman Germania; the global culture of Rome, clearly identifiable from Roman monuments like Latin inscribed Italian funeral stele, quickly became important media for auxiliary soldiers. Peregrines could use inscriptions to advertise not only auxiliary careers of themselves, but also the careers and values of their relatives. This is the case with another inscription, an epitaph from Vetera / Xanten in Germania Inferior (GI A 3):131
Silvano Loupi f(ilio) Trever(o) / eq(uiti) ala(e) Vocont(iorum) an(norum) XXX / stip(endiorum) XII et vivis Primae / sorori eius hered(es) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt) / vos rogitat quaeso soror unica132 / fratris amantis ni dissigilletis / nive violetis opus
“To Silvanus son of Loupus, Trever, cavalryman of the ala of Vocontii, thirty years old, 12 years‟ service, and to Prima his sister, while both were alive. The heirs saw to this monument‟s construction. Please, the peerless sister of a loving brother requests that you neither unseal nor vandalize the monument.”
This funerary monument bearing an inscription and a representation of a Totenmahl formerly included an image depicting a cavalryman‟s horse and attendant.133 The ala Augusta Vocontiorum was stationed in Germania Inferior in the first century, and this monument dates to the early Flavian period.134 Remarkable is the metrical plea of Prima, Silvanus‟ sister, for future onlookers to respect this monument, a plea which, given the monument‟s current state, has sadly not come to pass.135
This verse is not quite perfect; the pentameter, as Bücheler recognized, requires dissignetis neu to scan; disigilletis is a hapax.136 The appearance here of Latin verse speaks to the permeation of Latin culture in the legionary fortress of Xanten. By the Flavian period Latin elegy along with the conventions of epigraphy and military iconography, were well established in camps, even if the rules of meter were not being strictly followed. However, this epitaph
130 Gabelmann 1972. 131 For images and illustrations, see CSIRD 3.1: 40, no. 22, plates 24-24. 132 For this meaning of unicus, also in connection with a female, see CIL 12, 4745: Cornelia T(iti) f(ilia) uxor unica frugi, and OLD p. 2093 s.v. “unicus.” 133 On the identity of the attendant, see n. 107 above. 134 Kraft 1951: 164, Spaul 1994: 240-241. 135 The monument itself is now partially lost and severely decayed, and is best known from earlier illustrations. 136 See Bücheler‟s commentary in CLE ad loc, OLD s.v. “disigillo” for the meaning “unseal”. The sigilla were the ornaments and seals of the tombstone. Bücheler‟s suggestion, which was not proposed as an emendation, would yield a proper dactylic pentameter. This carmen is instead listed among many other “defective” carmina classified as dactylic elegiacs.
152 speaks with the voice of Prima, not Silvanus. While Silvanus‟ career as an auxiliary soldier is properly documented, along with his peregrine status, Prima‟s epitaph advertises both his and her character. The favour given to her voice over his is even more striking given the adjective vivis, which indicates that Silvanus and Prima were still alive when this monument was commissioned.
The epitaph, with a heartfelt plea from the soldier‟s sister, adds a literary element to this monument. That Prima was the sister of an eques alae (not a higher ranking soldier like a decurion or a principalis) is evidence that lower-ranking auxiliaries and their families could have the opportunity of attaining to Latin literary pretension. Obviously, one inscription is not evidence for all auxiliaries. However, this monument offers posterity more than a summary of a soldier‟s career and surely represents a significant investment in thought and money. It is also not an isolated example, since, as noted earlier, two other metrical inscriptions commissioned by auxiliaries, both tombstones, can be identified in Germania.137
A survey of the figured tombstones also reveals a clear pattern. Nearly all of the most detailed representations of auxiliary soldiers, apart from Trajan‟s column, are preserved on funerary monuments. Occasionally the deceased is simply depicted in uniform, such as in the case of Pintaius.138 In other examples, largely of equites alae, the deceased (or a standard image) is depicted on horseback, occasionally spearing an enemy. At Mogontiacum alone 15 depictions of cavalrymen in fighting posture are known, 12 claiming peregrine tribes as their origo, with 3 unknown.139 The image of the auxiliary cavalryman in battle has a parallel in CIL 13, 8059, a legionary tombstone from the Claudian-Neronian period depicting an eques legionis, obviously a Roman citizen, in battle posture.140
These monuments must be placed in perspective. Not all auxiliary tombstones have these impressive images, and the poetic epitaph of Silvanus and Prima here is a rare example among the auxiliary ranks of Germania. The fact that most auxiliary monuments do not deviate from formulaic inscriptions should not obscure the great variety of images that individuals chose to
137 See pp. 126-127 and n. 23 above. 138 Above, p. 163. 139 CSIRD 2.5, p. 58 and nos. 27-35, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50 and 52. One of Boppert‟s unknowns was a peregrine of the ala Picentiana named Abaius who is “viellecht Pannonier”. This motif was closely connected to Roman military expansion and security along the Rhine; see Boppert‟s commentary in CSIR Deutschland 2.5, p. 57 with bibliography. 140 C. Marius L(uci) f(ilius) Vol(tinia) Luco Augusto eques leg(ionis) I annor(um) XXX stipend(iorum) XV h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Sex(tus) Sempronius frater facien(dum) curavit. Sempronius was surely Marius‟ fellow soldier.
153 have engraved on their final monuments. It is clear that auxiliary soldiers of both the cavalry and infantry, even at the lowest ranks of the Roman army, elected to memorialize their service with elaborate tombstones, and the distribution of figured auxiliary tombstones throughout Roman Germany testifies to the pride placed by them and their families in military service. Clearly these monuments cost money; many legionaries, and even commanders like equestrian prefects, often opted for humbler monuments.
Auxiliaries from specialist cohorts could proudly display themselves in their, from the Roman perspective, unorthodox equipment, as in the case of Monimus Ierombali f., of coh. I Sagittariorum from Mogontiacum.141 The deceased is depicted in an aedicula holding arrows in his right hand and a bow in his left hand. Dating to Tiberius‟ reign, Monimus‟ tombstone speaks to the wider acceptance of Roman media for self-representation among auxiliary soldiers generally.142 One may stress the „otherness‟ of the individual represented, but the Roman medium of an Italian-style tombstone inscribed in Latin should underscore not Monimus‟ status as a peregrine Ituraean but rather as a Roman auxiliary, buried alongside other auxiliary soldiers and commemorated in a quintessentially Roman way.
The survey of the epigraphic evidence and the examination of how salary and income were connected to status in Roman Germany raises further questions about the close relationship between the iconography of auxiliary tombstones and legionary monuments. As soldiers in the Roman army, many clearly found that emulation of legionary practices was natural. Individual motives will have varied. As previously stated, auxiliary service offered a path to Roman citizenship which was available at all periods via special grants for meritorious service and, after Claudius‟ introduction of citizenship grants at the end of service, predictable.143 Many auxiliary soldiers lived in close quarters with legionaries. A good example is Vindonissa, the subject of a study by Hartmann and Speidel.144 Although auxiliary units were stationed outside the legionary fortress proper, the writing tablets discovered at this site show that auxiliaries nevertheless had a significant presence at the camp. Fragmentary letters from auxiliaries stationed there are unfortunately too fragmentary to preserve much information beyond names, although a
141 GS A 47, Monimus / Ierombali f(ilius) / mil(es) c(o)hor(tis) I / Ituraeor(um) / ann(orum) L stip(endiorum) XXI / h(ic) s(itus) est. The monument dates to Tiberius‟ reign (Boppert 2001: 272). 142 Boppert 2001: 272-273. 143 On the pre-Claudian practice, see E. Birley 1986. 144 Hartmann and Speidel 1991. The garrison at Vindonissa was closed in 101 CE.
154 stipendium receipt issued to Clua, a peregrine eques serving in the ala Raetorum, concerns a man whose homeland probably lay in the Northern Alps.145 The significance of separate quartering should not be overemphasized, however. Legionaries were often assigned to command auxiliary units or auxiliary vexillations, and they were Rome‟s most visible presence on the frontier. The structural modeling of auxiliary units after the legions has also been discussed, while Roman values and regulations concerning religious practices were uniform among the ranks.146 The high incidence of non-Roman deities in the epigraphic record should not be read strictly as “local / provincial” versus “Roman,” as James Rives has recently observed,147 but the Roman medium of expression uniformly employed in these dedications underscores the important role of these Roman cultural “trappings.”
V. Conclusion
Being one of the oldest provinces to be organized during the imperial period, Germania provides important evidence for the formative years of the imperial auxilia. Since pre-Flavian auxiliary inscriptions in Germania particularly can be recognized fairly easily from their formulae, we can recognize various examples of early adaptation by auxiliary soldiers of the classical form, particularly based on the monuments set up by other ranks of the Roman army. Unsurprisingly, the soldiers of the eight legions assigned to garrison the province (later split into two, with four legions assigned to each), can be identified as significant influences on auxiliary self representation from an early date.
However, this “provincialization of the classical form,” to use Lindgren‟s term,148 should not be interpreted solely as a manifestation of the art forms employed by tombstones. Peculiarities in military language, and even examples of Latin verse, indicate a complex engagement with Roman culture. One can conclude that the appearance of participation in the culture of imperial Rome, as represented particularly in a heavily militarized frontier province
145 Speidel 1996: no. 2, with commentary. His unit was probably coh. VII Raetorum. 146 See Chapter 1 on the organization of auxiliary units; cf. also Holder 1980: 5-13. 147 Rives 2007. 148 Lindgren 2003.
155 like Germania, was often seen as desirable even by soldiers who did not belong to the privileged class of Roman citizens who not only governed the province but also sustained their livelihoods through the provision of a regular pay.
Before the introduction of regular constitutiones that promised Roman citizenship and other privileges, auxiliaries had much less of an opportunity to attain the rights of a Roman citizen, although these were attainable from a „special grant.‟ The diversity of religious dedications evident among the auxiliaries is as old as the units themselves, and was surely tolerated as a concession to the non-Roman recruits, who otherwise possessed a lower status and lower pay than Roman citizen soldiers. There is no evidence, however, that any auxiliary was exempted from the regular religious observances required of all soldiers serving in the army. Thus were many non-Roman cults patronized often in Roman ways, even by Roman citizens, as a part of the broader military culture introduced into Germania, which had already been developing for decades when Claudius‟ promise of regular grants of citizenship privileges transformed auxiliary service.
The status difference between legionaries and auxilia from the earliest years of the history of Germania was sharp, and not limited to rank or pay. The handbook de munitionibus castrorum lays out specific areas in an ideal camp to locate auxiliaries and other foreign troops, noting that the legions should be located closer to the ramparts “since they are the most reliable provincials in the military.”149 The author‟s claim could be seen as having a particularly strong force in Germany, where the legions and the auxilia were involved in several notorious military struggles during the time period covered in this investigation. Separate quartering and status distinctions should be remembered when approaching the dynamic of social interaction within the ranks of the army. The early legionaries provided models that their peregrine auxiliary colleagues could emulate, although it would be simplistic to argue that all auxiliaries merely copied legionary behaviour. Clear distinctions in military and social rank in the military context would be obvious to a new auxiliary „recruit,‟ who was in practice often a conscript. The process of belonging could proceed variously, beginning first with a military cultural context.
149 [Hyginus], Munit. 2: legiones, quoniam sunt militiae prouinciales fidelissimae, ad uallum tendere debent, ut opus ualli tueantur et exercitum gentibus imperatum suo numero corporali in muro teneant. See also Munit. 23-29 on the location of auxiliary units within a camp that also houses legionaries.
156
Auxiliaries might maintain closer connections with their homelands than legionaries, for, as Mann argued, even Spanish recruits from one of the Roman west‟s least militarized provinces preferred to settle around their former garrison rather than return home to Spain.150 The phenomenon of Thracian auxiliary veterans returning home after completing service has been highlighted recently by Derks and Roymans, while Eck has also that the extant diploma recipients for Germania are heavily biased in favour of Thracians.151 The Danubian element to auxiliary garrisons in both Germania and Britannia was considerable, with significant repercussion, as will be argued later, for our understanding of the relationship between the auxiliary armies in Roman Britain and Germany.
What has been demonstrated thus far, however, is that auxiliary monuments from Roman Germany could not help but be „Romanized‟ to a certain degree. While erected in the Roman style, they overwhelmingly stress the auxiliary military experience. Roman citizenship was seen as a valuable marks of status; auxiliaries and their families went to clear lengths to express it, even when they did not possess the privileges of the military citizen elite. In the case of Roman Britain, to be considered in the next chapter, a later period of incorporation into the Roman empire placed the auxilia of Britannia on a somewhat different trajectory – though „Romanization‟ among auxiliary families and religious practices can be observed, paralleling the evolution of the German provinces.
150 Mann 1983: 22. The trend is observable in the Flavian-Trajanic periods; later material suggests that recruitment from Spain dimished in the second century in favour of more local sources, and only the legionary garrison at Legio in Spain continued to recruit from Spaniards either locally or from nearby settlements. 151 Derks and Roymans 2006, Eck and Pangerl 2008 (forthcoming).
157
Chapter 4 Roman Britain: Family, Religion and „Romanization‟
In this chapter I will analyze the evidence, mainly derived from epigraphic material, of auxiliary soldiers and their families known to have served in Roman Britain from the period of its initial conquest in 43 CE until the promulgation of the constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE, a period of over 1 ½ centuries.1 This significant period of time includes numerous Roman military campaigns both within the province and elsewhere, leading to the establishment of permanent auxiliary fortifications along Hadrian‟s Wall and, briefly, the Antonine Wall.
The objective of this study if to trace the evolution of auxiliary diversity and integration both in terms of unit personnel and individuals‟ families and their descendants. As with the previous chapter, my analysis focuses on three broad aspects of the evidence – family, religion, and „Romanization‟ – which have traditionally characterized much modern scholarship on auxiliary soldiers.
1 As with inscriptions from Roman Germany cited in the previous chapter, I have employed a citation system for inscriptions from Roman Britain classified by province (B for Britannia) and subdivided by the content of the inscription: P = inscriptions that record unit commanders, i.e. praefecti, tribuni, or praepositi; U = “unit dedications” that record an auxiliary unit but no specific personnel, IP = inscriptions that record immunes and principales, i.e. all individuals above the rank of common solder, A = inscriptions that mention an auxiliary soldier (i.e. at the rank of miles gregalis), and ARU = “auxiliary rank uncertain”, for inscriptions too fragmentary to classify in the previous categories. Inscriptions are also classed in the appendix as F for “funerary”, V for “votive” and D for “dedications, typically for construction / restoration of buildings”, although this information, where self-evident, is omitted from the text of this chapter. All inscriptions are provided in the appendix to this chapter and listed alphabetically by findspot, with publication references and explanatory notes where appropriate.
158
I. The Auxiliary Garrison of Britannia from Claudius to Caracalla: general observations2
The size of the Roman army gathered by Claudius for the purposes of the invasion and conquest of Britannia is not precisely known.3 Grainge estimates that the fleet alone ranged between 724 and 1,041 ships, depending on the total number of cavalry (ca. 1,500-2,000) and infantry (ca. 33,500 – 38,000 men).4 The army was comprised of four legions, II Augusta, IX Hispana, XIV Gemina and XX Valeria Victrix, although the participation of only one, II Augusta, can be conclusively proven.5 The total number of the auxiliary contingent cannot be precisely calculated, although it is assumed by a majority of scholars that it was roughly equivalent to the legionary army. Thus Salway estimates a sum of 40,000 soldiers calculated from 20,000 legionaries at 5,000 men per legion.6 If Salway‟s argument that the number of auxiliaries was equivalent to the legionaries, then approximately 20,000 auxiliary soldiers would have taken part in the invasion. This interpretation would yield about 40-41 auxiliary units if each unit had ca. 480 men. Since no auxiliary units in this period would have been milliary (see introduction tab. 1), the infantry cohorts and alae would each number ca. 480 troops at full strength, although 600 would be the manpower of cohortes equitatae, an the presence of these units in the invasion
2 There are a great number of books written about Roman Britain; not all can be surveyed here. Standard general works are well represented by Salway 1981, Frere 1987, Todd 1997 and the various contributions to Todd 2004. For the early period of the provice see especially Creighton 2006. The Roman impact on local society, with particular focus on the visible archaeological remains, is a well established topos. Haverfield 1923 is the seminal work on „‟Romanization.‟ The concept was dealt with in detail by Millett 1990. Significant revisionist (or „post-colonial‟) discussions of Roman rule in Britannia are offered by Hingley 2000 and Mattingly 2006; the latter provides a “bibliographical essay” that provides a convenient summary of scholarship on Roman Britain. The archaeology of Roman Britain is also a rich and evolving subject. For a general guide to archaeological sites see Jones and Mattingly 2002 and Wilson 2002. For a useful survey of auxiliary vici in Britannia see Sommer 2006; for a general survey of this topic see Hanel 2007. All periods of the province‟s epigraphic history are discussed by Raybould 1999 in connection with the subject of Latin literacy. The Roman art of the province is exceptionally well published in the volumes of CSIR Britain. The Roman army of course features prominently in all of these works. For a concise treatment of the Britain‟s Roman army alone, however, see Holder 1982. 3 Space does not permit a detailed survey of the Roman invasion of Britain, which has been covered in detail in many standard works. Of these some of the most representative are Frere 1987: 48-59, Millett 1990: 40-64, Todd 2004: 42-59, and Mattingly 2006: 94-127 (surveying military operations in Britannia from Claudius to Severus). On the strategic motives for the invasion, see esp. Grainge 2002: 90-97. On the Roman garrison generally, see Holder 1982, esp. 104-133. 4 Grainge 2002: 51. 5 Manley 2002: 81. 6 Salway 1998: 73-75; cf. Webster 1980: 85 and Fulford 2000: 42.
159 force would lower the total. We cannot be certain precisely how many auxiliary units took part in the invasion, however, since out of the theoretical maximum of ca. 40 units, very few with either clear or circumstantial connections with the invasion have been identified. These are, namely, eight Batavian cohorts, coh. VI Thracum, and three alae: I Thracum, Indiana and Vettonum, for 12 total units.7 Frere estimated the total invasion force to be 30,000 infantry and 1500 cavalry. This number assumes that the legions were fully manned to 6,000 each, yielding 24,000 legionaries, supported by 6000 auxiliary infantry and 1500 cavalry.8 Assuming that not all auxiliary units involved in the invasion are known, Grainge‟s adjusted this estimate to “between 1,500-2,000 cavalry, which might be within the overall figures of 35,000-40,000.”
The evidence of the later garrison of Roman Britain, however, favours a higher estimate of original auxiliary units, which will certainly have been the case if the four legions were manned by 5,000 men instead of 6,000. A first century diploma from Britannia lists 50 units, and yet this list did not include all the units attested earlier in the province.9 This must be close to the total auxiliary garrison, although a recent publication, which may attest the hitherto unknown presence of the ala I Hispanorum Campagonum in Britannia, is a potent example of the gaps that persist in knowledge of the auxiliary forces assigned to this province.10
After the initial conquest and establishment of client kingdoms was essentially completed in 43 CE, most of the auxiliary forces involved seem to have remained. The overall number of auxiliary units known to have been assigned to the province from Claudius‟ invasion until the reign of Caracalla is 70, 18 alae and 52 cohorts.11 At any given time, however, ca 50 units would have been stationed in the province. The number of units recorded on military diplomas is inconsistent. For example, a span of little over two years separates two early-Hadrianic diplomas, one of which records 50 units (13 alae and 37 cohorts) and the other 27 units (6 alae and 21
7 It is possible that coh. I and VI Thracum were also part of Claudius‟ invasion force, or these may have come to Britain after 61 CE, following the Boudiccan rebellion (Holder 1982: 15). 8 Grainge 2002: 50, following Frere 1987: 48, while acknowledging that „the evidence considered by Frere did not identify all the auxiliary units.‟ The number of cavalry, 1500, assumes that the three known cavalry units are the only such units to take part in the invasion. 9 CIL 16, 69 (122 CE) lists 13 alae and 37 cohorts (see Appendix II: Diplomas). Cf. Birley 2003: 5-6. The Batavian units had been withdrawn in 66 CE with leg. XIV Gemina and took part in Civilis‟ rebellion of 69-70 CE (Spaul 2000: 206). 10 AE 2003, 1033a-b (Jan. 98 CE). 11 See Appendix I. As with the unit list in Germany, this is not the number of units which were stationed in the province at any one time; numerous units were transferred in and out of the province. See generally Jarrett 1994, and, for individual units, Spaul 1994 and 2000. For current diploma evidence, see Appendix II.
160 cohorts).12 While neither number represents the total provincial garrison at either date, a significant reduction in the number of auxiliary units stationed in Britannia seems to have taken place at the time. Holder has proposed that, despite overseeing the creation of two (or perhaps three) auxiliary units named Aelia in his honour, Hadrian permitted a significant reduction following his visit to the province in 122 CE.13
This reduction may be due to various factors, such as the completion of Hadrian‟s wall or the fierce war against Bar-Kochba in Judaea.14 However, while the governor Julius Severus was transferred to Judaea to command the Roman army in Judaea, there is no evidence from Judaea itself that a large contingent of auxiliary units formerly stationed in Britannia accompanied Severus.15 The number of alae particularly were reduced, perhaps because the completion of Hadrian‟s Wall eliminated the need for large cavalry units to cover the formerly undefended terrain. It is significant that two of these, ala Gallorum et Thracum and ala I Thracum are attested in Germania Inferior in 127.16 This province, as noted in the previous chapter, relied more on cavalry units than did Germania Superior since the natural barrier of the Rhine could be policed more effectively by mounted troops. Moreover, the prominence of infantry on Hadrian‟s wall, with several equitate units, parallels the situation on the limes of Germania Superior where alae also seem to have played a less prominent role. After the completion of Hadrian‟s wall, expansion north into Scotland was consolidated with a new walled fortification ca. 141 CE, but the Antonine wall could not be maintained and was abandoned 20 years after its construction, ca. 162 CE. Thereafter Hadrian‟s Wall in the north of the province remained the site of the largest concentration of auxiliary soldiers in Britain.
Auxiliary soldiers were concentrated on the province‟s northern and western frontier which, from the initial invasion until the completion of Hadrian‟s wall, had gradually been
12 CIL 16, 69 (17 July, 122) and CIL 16, 70 (16 Sept. 124). Holder 2003: 118 notes that “even these [50 units] are not all the units known to have been in the province. For a summary of the complete unit lists preserved on diplomas from Britannia, see Holder 2003: 131 and ZPE 156: 251. 13 Holder 2003: 118-119, 143-145. For auxiliary units created during Hadrian‟s reign and assigned to Britannia see Holder 1998: 254-260, arguing that coh. I Aelia Hispanorum ∞ should be distinguished from the coh. I Hispanorum which is attested at Alauna / Maryport. On Hadrian‟s visit, see SHA, Vita Hadriani 11.2 and Halfmann 1986: 190, 195-196. 14 On Hadrian‟s Wall, see generally Breeze and Dobson 2000, Crow 2004, and Mattingly 2006: 553-554 for references to more specialized works. A useful focus on the use of aerial photography to identify fort remains at the site is provided by Jones and Wooliscroft 2001. The best surveys of the Antonine Wall remain those by Robertson 1979 and Hanson and Maxwell 1983. 15 On the Bar Kochba revolt, see Eck 2007c. 16 By 178 CE the ala Gallorum et Thracum was back in Britannia, but the ala I Thracum did not return.
161 expanding into the island‟s north and east. This expansion included at least one serious attempt to conquer the entire island during Domitian‟s reign by Agricola.17 Subsequent expansion in the second century led to the construction of large scale fortifications during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, while, in Wales another large garrison, supported by a legionary base at Magnae / Carvoran, was required.
Britain offers diverse evidence to support an investigation of auxiliary troops. In addition to inscriptions on stone, a large cache of wooden writing tablets from the fort of Vindolanda / Chesterholm have been recovered and published in three volumes edited by Bowman and Thomas.18 The total number of inscriptions in stone are roughly 1/3 the number that have survived in Germany. Just over 300 inscriptions on stone, leather or pottery, or graffiti currently published in RIB and AE (to 2003) pertain directly to the auxilia, totalling ca. 10% of the total number of inscription published in these corpora, while another 24 military diplomas are also collected in this study. All of this material is listed in the chapter appendix, although specific examples and data sets, as in the previous chapter, will be presented in the following sections.
A final introductory note must be given regarding the writing tablets discovered at Vindolanda.19 Most of these texts were written in ink on thin slices of wood, which could be bound together as diptychs or triptychs. The survival of these texts was due specifically to anaerobic conditions created by their deposition in a dump-site which was covered by layers of clay and turf. Preservation was also aided greatly by the fact that the dump-site was largely ignored during the various period of renovation at the fort.20 The tablets provide a useful cross- section of the ranks of two units, the coh. II Tungrorum ∞ c. R and the coh. VIIII Batavorum equitata, both of which are attested epigraphically at Vindolanda, and cover a relatively short period of time in the late 1st- early 2nd-century. This era is subdivided into „periods‟ corresponding to phases of demolition and construction identified archaeologically at Vindolanda (Table 1 below):
17 The accuracy of Tacitus‟ account remains the subject of much debate, but the Roman invasion of Scotland is an archaeologically verifiable fact. See Grainge 2002 and Wooliscroft and Hoffman 2006. 18 Bowman and Thomas 1985, 1994, 2003. 19 On Vindolanda‟s garrison life, see A. R. Birley 2003, Bowman 2003. For the publication of a smaller number of tablets from Carlisle, see Tomlin 1998. 20 A. R. Birley 1993: ix-x, noting also that “if demolition and re-building followed abandonment in a short space of time… even the most fragile of goods remained in a fair degree of preservation.”
162
Table 1: Period Dating of the Vindolanda Writing-Tablets
Period Date
1 85-92 CE
2 92-97 CE
3 97-102/3
4 104-ca. 120 CE
5 Ca. 120-130 CE
In sum, while there are several points of dispute regarding the chronology and terminology of Roman military frontiers in first century Britain, a general reconstruction of the province‟s expansion is possible.21 In 43 CE Claudius‟ army captured Camulodunum and compelled eleven British kings to surrender (Dio 60.19-23). Over the next five years the Romans subjugated the Durotriges, Dumnonii, Atrebates, Coreltauvi, Dobunni and probably also the Iceni and Cornovii (Suetonius, Vesp. 4, Dio 60.21, Tac. Ann. 12.31).22 From 47-51 CE Roman territory expands farther west into Wales and north. This led to various campaigns against the Deceangli, Brigantes, Silures and Ordovices. Wales would not be fully pacified until Julius Frontinus‟ campaign against the Silures and Ordovices was completed in 76 CE (Tac. Agric. 17), while Agricola‟s campaign in the north penetrated briefly into Scotland.23 Following the defeat of the Brigantes the northern frontier began to take shape, yet even at this time there was no fixed border to the province, and even the construction of Hadrian‟s wall did not prevent Antoninus Pius from building another fortification of his own. Hadrian‟s Wall remained occupied throughout the period under investigation. The following sections will discuss evidence for auxiliary families and religious as attested in Britannia in the evidence surveyed above.
21 Mattingly 2006: 97-98 provides a useful summary of the chronology. 22 Tacitus notes that the first revolt of the Iceni took place in 47, motivated by the forced disarmament of the tribe by Roman authorities. This implies that the Iceni had submitted to Roman authority by then. 23 Wooliscroft and Hoffmann 2004, Grant 2007.
163
II. Family
Discussion of the evidence on auxiliary families in Roman Britain centers on material transmitted primarily between two forms of epigraphic media: inscriptions on stone and inscriptions on wooden writing tablets.
Due to the military situation in Britannia, family life on this frontier, as in Germany, meant not only at least occasional absences of „husband‟ soldiers from their „wives‟ and / or children, but also a strong possibility of the unit‟s reassignment to another post, along with the dangers of life in what remained very much an active war zone. There is clear evidence of this in the epigraphic record, attesting that death in battle was not a remote experience. The temporary commander of coh. I Tungrorum stationed at Vindolanda fell in the course of a „war,‟ as stated on his tombstone (B P 145): D(is) [M(anibus)] / T(itus) Ann[ius ---] / centur[io leg(ionis) --- praepositus coh(ortis) I] / Tungr[orum / (milliaria) annorum --- stipen]/diorum [--- cecidi]/t in bell[o --- inter]/fectus [T(itus) Annius?] / fil(ius) et Arc[---] / h(eredes) e[x testament(o) fec(erunt)]
To the gods of the underworld. Titus Annius, centurion of the (?) legion, appointed commander of the first milliary cohort of Tungrians, served (?) years, fell in the war, killed in action. Titus Annius his son and Arc[---], his heirs, set this up in accordance with the terms of the will.
As this text shows, combat casualties were not limited to the lower ranks. Like other officers in military service, Annius had his family with him on campaign. His status as a legionary soldier, appointed as a temporary commander of an auxiliary unit, demonstrates that the military culture of the auxiliaries was interconnected with the legionaries, who were often assigned to oversee auxiliary building projects or take temporary command of a unit whose prefect or tribune had either died or been reassigned. His son, and another obscure heir, emphasized Annius‟ death in an obvious attempt to celebrate the deceased‟s martial valour. As has been observed, this value system and method of expression was adopted and propagated throughout auxiliary ranks across the Roman empire. As the risk of death in combat on this northern frontier was real, an obvious antagonism toward the neighbouring British tribes must have been felt by many auxiliary soldiers; this sentiment may have found expression in a tablet from Vindolanda: ...... /_nenu...[.]n. Brittones / nimium multi · equites / gladis · non utuntur equi/tes · nec residunt / Brittunculi · ut · iaculos / mittant
164
… the Britons (Brittones) are unprotected by armour (?). there are very many cavalry. The cavalry do not use swords nor do the little Brits (Brittunculi)24 mount in order to throw javelins.
Native recruitment is mentioned by Tacitus and attested epigraphically: a diploma from Britain was issued to a Cornovius, i.e. a member of the Cornovii in the west of Britain, and this text, described as a „memorandum about the Britons‟ may have been written with a view toward their potential recruitment into the Vindolanda garrison.25 The suggestion of Bowman that this record, still the earliest direct literary reference to the native inhabitants of Britain collectively, may be a fragment of a report left by an outgoing prefect to his successor is attractive. It is instructive that this reference highlights the Britons‟ military tactics, for the choice to include this material underscores the presence of an adversarial environment on this frontier, which pre- dates Hadrian‟s Wall.
In this tense atmosphere, however, auxiliary family life, at all levels, continued. A fragmentary text from Vindolanda hints at a social change that marriage might create among a newly “wed” soldier‟s circle of friends:26
(traces) / si mariti sumus non / ideo / uobis alieni sumus / se(.)e[n?]a[m?]
“even if we are married, still we are not strangers to you. Serena(?)...”.
This letter could concern an auxiliary of any rank. The use of the plural in the first person might an example of the pluralis maiestatis, which would indicate that it was written by a prefect, or it might simply refer, as the context can equally suggest, to the couple. In the latter case, an auxiliary soldier at the rank of centurion or decurion would be plausible. More significantly, the sentiment of the message is clear: marriage has altered the social dynamic between the writer and his – or possibly her – friends.27 The conflicting duties of family and military service were a theme, as Phang observed, in Augustan propaganda, and a factor in the original establishment of the ban. In reality, both soldiers and their “wives,” based on her analysis of epigraphic statistics, married later in life than is often imagined for most ancient people.28 The “stereotypical” age of
24 Tab.Vindol. 2.164, cf. Bowman 2003: 103 who translates Brittunculi as “wretched Brits”. 25 See comm. ad loc. and list of auxiliary diploma recipients in ch 2. 26 Tab.Vindol. 3.277 (correcting Tab.Vindol. 2.277). 27 For examples of letters written by women in the Vindolanda archive, all wives of unit commanders, see Tab.Vindol. 2.291-294 (correspondence of Sulpicia Lepidina, wife of Flavius Cerialis, prefect of Coh. VIIII Batavorum) and 3.635, from the same correspondence. 28 Phang 2001: 176.
165 marriage for girls entering puberty, ca. 12-15 years old, was maintained by Hopkins and refuted by Shaw, who raised this estimate to ca. 16-2029 based on the argument that earlier figures were based on a statistical bias toward elites. The commemoration of children is also underrepresented generally in epitaphs, since to do so on a stone monument was a “luxury for veterans and better- paid officers.”30 It would be erroneous therefore, to claim on the basis of stone epigraphy in Britain alone that, statistically, auxiliary soldiers generally had low rates of family creation. However, in Britain there is evidence for auxiliary families below the highest ranks in both stone and wooden writing tablets. This evidence will demonstrate that, despite official prohibition and added hardship, it was possible for auxiliary troops to create and maintain family relationships. As this section will show, this was done in diverse ways by those who chose to build a family life for themselves.
Many military units were sub-divided into vexillations, which could then be assigned to man outposts or engage in building projects, while individual auxiliaries could be assigned to duties that might take them far from the fort. Vindolanda provides conspicuously detailed evidence of this phenomenon. The „strength report‟ of the coh. I Tungrorum ca. 92-97 CE demonstrated that a typical soldier could not always expect to spend his days serving at the „main base‟ of the unit:31 xv K(alendas) Iunias n(umerus) p(urus) [co]h(ortis) i Tungro/rum cui prae
18 May, net number of the First Cohort of Tungrians, of which the commander is Iulius Verecundus the prefect, including 6 centurions. Of whom are absent: guards of the governor 46 at the office of Ferox32 at Coria (Corbridge) 337 including (?) 2 centurions at London a centurion (?) … outside the province 6 set out (?) to Gaul 9 including 1 centurion
29 Hopkins 1965, Shaw 1987. 30 Phang 2001:177. 31 Tab.Vindol. 2.154. This type of document is a „strength report‟. These summaries of unit and personnel status were routine. See Fink 1971: nos. 47-57 („morning reports‟), 58-62 („monthly reports‟), and 63-65 (pridiana). 32 Perhaps legatus legionis of the legio IX Hispana stationed at Eburacum or the name of the governor. See Bowman 2003: 102.
166
at Eburacum (York) (?) to collect pay 11 at (?) ... 1(?) 45 total absentees 456 including 5 centurions remainder, present 296 including 1 centurion from these: sick 15 wounded 6 suffering from inflammation of the eyes 10 total of these 31 remainder fit for active service 265 including 1 centurion [Trans. Bowman]
It stands to reason that a soldier‟s life on this frontier, as in Germania, would involve frequent travel, and prolonged absences have implications for the entire concept of a Roman military frontier. A third of the unit‟s personnel alone was sent to Coria, either to replace a manpower shortage there or to aid in a construction project.33 It should be noted that the garrison at Vindolanda received a vexillation of its own from coh. I fida Vardullorum.34 Almost fifty men were sent to London as part of the governor‟s bodyguard, the beneficiarii consulares, and a comparable number (45) assigned to an unclear duty, most likely an outpost. A letter from Masclus, a decurion in charge of one such outpost, to his unit commander survives in the Vindolanda corpus. Fifteen men had been sent elsewhere in the empire, though most (9) were in Gaul. Connections with family and friends at a fort would have been strained by possibility of transfer to different sites, even if a soldier remained in the same unit. Alternatively, vexillations of other units might be transferred into an undermanned fort, introducing a new group of men into the social milieu. Records from Vindolanda, as discussed later, provide some insights into how the dynamic of assignments abroad did not eliminate the close familial bonds felt among many soldiers or their family members. The epigraphic record on stone in Britain thus provides not the entirety of our evidence about auxiliary life on a highly militarized frontier zone, but instead complements the evidence from Vindolanda. This provides useful perspectives into the reconstruction of auxiliary attitudes toward both the military and personal family. As in Germany, information on specific auxiliary
33 Assuming that this unit was brought up from quingenary to milliary status, as noted by Bowman and Thomas (comm. ad loc.: 92-93), the absentees would represent about a third of the notional strength of a cohors milliaria equitata (cf. ch. 1). It is worth noting, however, with Bowman and Thomas that “almost all of [the information about unit strength contained in the tablet] diverges in some degree from what orthodoxy regards as the norm.” 34 Tab. Vindol. 2.181; cf. Breeze 1974: 282-286.
167 families preserved in Roman Britain is most often provided in tombstones. When specific family members can be identified, most belong to the immediate family of a soldier (table 2). Table 2: Inscriptions that explicitly attest one or more familial relationships (d. = deceased) Arranged alphabetically by findspot
Reference in Aux. Soldier’s Name Role of Other individual(s) attested Relationship to soldier and any Chapter Appendix and rank, if given Soldier in text other individual(s)
B A2, Arbeia / Numerianus, eq. alae I Manumitted Victor, nat. Maurum Freedman of Numerianus. South Shields Asturum the honorand (honorand, d. aged 20)
B IP 5, Afutianus Bassi f., Honorand Flavia Baetica Wife of Afutianus Blatobulgium / ordinatus coh. II Birrens Tungrorum
B IP 7, Bravonium / Crescens, imaginifer Inc. [---] filia Daughter of Crescens Kirkby Thore
B IP 12, [---]lis, decurio Honorand Egnatia? Mother of honorand? Bremetennacum / Ribchester
B P 64, Aurelius Iulianus, trib. Father of Aurelius Concordus (d. aged 1 Son of Iulianus Cambloganna / coh. honorand year, 5 days) Birdoswald
B ARU 6, Et[---]us(?) coh. V Dedicant Decibalus (honorand, d., aged Brothers of Et[---]us(?) Cambloganna / Dacorum? x days) Birdoswald Blae[---] (honorand, d., aged 10)
B IP 17, Brocolitia / Nobilianus, decurio Husband of Aelia Comindus (honorand, d. Wife of Nobilianus Carrawburgh honorand aged 32)
B ARU 5, [name and rank not Honorand [Name not preserved] Heirs, possible relatives of Brocolitia / preserved] coh. I Hilario honorand Carrawburgh Batavorum
B P 71, Cilurnum / Fabius Honoratus, trib. Dedicant Aurelia Eglectiane (sic, Wife of Honoratus Chesters coh. I Vangionum honorand) Fabia Honorata (honorand, d.) Daughter of Honoratus
B IP 26, Cilurnum / Aventinus, curator alae Honorand (d. Aelius Gemellus, decurio Heir of Aventinus Chesters II Asturum stip. 15)
B P 107, Rufinianus, praef. eq. Dedicant Latinianus Son of Rufinianus, co-dedicant
168
Luguvalium / alae Augustae (Bellona) Carlisle
B A 9, Cawfields Dagualda, mil. coh. I Honorand Pusinna Wife of Dagualda Pannoniorum (age not preserved)
B A 13, Corinium / Dannicus, eq. alae Honorand (d., Fulvius Natalis Heirs of Dannicus Cirencester Indianae, turma Albani, stip 16) Flavius Bitucus civ. Rauricus
B ARU 12: Deva / Flavius Callimorphus Honorand (d. Serapio, co-honorand (d. aged Son of Thesaeus Chester aged 42) 3 years 6 months) Thesaeus, dedicant “Brother” of Callimorphus
B IP 49, Onnum / [---]rmat[---] civis Honorand (d. Messorius Magnus, duplicarius Brother of [---]rmat[---]? High Chesters Norici aged 30) alae Sabinianae
B IP 50, Crotus Vindicis f. Honorand (d. Flavia Peregrina Wife of Crotus Templeborough emeritus coh. IIII aged 40) Gallorum
B IP 58, Cornelius Victor Honorand (d. Name not given Wife of Victor Vindolanda / singularis consularis stip. 26, aged Chesterholm civis Pannonius, fil. 55 years, 9 Saturnini primi pilaris days) vixit annos LV dies XI
B IP 61, Vinovia / Nemonius Montanus Honorand (d. Nemonius Sanctus Brother of Montanus Binchester decurio aged 40)
B IP 63, Voreda / Not preserved, emeritus Honorand, Martius Son of honorand Penrith alae Petrianae from Ulpia Traiana / Xanten (d.)
The epigraphic evidence listed above illustrates several aspects of familial an interpersonal relationships that characterized auxiliary life. The presence of slavery in the military, as well as the practice of manumission, is attested in the case of B A2, a tombstone from Arbeia set up by an auxiliary cavalryman to commemorate the untimely passing of his former slave, a Moor bearing the Roman, and distinctly martial, name Victor. Slaves are commonly depicted on auxiliary tombstones in the western Roman empire and numerous striking examples from Roman Germany have already been mentioned. The presence of siblings, attested on some auxiliary monuments from Roman Germany also, is unambiguous in the case of
169
Nemonius Montanus and Nemonius Sanctus (B IP 61, Vinovia). A blood relationship is obvious from their shared gentilicium, and the omission of any reference to military rank by Nemonius Sanctus may indicate that he was not, like his brother, an auxiliary soldier. Notably, Sanctus was not the sole heir: the text coher{r}(edes) indicates that at least two other individuals were named as beneficiaries by Montanus in his will. These co-heirs could be either unrelated fellow soldiers or unnamed family members, although their omission from the monument‟s text, if not simply a decision made for economic reasons, suggests the former.
Another fraternal relationship preserved in this evidence offers important insight into the ethnic identity of Dacian auxiliaries in the decades immediately following Trajan‟s conquest of Dacia in 106 CE. A 2nd century tombstone from Cambloganna (B ARU 6) preserves a striking example of a famous Dacian name:
D(is) [M(anibus)] / Deciba[li vixs(it)?] / dieb[us ---] / et Blae[--- vix]/s[i]t a(nnos) X Et[---]/us frat[er ---]
To the shades of Decibalus, (who) lived for x days, and to Blae[---] (who) lived for 10 years. Et[---]us their brother [set up the monument]. 35
Cambloganna at this time was the station of coh. I Aelia Dacorum,36 and it is tempting to see a connection linking this Dacian cohort and the unambiguously Dacian name of the deceased. That a soldier serving in a cohort of Dacians might name his son “Decibalus” would be noteworthy, suggesting that the father was himself a Dacian recruit.37 The practice is paralleled elsewhere, e.g. in the case of the name Bato shared by two leaders of the Pannonian rebellion of 6-9 CE and also attested in the auxiliary epigraphic record of Pannonian soldiers.38 His other child, Blae[---], may have borne a Roman name (Blaesus or Blaesa), but given the dearth of knowledge about Dacian onomastics a peregrine name cannot be excluded. Notably the father is not mentioned; the monument was set up by the children‟s brother, despite the very young age of Decibalus. The absence of the father is implied, but cannot be ascertained, yet in his place, an older sibling was
35 Fortunately the fuller report of Deciba[---] is known from earlier editions of the stone, which has since been damaged on the right and lower edges since its discovery in 1752; the illustration in RIB was drawn by Collingwood in 1924. 36 B A 5, a tombstone from Cambloganna, explicitly records a deceased soldier of this unit: [---]spa Septimo vi[xi]t ann(os) / XXXX mil(itavit) XVIII coh(orte) I Ae/lia Dacorum / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit). On the history of this unit‟s garrison at Cambloganna, see the summary of Spaul 2000: 345-347. 37 On the continuing use of variations on the name of Dacia‟s last king, see Bruun 2004. 38 CIL 13, 7508 = CSIRD 2, 14, 50 and 50a, a tombstone of Bato, son of Dasantus, from the Ditiones tribe, and the deceased men recorded in three inscriptions from Pannonia Superior (RIU 1, 255-256, both cavalry soldiers of ala Pannoniorum, and RIU 3, 689, a scout whose father was named Bato).
170 able to act. While some might point to Decibalus‟ name as evidence of Dacian cultural „resistance‟ to Rome, the brother‟s choice to memorialize him, along with Blae[---], in a Roman monument seems to indicate the opposite. The decision of an auxiliary soldier in the Roman army to name a son „Decibalus‟ illustrates a sense of ethnic awareness that nevertheless was not so strictly defined as to preclude association with a unit whose genesis lay in the defeat of his son‟s more famous namesake. Soliders‟ wives and sisters are attested on several monuments. Since both soldiers and their „wives‟ regularly flouted the official marriage ban in funerary monuments, tombstones such as B IP 1 from Aesica, located on the Antonine wall, commemorate a soldier who died either without a „wife‟ or without recognizing any woman as such in his will.39 Raybould tentatively suggests that this soldier, Mercurialis, came from a „”Romano-British family living in the vicus attached to the fort.”40 The monument of Aelia Comindus (B IP 17, Brocolitia) offers a clearer example of the „Romano-British‟ auxiliary family. She was commemorated by her „husband‟ Nobilianus, a decurion with a common Roman name, following her death at the young age of 32. Her Celtic surname41 points to a local origin, and it is tempting to read into her gentilicium Aelia an auxiliary connection, perhaps as the daughter of an auxiliary soldier enfranchised under Hadrian. As previous discussion of auxiliary diplomas in chapter two demonstrated, large auxiliary families with significant numbers of girls and mixture of peregrine and Roman names are well attested. As a Roman citizen, her social status and, arguably, auxiliary background, would make her union with an auxiliary decurion more socially acceptable. An auxiliary family of a different background are demonstrated by an example from Cawfields, (B A 9). This tombstone commemorates Pusinna, the wife of Dagualda (Dagvalda), an auxiliary soldier (miles) of coh. I Pannoniorum; both individuals were peregrines. This unit came to Britannia in the second century to aid in constructing Hadrian‟s wall; previously it had been stationed in Germania at Wiesbaden and Bingerbrück.42 This unit must have been stationed in Britannia for a considerable period of the second century, as the inscription bears late second century features in its formula.43 The soldier‟s name has both Celtic (dag, “good”) and Germanic
39 Spaul 1994: 120. 40 Raybould 1999: 95. 41 The name seems to be a compound of „com‟ and „indus‟; cf. Holder I: 1068 s. v. com- con-, Holder II: 41 s. v. Indus. The Celtic name Indus is the origin of the name for the ala Indiana (cf. Spaul 1994: 152-153), named after Iulius Indus, a noble of the Treveri (Tac. Ann. 3.42; 46). 42 Spaul 2000: 334 gathers the relevant epigraphic evidence. 43 Jarrett 1994: 65, cf. Holder 1982: 120.
171
(valda, “ruler”) elements;44 this feature illustrates the complex cultural milieu among the peregrine tribal recruits. The Pusinnus / Pusinna name, by comparison, is attested throughout the western Roman empire.45 It is likely that Dagualda brought his wife with him to Britannia when either he (if this inscription is as late as has been supposed) or his unit (in Trajan‟s reign) was transferred there. Evidence of Rhineland soldiers taking wives with them from abroad is preserved at Vindolanda:46
(i) Chrauttius Veldeio suo fratri / contubernali antique pluri/mam salutem / et rogo te Veldei frater miror / quod mihi tot tempus nihil / rescripsti a parentibus nos/tris si quid audieris aut / Quot.m in quo numero / sit et illum a me salutabis / [[s]]uerbis meis et Virilem / ueterinarium rogabis / illum ut forficem (ii) quam mihi promissit pretio / mittas per aliquem de nostris / et rogo te frater Virilis / salutes a me Thuttenam / sororem Velbutenam / rescribas nobis cum ... / se habeat vacat / opt
Chrauttius to Veldeius his brother and old messmate, very many greetings. And I ask you, brother Veldeius, - I am surprised that you have written nothing back to me for such a long time – whether you have heard anything from our elders, or about ....48 in which unit he is; and greet him from me in my words and Virilis the veterinary doctor. Ask him (sc. Virilis) whether you may send me through one of our friends the pair of shears which he promised me in exchange for money. And I ask you, brother Virilis, to greet from me our (?) sister Thuttena. Write back to us (?) he Velbutena is (?). (2nd hand?) It is my wish that you enjoy the best of fortune. Farewell. (Back to 1st hand) To London. To Veldedeius, groom of the governor, from his brother, Chrauttius.
The „family‟ attested here is actually, as Bowman has compellingly argued, based not on blood ties but on the military language: Chrauttius and Veldeius are most likely brothers in arms,49 with the latter having been promoted to the service of the governor‟s staff in London at some point in the past. The reference to parentes can also be construed as a polite reference to elders, as opposed to biological parents, although it is conceivable that relatives of these individuals‟ extended families resided at London, where Veldeius‟ position could have helped to support them. If taken this way, either interpretation is possible. The identification of two women, one of Celtic (Velbutena), the other of Germanic origin (Thuttena), coincides with the prominence of these ethnic backgrounds at Vindolanda among the units‟ personnel. Bowman argues that soror appears also as a term of endearment, not an indication of blood relation. This
44 See RIB comm. ad loc. 45 For a selection of examples, see OPEL s.v. “Pusinnica, Pusinnio, Pusinnionus, Pusinnus.” 46 Tab. Vindol. 2.310, with Bowman‟s translation. 47 The equisio consularis was the provincial governor‟s groom. See Bowman 2003: 54, and Tab. Vindol. comm. ad loc. 48 The missing name is represented in the text by Quot.m; this may be a garbled version of Quintus or a peregrine name, Qutos (see Tab. Vindol. comm. ad loc). 49 Their names seem to derive from different linguistic backgrounds, Chrauttius from Germanic origins and Veldeius from Celtic. See Bowman and Thomas comm. ad loc.
172 seems questionable, since many examples of siblings in auxiliary contexts have been attested. The only other examples in the Vindolanda archive of soror being used in a familiar fashion all belong to the correspondences of the unit commanders‟ wives.50 This was of course a common term of endearment, and is analogous to the common usage of frater by soldiers to refer to one another. Euphemism in regard to soldiers‟ spouses does occur in the Vindolanda archive, but the only example appropriates the vocabulary of military life: Tab. Vindol. 2.181 includes a record of the „contubernalis‟ of a Spanish soldier named Tagmatus, who is listed as the recipient of 3 denarii. This term is well attested as a title for a „wife‟ / concubine, although it is not common on funerary monuments.51 If Thuttena is a blood relative of Chrauttius, then her „marriage‟ to another auxiliary soldier, or auxiliary veterinarius, provides another useful insight into familial bonds created by auxiliaries in Britain. Nothing in the epigraphic records in stone or in the Vindolanda archive to date contradict the notion that auxiliary soldiers in Britain were any less willing or able to maintain families than in Germany. The two most significant factors that precluded many auxiliary soldiers from creating families were mortality, which in first century Britain particularly threatened many recruits, and the itinerant lifestyle of military service that was particularly pronounced in the first century. The Vindolanda archive illustrates this clearly: although all documents span a short time period, they attest to the presence of two units – coh. I Tungrorum and coh. VIIII Batavorum – and at least three commanders, Iulius Verecundus, Flavius Genialis and Flavius Cerealis, at the site.52 As the complexity of the fortification network grew in the late first and early second centuries, it is clear that many auxiliary units mingled with the personnel of other units. This necessarily brought soldiers into contact with other ethnic groups, even among units, such as the Tungrian and Batavian units, that practiced traditions of ethnic, as well as local recruitment. In the next section, the diversity of that interaction in terms of religious practice will be investigated.
50 Tab. Vindol. 2.291, 292, 293. 51 On Latin terms for soldiers‟ “wives”, see Roxan 1991. 52 Other unit prefects might include Priscinus (coh. I Tungrorum), Hostilius Flavianus and Vettius Severus. One Veranius is attested as praefectus cohortis, but the unit he commanded is not preserved in the tablet‟s record: see Bowman and Thomas 1994: 25-26.
173
III. Religion
No discussion of religious worship in Roman Britain should overlook the difficult subject of interpretation posed by remains discovered in pits and in wells. These have been observed in both rural and military contexts, although I will restrict my discussion to military sites for the purpose of this discussion. The interpretation of pit and well deposits generally is a contentious subject, with specialists in Celtic archaeology arguing that such deposits are an ancient indigenous practice, while others have stressed that many supposed sites of well rituals are likely cases of either incidental infill or attempts by Christian communities to do away with reminders of the site‟s pagan heritage.53 As such, most excavated well sites formerly connected with „ritual worship‟ are now seen as having had no such use in antiquity.54 However, important well sites have close connections with the Roman army, and one in particular with the auxilia. This is the fort of Brocolitia / Carrawburgh, where numerous altars and ritual deposits to the local deity Coventina have been recovered.55 Also of significance is Aquae Sulis / Bath, where another water deity, Sulis or the Suleviae, was patronized by both military and non-military provincials, and Trimontium / Newstead, where excavations of numerous pits have yielded swords, parade helmets, animal remains, and even some human remains.56 In regard to the practice of human sacrifice, Isserlin has argued that auxiliary religious practices help support his contention that human remains excavated at Camulodunum / Colchester belong to a ritual context.57 In the ditch of the legionary fortifications the remains of six people, “mainly parts of limbs, and six crania” were discovered mingled with animal bones. Isserlin compared these remains with excavations at Flavian Canterbury, where the primary fill of another ditch contained a decapitated horse, its upper fills the partial remains of several human skulls, while its recut contained a human skeleton with an obvious sword wound to the head. The
53 Burgers 2001: 63-66; cf. Ross 1968: 255-285, who argued in favour of Iron Age Celtic connections. This approach was criticised by Webster: 141, who argued that wells represent “Romano-British traditions of practice and belief”. See also Clarke 1996. 54 Burgers 2001: 65. 55 See generally Allason-Jones and McKay 1985. 56 On Aquae Sulis / Bath generally see Cunliffe 1984. The material excavated at Aquae Sulis has been well published: On the temple of Sulis Minerva see Cunliffe and Davenport 1985 and Cunliffe 1988. For more recent publications on the archaeology of Aquae Sulis see Davenport 1999 and Davenport et al. 2007. For Trimontium, see Clarke 1996, who surveyed previous interpretations of these finds and argued that they belong to an iron age tradition. 57 Isserlin 1996, cf. Crummy 1984: 94-95.
174 remains of dogs were also associated with these finds, which for Isserlin was sufficient evidence that these human remains were ritual in origin. Moreover, he connected them specifically with Batavian auxiliary units, which “were operating in Britain at the time, and in their homeland, around the Rhine delta, the association between human and dog burials is unquestioned.”58 Isserlin‟s interpretation seems unconvincing for several reasons, but raises important issues regarding religious practice in Roman Britain, particularly in regard to the integration of troops raised from the Rhineland. The archaeological data cited by Isserlin may have partial ritual significance, particularly in regard to horse remains (as dedications to Epona, a deity cultivated by many legionaries and auxiliaries) as well as the dog bones, but this need not indicate that the human remains discovered must by association with these sites be examples of human sacrifice. It is difficult to reconstruct a coherent explanation as to why a Roman legionary fortress – at Camulodunum, the center of the new province‟s administration and base for one of its legionary garrisons – would permit visible displays of a practice which was outlawed. It is not enough to state “an association between the deposition of human and animal remains seems possible – if the activity was structured.” It is far more likely that the remains are those of executions, perhaps as a military execution intended either to enforce disciplina within the unit or as an execution of British captives taken during the course of the invasion and left to rot unburied.59 The association with auxiliaries from Germania Inferior similarly does not indicate a ritual aspect to the human finds. No cases of possible human sacrifice among Batavians have been identified, nor were they accused of such practices by ancient writers who described them. The fact that the sites of these deposits were not wells or pits specifically excavated for ritual, but rather military fortifications whose primary function was not religious in nature, also militates against Isserlin‟s suggestion. Military ditches might be appropriated for permitted provincial cult practice, particularly for Epona, a deity popular among auxiliary cavalrymen, but such appropriations did not alter the primary function of the fortifications as military constructs. If human sacrifice was being practiced in Roman Britain, it was confined to rural areas where the military and administrative presence was less keenly felt.60
58 Isserlin 1996: 94; cf. Todd 1975: 189-90. Remains of a dog were also discovered in 1989 at Aquae Sulis in a religious context, as noted by Davenport et al. 2007: 69. 59 See esp. Crummy 1984: 94-97. 60 Isserlin‟s references to bog burials (p. 93, tab. 1) may chronicle the remains of executed criminals as easily as human sacrifice. That Vercingetorix was strangled hardly makes him a “state-sanctioned (ritualised?) killing” (Isserlin 1996: 95).
175
In Brocolitia, by contrast, the cult of Coventina was the focus of consistent patronage by the Roman army. Discoveries from Coventina‟s well include over 14,000 coins, bronze statuettes of horses, dogs, and votive heads, as well as numerous inscribed altars. The following auxiliary votive dedications have been attested at Brocolitia: Table 3: Brocolitia votive dedications
B P 53: Brocolitia / Deae / Couventinae(!) / T(itus) D(omitius?) Cosconia/nus 61 Carrawburgh pr(aefectus) coh(ortis) / I Bat(avorum) l(ibens) m(erito)
B P 54: Brocolitia / Fortunae / coh(ors) I Batavor(um) / cui praeest / M(arcus) Carrawburgh Flaccinius / Marcellus prae(fectus)
B P 55: Brocolitia / D(eo) In(victo) M(ithrae) s(acrum) / Aul(us) Cluentius / Habitus 62 Carrawburgh pra(e)f(ectus) / coh(ortis) I / Batavorum / domu Ulti/n(i)a colon(ia) / Sept(imia) Aur(elia) L(arino) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B P 56: Brocolitia / Deo Invicto / Mit(h)rae M(arcus) Sim/plicius Simplex / Carrawburgh pr(a)ef(ectus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B P 58: Brocolitia / Couven[ti(nae!)] / Aelius Te[r]/tius p[raef(ectus)] / coh(ortis) I Carrawburgh Bat(avorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B P 59: Brocolitia / Nymphis et Genio / loci M(arcus) Hispanius / Modestinus Carrawburgh praefectus / coh(ortis) I Bat(avorum) pro se / et suis l(ibens) m(erito)
B IP 13: Brocolitia / De(ae) Conve(n)ti(nae) / vot(um) ret(t)u/lit Maus(aeus) / optio Carrawburgh c(o)ho(rtis) / p(rimae) Frixiav(onum)!63
B IP 14: Brocolitia / [Ny]mphae Coventinae / [---]tianus dec[u]ri(o) / [---]SLE[.]V / [--- Carrawburgh ] m(erito)
B IP 18: Brocolitia / Matribus / Albinius / |(centuria) (uinti) Vari mil(es) d(edicavit) Carrawburgh
B A 6: Brocolitia / Deae Coven/tin(a)e P[---]a/nus m(i)l(es) c(o)ho(rtis) V / Carrawburgh R(a)eto[rum] / votum [li]/be(n)s animo / r(eddidit) et posivit(!)
B ARU 4: Brocolitia / Genio / hu(i)us lo/ci Texand(ri) / et Suve(vae?) / vex(illarii) 64 Carrawburgh cohor(tis) / II Nervior/um
The auxiliary units attested in this record are the coh. I Batavorum, coh. I Frisiavonum, coh. II Nerviorum, and coh. V Raetorum.65
61 One would expect Coventina. Other expansions of the abbreviated gentilicium D(---) are possible. 62 On the possible familial connection between this Cluentius and the Cluentius defended by Cicero, see RIB comm. ad loc. 63 I.e. Frisiav(onum). 64 A possible parallel for the Suvevae is ILS 9132; this seems to designate a “community group” (RIB comm. ad loc), i. e. a tribe that provided recruits for this unit.
176
With the exception of the last, all these units were originally raised in Germany and a significant ethnic element from that region is evident from this record. Their religious preferences may be evident in the case of B IP 18, a dedication to the matres by Albinius, a miles. The worship of Mithras by M. Simplicius Simplex, prefect of one of these cohorts. Both Celtic and Germanic origins have been suggested for Simplicius Simplex;66 his name provides a good example of the practice of forming a gentilicium (Simplicius) from a Roman cognomen (Simplex). Texander and the Suve(vae?), both bearing non-local names, set up a monument to the spirit of the site (genius loci). Auxiliaries were clearly honouring Coventina from an early date. The inscription of P[--- ]anus (B A 6) is remarkable for its uneven abbreviation and odd spelling of the vslm formula: in this case written votum [li]/be(n)s animo with r(eddidit) et posivit (for posuit). The inscription indicates an individual familiar with the features of this Roman monument, but with an inexact command of Latin (libes for libens, posivit for posuit). Coventina‟s name also varies in its representation (Couventina, Conventina), variants that should probably be attributed to the imperfect „Lagersprache‟ of the soldiers who dedicated them : Mausaeus, an optio, and Aelius Tertius, a prefect. Mausaeus‟ monument mispells the name of his unit (coh. Frisiavonum), while Aelius Tertius, though a prefect and thus a Roman citizen, seems to owe his (or his family‟s) status as a Roman citizen to Hadrian. Table 4 : Brocolitia Auxiliary Tombstones
B IP 15: Brocolitia / D(is) M(anibus) [s(acrum)] / Longi[ni ---] / buc(inatoris) 67 Carrawburgh c[oh(ortis) I Bat(avorum)] / [---]
B IP 16: Brocolitia / [D(is)] M(anibus) / [---]S Mileni / [signi]fero / cohor(tis) I 68 Carrawburgh Bat/[avorum] / [---]
B IP 17: Brocolitia / D(is) M(anibus) / Ael(iae) Comindo / annorum XXXII / Nobilianus 69 Carrawburgh dec(urio) / coniugi car[i]ss[i]m(ae) p(osuit)
B ARU 5: Brocolitia / Coh(ortis)] I Bat(avorum) / [--- et] Hilario / heredes f(aciendum) Carrawburgh c(uraverunt)
65 See Spaul 2000: 211 (Batavorum), 221 (Nerviorum), 241 (Frisiavonum), 283 (Raetorum). 66 See RIB comm. ad loc. 67 3rd century. 68 Ca. 205-212 CE. 69 On Comindus, see n. 41 above.
177
At Aquae Sulis / Bath, where the water deity Sulis is frequently equated with Minerva, an auxiliary cavalryman left not a votive monument but a funerary one:
B A 1: Aquae Sulis / Bath L(ucius) Vitellius Ma/ntai f(ilius) Tancinus / cives(!) Hisp(anus) Caurie(n)sis / eq(ues) alae Vettonum c(ivium) R(omanorum) / ann(orum) XXXXVI stip(endiorum) XXVI / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
This soldier, perhaps, died at Aquae Sulis while there to seek the perceived healing powers of the spring. Enough information about him is preserved to demonstrate the importance of Spanish recruits, in the auxiliary army, reflected partly by the large number of alae and cohorts conscripted from Spaniards attested in the epigraphic record.70 Both Coventina‟s well and the shrine of Sulis Minerva had significant reputations as local centers of cult the patronage of which was not deemed offensive. The significance of votive deposits in pits and wells, however, is verifiable archaeologically. The association of auxiliary soldiers with this form of provincial worship is analogous to the Jupiter columns of Germany; both represent regionalisms and fusions of local with military practices, sanctioned by the army‟s hierarchy. The full participation of auxiliaries in these practices is therefore, not surprisingly, attested epigraphically. Military equipment from these sites thus has relevance to the interpretation of ritual practice. At Trimontium in southern Scotland, first occupied in the Flavian period and then intermittently occupied until the late second century CE,71 helmets and swords have been discovered in pits. There are examples of parade helmets, which only few auxiliaries would have owned, and a “standard issue” helmet, such as was worn by a gregalis, along with diverse animal and material culture remains like coins, wheels, querns, leather, iron tools, bronze vessels, pins, jewellery, pots and lamps.72 The epigraphic record, however, attests five different deities: Apollo, Diana Regina, Silvanus, IOM and the Campestres. The last of these was the subject of a vow by Aelius Marcus, a decurion of the ala Augusta Vocontiorum (B IP 47). The use of a praenomen as a cognomen may indicate that he was a beneficiary of the civitas liberorum, assuming that his father was a Roman citizen discharged during the reign of Hadrian. Military diplomas, as demonstrated in chapter 2,
70 15 cohorts and 6 units were designated as Hispani, occasionally in connection with a specific Spanish tribe (e.g. ala II Hispanorum Arvacorum). 71 On the history of the site, see Curle 1911. 72 Clarke 1996: 76-77, 3 parade and 1 “standard issue.”
178 frequently preserve examples of children bearing as sole names common Roman praenomina like Marcus or Quintus, which might, as seems plausible here, be retained as cognomina, much as peregrine names were retained as cognomina by many enfranchised peregrines. Table 5: Auxiliary and Legionary votive inscriptions from Trimontium / Newstead73
RIB 2120 = AE 1911, 83 Deo / Apollini / L(ucius) Maximius / Gaetulicus |(centurio) / leg(ionis)
B IP 47 Campestr(ibus) / sacrum Ael(ius) / Marcus / dec(urio) alae Aug(ustae) / Vocontio(rum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) RIB 2122 Dianae Regi/nae o[b] pros/pero[s] eventus / C(aius) Arrius / Domitianus / |(centurio) leg(ionis) XX V(aleriae) v(ictricis) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) RIB 2123 = AE 1911, 82 I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / G(aius) Arrius / Domitianus / |(centurio) leg(ionis) XX V(aleriae) v(ictricis) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) RIB 2124 Deo Silva/no pro sa/lute sua et / suorum C(aius) Ar/rius Domiti/anus |(centurio) leg(ionis) XX / V(aleriae) v(ictricis) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
Clarke concluded from his archaeological survey that the evidence excavated from pits “probably represent[s] the continued development of a widespread prehistoric ritual activity”, attacking the “intellectual complacency” of scholars who have doubted that ritual deposition was the prime motivation for their original placement.74 Any continuity, however, with Iron Age practices is not reflected in the epigraphic record, which records five well attested Roman deities. The fort‟s Latin name may indicate that this was an original Roman foundation, first established in the Flavian period, though local influences may have been present in the fort‟s vicus. If this was a major local cult center, it is not yet reflected in the epigraphic record. Religious commemoration, as noted previously, was both official and personal, as demonstrated by inscriptions set up by auxiliary prefects on behalf of their units and personal vows offered by individual soldiers. There was nothing peculiarly “Celtic” about this dichotomy, which was a feature of Roman practice and, as such, easily adaptable to any local practices.75 Cult practice in wells and pits in Roman Britain thus has local roots, yet exerted a clear influence on auxiliary units drawn only partially from local sources. The diversity of the military garrison of Roman Britain has long been recognized, mainly on the basis of epigraphic evidence.76 The nature of military culture, with its “strongly developed Roman identity... distinctive when compared to other elements of the provincial population,”77 explains the
73 Fragmentary inscriptions have been omitted, as they preserve no details about either dedicant or deity. 74 Clarke 1996: 80. 75 There is no evidence, it should be noted, that Trimontium was ever a significant center of native cult worship. 76 See, e.g. Mattingly 2006: 169, “it is unlikely that all gaps in the ranks could have been filled purely by local recruitment”. On recruitment, see Dobson and Mann 1973. 77 Mattingly 2006: 166.
179 occurrence of numerous religious inscriptions similar to those from the two Germanies described in the previous chapter. The deities attested in auxiliary inscriptions from Britannia derive, apart from a majority of official „Roman‟ cults, primarily from Celtic and Germanic origins, with some significant pockets of imported cults.78 The deities attested in among inscriptions dedicated by unit commanders or under the authority (sub curante) of unit commanders are Antenociticus Bellona Disciplinae Augustorum (?) Campestres Britanniae Cocidius Coventina (var.) Fatum Bonum Fortuna (Redux) Dea Aeterna Dei Deaeque (hospitales penatesque) Genius et signis cohortis Genius (cohortis / loci / praetorii) Hercules (Deus Invictus / Deus Hercules Romanus Invictus conditor) Iuppiter Augustus / Dilector Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (Dolichenus) Roma Aeterna Matres Alatervae / Campestres Mars (Militaris / Braciaca) Mithras (Deus Invictus) Neptunus Volcanus (sic, numen Volcani) Nymphae Silvanus Sol Invictus Syria (Dea mater divum / equated with Pax, Virtus and Ceres) Verbeia Victoria Augusta Victoria Augusti / Augustorum Vinotonus Viradecthus
78 See n. 1 of this chapter.
180
Table 6: Votive dedications by auxiliary unit commanders in Britannia
B P 45: Blatobulgium / Deae Viradec/thi pa[g]us Con/drustis milit(ans) / in coh(orte) II Birrens Tun/gror(um) sub Silvi/o Auspice praef(ecto)
B P 66: Castlecary Deo / Neptuno / cohors I / fid(a) Vardul(lorum) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitata) m(illiaria) / cui prae(e)st / Trebius / Verus pr/aef(ectus)
B P 67: Castlehill Campes/tribus et / Britanni(ae) / Q(uintus) Pisentius / Iustus pr(a)ef(ectus) / coh(ortis) IIII Gal(lorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
B P 73: Condercum / Deo An[t]enocitico / sacrum / coh(ors) I Va[n]gion(um) / quib(us) 79 Benwell praeest / [---]c(ius) Cassi/[anus p]raef(ectus) / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens)] m(erito)
B P 74: Condercum / Deo An(ten)ocitico / iudiciis optimo/rum maximorum/que 80 Benwell Impp(eratorum) n(ostrorum) sub Ulp(io) / Marcello co(n)s(ulari) Tine/ius Longus in p[rae]/fectura equitu[m] / lato clavo exorna/tus et q(uaestor) d(esignatus)
B P 78: Cramond Matrib(us) Ala/tervis et / matrib(us) Cam/pestrib(us) coh(ortis) I[I] / Tungr(orum) ins(tante) / VERSCARM / [|(centurione)] leg(ionis) XX V(aleriae) v(ictricis)
B P 85: Habitancum / Deo Invicto / Herculi sacr(um) / L(ucius) Aemil(ius) Salvianus / Risingham tr[i]b(unus) coh(ortis) I Vangi(onum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B P 92: Ilkley Verbeiae / sacrum / Clodius / Fronto / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / II Lingon(um)
B P 105: Lavatrae / Bowes Deo Vino/tono Silva/no Aug(usto) T(itus) / [.]rbius Pri/[---]nus p[r]/aef(ectus) coh(ortis) I Thrac(um) / [---]
B P 106: Luguvalium / [D]eae Ae[tern]/ae te[mplum] / L(ucius) Vater[ius Mar]/cellus Carlisle [praef(ectus) eq(uitum)] / rest[ituit]
B P 107: Luguvalium / Deae Bel/lonae Rufi/nus prae[f(ectus)] / eq(uitum) a[l]ae Carlisle Aug(ustae) / et Lat[i]nia/nus fil(ius)
B P 138: Vercovicium / I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [et numinibus A]ug(ustorum) / [---] / [-- Housesteads -] / [---] / [p]raefectu[s]
B P 142: Vindobala / Deo Invicto / Myt(h)rae(!) P(ublius) Ael(ius) / Titullus prae(fectus) / Rudchester v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
B P 145: Vindolanda / Deo / Cocidio / Decimus / Caerelli/us Victor / pr(aefectus) Chesterholm coh(ortis) II Ner(viorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
79 Pre-197 CE, based on numismatic evidence discovered at the findspot. 80 Pre-197 CE (see comm. on RIB 1329).
181
In terms of absolute numbers Roman deities associated with the military religion are predominant. It is therefore interesting to find a number of peregrine cults commemorated among this class of inscription.81 The high number of unit votive altars preserved in Roman Britain offers a useful glimpse of the engagement with religious diversity that confronted many auxiliary commanders in Britain, as in Germany, as well as the inventive ways by which some commanders sought to accommodate the foreign and / or local religions of their troops. A useful example is provided by the fort of Blatobulgium / Birrens. The Prefect of coh. II Tungrorum, C. Silvius Auspex (PME S 53) led a unit that was partly comprised of recruits from a pagus of Belgica or Germania Inferior described as “serving in the Second Cohort of Tungrians” - pagus Condrustis militans in cohorte II Tungrorum (B P 45). The inscription is preserved on an altar to a peregrine deity, Viradecthus. Another pagus from Belgica or Germania, the Vellauvi, served in this unit and set up an altar to Ricagambeda at Blatobulgium (B A 3) that makes no mention of the unit commander. Diversity was not local in origin, since this unit also recruited from Raetia ca. 153-157 CE (B P 44). This dedication, also supervised by Silvius Auspex, was made to Mars and Victoria Augusti by the „Raetian citizens‟ (cives Raeti), obviously recruited by a vexillations of the unit stationed in Raetia a decade previously.82 It is evident that Auspex had no inclination toward suppressing the worship of non-Roman deities, thus maintaining such a religious diversity in his cohort‟s composition. Even the oldest inscription surviving from this unit, at Cramond in Scotland, was dedicated to the Matres Alatervae et Campestres (B P 78). Thus, Eric Birley noted the “outlandish goddesses” commemorated by its troops.83 However, this element should not be exaggerated. The cultivation of non-Roman deities is confined to lower ranking recruits identified by their home pagus. The epigraphic record of the entire unit at Blatobulgium and, later, Uxellodunum / Castlesteads, attest IOM, Fortuna, Minerva. Also, there is no compelling reason to see the coh. II Tungrorum as an atypical unit. Spaul has suggested that this unit was comprised of “Free citizens serving in the Roman army as aliens,” restoring as c(ivium) l(iberorum) the curious honorific of CL recorded on several inscriptions from Blatobulgium and Uxellodunum.84 The interpretation of the honorific C. L. is
81 See n. 1 of this chapter. 82 Spaul 2000: 229, cf. Jarret 1994: 49-50. 83 Birley 1935. 84 B P 46 is a dedication to Antoninus Pius that was deposited in a well at Blatobulgium – it may have been occasioned by the raising of the unit to milliary status, since the abbreviation mil(liaria) is rarely encountered except
182 unclear. It has been variously explained as c(ivium) L(atinorum), c(oram) l(audata), and c(ivium) l(iberorum) – “free citizens serving [in the Roman army] as aliens” (Spaul‟s translation); see for a summary of the arguments for each expansion. Spaul favours the last of these, citing the principle of “Occam‟s razor” to justify a parallel with c(ivium) R(omanorum). However, the distinction is without linguistic or legal parallel. The title is rare before the third century, but certainly predates the constitutio Antoniniana (cf. RIB 2110, 157-158 CE). Spaul‟s speculation that this “may be a rejection of an official enquiry about inclusion on a diploma” cannot be proven. The other suggestions are equally puzzling, largely for the same reason: neither have any parallels in the titulature of auxiliary units. However, the honorific fida, applied to the coh. fida Vardullorum, which coincidentally was also stationed in Britannia, demonstrates that there were occasionally unique exceptions to standard practice. To the list of deities attested in unit dedications mentioning a unit commander, the epigraphic record of lower ranks adds the following, along with repeated attestations of IOM, Coventina (discussed earlier), Silvanus and other Roman deities (deities occurring in previous list are designated by an asterisk): Aesculapius Apollo Clarius (with dii deaeque) Campestres *Disciplina Augusti Discipulina (!) Imperatoris Hadriani Augusti Dii deaeque omnes Felicitas Equitum Hercules Magusanus Huiter (?) Ialonus *IOM Mars (Belatucadrus, Camulus, *Cocidius) Mercurius Maponus *Matres Matres Parcae Moguns in the cases of newly milliary units. On the structure of milliary units, see the introduction. B U 10, also from Blatobulium, also records the CL epithet. For a summary of the evidence for this unit and debate about the abbreviation‟s expansion, see Spaul 2000: 229. Evidence from Uxellodunum, which dates to the 3rd century, has not been included in this study; the CL epithet appears there three time (RIB 1981-1983).
183
Montes (or Mountes) Numen Augusti Ricagambeda Salus (with Aesculapius) Vagdavercustus Veter / Veteres [---]mibus
Table 7: Votive dedications by auxiliaries below the rank of unit commander
B IP 4: Banna / Bewcastle I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Dac(orum) [---] / [---] / [.]at[.]e[..]t(---) centur(io) / leg(ionis) II [Aug(ustae)] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]
B U 7: Bar Hill Deo Mar(ti) / Camulo / [m]ilites coh(ortis) [I] / Hamioru[m] / [..]CIV[.]SC[..] / [..]IVI[---]
B U 10: Blatobulgium / Discip(linae) / Aug(usti) / coh(ors) II / Tungr(orum) / mil(liaria) Birrens eq(uitata) c(oram?) l(audata?)
B U 11: Blatobulgium / Fortunae / coh(ors) I / Nervana / Germanor(um) / m(illiaria) Birrens eq(uitata)
B A 3: Blatobulgium / Deae Ricagam/bedae pagus / Vella(v)us milit(ans) / coh(orte) II Birrens Tung(rorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B A 4: Blatobulgium / Dib(us!) de/ab(us)q(ue) / omnib(us) / Frument/ius mil(es) coh(ortis) Birrens II / Tungr(orum)
B IP 6: Bravonium / [F]el(icitati?) eqq(uitum) LL(---) Aurelius M/arcus dec(urio) alae Kirkby Thore v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
B IP 8: Bremenium / Dis / Mo{u}nti/bus(?) Iul(ius) / Firmin/us dec(urio) f(ecit) High Rochester
B IP 10: Bremetennacum [Deab(us) Ma]trib[us] / M(arcus) Ingenui/us Asiati[cus] / dec(urio) / Ribchester al(ae) II As[t(urum)] / [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
B IP 18: Brocolitia / Matribus / Albinius / |(centuria) (uinti) Vari mil(es) d(edicavit) Carrawburgh
B A 6: Brocolitia / Deae Coven/tin(a)e P[---]a/nus m(i)l(es) c(o)ho(rtis) V / Carrawburgh R(a)eto[rum] / votum [li]/be(n)s animo / r(eddidit) et posivit(!)
B A 7 Caer Gai85 Iulius Gaveronis f(ilius) / fe(cit) mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) I Ner(viorum)
B U 21: Cilurnum / [D]iscipulinae(!) / Imp(eratoris) Had(riani) Aug(usti) / ala Chesters Aug(usta) / [o]b virt(utem) appel(lata)
85 Fragmentary reliefs of Herculean iconography indicate that this was an altar set up to that god. Cf. Spaul 2000: 218.
184
B IP 30: Deva / Chester86 Numini Aug[usti ---] / ALMAECERT[---]/NVS act(arius?) co(ho)r(tis?) [---] / [---] / ex voto faci[end(um) cur(avit)]
B U 25: Gloster Hill [Ca]mpestri/[bus c]oh(ors) I / [---]
B IP 33: Irthington87 [D]eo / Marti [C]ocidio / [..] Martius / [|(centurio)] [c]oh(ortis) I Ba[t(avorum)] / [et] Genio / [Lugu]vali / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens)] m(erito)
B U 27: Habitancum / Numinib(us) / Augustor(um) / coh(ors) IIII Gal(lorum) / eq(uitata) / 88 Risingham fec(it)
B U 34: Llanio [---]mibus [..] / [--- coh(ors) I]I Astu[r(um) ---]
B IP 34: Lancaster Deo / Ialono / Contre(bi) / sanctiss[i]/mo Iuliu[s] / Ianuarius / em(eritus) ex dec(urione) v(otum) [s(olvit)]
B IP 40: Longovium / [I(ovi)] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [ord]inati coh(ortis) / [I f(idae)] Lanchester Vard[ul]lor(um) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) m(illiariae) / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(aeti) l(ibentes) m(erito)
B IP 42: Magnae / Deo sanct[o] / Veteri / Iul(ius) Pastor / imag(inifer) coh(ortis) II / Carvoran Delma(tarum!) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B IP 48: Mumrills89 Herculi / Magusan(o) / sacrum / Val(erius) Nigri/nus dupli(carius) / alae Tun/grorum
B IP 51: Trimontium / Campestr(ibus) / sacrum Ael(ius) / Marcus / dec(urio) alae Newstead Aug(ustae) / Vocontio(rum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
B U 47: Segedunum / Deo M(ercurio) s[igil(lum?)] d(edicavit) et p(osuit) coh(ors) / II Wallsend Ner[vioru]m pago / [---]diorum
B U 51: Vercovicium / Diis Deabusque se/cundum interpre/tationem oracu/li Clari Housesteads Apollinis/ coh(ors) I Tungrorum
B U 52: Vercovicium / [Ma]tribus / coh(ors) I Tungr/[or]u[m] Housesteads
B U 53: Vindolanda / Deo Mapono Chesterholm
B U 54: Vindolanda / Mer(curio?) Chesterholm
B U 56: Vindolanda / Deo / Huiti/ri(!) v(otum) s(olvit) Chesterholm
B U 57: Vindolanda / Ara Vi/tirum
86 For the suggestion almae Cereri t[emplum] see RIB ad loc. The erased line is probably the result of an emperor‟s damnatio memoriae, most likely Caracalla or Severus Alexander. 87 Reported as Genius vali by Spaul 2000: 209, without justification. 88 161-169 CE or later, based on the reference to two Augusti. 89 2nd cent., as Mumrills is a fort on the Antonine Wall.
185
Chesterholm
B U 58: Vindolanda / Ma/tribu(s) / Parc(is) Chesterholm
B IP 54: Vindolanda / Veteri/bus pos/uit Sen/ilis Chesterholm
B IP 60: Vinovia / [Aesc]ulapio / [et] Saluti / [pro salu]te alae Vet/[tonum] c(ivium) Binchester R(omanorum) M(arcus) Aure/[lius ---]ocomas me/[dicus v(otum) s(olvit)] l(ibens) m(erito)
B IP 62: Voreda / Penrith Deo / Marti / Belatucad/ro et Numi/nib(us) Augg(ustorum) / Iulius Au/gustalis / actor Iul(i) Lu/pi pr(a)ef(ecti)
Below the rank of unit commander the epigraphic record in Britain provides evidence of cult diversity among auxiliaries from both local and extra-provincial origins. One of the most striking examples of the latter is a dedication to Hercules Magusanus (B IP 48, Mumrills), a deity whose cult was based in the Batavians‟ home territory.90 Yet auxiliary units as a whole could also express piety. In this respect, a dedication to the cult of Apollo at Clarus - Apollo Clarius - (B U 51, Vercovicium / Housesteads) merits particular attention.
III.i. Coh. I Tungrorum and Clarius Apollo
The Vercovicium inscription is one of ten extant texts dedicated to Clarian Apollo (i.e Apollo of Claros), nine of which are in Latin. All texts communicate the same information – “to the gods and goddesses, according to the interpretation of Clarian Apollo.” While most were inscribed on plaques that must have been built into the walls of buildings, all are clearly of a religious nature:
90 See Roymans 2006.
186
Table 8: Clarius Apollo inscriptions (listed alphabetically by province)
Origin and Publication91 Province Text Vercovicium, B U 51 Britannia Diis (!) deabusque se/cundum interpre/tationem oracu/li Clari Apollinis/ coh(ors) I Tungrorum Corinium / Gornji Karin, CIL 3, Dalmatia 2880 = ILS 3230a D(is) deabusque / secundum inter/p(r)et{r}ationem Cla/ri Apollinis CIRG 1, 60, Ponte de Garcia Hispania Rodriguez (near Brigantium) Tarraconensis Dis d(eabus)q(ue) / ex int(e)rp/retation(e) / oraculi / Clari Apo/[l]linis C[-] / AD sacr/u[m ---] AE 1986, 119, Gabii / Gabiae Italia Diis (!) deabusq(ue) / secundum / interpreta/tionem Clari / Apollinis AE 1991, 564, Marruvium / San Italia Benedetto de´ Marsi Dis deabusque / secundu[m] / interpr[eta]/tio[nem] / o[raculi] / [Clari] / [Apollinis] CIL 8, 8351 = ILAlg 2, 3, 8311 = Numidia ILS 3230b, Ain Riahi (near Dis deabusq(ue) / secundum / interpreta/tionem o/raculi Cla/ri Apollini(s) Cuicul) Mitchell 2003 : 151-153, Melli Pisidia [q]eoi=j kai\ a)po\ e)chgh/sewj xrhsmou= ‟Apo/llwnoj Klari/ou
ILSard 1, 42 = AE 1929, 156, Sardinia Pula / Nora Dis deabusque / secundum interpreta/tionem oraculi Clari / Apollinis IAM 2, 84 = AE 1987, 1099 Mauretania Banasa Tingitana [Dis deabusque secundum interpretationem] oraculi C[larii Apollinis] IAM 2, 244 = AE 1976, 782 Mauretania Volubilis Tingitana Dis deabusque / secundum interpre/tationem oraculi / Clarii Apollinis
As a result of the uniform brevity of these texts, a considerable debate about the interpretation of these dedications has led to three theories that attempt to explain their function, distribution and date.92 In regard to function, Nock proposed what Jones has termed the “theological” interpretation93 that interprets the texts as belonging to a corpus of of oracles intended for general use. Moreover, the formula dis deabusque, according to this approach, should be seen as an attempt to accommodate the monotheistic aspect of Clarian Apollo‟s cult to traditional state religion. In terms of Clarian Apollo‟s own cult, however, the “gods and goddesses” were nevertheless subordinated to Clarian Apollo and thus became “powers and functions of the Supreme Being.” This interpretation has the support of literary and epigraphic sources for Clarian Apollo‟s cult at Oenoanda, where an inscription indicates that the traditional
91 CIRG = G. Pereira Menaut, Corpus de inscricións romanas de Galicia I (Santiago, 1990); IAM = P. Euzennat and J. Marion, Inscriptions antiques du Maroc 2. Inscriptions latines (Paris, 1982); ILAlg = Inscriptions latines d'Algérie (Paris, 1922-); ILSard = G. Sotgiu, Iscrizioni latine della Sardegna (Padua, 1961). Cf. Paus. 7.3.1 for the main description of the cult in antiquity. 92 The most recent summary of the debate is presented by Jones 2005: 294-296. 93 Nock 1972; cf. Jones 2005: 296.
187 gods are “angels” (a)/ngeloi), who are “a small part of the god” (meikra\ de\ qeou=).94 The cult then expanded into the Latin west, perhaps under the direction of a central authority in Claros.95 The potential for conflict with the state religious authorities was obvious, and as a result a clarification, subsequently „interpreted‟ by the exegetes of the god‟s oracles, led to the addition of the dis deabusque formula found in these texts. In what Jones has termed the “secular” interpretation of these texts, E. Birley focused on the Vercovicium text to date the Clarian Apollo inscriptions precisely to Caracalla‟s visit to Britannia in 213 CE, based on his known patronage of another syncretised cult of Apollo, Apollo Grannus, and the explicit mention of coh. I Tungrorum as the dedicating unit.96 Birley explained the broad distribution of the Clarian Apollo inscriptions as being due not to the followers of the god but rather to the agency of the emperor, reasoning that “no person less eminent than the emperor himself could have been responsible for taking steps to have the oracle‟s instructions complied with so widely, and in so many different parts of the empire, and by a unit of the Roman army too.” He argued further that the cult of Clarian Apollo was linked by interpretatio Romana to Apollo Grannus, and thus that all the „secundum interpretationem‟ inscriptions both date to 213 and resulted, essentially, from a reply given to the ailing emperor. Birley did not attempt to explain the dis deabusque formula. Finding fault with these “theological” and “secular” interpretations, Jones proposed a third, which focused on the Antonine Plague.97 He compared the secundum interpretationem formula to a Greek inscription from Hierapolis in Phrygia in which the dedicant, T[---]es, dedicated an inscription to Apollo Archegetes chronicling an oracle of the god. The account includes a direction that “before all the gates consecrate a holy statue of Clarian Phoebus equipped with bows that destroy plague.”98 Since the inscribed stones mostly were designed for incorporation into a wall, Jones compared them to Medieval and modern “protective texts on lintels, doorposts, and the like.” He viewed the addition of the dis deabusque formula as a blanket phrase intended to supplicate as many deities as possible during the crisis. Jones further argued that, since the onset of the Plague can be dated to ca. 165 – although Jerome recorded a
94 SEG 27, 933. 95 Mitchell 2003: 155 argues that the priesthood of Clarian Apollo likely “took a lead in sending its message out to the Latin-speaking parts of the Empire, and we might expect religious traditionalists everywhere to have been receptive to its message.” 96 E. Birley 1988: 365-367; On Caracalla and Apollo Grannus, see Dio 77.15.5. 97 Jones 2005; on the debate about the seriousness of the Antonine Plague and the difficulties of assessing it from epigraphic evidence, see Bruun 2003 and Bruun 2007. 98 Pugliese Carratelli 1963/1964: 357 no. 2; cf. Merkelbach and Stauber 1996: no. 12.
188 major outbreak in 168 – this period provides the true terminus post quem for these inscriptions, and that they must date consequently date to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.99 The interpretatio, according to this theory, was occasioned by the oracle‟s original response to the crisis of the Antonine Plague, perhaps by the order of Marcus Aurelius himself. Thus the Vercovicium inscription, which alone of the Clarian Apollo texts preserves the name of a dedicant, could belong to broadly divergent contexts. If Jones‟ argument is accepted, then Britannia should be included among the list of provinces affected by the Antonine Plague. Yet there are problems with the Plague hypothesis. Firstly, no Clarian Apollo inscriptions have yet been recovered from Germania, despite Ammianus‟ claim that it ab ipsis Persarum finibus ad usque Rhenum Gallias cuncta contagiis polluebat et mortibus. If the Clarian interpretatio were closely connected to the Antonine Plague, it seems reasonable to expect more evidence of it in military contexts. Jones infers that the Vercovicium inscription is such an example, yet it would be the only extant example of an event that, according to the Historia Augusta, claimed so many lives that the emperor was compelled to conscript slaves and bandits to keep the military fully manned.100 Epigraphic evidence to support this report of devastation to the military in general is difficult to identify. Attempts to do so by Duncan-Jones and Scheidel have been criticized,101 and in any case none of their arguments cited the Clarian Apollo inscriptions in the context of the Antonine Plague. This seems to rule out the emperor as the individual who
99 Jones 2005: 301, “at some date in or after 165”. On the outbreak of 168, see Jer. Chron. p. 205 (Helm). SHA Ver. 8.1-4 claims that the plague originated in Parthia, where campaigning Roman armies were first infected; the eastern origins were also stressed, dramatically, by Amm. Marc. 23.6.24. 100 SHA Marc. 17.2, 21.6-7. 101 Duncan-Jones 1996 surveys the evidence for the Antonine Plague, concluding that the disease, perhaps a form of smallpox, devastated the Roman empire particularly among the military and large urban centers (cf. Duncan-Jones 1996: 134-136), and his approach was expanded upon by Scheidel 2002. Their methods have been challenged in detail by Bruun 2003. One of Duncan-Jones‟ claims, that military diploma production in bronze ceased during the worst years of the plague (Duncan-Jones 1996: 124-125) has also been rejected; rather, a shortage in metal supplies throughout the empire has been shown to be the main contributor to this staggering trend in the record of military diplomas (cf. Eck et al. 2003: 365). As of 2006, no military diplomas have been discovered for a ten year span in the second century (167/168-177/178 CE). RMD 443 was issued sometime after May 167 and perhaps as late as 168, while RMD 444, issued perhaps in 177. This diploma theoretically could have been issued as early as 169 CE, based on the fact that it refers to Marcus Aurelius as sole emperor and thus must date to the period of Marcus Aurelius‟ reign following the death of Lucius Verus and prior to the elevation of Commodus as co-emperor. The editors favoured the latest possible date within this period (177 CE) due to the diploma lacuna already mentioned. After RMD 444, the closest subsequent diplomas belong to a series issued on the same date, 23 Mar. 178 See Appendix II, tab. 1 nos. 29-34 for examples of these diplomas from Britannia; astonishingly, no diplomas issued to veterans of Germania later than 167 have yet been discovered (and that diploma, RMD 120) may have been issued in 161). Nevertheless, as diploma issues to veterans of Pannonia and Dacia demonstrate that soldiers serving on the Danube were still being issued diplomas in the late second century, it would be premature to conclude that veterans of the two Germanies ceased to receive diplomas altogether.
189 petitioned the priesthood for a clarification, as the military had the resources and skill to produce enough dedications that the survival of only one military inscription seems improbable. The cohort had built Vercovicium and was subsequently stationed there; its agency in the construction of other forts at Brocolitia and, on the Antonine Wall, Castle Cary, is also certain.102 This unit, like others in Britannia, recruited both locally and from abroad, producing an ethnic mix that is reflected in extant inscriptions by its personnel: at Vercovicium alone there are dedications also to Hercules, Silvanus, Cocidius, Mars, IOM (and the numina of the emperors), most of which mention unit commanders.103 The fact that these religious dedications were unit dedications renders the Plague hypothesis less likely. Like the Clarian Apollo text, the Matres were also the recipients of a unit dedication that mentioned no commander (B U 52). As noted many times in this investigation, auxiliary units commonly set up votive inscriptions to both Roman and peregrine deities, with their unit commanders often taking pains to mention themselves. A prefect of coh. I Tungrorum, Claudius Marcianus, commissioned an inscription sive deo sive deae (B P 140), echoing a similar sentiment to that expressed by the dis deabusque formula. Leaving aside his supposition of the Clarian cult‟s monotheistic trends, evident in other contemporary cults patronized by the military, such as those of Mithras and Jupiter Dolichenus, B P 140 seems to support Mitchell‟s observation that the phrase functioned as a blanket term. This would have certainly made the cult more acceptable to the state religion that was propagated among the military ranks, but the evidence suggests that all soldiers, both legionary and auxiliary, had rare contact with the cult‟s patrons. The lack of military contexts also undermines, along this line of reasoning, Birley‟s connection of these texts to 213 CE, during Caracalla‟s reign. Ultimately, the involvement of coh. I Tungrorum in the Clarian Apollo cult does not support the arguments that the Roman army either patronized it significantly or that it did so briefly in response to the decimation of its ranks by the Antonine Plague. The cult‟s absence from military inscriptions does indicate, however, that any interest in it among the soldiers was ephemeral.
102 Spaul 2000: 225-227; cf E. Birley 1988: 365-367 (overlooked by Spaul). 103 See B P 132-140.
190
III.ii. Observations on peregrine and local gods in stone inscriptions
Many dedications to popular deities like the Veteres or Coventina either do not identify the dedicator or identify only the dedicator‟s name. Such inscriptions were surely often commissioned by auxiliaries, and occasionally by legionaries. Certain cults were patronized by both sections of the army, such as the shrine of Cocidius. Examples of peregrine or local gods known to have been patronized by legionary soldiers are provided in the following table: Reference Peregrine Gods attested in inscriptions dedicated by legionaries in Britannia AE 1978, 448 Matres CCID 575 Dolichenus RIB 139 = AE 1926, 83 Genius loci (Sulis Minerva) RIB 143 Sulis RIB 146 Sulis Minerva RIB 147 Sulis RIB 322 Invictus Mithras RIB 450 Genius loci RIB 452 IOM Tanarus RIB 583 Apollo Maponus (Gordian) RIB 653 Matres Afrae Italae Gallae RIB 654 Matres RIB 920 Matres Transmarinae RIB 985 Cocidius RIB 988 Cocidius RIB 1022 = CCID 576 IOM Dolichenus RIB 1120 = ILS 4639 Apollo Maponus RIB 1121 = AE 1927, 90 Apollo Maponus RIB 1122 = AE 1947, 120 Apollo Maponus RIB 1131 = CCID 565 IAeternaM Dolichenus + Caelestis Brigantia + Salus RIB 1327 Atenociticus RIB 1330 = CCID 564 IOM Dolihenus RIB 1398 Deus RIB 1577 Cocidius + Genius praesidii RIB 1583 IOM + Cocidius + genius loci
191
RIB 1725 = CCID 561 IOM Dolichenus RIB 1955 Cocidius RIB 1956 Cocidius RIB 2024 Mars Cocidius RIB 2050 Matres domesticae RIB 2135 = AE 1977, 496 Matres Alatervae + M. Campestres RIB 2177 Mars + Minerva + Campestres + Hercules + Epona + Victoria
A comparison of the data presented above with the auxiliary record demonstrates that many local and continental peregrine deities were patronized regularly by legionary soldiers. In certain cases, such as at Vercovicium, a vexillation of legionaries offered a religious dedication to Cocidius in an auxiliary fort. The Matres are also well represented, likely a consequence of their increasing dependence on recruits from Germany and the Balkans.104 A striking example from Eburacum / York preserves a dedication to the Matres of Africa, Italy and Gaul, testifying to the propagation of the cult of this trio of goddesses throughout the western empire. The importation of deities from abroad, a feature of transplanted auxiliary religious practices as well, is indicated further by the epithet transmarinae, “from across the sea,” also applied to the Matres. Apollo Maponus‟ cult, another example of a syncretism, is also attested in auxiliary contexts. Legionaries easily accommodated the official state religion of the army to local practices, and thus provided in this sphere of military life an example for both foreign and local auxiliary recruits in doing the same.
This accommodation reaches an extreme when it subsumes a foreign deity‟s name fully under a Roman identity. An inscription recently emphasized by Sauer records a religious vow dedicated to Apollo by Melonius Senilis, an auxiliary transferred from Germania Superior:105 Deo Apol/l(i)n(i) Melonius / Senilis expl(orator) / Ger(mania) sup(eriore) / s(usceptum) s(olvit) / l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
To the god Apollo. Melonius Senilis, scout from Germania Superior, happily and gladly fulfilled his sworn vow.
104 The Balkan character of second century recruits particularly is the subject of Eck and Pangerl 2008. The authors‟ argument is based on military diploma evidence, of which the majority of recent publications have emanated from the Balkan region during the last 20 years. This is a phenomenon that has modern factors (see Weiss 2003) that may obscure other sources of recruitment by overstating the Balkan element in auxiliary units. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the Danube, particularly following the incorporation of Dacia into the Roman empire, became a vital source of military recruitment in the second century, and this influence in Britannia has been noted above. 105 RIB 1665 (Cawfields), Sauer 2007: 21.
192
To Sauer, Melonius is an „immigrant‟ for whom the worship of Apollo, often associated with the Celtic deity Grannus, is natural. Moreover, the worship of this male deity is incongruous with the generally female gender of local spring and well deities in Britannia. Melonius‟ act was private, and has many other parallels. Given the involuntary nature of most troop transfers in the Roman army, it seems misleading to read Melonius, or other military personnel as „immigrants.‟ Sauer‟s main point is valid, however, and paralleled in other auxiliary contexts. The decision by Melonius to leave out the Celtic epithet of Apollo masks the non-Roman heritage of this cult practice.
Like the example of Melonius, the dedication to Hercules Magusanus clearly points to an origin on the German frontier as well:106
Herculi / Magusan(o) / sacrum / Val(erius) Nigri/nus dupli(carius) / alae Tun/grorum.
Sacred to Hercules Magusanus. Valerius Nigrinus, duplicarius of the ala Tungrorum (did this).
The shrine of this deity was a very important cult center in Germania Inferior. It is noteworthy that a deity whose worship was normally confined to that shrine should be honoured at Mumrills on Hadrian‟s Wall. Despite his Roman name, Nigrinus evidently felt at ease in expressing his devotion to a cult popular in Germania Inferior. As there are no other dedications to Hercules Magusanus extant, this dedication seems to represent a more personal religious expression. However, Nigrinus also does not hesitate to mention important details about his military service, especially his distinction as a duplicarius. This surely reflects a strong sense of pride in his military career. Thus worship of peregrine deities alone does not constitute a conscious „resistance‟ to Roman cultural values.
At sites where a significant number of religious dedications made by auxiliary soldiers survive, a connection with Germania can also be observed. At Vindolanda, where the practice of partial ethnic recruitment by both the Tungrian and Batavian cohorts is known to have been practiced at least until the beginning of the second century, the religious dedications reflect strong ties to the continent. As noted above, some of the most popular deities mentioned in inscriptions originated from Germania (the Veteres, Mogons, Maponus). The variation Hu- for
106 RIB 2140=ILS 4268.
193
Ve- reflects attempts by certain individuals at approximating Germanic pronunciation.107 In these cases, linguistic accuracy seems to have been important for the dedicators.
III.iii. The Syrian Goddess
Unit commanders who did not share the ethnicity of a majority of their troops could also set up dedications in the name of their troops. Thus, in the mid-2nd century CE, the prefect of the eastern unit coh. I Hamiorum could set up an altar to the Syrian goddess of his troops:108 Deae Suri/ae(!) sub Calp/urnio Ag[r]/ico[la] leg(ato) Au[g(usti)] / pr(o) pr(aetore) Lic[in]ius / [C]lem[ens praef(ectus)] / [co]h(ortis) I Ha[miorum]
To the Syrian goddess. Licinius Clemens, prefect of the coh. I Hamiorum, (dedicated this) during the governorship of Calpurnius Agricola, Imperial legate.
This same goddess was honoured with an altar by a beneficiarius stationed at Cataractonium / Catterick, who seems to have been a Roman citizen.109 Another ethnic goddess peculiar to this unit must also have been Dea Hammia, also attested at Magnae.110 The site of this dedication was the legionary fortress at Magnae / Carvoran in Wales. The content may also be connected with a poetic inscription from the early third century, in which the metrical structure is marked, despite not being quite reflected in the line division on the stone (B P 116, cf. CLE 24):
Imminet Leoni Virgo caeles/ti situ spicifera iusti in/venitrix urbium conditrix / ex quis muneribus nosse con/tigit deos: ergo easdem mater divum / Pax Virtus Ceres dea Syria / lance vitam et iura pensitans. / In caelo visum Syria sidus edi/dit Lybiae colendum: inde / cuncti didicimus. / Ita intellexit numine inductus / tuo Marcus Caecilius Do/natianus militans Tribunes / in praefecto dono principis.
The Virgin in her heavenly place rides upon the Lion; bringer of corn, inventor of law, founder of cities, by whose gifts it is our lot to know the gods. Therefore she is the Mother of Gods, Peace, Virtue, Ceres,
107 See commentary to RIB 1603; cf. also RIB 1602 (Hueteri) and 1603 (Huitri). 108 B P 117. Sex. Calpurnius Agricola, cos. 154, governed Britannia ca 161-168. 109 RIB 726: deae Suriae ara(m) C(aius) N(---) O(---) b(ene)f(iciarius). 110 RIB 1780, cf. Spaul 2000: 409. The dedicator‟s name and unit are not given.
194
The Syrian goddess, weighing life and laws in her balance. Syria has sent the constellation. Seen the heavens, to Libya to be worshipped, and we have all learned from this. Thus has understood, led by your power, Marcus Caecilianus Donatianus,111 serving As a tribune in the post of prefect, by the emperor‟s gift.
This inscription belongs to an auxiliary context of the Severan dynasty, though there is considerable dispute about its interpretation. The tribune, Marcus Caecilianus Donatianus, was assumed by Spaul to have been the commander of coh. II Delmatarum, based on other evidence of this unit discovered at the location, Magnae / Carvoran in Wales. A soldier of this unit, Iulius Pastor, may even bear a cognomen (“Pastor”) that translates his native ethnic dele / delme (“shepherd”).112 However, Donatianus makes no reference to his unit, and the inscription itself bears apparent Syrian elements: a “Syrian goddess” who is “mother of the gods;” as such, it was originally seen as a veiled reference to Julia Domna and to the coh. Hamiorum, which moved to Magnae / Carvoran in the first half of the second century CE.113
The deity honoured here is Atargatis, typically represented iconographically as seated on a lion throne and associated with Dea Syria.114 This foreign association represents a private act rather than an official act on behalf of a unit, since there would be an obvious disconnect between the commander‟s background and those of his Dalmatian troops. Spaul seemed to accept the interpretation of Tomlin that the deity in question was the Phoenician goddess Tanit,115 since he includes this text in his corpus of material for the Dalmatian cohort, which had been stationed at Magnae from 105-135 CE,116 and suggested without evidence that Donatianus “might have been more at home as a prefect of Syrians rather than Africans.”
There are compelling reasons to accept the identification of this inscription with a Syrian, rather than Dalmatian, unit. Diploma evidence for coh II Delmatarum at Magnae ceases in 135 CE. In the following year, datable evidence of the coh Hamiorum at Magnae survives. Spaul seems confused on this point, arguing that coh. II Delmatarum was stationed at Magnae in the
111 PME C 13. 112 Zaninovic 1971: 299-301. 113 RIB 1791 comm. ad loc. The coh. Hamiorum was attested at Magnae in 136-138 (B P 115) and also 163-166 CE. (B P 118). 114 Niehl 2003; see also Birley and Blake 2007: 111. 115 Cf. comm. in RIB ad loc. 116 CIL 16, 51.
195 fourth century. The Cataractonium inscription also provides a useful parallel of a Syrian deity specifically connected with a Syrian unit. This is not the only example of an eastern deity preserved at Magnae: a syncretised IOM Heliopolitanus, deriving from Heliopolis in Coele Syria, also indicates a significant eastern element.117 While the deities known to have been worshipped by the Syrians were not exclusively eastern – Mars Camulus, Silvanus, and Fortuna are also attested, and no auxiliary unit exclusively worshipped peregrine deities – a clear ethnic and cultural Syrian presence is evident at Magnae.
The eastern heritage of many members of the imperial house provided, moreover, a convenient opportunity for an equestrian commander to adapt his appointment as commander of a Syrian unit: this monument is clearly one of the most sophisticated military verse inscriptions from the western provinces. The omission of the unit‟s name maintained a focus on the dedicant and the deity. The Syrian connection of the virgo caelestis seems clear despite the ambiguity of the text that led Tomlin to suggest that Tanit was being celebrated here. This interpretation supposes that the goddess is honoured in an extravagant monument to an „African deity‟ evocative of the prefect‟s roots, yet it phrased in the language of monuments familiar to his Syrian troops, permitted a dual reception that emphasized his learning and authority. If this inscription dates to the lifetime of Julia Domna, at that time the most well-known Syrian woman in the Roman army, Donatianus had an opportunity to exploit his position as a commander of a Syrian unit to demonstrate his loyalty to the imperial family at a time when Severus‟ campaign in Britain remained fresh among local memories. It is this context, rather than Donatianus‟ suggested African heritage, that connects the prefect of this unit with the coh. II Delmatarum, stationed at Magnae in the late third and fourth century.118 Instead, this inscription combines Syrian, Roman and, possibly, Punic religious references in the distinctly Roman medium of Latin verse. It demonstrates also that a significant Syrian population was present in Britain over multiple generations, and that Roman commanders were capable of understanding auxiliary ethnic dynamics.
117 RIB 1783. 118 See Spaul 2000: 304 n.1, 408-409 for references.
196
III.iv. Remarks on Auxiliary Religion in Britain
Detailed inscriptions dedicated by lower ranking auxiliary soldiers in Britain, already presented, when viewed in context with other ranks presented above (tab. 7), illustrate how even peregrine cults honoured at the lowest level also received „official‟ recognition among higher ranks. Table 9: Auxiliary votive dedications below rank of centurion / decurion
B A 3: Blatobulgium / Deae Ricagam/bedae pagus / Vella(v)us milit(ans) / coh(orte) II Birrens Tung(rorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
B A 4: Blatobulgium / Dib(us!) de/ab(us)q(ue) / omnib(us) / Frument/ius mil(es) coh(ortis) Birrens II / Tungr(orum)
B A 6: Brocolitia / Deae Coven/tin(a)e P[---]a/nus m(i)l(es) c(o)ho(rtis) V / Carrawburgh R(a)eto[rum] / votum [li]/be(n)s animo / r(eddidit) et posivit(!)
B A 7 Caer Gai119 Iulius Gaveronis f(ilius) / fe(cit) mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) I Ner(viorum)
B A 8: AE 1995, 994b, Boud[us c(o)h]o(rtis) Ast(urum) Caersws
The cult of Coventina discussed above was specifically honoured by an auxiliary, whose name, though fragmentary, seems peregrine. Certainly peregrine was Iulius Gaveronis f.; his Julian name often indicates the possession of Roman citizenship among auxiliaries, but the name + filiation formula, as shown in the second chapter, is typical of peregrines, and reflects the growing popularity of the name Iulius among provincials. As diplomas demonstrate, auxiliary soldiers often gave Roman names to their peregrine children, and the presence of local recruits in auxiliary units is indicated by Boudus, whose name bears the same Celtic root as the Icenian queen Boudicca. The survey of auxiliary religious dedications presented above demontstrates that the hierarchies of auxiliary units in Britain often closely understood the ethnic traditions of the lower ranking troops under their command. In a zone of active combat, a reality illustrated by the
119 Fragmentary reliefs of Herculean iconography indicate that this was an altar set up to that god. Cf. Spaul 2000: 218.
197
Vindolanda writing tablets, there were obvious reasons for commanders to maintain a culture that both enforced Roman concepts of military culture and loyalty while providing avenues of expression to troops that drew, particularly in the first century, overwhelmingly on non-British recruits for their unit manpower. This engagement across the ranks also helps to explain the processes of „Romanization‟ evident in the auxiliary evidence of Roman Britain. In the following section, this topic will be investigated further.
IV. „Romanization‟
Surveying the incidence of Celtic names in the epigraphic record of Britain, Mullen characterized „Romanization‟ in Britain as “unpredictable, multifaceted and complex”, noting also that “it would be a mistake to assume too much about the identity of people, about whom we know so little.”120 However, his own analysis of onomastics from Roman Britain demonstrated that the duo and tria nomina characteristic of Roman naming was adopted, unsurprisingly, “in more Romanized contexts” and, more notably, “very rarely included Celtic names.”121 The obvious conclusion is that local and continental Celtic names experienced a significant generational decrease from the point of sustained contact with a Roman community. In Britannia, as noted at the start of this chapter, this first point of contact typically occurred on a frontier characterized by concentrations of auxiliary soldiers based in forts with their attendant vici. Mullen‟s observations accord with the study on families represented in the diploma evidence from chapter 2, which demonstrate that over the course of a single generation a significant „Romanization‟ of children‟s names is evident, even among large families.
Archaeologically, „Romanization‟ has been observed in material culture by numerous authors. While the acceptance of the „Romanization‟ paradigm remains a point of debate among many experts in the British archaeological field, as surveyed in chapter 1, in the field of auxiliary research studies continue to demonstrate a causal relationship between the expansion of a Roman presence in the north of Britain and a statistically significant adoption of Roman material culture
120 Mullen 2007: 55. 121 Mullen 2007: 40-42.
198 in local contexts. For example, Willis‟ comparative analysis of pottery in the eastern and northeastern frontiers of the Roman province examined a total of 75 pottery groups (“assemblages”) grouped chronologically from sites datable to the late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) to early in Trajan‟s reign.122 Significant examples of pottery in LPRIA contexts, which Willis identified in the case of Leicester, demonstrate the local importance of some sites as “high status centers,” and in the case of Leicester this is borne out by its later designation as a civitas capital for the Corieltauvi.123 Following the Claudian invasion and subsequent expansion of the Roman legionary and auxiliary military presence into Willis‟ zone of study, sites where quantifiable data exists demonstrate a clear trend of a “progressive decline in the frequency of Iron Age / Transitional pottery, so that, by the turn of the second century A.D., a strong, seemingly universal, Romanization of the assemblages had occurred.”124 The chronological trend in terms of pottery coincides with intense military activity in the north of the province. By the end of the first century, a period contemporary with the evidence from the Vindolanda archive, local material culture in the frontier zone had become increasingly dominated by Roman wares.
The archaeological evidence can be placed further into context by the Vindolanda records. They demonstrate, as noted earlier, useful examples of military social dynamics in Vindolanda‟s auxiliary community. One of the units attested in the archive is the coh. VIIII Batavorum. It illustrates, arguably, a specifically auxiliary context for „Romanization‟ in Britain.
IV.i. The King of the Batavians
A recently published tablet from Vindolanda briefly preserves a noteworthy request by a decurion of the coh. VIIII Batavorum equitata: (i) Masclus Ceriali regi suo / salute /cras quid uelis nos fecisse / rogo / domine prae/cipias utrumne / cum uexsillo omnes / rediemus an alter/ni compitum aeque / (ii) [...] / felicissim[u]s [ ] / et sis mihi propitius / uale / ceruesam commilitiones / non habunt / quam rogo iubeas mitti / (VERSO) F[l]auio Ceriali praef(ecto) / (space of one line) a Masclo dec(urione)
122 Willis 1996. 123 Willis 1996: 187-189. On the Corieltauvi (or Coritani), see Todd 1991. 124 Willis 1996: 214.
199
“Masclus to Cerialis his king, greetings. Please, my lord, give instructions as to what you want us to have done tomorrow. Are we to return with the standard (to the shrine at?) the crossroads all together or every other one (i.e. half) of us…. Most fortunate and he will be well-disposed to me. My fellow soldiers have no beer.125 Please order some to be sent. (verso) To Flavius Cerialis, prefect, from Masclus, decurion.” [tr. Bowman and Thomas]
The writer, Masclus (i.e. Masculus), addresses the prefect Flavius Cerialis, adding the epithet regi suo (“to his king”).126 The text may be interpreted either as a polite address to a social superior, with a possible parallel from Egypt, or more literally as an echo of Cerialis heritage as a Batavian noble, commanding an ethnic auxiliary unit.127 The debate is an illustrative manifestation of trends in scholarship on the „Romanization‟ of Britain. Bowman and Thomas suggest, on the strength of a parallel with P.Mich 8.472 = Corpus Epistularum Latinarum 147 and OLD s.v. “rex” definition 8,128 that the word here means patron and has no regal force, although they provide the literal translation „king‟ for rex. Masculus‟ use of rex here in this interpretation is just, as the editors have described it, „standard flattery.‟
This is not a priori implausible; the use of rex as meaning “patron” is attested many times in Latin literature of both the Republic and the empire. One might ask what use it would be for a Roman military commander to want to be called, or to encourage, possibly, his soldiers to call him, a „king‟? Here the context of the letter as belonging to the personnel of an auxiliary unit is important to remember. The Batavi, like other Germanic peoples, were governed to some degree by an individual whom the Romans often called a rex, a word which shares a common Indo- European root with Germanic and Celtic.129
Originally described by Tacitus as „part of the Chatti,‟ the Batavi seem to have migrated into the west from the Germanic speaking territories of the east,130 where they became an important ally of the Romans.131 Probably serving under Caesar and certainly serving in the army during Augustus‟ reign, they gained a reputation as fine horsemen, fierce fighters, and
125 i.e. cervesa, a Celtic loan-word indicative of the beverage‟s regional origin. 126 Tab.Vindol. 3.628. 127 Cf. CEL 147.2, Dickey 2002: 106-107. Bowman 2006: 87 n. 81, summarizing the views expressed with Thomas in the text‟s editio princeps, rejects the „royal connection‟ argument. Contra see Eck 2005: 666-667. 128 Pp. 1650-1651. 129 Tac. Hist. 4.12-13, Germ. 29.1-3. 130 Tac. Hist. 4.12-13, Germ. 29.1-3. On the Germanic root of Batavi = *bat- Gothic batiza (better) and bota (advantage), yielding a meaning along the lines of “the excellent ones”. See Rives 1999: 240. 131 Caesar does not mention them, but they appear more commonly in the Augustan period, where they make up part of the emperor‟s bodyguard. On this subject see Will 1987: 5-6. M. P. Speidel 1994 suggests that Caesar‟s equites Germani may have included Batavi, but Roymans 2001: 96-97 notes that this is uncertain.
200 excellent swimmers.132 Around this time they entered into the aforementioned treaty of alliance with Rome that provided a large degree of internal autonomy, exempted them from taxes, but required the provision of auxiliary troops. Although Tacitus‟ account in the Histories of the Batavian revolt‟s conclusion is lost, his record in the Germania shows that the Batavians retained their earlier privileges.
This continuity of special status is significant. Roymans has seen this treaty as the beginning of the Batavian „ethnogenesis.‟133 As far as is known, there were no literal Batavian „kings‟, but Tacitus‟ reference to a stirps regia indicates the prominence of an aristocratic class with interests in the Batavians‟ military service. He has argued that in the pre-Flavian era the stirps regia had a key role in creating and diffusing Batavian identity, and notes that the Batavi were a civitas peregrina. Peregrine status implies that a relatively small number of Batavians was enfranchised.134 The name and date of the last Batavian king are unknown.
Lack of kings does not necessarily mean lack of a concept of kingship; as Wenskus has observed, in communities of peregrine status, positions of power were often held by descendants of the tribal, tradition-bearing political core, which he describes as the Traditionskern.135 The descendants of the old Batavian tribal leaders, like, for example, Julius Civilis, also served in the auxilia, as we know from Tacitus‟ accounts. Thus, members of the stirps regia, through their service as commanders of auxiliary units, would have more contact with the “lower echelons,” to use Roymans‟ term, of Batavian society. In 100 CE, then, the question becomes, if there were not Batavian kings, then were there Batavians who possessed, or could claim to possess, a share of the stirps regia?
Birley‟s assessment of the rex of this tablet tentatively offered the interpretation that the term should be translated literally as „king.‟ Birley goes on at a later point to argue that Cerialis was also of the stirps regia, and that “this makes it tempting to take literally the decurion Masclus‟ form of address to Cerialis, regi suo.” Birley appends to his paper a list of Batavians
132 This last trait is what leads Speidel to suggest that they made up part of Caesar‟s Germanic forces, whose swimming skills he employed in battle to great effect. 133 Roymans, 2001: 93-145, esp. 96-99. 134 Roymans 2004: 253-260. 135 Wenskus 1977, cf. Roymans 2004: 253 n. 638.
201 attested at Vindolanda, including Masclus our decurion,136 and cites as a parallel Plutarch‟s Table Talk 1.10.1, 628AB. This text mentions a suffect consul of 109 named C. Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus, grandson of Commagene‟s last king. Flavius Cerialis, as Birley observes, is a part of a group of Flavii (enfranchised) who come from an area of the Rhineland lacking stone inscriptions and statue-bases that might otherwise have attested officers with citizen status.137 Eck calls this an „attractive‟ interpretation, despite the fact that another inscription might seem to support the “patron” interpretation (CIL 14.4239 = ILS 1013).138 This is a statue base inscription in which a consul and legionary veteran, Ti. Claudius Liberalis Aebutianus, dedicated to Herennia Helvidia Aemiliana, wife of L. Claudius Proculus, also a consul, strikingly characterizing Aemiliana as his regina. The usage here is surely flattering, although the precise context cannot be clearly ascertained. Eck, however, stresses the cultural history of the Batavians as a distinctive factor that, in his view, seems to favour Birley‟s interpretation. In the general context of the Batavian cohorts and of the new citizens enfranchised by the Flavians who commanded these units and of what we know about the tribal structure of the Batavians, in Eck‟s view, Birley‟s interpretation seems preferable.
The arguments of Birley and Eck are attractive. Birley‟s study has demonstrated two important things. First, that the Batavian cohort, despite being stationed in Britannia, continued to draw Batavian recruits even in the late 1st century CE. He identifies 164 Batavian names from the period ca. 92-105, the time when we know that the Ninth Cohort of Batavians was stationed at Vindolanda. Second, he identifies two Flavii and one Flavianus among the Batavian prefects of this period.139 All of these enfranchised officers will have had the rank of eques, and represent the nobilissimi popularium at the time of the Vindolanda tablets who commanded the Batavian units up to the time of the revolt. They continued, as mentioned earlier, on the basis of the text
136 Batavians: 164, Tungrians: 69, Celtic: 46, either Batavian or Tungrian: 4, Greek: 10. Regarding names in Latin, Birley 2001: 257, notes that “there are only a few Roman citizens or possible citizens.” Most Latin names, he observes, “probably represent versions of Celtic forms.” 137 Birley 2001: 252. 138 Herenniae M(arci) f(iliae) / Helvidiae Aemilianae / L(uci) Claudi(i) Proculi / Corneliani co(n)s(ulis) / reginae suae h(onoris) c(ausa) posuit / Ti(berius) Claudius Ti(beri) f(ilius) Qui(rina tribus) / Liberalis Aebutianus / equo publico praef(ectus) fabr(um) / trib(unus) mil(itum) leg(ionis) III Cyrenaicae / dec(urialis) Caes(arum) co(n)s(ulum) pr(aetorem) cum / [C]laudia Nectarea uxore. Cf. Eck 2005: 666-667. 139 Falvius Cerialis (Period 3), Flavius Genialis (Period 2/3), and Flavianus (see Tab.Vindol. 2.172). On the Vindolanda „periods‟ see tab. 1 of this chapter.
202 manet honos et antiquae societatis insigne,140 to command these units after the revolt, even as late as ca. 100 CE.
The argument of Bowman and Thomas rests on a comparison with CEL 147, a private letter from Egypt of uncertain date. However, this comparison is not straightforward. As mentioned earlier, Bowman and Thomas viewed the term as having a flattering meaning of patron. The context of this letter certainly does seem to support this. Claudius Tiberianus, the writer, addresses his lord and patron, Longinus Priscus, (or Longinius, as his name appears on the verso), in a letter with a very deferential tone that characterizes Priscus not only as Tiberianus‟ “rex” but also his “dominus” on no less than five occasions, highlighted in the translation below:
Cl(audius) Tiberian[u]s Longino Prisco domin[o] / et regi suo plurimam salutem / tu optime scis quomodo abs te exiverim / .a[...]a. celerius at [t]e venturum / [....]si qu[u]m para..[..]m mequm has / ..[..]s m[e]is d..[..].[..] A[l]exandr[ia]m [at?] / [i]nven[i] iam naves exisse et non eum vendedi scias me domine / modo Al[e]xandriae esse occasione / inventa spero me celeries aput te / venturum rogo domine digne/r[i]s mihi rescribere ubi constas / [ut i]bi te possi[m inv]enire c[el]er[iu]s / [et f]eram navi[....]um quam [tibi] da/[tu]rus est epis[tula]m qui est [Se]m/[pro]nius Clemen[s] frument[ar]ius / [a]t te [m]issuro [mi]hi et epi[st]u/[la]s duas quas [c]upias acum[in]e / [et fo]rtuna a[pu]d [i]llum re[pe]r/ta[s t]ibi remisi s[i]g[n]atas rogo domi/n[e ....].[...]ras e.[..]..[..]m cetera / [.].[...].[....]s..[li]gn[e]a ba[c]ula X / [pa]ravi c[r]ebrum salutat te Clau/d[i]us fi[lius meu]s (2nd hand) opto t[e] domine / bene valere / salut[a] ..[...]m et Aristum e[t ...]qarium et omn[es] / tuos con[tu]bernales val(e)
“Claudius Tiberianus offers very great greetings to Longinus Priscus his lord and king. You know very well in what way I left you… to come to you soon. What I brought (?) to Alexandria with me … I found that the boats had already departed and I did not sell it. Know, my lord, that I am now in Alexandria; if I find an opportunity, I hope to come to you soon. I beg you, my lord, condescend to write to me where you are stationed, so that I may be able to find you there quickly and bring the … by boat. As I was about to send you the letter Sempronius Clemens, the frumentarius, will deliver to you, I found at his place, by dint of thought and good luck, also the two letters that you want, and I sent them to you under seal. I beg you, my lord, …. I prepared ... wooden staffs (?). Claudius, my son, sends many salutations to you. (2nd hand) I pray for your good health, my lord. (1st hand) Salute … et Aristus et … et all your tent-mates (?) (verso) Farewell.” [Tr. taken from APIS, slightly modified]
Longinus must be a soldier in the Roman army; ubi constas refers to “where you are stationed,” implying that Longinus is still a serving soldier, and the postscript, saluta … omnes tuos contubernales if properly restored, must mean, “and all your tent-mates,” i.e. comrades in arms.141
Cugusi has suggested identifying this Longinus Priscus with the C. Longinus Priscus who enlisted with an auxiliary unit, coh. II or III Ituraeorum, in a famous exemplum of a letter, dating
140 Tac. Germ. 29.1. 141 On the position of frumentarius see Mann 1988 and Rankov 1990.
203
Feb. 103, sent from the prefect of Egypt with a list of 6 recruits approved by him for service in the unit.142 It will be shown, however, that this connection is doubtful, and that the rex Longinus cited as a parallel by Bowman is not compelling.
These Ituraeans had in fact had kings; their last king Sohaemus, who had been appointed by Gaius, died in 49 CE and his territory was incorporated into the province of Syria. Coh. II was stationed in Egypt where it was joined in143 83 by coh. III. In both cases, the units were stationed far away from the Ituraean homeland in Syria and Phoenicia. Neither the Ituraean cohort‟s commander nor any of the six tirones approved by the prefect is identifiable as an ethnic Ituraean. The recruits bear the tria nomina of Roman citizens, and though this is not in itself incontrovertible proof that these men were citizens upon entering the cohort, it does seem unlikely that they are ethnic Ituraeans. No tradition of hereditary leadership for this cohort comparable to that of the coh. VIIII Batavorum is attested.
Large scale recruitment within a civitas of any group would be conducive to the creation and maintenance of communal cohesiveness, as Roymans put it, of ethnic groups.144 These conditions have been observed in the case of the Batavians, but in the case of the Ituraean cohorts at Oxyrhynchus they cannot be observed as easily. Specialist units of archers often maintained a connection with their eastern origins, such as the coh. Hamiorum stationed at Magnae in the second and third centuries CE. However, there is no indication that an aristocratic class was prominently represented among the officer corps in either the Hamian or Ituraean cohorts. The prefect Celsianus thus must have been a man of equestrian rank starting out on the career path of equestrian militiae. Without any ethnic connection to the Ituraeans, he would just be another eques Romanus trying to move up the social ladder. As for Claudius Tiberianus, he has a son, Claudius Terentianus, who followed his father‟s footsteps and joined the Roman navy. At least one of his sisters is attested in a papyrus letter.145 Her name Tasoucharion was clearly Egyptian. This accords with previously discussed examples of mixed local and ethnic
142 CEL 140 = Fink 1971: no. 87; see also Cugusi‟s commentary on CEL 140. The names and ages of the six recruits were C. Veturius Gemellus (21), C. Longinus Priscus (22), C. Iulius Maximus (25), [..] Iulius Secundus (20), C. Iulius Saturninus (22), and M. Antonius Valens (22). That all recruits bear the tria nomina derived from the names of the triumvirs Octavian and Antony indicates that they were either Latin or Roman citizens upon enlistment. The enduring legacy of Antony‟s name in the east, particularly in Egypt, is noteworthy. 143 Roymans 2004: 254. 144 Roymans 2004: 255. 145 P.Mich. 8.481 (Karanis), second century Greek papyrus letter from Claudius Terentianus to his sister Tasoucharion.
204 recruitment in auxiliary units serving in Britannia. Thus Longinus‟ ethnicity cannot be proven to be Ituraean, nor is there evidence, even if he were Ituraean, that he belonged to an Ituraean stirps regia.
This amounts to a significant difference in citizenship and status between the authors of Tab.Vindol. 3.628 and CEL 147. In CEL 147, Longinus Priscus was the recipient of a flattering term, rex, that surely lacked any literal force. If he is the same Longinus Priscus mentioned in CEL 140, he is certainly an auxiliary soldier, but there is even less likelihood that Longinus belongs to an ancient Ituraean stirps regia, since his names are not connected to the nomina of the imperial family. If CEL 147 is considered alone, all that can be ascertained from Longinus‟ status is that he is a serving soldier belonging either to a legion or an auxiliary unit. The other people in the letter bear recognizable Roman names; the only exception being Aristus, one of the contubernales, whose Greek name is hardly surprising to find among the soldiers serving Egypt. Longinus seems to have been a valued patron to Tiberianus, but not a „king‟ in any native sense. In this way, the letter parallels well with the inscription cited by Eck, but not with the Vindolanda writing tablet. Thus the interpretation of Bowman and Thomas that Masculus, in Tab.Vindol. 3.628, considered Cerialis to be merely his “patron” should be rejected.
If the appellation of rex made to Cerialis by Masculus does not mean “patron,” as it must in the case of CEL 147, then the relationship between Cerialis and Masculus requires clarification. The position of cavalry decurion was not a part of the equestrian militiae and was open to men of either Roman or peregrine status. This, taken along with Masculus‟ single Batavian name, implies that he was not a Roman citizen, while Cerialis, on the other hand, was, as well as being descended from the Batavian nobility and thus having a claim to the stirps regia. Cerialis, belonging to a group of Batavian nobles enfranchised during the Flavian dynasty, certainly, after the conclusion of the Batavian revolt, had a claim to the respect of his troops. His status was enhanced by Roman and Batavian marks of rank: Roman citizenship, service in the army, Batavian nobility, and leadership of the Batavian auxilia, a right conferred by ancient treaty to Batavian nobles.
Thus it seems insufficient to cite the “military nature” of CEL 147 as a valid reason for using it as a comparandum for the use of rex in Tab.Vindol. 3.628. Flavius Cerialis should not be seen as Masclus‟ patron. Instead, he was Masclus‟ commanding officer and a member of the
205
Batavian nobility that still laid claim to the vetus institutum described famously by Tacitus. Both concepts need not be separated as if mutually exclusive; to use this type of binary reasoning would miss the point.146 Masclus‟ tone thus is respectful but not deferential to the extreme. One might even detect a certain sense of propriety, as the address of the letter designates Cerialis as the prefect, but the content of the letter, to be read only by Cerialis, calls him rex. In this contrast may be observed a specific tone of respect from a Batavian to his “king.”
IV.ii Auxiliary ethnic integration in Britain: the cives of Vindolanda
A recent discovery, also at Vindolanda, adds intriguing evidence to the complex picture of harmony among different ethnic groups serving in an auxiliary unit present at the fort in the early third century CE. This dedication illustrates how differences in origin, tension or religion were resolved in Roman ways:147
cives Galli / de(ae) Galliae / concordes/que Britanni.
The citizens of Gaul to the goddess Gallia, and the (citizens) of Britain in harmony (dedicated this).
Cives Galli, as Birley has argued,148 refers to soldiers recruited from Gallia Lugdunensis and demonstrates the enduring practice of external recruitment among many auxiliary units, in this case coh. IIII Gallorum. It also provides a strikingly personalized adaptation of the term civis, most commonly used when designating a Roman citizen, and a rare attestation of a deity associated with the Roman province of Gaul; indeed, cives in the plural form in Roman Britain
146 Note the comments of Raepsaet Charlier 2003: 580: “il existe des noms germaniques et une certaine <
206 only appears in stone inscriptions designating ethnic groups serving in auxiliary units.149 The text is evocative of the challenges involved in interpreting the „Brittunculi‟ writing-tablet, as here the locals, also surely soldiers and not civilians, are referred to more properly as Britanni.150
Harmony (concordia) was obviously a virtue cultivated by the Roman army, and achieved, in practice, by the shared duties of military service. It is therefore interesting to observe this concept of “agreement” being evoked in a co-dedication not to “Britannia,” but to “Gallia,” a deity who personifies a continental province from which coh. IV Gallorum was originally raised. Although some have speculated that this text may have been occasioned by “an outbreak of violence,” such an incident is not necessary to explain the context.151 The same virtue, as shown in chapter 2, was also an important imperial virtue that was an essential element particularly of Antoninus Pius self-representation and which influenced his policy towards the auxilia dramatically. The integration of recruits from distant homes into the Roman army‟s way of life on Britannia‟s frontier was thus an evolving process in which Roman virtues common both to military and imperial identity were propagated throughout the diverse ranks of the auxilia in Britannia.
V. Conclusion
In Britain, as well as in Germany, „Romanization‟ was experienced by auxiliaries in an environment that was conditioned by their military service, and not, therefore, representative of the entire provincial population. This has been cited by Mattingly to support his division of provincial society in Britain into three divisions: military, urban and rural. The survey of
149 Tomlin and Hassall 2007: 346 n. 6; singular references exist for peregrine cives in non-military contexts, so this may simply reflect the likelihood that large numbers of cohesive ethnic groups are most likely to be represented, in Latin stone epigraphic records, by auxiliary groups recruited en masse. It is worth noting that CIL 10, 4842, an edict of Augustus, uses civis as a shorthand for civis Romanus as a clear contrast to peregrini: agenti, tum, qui inter civis et peregrinos ius dicet, iudicium reciperatorium in singulas ... reddere...; cf Tac. Ann. 1.15: celebratio annua ad praetorem translata cui inter civis et peregrinos iurisdictio evenisset. 150 Civilians would be referred to by the term vicani (Birley and Blake 2007: 105), often rendered in inscriptions as vikani: see e.g. RIB 1700, attesting the vicani Vindolandesses (!). 151 Birley and Blake 2007: 111 n. 27.
207 auxiliary material presented here demonstrates that this approach is too schematic. Auxiliary families intermingled with local as well as imported ethnic populations. Units both campaigned against locals and recruited them, thus replicating the processes of frontier exploitation applied in Germany for decades prior to Claudius‟ invasion. The Vindolanda tablets have further demonstrated the complex social dynamics that could exist among auxiliary soldiers of at least the rank of decruion and centurion. From the survey of religious dedications it is clear that local religious practices, particularly the adoption of well and pit deposits, combined seamlessly with Roman and continental traditions imported into Britain from auxiliaries recruited in Germany, Spain the Balkans and the east.
More specific observations about auxiliary ethnic identies in Britain can be made for the garrison at Vindolanda not only because of the fort‟s extensive corpus of texts preserved on writing tablets but also from its growing record of inscriptions on stone. The latest of these has added a valuable perspective to ethnic consciousness in an auxiliary context relevant to this study, for, even if its date is later than the constitutio Antoniniana, it nevertheless demonstrates that auxiliary unit identity exerted a strong influence on its troops.152 We have also seen how non-Roman ethnic identities could be preserved by auxiliary service, as argued in the case of the usage of rex in the Vindolanda writing tablets. In both of these cases, however, Roman concepts of military service and military virtues provided additional cultural influence.
152 The late date of this text also demonstrates that one cannot assume that auxiliary units recruited solely from local sources once they were stationed in a province far from their original homes. Lack of evidence has permitted this assumption for many units known only from a few inscriptions, but as the evidence from two different units stationed at Vindolanda may show, the ethnic histories of many auxiliary units may have been much more complex than has been previously thought.
208
General Conclusion
Both Germania and Britannia maintained two of the Roman empire‟s largest concentrations of auxiliary forces. Thus, despite a gap of over fifty years separating the establishment of Roman rule in Germania from Claudius‟ invasion of Britannia, both provinces experienced comparable trajectories in terms of the military and political organization established by Roman authorities there. Recruits from both provinces shared in each other‟s defense; indeed, the most important recent discoveries of daily life on the frontiers of Britannia are writing tablets produced by Germanic auxiliary soldiers. From the evidence evaluated in this study a number of important conclusions regarding auxiliary families, their religious practice, and the long-term processes of cultural transformation both experienced and wrought by them can be drawn.
The sheer scope of the auxiliary presence in both provinces cannot be overstated. As noted in the case of Britannia, one military diploma alone names over fifty units assigned to garrison the Roman province. While it represents only an incomplete list, it provides an accurate sense of the ubiquity of auxiliary soldiers on Britain‟s frontier. In Germania, the auxiliary presence was no less impressive, resulting in fascinating collections of auxiliary material from the Rhine and German limes. Both frontiers existed within local cultural traditions, as has been observed in the case of e.g. the Matrones / Matres cult from Germania and Coventina‟s cult in Britannia. As regards religious interaction, three influences were consistent – the local, the Roman (as represented by the military cults institutionalized by the army) and the peregrine deities of auxiliary recruits themselves, whose homelands often lay far beyond the local frontiers to which they had been assigned.
On the basis of the evidence discussed, it is possible to observe similar processes of „Romanization‟ among ethnically varied groups of auxiliaries. In religious terms this is most evident in material remains of military cults, particularly of IOM. Since peregrine religions were not prohibited, IOM occasionally assimilated the attributes of peregrine deities, a process that is
209 confirmed epigraphically in several occasions. Roman onomastic conventions for peregrines, which were scrupulously observed by the record-keepers of auxiliary units, served to remind peregrine soldiers both of their social as well as military rank. The examination of military diplomas in chapter 2 illustrates how often the children of peregrines were given „Roman‟ names, or translation names that served to represent familiar cultural concepts – strength, virtue, respectability – in the language of the provinces‟ most visible and dominant cultural institution.
Military diplomas are particularly important sources for auxiliary cultural transformation, since they represent a particularly significant event in the history of a provincial family. They are a tangible record of a process that for pre-Claudian provincial families can only be assessed from the presence of Imperial names among the provincial population. An especially powerful feature of auxiliary assimilation was the adoption of the imperial name, which remained ubiquitous in the western Roman empire and was subsequently passed down to subsequent generations of the provincial „Roman‟ family.
No less important is the observation, also made in chapter 2, that auxiliary ranks in general were capable of supporting large families, and that these families do not seem to have been excessively biased against raising female offspring. This contradicts long-held assumptions about soldiers‟ “fitness” or “capability” of raising children, and that, if they chose to raise a family, that they would prefer only a single male child and abandon all others. Such assumptions derive from biases in both ancient and modern sources, and are in any case not supported by the evidence as analyzed in chapter 2.
Chapters 3 and 4 illustrate, both in general terms and from observations of specific test- cases, comparable experiences of auxiliaries stationed in Germania and Britannia. There is an impressive diversity of religious cult evident among the auxiliary forces of these provinces, and this religious cult was by no means separate from religious cult as practiced by the socially and militarily higher-ranking legionaries. Local and Roman cults could merge to become particularly important culturally. This seems to have been the case with the deity Hercules Magusanus in Germania Inferior, whose temple lay in the Batavian region. Chapter 4 showed that „Roman‟ media of cultural expression, as exemplified by the Latin aedicula monument, nevertheless co- existed with peregrine religious practices, as demonstrated by archaeological discoveries in Britannia.
210
Indeed, diversity is a common theme of many current works of Romano-British scholars. Drawing on the theoretical concepts of „discrepant experience‟ and globalization, David Mattingly has recently argued that three „communities‟ be distinguished in Roman Britain: military, urban and rural.1 Mattingly rightly cautions against an excessive or unsubtle Romano- centric reading of the province‟s history and culture, but, as discussed in chapter 1, the theoretical models offered to reinterpret the concept of „Romanization‟, criticism of which often focuses unfairly on century-old models that all serious scholars reject, are problematic.
Nevertheless, Mattingly is right to recognize that there existed in Britannia, and certainly also in Germania, a „military community‟ that included legionaries and auxiliaries, Roman citizens and peregrines, families and camp-followers. How these individuals affected their surroundings remains a point of debate centered largely around the question of whether military personnel, forts and vici were islands of „Romanness‟, often referred to rather anachronistically as Romanitas,2 in a sea of rural and Celtic/Germanic indifference or were active agents of a „Romanization‟ that was eagerly sought by ambitious natives. Auxiliary recruitment, however, did not rely on local sources in Germania and Britannia for the majority of the garrisons of those provinces; auxiliary culture instead focused inward on unit identity. This was comparable to legionary unit identity due to the sheer number of auxiliary units, many of which already in 100 CE had over a century of history represented by honorific titles. Occasionally these titles were omitted in inscriptions, particularly if the unit had won numerous awards, but the title “Roman citizens” (civium Romanorum), once won, was proudly and consistently displayed by all auxiliary units as a mark of valour. The ethnic aspect of unit identity also must not be neglected. While Syrian auxiliaries have occasionally been viewed, as seen in the case of the garrison at Intercisa, as an enigmatic mix of Roman and non-Roman, i.e. Syrian, cultural identities, auxiliary units raised in Britain and Germany clearly maintained a significant ethnic component in several
1 Mattingly 2006: 17, 525-527, conceived largely as a response to the „orthodoxy‟ established by Millett 1990. Mattingly 1997 coined the term „discrepant experience‟ in response to a lack of consensus in the terminology of competing theoretical models, all of which to varying degrees rejected the term „Romanization‟ of social change in the Roman empire. Regarding globalization, a late twentieth-century concept recently applied by Hingley 2005 in a study of Roman imperialism, Mattingly expresses the caveat that “globalization will prove no better a concept… if we use it to emphasize conformity rather than regional diversity.” Nevertheless, he also asserts that “[t]he power dynamics of imperial rule are dramatically unequal and the globalizing influence of the colonizer should not be underestimated.” 2 The term is not attested in the first century, although it is occasionally used a convenient Latin shorthand for „Romanness‟ or „Romanity‟, e.g. Wilson 2006a.
211 cases, particularly among the Batavians. Auxiliaries thus understood „Romanization‟ through their experience in the military, which surely reinforced a sense of social hierarchy.
Simply enlisting provided peregrine auxiliaries access to important legal benefits, particularly in regard to inheritance and testamentary rights. It is tempting to argue that Roman citizenship was sought primarily to attain legal rights and thus involved no deep cultural change. Thus an implication of the observation of Derks and Roymans that Thracian auxiliaries overwhelmingly returned home following their service in the army is that these veterans possessed a strong ethnic consciousness and little attachment to their place of „Roman‟ service.3 Eck and Pangerl have expanded on this theme with a similar focus on the findspots of military diplomas issued to veterans of Germania Inferior, arguing that Danubian recruits overwhelmingly characterized the auxiliary garrison of that province in the second century.4 While factors such as the accident of preservation may affect the proportion of evidence from a specific region, particularly in the case of recent military diploma discoveries,5 it is certainly the case that some ethnic groups were more disposed to enlist and then return home. Yet a veteran‟s choice to return home following his term of service cannot be assumed to be evidence that he rejected the „Roman‟ life of a provincial citizen. The Batavian evidence discussed in ch. 4 provides an essential comparandum to the phenomenon of Danubian recruits; the Vindolanda archives provide clear evidence of Germanic soldiers „Romanized‟ enough to communicate easily in Latin among the higher ranks of the unit (prefect and decurion/centurion), a strong sense of unit identity (viz. the disdainful view of the „Brittunculi‟) that nevertheless coexisted with manifestations of Batavian cultural memory, as argued in the case of Tab.Vindol. 3.628.
In regard to the „Romanization‟ debate surveyed in chapter 1, a clear conclusion that is evident from research on this subject is that, unlike work on Roman Germany, „Romanization‟ and reactions to it are a distinct characteristic of much anglophone scholarship about Roman Britain. There is a significant divide in scholarly approaches, particularly given the important observations which can be made from comparison of the auxiliary garrisons of Germania and Britannia. The criticism that „Romanization‟ should be abandoned because of its “colonial” origins or because its concept has changed within, particularly, the last 20 years does not seem
3 Derks and Roymans 2006. 4 FSHell (see Appendix II under Abbreviations). I thank Professor Eck for allowing me to read in advance this contribution to a Festschrift that is still, at the time of writing, in press. 5 On this subject, see Weiss 2003.
212 warranted, in view of what I have argued above. To claim this is not to impute to the auxilia a grand civilizing mission; indeed, this theme has been largely absent from this study. Instead the focus of this investigation has been, in general, the personal experiences of especially peregrine auxiliary soldiers and the transformations wrought by their service in the Roman army. Since the military demanded loyalty to the emperor, who was also the guarantor of their privileges following discharge, ultimately „Romanization‟ for them was military in nature. The trappings of cultural expression were adapted from legionary models, as was the organization of their military units. However, unlike the legionaries, peregrine auxiliaries relied on the emperor for admission to the privileged class of provincial society. From the evidence surveyed in this investigation, this promise of inclusion was manifested in several ways: as part of a recruited ethnic group, permitted to worship native gods, as part of a military unit possessing an esprit de corps, and as part of a military community, surrounded by veterans, families and even children. Present in all cases was the military culture of the Roman army and interaction with Roman citizens either as unit commanders, as legionaries stationed nearby or as fellow auxiliaries.
As the studies presented in the preceding chapters demonstrate, Roman and peregrine traditions mingled in diverse ways, particularly in the first century CE. During the second century the ethnic nature of auxiliary ranks was altered; the change of 140 CE discussed in chapter 2 highlights this reality. „Romanized‟ auxiliaries gained a citizen identity by the grace of the emperor. In 140 CE that emperor could, with evidently no fear of reprisal, redefine almost a century of tradition to suit his own views. The measure was in large part successful, for we can detect no opposition. This again, if anything, serves to demonstrate the extent to which hundreds of thousands of auxiliary soldiers at that time in history were integrated into Roman society. It stands to reason that they in their turn, in their everyday lives, will have made their contribution to spreading Roman culture, surely each in his own way, as we have indeed seen in the case of Germania and Britannia.
213
Bibliography
NB: Please see Appendices II and III for abbreviations regarding diploma and epigraphic collections concerning Britain and Germany. All other abbreviations are provided below.
Adams, J. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge.
Adams, J. 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC – AD 600, Cambridge.
Adler, S. 2006. [Review of Hingley 2005] BMCR 2006.2.26.
Alcock, S. (ed.) 1997. The Early Roman Empire in the East. Oxbow Monograph 95, Oxford.
Alföldy, G. 1961. “Geschichte des religiösen Lebens in Aquincum,” AASH 13: 103-124.
Alföldy, G. 1968a. Die Hilfstruppen der römischen Provinz Germania Inferior, Epigraphische
Studien 6, Bonn.
Alföldy, G. 1968b. “Zur Beurteilung der Militärdiplome der Auxiliarsoldaten,” Historia 17: 215-
27 = Alföldy 1987: 51-65.
Alföldy, G. 1986. “Die Truppenkommandeure in den Militärdiplomen,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.)
1986a: 385-436.
Alföldy, G. 1987. Römische Heergeschichte: Beiträge 1962-1985, Amsterdam.
Alföldy, G., Dobson, B. and Eck, W. (edd.) 2000. Kaiser, Heer, und Gesellschaft in der
römischen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart.
Allason-Jones, L. and McKay, B. 1985. Coventina's well. A shrine on Hadrian's Wall, Hexham.
Allison, P. M. 2006. “Mapping for gender. Interpreting artefact distribution inside 1st- and 2nd-
century A.D. forts in Roman Germany,” Arch. Dial. 13 (1): 1-20.
214
Alston, R. 1994. “Roman military pay from Caesar to Diocletian.” JRS 84: 113-123.
Alston, R. 1995. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt, London.
Baatz, D. 2000. Der römische Limes: Archäologische Ausflüge zwischen Rhein und Donau,
Berlin.
Barkóczy, L. 1954. “Intercisa (Dunapenele-Sztálinváros). Geschichte der Stadt in der
Römerzeit,” AASH 33, Budapest.
Barkóczy, L. 1957. “Intercisa (Dunapenele). Geschichte der Stadt in der Römerzeit II,” AASH
36, Budapest.
Baroni, A. (ed.). Amministrare un impero : Roma e le sue province, Trento.
Bauschenss, G. 1986. “Hercules Saxanus, ein Gott der niedergermanischen Armee,” in Limes
1986: 90-95.
Bauschenss, G. (ed.) 1996. Akten des 3. internationalen Kolloquiums über Probleme des
provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 51), Köln.
Bénabou, M. 1976. La résistance africaine à la romanisation, Paris.
Bendlin, A. 1996. “Saxanus,” DNP 2: 130.
Beutler, F. 2007. “Claudius und der Beginn der Militärdiplome der ersten und zweiten Periode,”
in M. A. Speidel and Lieb (edd.) 2007: 1-14.
Bidwell, P. 2005. “Connections between the military units of Spanish origin in Britannia
and their homelands” in Fernandez Ochoa and Garcia Diaz (edd.) 2005: 35-38.
Birley, A. and Blake, J. 2007: Vindolanda Excavations 2005-2006, Hexham.
215
Birley, A. R. 2001a. “The Names of the Batavians and Tungrians,” in Grünewald (ed.) 2001:
241-260.
Birley, A. R. 2001b. “A Band of Brothers: the Equestrian Officers in the Vindolanda Tablets,” in
Dąbrowa, E. (ed.), Roman Military Studies. Electrum Studies in Ancient History 5,
Krakow: 9-30.
Birley, A. R. 2003. “The commissioning of equestrian officers,” in Wilkes (ed.) 2003: 1-18.
Birley, E. 1977. “The Religion of the Roman Army: 1895-1977,” ANRW ii 16.2: 1506-41 =
Birley 1988: 397-432.
Birley, E. 1986. “Before Diplomas, and the Claudian Reform” in Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a,
249-257.
Birley, E. 1988. The Roman Army: Papers 1929-1986, Amsterdam.
Birley, R., 1993. “Introduction,” VRR 3: ix-xii.
Bishop, M. and Coulston, J. 2006. Roman military equipment: from the Punic Wars to the fall of
Rome, Oxford.
Blázquez, J. M. 1989. Nuevos estudios sobre la Romanización, Madrid.
Bleckmann, B. 2009. Die Germanen: Von Ariovist bis zu den Wikingern, Munich.
Bogaers, J. 1974. “Thracian auxilia in Germania Inferior,” OMRL 55: 198-220.
Bökönyi, S. 1989. “Camel sacrifice in Roman Intercisa,” AASH 41: 399-404.
Boppert, W. 2001. “Zur Sepulkralkunst im Raum der obergermanischen Provinzhaupstadt
Mogontiacum: Vorbilder, Themen, Tendenzen” in Noelke et al. (edd.) 2003: 265-284.
216
Boswell, J. 1984. “Expositio and oblatio: the abandonment of children and the ancient and
medieval family,” AHR 89: 10-33.
Boswell, J. 1988. The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western
Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance, New York.
Bowman, A. K. 2003. Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier. Vindolanda and its People. 2nd
ed., London.
Bowman, A. K. 2006. “Outposts of Empire: Vindolanda, Egypt and the empire of Rome,” JRA
19: 75-93.
Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D. 1983. Vindolanda: The Latin Writing-Tablets (Britannia
Monographs Ser. 4), London.
Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D. 1994. The Vindolanda Writing Tablets (tabulae
Vindolandenses II), London.
Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D. 2003. The Vindolanda Writing-Tablets III, London.
Breeze, D. 1974. “The organisation of the career structure of the immunes and principales of the
Roman army,” BJ 174: 245-292.
Breeze, D. 2005. “Death or decay: Interpretations of destruction on Hadrian‟s Wall,”Archäologie
der Schlachtfelder – Militaria aus Zerstörungshorizonten. Akten der 14. Internationalen
Roman Military Equipment Conference (ROMEC) Wien 27-31 August 2003 (Carnuntum
Jahrbuch 2005), Vienna: 33-42.
Breeze, D. and Dobson, B. 2000. Hadrian’s Wall (4th ed.), London.
217
Brewer, R. (ed.) 2000. Roman Fortresses and their Legions, London and Cardiff.
Brisson, J.-P. (ed.) 1969. Problèmes de la guerre à Rome, Paris.
Brulé, P. 1990. “Enquête démographique sur la famille grecque antique: étude de listes de
politigraphie d‟Asie mineure d‟époque hellénistique (Milet et Ilion),” REA 92: 233-258.
Bruun, C. F. 2003. “The Antonine plague in Rome and Ostia: JRA 16: 426-434.
Bruun, C. F. 2004. “The Legend of Decebalus,” in de Ligt et al. 2004: 153-175.
Bruun, C. F. 2007. “The Antonine Plague and the “third-century crisis,” in Hekster et al. 2007,
201-217.
Brunt, P. 1990. “The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire” in id.,
Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford: 267-281.
Burgers, A. 2001. The Water Supplies and Related Structures of Roman Britain (BAR Brit. Ser.
324), Oxford.
Campbell, J. B. 1984. The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC – AD 235, Oxford.
Cancik, H and Rüpke, J. (edd.) 1997. Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, Tübingen.
Cancik, H., Schäfer, A. and Spickermann, W. (edd.) 2006. Zentralität und Religion : zur
Formierung urbaner Zentren im Imperium Romanum, Tübingen.
Carrié, J-M. 1993. “The soldier,” in Giardina 1993: 100-137.
CEL = Corpus Epistularum Latinarum
Cheesman, G. L. 1914. The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army, Oxford.
Cichorius, C. 1893. “Ala,” RE 1.1: 1224-1270.
218
Cichorius, C. 1900. “Cohors,” RE 4.1: 231-355.
CIRG = Pereire Menaut, G. 1990. Corpus de inscripcións romanas de Galicia I, Santiago.
Clarke, S. 1996. “Abandonment, Rubbish Disposal and „Special‟ Deposits at Newstead,”
TRAC 96: 73-81.
Coles, J. and Simpson, D. (edd.) 1968. Studies in Ancient Europe: Essays presented to Stuart
Piggott, Leicester.
Collingwood, R. G. 1932. Roman Britain, Oxford.
Cooley, A. (ed.) 2002. Becoming Roman, writing Latin? Literacy and epigraphy in the Roman
West (JRA Suppl. 48), Portsmouth, RI.
Cooley, A., Mitchell, S. and Salway, B. 2007. “Roman Inscriptions 2001-2005,” JRS 97: 176-
263.
Coulston, J. 2004. “Military identity and personal self-identity in the Roman army,” in de
Ligt et al. (edd.) 2004: 133-152.
Creighton, J. D. 2006. Britannia. The creation of a Roman Province, London.
Creighton, J. D. and Wilson, R. J. A. 1999a. Roman Germany: Studies in Cultural Interaction
(JRA Suppl. 32), Portsmouth, RI.
Creighton, J. D. and Wilson, R. J. A. (edd.) 1999b. “Introduction: recent research on Roman
Germany,” in Creighton and Wilson (edd.) 1999a: 9-34.
Crow, J. 2004. Housesteads. A fort and garrison on Hadrian’s Wall, Stroud.
CSIR = Corpus signorum imperii Romani.
219
Crummy, P. 1984. Excavations at Lion Walk, Balkerne Lane and Middleborough,
Colchester, Essex (Colchester Archaeological Reports 3), Colchester.
Cuff, D. B. 2009. [Review of Wolters 2008] BMCR 2009.7.74.
Cunliffe, B. 1984. Roman Bath Discovered, London.
Cunliffe, B. and Davenport, P. (edd.) 1985. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath.
Volume 1 (i): The site (Oxford Committee for Archaeology monograph 7), Oxford.
Cunliffe, B. (ed.) 1988. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Volume 2: The finds from the
sacred spring (Oxford Committee for Archaeology monograph 16), Oxford.
Cumont, F. 1956. Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, with an introductory essay by
Showerman, G., Dover.
Curle, J. 1911. A Roman Frontier Post and its People: The Fort of Newstead in the Parish of
Melrose, Glasgow.
Cyzysz, W., Dietz, K., Fischer, T. and Kellner, H.-J. 2005. Die Römer in Bayern, Hamburg.
Davenport, P. (ed.) 1999. Archaeology in Bath: Excavations 1984-1989 (BAR Brit. Ser. 284),
Oxford.
Davenport, P., Poole, C. and Jordan, D. (edd.) 2007. Archaeology in Bath: Excavations at the
New Royal Baths and Bellott’s Hospital 1998-1999. Oxford Archaeology Monograph 3,
Oxford.
Davies, R. 1989. Service in the Roman Army. New York.
De Blois, L. and Lo Cascio, E. 2007. The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476) :
Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects (Impact of Empire 6), Leiden
220
and Boston.
Demougin, S. 1992. Prosopographie des chevaliers Romains julio-claudiens (Coll. De l‟École
Fr. de Rom. 153), Rome.
Derks, T. and Roymans, N. 2006. “Returning auxiliary veterans: some methodological
Considerations,” JRA 19: 121-136.
Detschew, D. 1957. Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Schriften der Balkankommission 14), Vienna.
Dobson, B. 1978. Die Primipilares, Köln.
Dobson, B. 1986. “The Roman Army: Wartime or Peacetime Army?,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.)
1986a: 10-25.
Dobson, B. and Mann, J. 1973. “The Roman army in Britain and Britons in the Roman army,”
Britannia 4: 191-205. von Domaszewski, A. 1885, “Die Fahnen in römischen Heere,” Abhd. des Archäologisch-
Epigraphischen Seminars der Univ. Wien 5. Vienna = id. 1979. Aufsätze zur römischen
Heeresgeschichte, Darmstadt: 1-80. von Domaszewski, A. 1895, “Die Religion des römischen Heeres.” Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für
Geschichte und Kunst 14 : 1-124 = id. 1979. Aufsätze zur römischen Heeresgeschichte.
Darmstadt: 81-209.
Domaszewski-Dobson = von Domaszewski, A. and Dobson, B. 1967, Die Rangordnung des
römischen Heeres. Mit Einführung von B. Dobson (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 14),
Köln.
221
Dondin-Payre, M. and Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. (edd.) 1999. Cités, municipes, colonies. Les
processus de municipalisation sous le Haut Empire romain, Paris.
Dowling 1985: “Roman Decadence and Victorian Historiography,” Victorian Studies
28.4: 579-607.
Duncan-Jones, R. 1996. “The impact of the Antonine plague,” JRA 9: 108-136.
Dušanić, S. 1986. “Pre-Severan Diplomata and the Problem of „Special Grants,‟” in Eck and
Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 190-240.
Eck, W. 1985. Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jh, (Epigraphische Studien
14), Bonn.
Eck, W. 1986. “Prokonsuln und militärisches Kommando. Folgerungen aus Diplomen für
prokonsulare Provinzen,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 518-534.
Eck, W. 1993. “Die Struktur der Städte in den nordwestlichen Provinzen und ihr Beitrag zur
Administration des Reiches,” in Eck and Galsterer (edd.) 1993: 73-84.
Eck, W. 2003. “Der Kaiser als Herr des Heeres. Militärdiplome und die kaiserliche
Reichsregierung,” in Wilkes (ed.) 2003: 55-88.
Eck, W. 2004. Köln in römischer Zeit. Geschichte einer Stadt im Rahmen des Imperium
Romanum. Köln.
Eck, W. 2005. “Militärisches und ziviles Alltagsleben am Hadrianswall,” JRA 18: 663-668.
Eck, W. 2007a. “Die Ausstellung von Bürgerrechtskonstitutionen: Ein Blick in den Arbeitsalltag
des römischen Kaisers,” in Baroni (ed.) 2007: 89-108.
222
Eck, W. 2007b. “Die Veränderungen in Konstitutionen und Diplomen unter Antoninus Pius,” in
M. A. Speidel and Lieb (edd.) 2007: 87-104.
Eck, W. 2007c. “Die Militärdiplome im römischen Heer… und was sie über den Bar-Kochba-
Aufstand erzählen,” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 3: 72-75.
Eck, W. and Galsterer, H. (edd.) 1993. Die Stadt in Oberitalien und in den nordwestlichen
Provinzen des römischen Reiches. Mainz.
Eck, W and Pangerl, A. 2008: “Beobachtungen zu den diplomata militaria für die Provinz
Germania inferior,” in Naumann-Steckner, F., Päffgen, B. and Thomas, R. (edd.)
Archäologie in Ost und West: Festschrift Hellenkemper (in press).
Eck, W. and Wolff, H. (edd.) 1986a. Heer und Integrationspolitik. Die römischen
Militärdiplome als historische Quelle. Köln.
Eck, W. and Wolff, H. 1986b. “Einleitung,” in Eck and Wolff 1986a: 1-9.
Edmondson, J. 2002. “Writing Latin in the province of Lusitania,” in Cooley (ed.) 2002: 41-60.
Erdkamp, P. (ed.) 2007. A Companion to the Roman Army, Padstow.
Farnum, J. H. 2005. The Positioning of the Roman Imperial Legions (BAR Int. Ser. 1458),
Oxford.
Fentress, E. (ed.) 2000. Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures.
Proceedings of a conference held at the American Academy in Rome to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the excavations at Cosa. (JRA Suppl. 38), Portsmouth, RI.
Fernandez Ochoa, C. and Garcia Diaz, P. (edd.) 2005. Unidad y diversidad en el Arco Atlántico
223
en época romana (BAR Int. Ser. 1371), Oxford.
Fink, R. O. 1971. Roman Military Records on Papyrus, Case Western Univ.
Fitz, J. 1972. Les Syriens à Intercisa (Collections Latomus 122), Brussels.
Forni, G. 1963. Il Reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano, Milan.
Freeman, P. 1997. “Mommsen to Haverfield: the origins of studies of Romanization in Late 19th-
c. Britain,” in Mattingly (ed.) 1997: 27-50.
Frei-Stolba, R. 2007. “Bemerkungen zu den Zeugen der Militärdiplome der ersten und zweiten
Periode,” in Speidel and Lieb (edd.) 2007: 15-54.
Frere, S. S. 1987. Britannia: a history of Roman Britain, Oxford.
Frier, B. 1994. “Natural fertility and family limitation in Roman marriage,” CPh 89: 318-333.
Fülep, F. 1966. “New remnants in the question of a Jewish Synagogue at Intercisa,” AASH 17:
93-98.
Fulford, M. 2000. “The organization of legionary supply: the Claudian invasion of Britain,” in
Brewer (ed.) 2000: 41-50.
Fulford, M. 2007. “An Insular Obsession,” Britannia 38: 369-371.
Gabelmann, H. 1972. “Die Typen der römischen Grabstelen am Rhein,” BJ 172: 65-140.
Gallet, S. and Le Bohec, Y. 2007. “Le recrutement des auxiliaires d‟après les diplômes militaires
et les autres inscriptions,” in M. A. Speidel and Lieb (edd.) 2007: 267-292.
Gerov, B. 1979. “Die Grenzen der römischen Provinz Thracia,” ANRW II 7: 212-240.
Gerster, E. 1938. Mittelrheinische Bildhauerwerkstätten im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.,
224
Bonn.
Giardina, A.1993. The Romans. (tr. L. Cochrane), Chicago.
Gilliam, F. 1986. “The Deposita of an Auxiliary Soldier (P. Columbia Inv. 325),” in id. Roman
Army Papers, Amsterdam: 317-327.
Gilmour, L. (ed.) 2007. Pagans and Christians – from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Papers in
honour of Martin Henig, presented on the occasion of his 65th birthday (BAR Int. Ser.
1610), Oxford.
Goldsworthy, A. The Complete Roman Army, London.
Goldsworthy, A. and Haynes, I. (edd.) 1999. The Roman Army as a Community. (JRA Suppl.
34), Portsmouth, RI.
Grainge, G. 2002. The Roman Channel Crossing of A.D. 43: the constraints on Claudius’ naval
strategy (BAR Brit. Ser. 332), Oxford.
Grant, A. 2007. Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors (BAR Brit.
Ser. 440), Oxford.
Grünewald, T. (ed.) 2001. Germania Inferior. Besiedlung, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft an der
Grenze der römisch-germanischen Welt, Berlin and New York.
Grünewald, T. and Seibel, S. (edd.) 2003. Kontinuität und Diskontinutät: Germania inferior am
Beginn und am Ende der römischen Herrschaft, Berlin and New York.
Haensch, R. 2003. “Mogontiacum als „Hauptstadt‟ der Provinz Germania superior,” in Klein
(ed.) 2003: 71-86.
Halfmann, H. 1986. Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im
225
römischen Reich. Stuttgart.
Hanel, N. 2007. “Military Camps, Canabae, and Vici. The Archaeological Evidence,” in
Erdkamp (ed.) 2007: 395-416.
Hanson, W. 2009. The Army and Frontiers of Rome: Papers offered to David J. Breeze on his
sixty-fifth birthday and his retirement from Historic Scotland (JRA Supp. 74),
Portsmouth, RI.
Hanson W. and Maxwell G. 1983. Rome’s Northwest Frontier: the Antonine Wall, Edinburgh.
Harris, W. 1982. “The theoretical possibility of extensive infanticide in the Greco-Roman
world,” CQ 32: 114-116.
Harris, W. 1994. “Child-exposure in the Roman Empire,” JRS 84: 44-65.
Harris, W. 1999. “Demography, geography and the sources of Roman slaves,” JRS 89: 62-75.
Hartmann, M. and Speidel, M. A. “Die Hilfstruppen des Windischer Heeresverbandes. Zur
Besatzungsgeschichte von Vindonissa im 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.,” Pro Vindonissa 1991:
3-33.
Hassall, M. 1999: “Homes for heroes: married quarters for soldiers and veterans,” in
Goldsworthy and Haynes (edd.) 1999: 35-40.
Haverfield, F. 1923. The Romanization of Roman Britain, Oxford.
Haynes, I. 1993. “The Romanisation of Religion in the Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army
from Augustus to Septimius Severus.” Britannia 24: 141-160.
Haynes, I. 1999. “Military service and cultural identity in the auxilia,” in Goldsworthy and
226
Haynes (edd.) 1999: 165-173.
Hekster, O., De Kleijn, G. and Slootjes, D. (edd.) Crises and the Roman empire : proceedings of
the Seventh Workshop of the international network Impact of empire, Nijmegen, June 20-
24, 2006 (Impact of Empire 7 - Roman Empire, 27 B.C.-A.D. 406). Leiden, 2007.
Herz, P. 1989. “Einheimische Kulte und ethnische Strukturen. Methodische Überlegungen am
Beispiel der Provinzen Germania Inferior, Germania Superior und Belgica,” in Labor
omnibus unus: Gerold Walser zum 70. Geburtstag (Historia Einzelschriften 60),
Stuttgart: 206-218.
Herz, P. 1999. “Altbürger und Neubürger. Bemerkungen zu einer Inschrift aus dem
römischen Heddernheim,” AKB 19: 159-167.
Hingley, R. 1997. “Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain”, in
Mattingly 1997: 81-100.
Hingley, R. 2000. Roman Officers and English Gentlemen: The imperial origins of
Roman archaeology, London and New York.
Hingley, R. 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire, New York.
Holder, A. 1896-1913 (I-III): Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, Leipzig.
Holder, N. 2007. “Mapping the Roman Inscriptions of London,” Britannia 38: 13-34.
Holder, P. A. 1980, Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan (BAR
Int. Ser. 70), Oxford.
Holder, P. A. 1982. The Roman Army in Britain, London.
227
Holder, P. A. 1998. “Auxiliary units entitled Aelia,” ZPE 122: 253-262.
Holder, P. A. 2003. “Auxiliary deployment in the reign of Hadrian,” in Wilkes (ed.) 2003:
101-145.
Hopkins, K. 1965. “The age of Roman girls at marriage,” Population Studies 18: 309-
327.
Horsmann, G. 1991. Untersuchungen zur militärischen Ausbildung im republikanischen
und kaiserzeitlichen Rom, Boppard.
Hornblower, S. and Matthews, E. (edd.) 2000. Greek personal names: their value as Evidence,
Oxford. IAM = Euzennat, P. and Marion, J. 1982. Inscriptions antiques du Maroc 2. Inscriptions
latines, Paris.
ILAlg = Inscriptions latines d'Algérie.
ILLRP = Degrassi, A. Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, Florence 1965.
ILSard = Sotgiu, G. 1961, Iscrizioni latine della Sardegna, Padua.
Isaac, B. 1986. “Military Diplomata and Extraordinary Levies for Campaigns,” in Eck
and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 258-264.
Isserlin, R. 1996. “Thinking the unthinkable: Human Sacrifice in Roman Britain,” TRAC
96: 91-100.
Jarrett, M. G. 1969. “Thracian Units in the Roman Army,” Israel Exploration Journal
19: 215-224.
Jarrett, M. J. 1994. “The non-legionary troops of Roman Britain. Part 1: the units,”
Britannia 25: 35-77.
228
Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. 2002. An Atlas of Roman Britain, Oxford
Jones, C. 2005. “Ten dedications „to the gods and goddesses‟ and the Antonine Plague,”
JRA 18: 293-301.
Jones, G. and Wooliscroft, D. 2001. Hadrian’s Wall from the Air, Stroud.
Jullian, C. 1908-20. Histoire de la Gaule, 8 vols., Paris.
Kajanto, I. 1965. The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki.
Kajava, M. 1994: Roman Female Praenomina: Studies in the Nomenclature of Roman
Women. Rome.
Kakoschke, A. 2002. Ortsfremde in den römischen Provinzen Germania inferior und Germania
superior. Eine Untersuchung zur Mobilität in den germanischen Provinzen anhand der
Inschriften des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und
Antike-Rezeption 5), Möhnesee.
Kakoschke, A. 2004. ‘Germanen’ in der Fremde. Eine Untersuchung zur Mobilität in den
germanischen Provinzen anhand der Inschriften des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.
(osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 8), Möhnesee.
Kakoschke, A. 2006. Die Personnenamen in den zwei germanischen Provinzen: ein Katalog (2
vols.), Rahden.
Kaldellis, A. 2007. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the
Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge.
Keay, S. and Terrenato, N. (edd.) 2001. Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization,
229
Oxford.
Keppie, L. 1984. The Making of the Roman Army: from Republic to Empire, Oklahoma.
Klein, M. (ed.) 2003. Die Römer und ihr Erbe. Fortschritt durch Innovation und Integration,
Mainz.
Körtum, K. 1998. “Zur Datierung der römischen Militäranlagen im obergermanisch-
rätischen Limesgebiet,” SbJ 49: 5-65.
Kraft, K. 1951. Zur Rekrutierung der Alen und Kohorten an Rhein und Donau, Bern.
Krausse, D. 1999. “Romanization in the Middle Rhine and Moselle Region: new evidence from
recent excavations in Luxembourg, Rhineland-Pfalz and Saarland,” in Creighton and
Wilson (edd.) 1999a: 54-70.
Kreuz, A. 1999. “How to become a Roman farmer: a preliminary report on the environmental
evidence from the Romanization project,” in Creighton and Wilson (edd.) 1999a: 71-98.
Kuhlmann, P. 1994. Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse (Berichten
und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek und dem Universitätsarchiv Giessen 46),
Giessen.
Le Bohec, Y. 1995, La hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le haut-Empire,
Paris.
Le Bohec, Y. 2002. L’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire, Paris.
Le Roux, P. 1986. “Les diplômes militaries et l‟évolution de l‟armée romaine de Claude à
Septime Sévère: auxilia, numeri et nations,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 347-374.
230 de Ligt, L., E. A. Hemelrijk, and H. W. Singor (edd.) 2004. Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local
and Regional Perspectives (Impact of Empire 4), Amsterdam.
Limes - 1949: Birley, E. (ed.). The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Durham.
- 1959: Laur-Belart, R. (ed.). Limes-Studien: Vorträge des 3. internationalen Limes-
Kongresses in Rheinfelden/Basel 1957 (Schriften des Institutes für Ur-und
Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 14), Basel
- 1963: Novak, G. (ed.). Quintus congressus internationalis limitis Romani studiosorum.
(Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave 3), Zagreb.
- 1967a: Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 19), Bonn.
- 1967b: Appelbaum, S. and Gihon, M. (edd.). Israel and her Vicinity in the Roman and
Byzantine Periods. The seventh International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Tel
Aviv.
- 1974a: Birley, E., Dobson, B. and Jarrett, M. (edd.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969.
Eighth international congress of Limesforschung, Cardiff.
- 1974b: Pippidi, M. (ed.). Actes du IXe congrès international d’études sur les frontiers
romaines, Bucharest and Cologne.
- 1977: Rüger, C. (ed.). Studien zu den Militägrenzen Roms II. Vorträge des 10.
internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior, Cologne and Bonn.
- 1980: Hanson, W. S. and Keppie, L. J.(edd.). Roman Frontier Studies 1979 (BAR Int.
Ser. 71 i-iii), Oxford.
- 1986: Studien zu den Militägrenzen Roms III. 13. internationaler Limeskongreß Aalen
1983 Vorträge, Stuttgart.
231
- 1990: Vetters, H. and Kandler, M. (edd.). Akten des 14. internationalen Limeskongresses
1986 in Carnuntum (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften der römische limes in
Österreich 36), Vienna.
- 1991: Maxfield, V. and Dobson, M. J. (edd.). Roman Frontier Studies 1989. Proceedings
of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Exeter.
- 1997: Groenman-van Waateringe, H., Beck, B. L. van, Willems, W. J. H., and Wynia, S.
L. (edd.). Roman Frontier Studies 1995 (Oxbow Monograph 91), Oxford.
- 1999: Gudea, N. (ed.). Roman Frontier Studies. Proceedings of the XVIIth International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Zalău.
- 2002: Freeman, P. Bennet, J. Fiema, Z. and Hoffman, B. (edd.), Limes XVIII:
Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in
Amman, Jordan (September 2000) (BAR Int. Ser. 1084 i-ii), Oxford.
Lindgren, C. 2003. “The provincialization of classical form in Britannia,” in Noelke (ed.) 2003,
49-57.
Lörincz, B. 1986. “Die Nennung und Funktion der Statthalter in den Auxiliarkonstitutionen,” in
Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 375-384.
MacMullen, R. 1964. “Social Mobility and the Theodosian Code,” JRS 54: 50-53.
MacMullen, R. 1968. “Rural Romanization,” Phoenix 22: 337-341.
MacMullen, R. 1976. Roman government's response to crisis, A.D. 235-337, New Haven.
MacMullen, R. 1984. “Notes on Romanization,” BASP 21: 161-177.
MacMullen, R. 2000. Romanization in the Time of Augustus, New Haven and London.
Manley, J. 2002. AD 43, the Roman invasion of Britain, Stroud.
232
Mann, J. C. 1972. “The Development of Auxiliary and Fleet Diplomas,” Epigraphische Studien
13: 233-237.
Mann, J. C. 1974. [Review of Fitz 1972] JRS 64: 259-260.
Mann, J. C. 1983. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate (Inst. of
Arch. Occ. Publ. 7), London.
Mann, J. C. 1986. “A Note on Conubium,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 187-189.
Mann, J. C. 1988. “The Organisation of the frumentarii,” ZPE 174: 149-150.
Mattern, M. 2003. “Bilder römischer Reitkunst,” in Noelke 2003: 292-306.
Mattingly, D. (ed.) 1997. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: power, discourse, and discrepant
experience in the Roman Empire (JRA Suppl. 23), Portsmouth, RI.
Mattingly, D. 2002. “Vulgar and weak Romanization, or time for a paradigm shift?” JRA 15:
537-540.
Mattingly, D. 2006. An Imperial Possession: Britain and the Roman Empire, 54 BCE –
AD 409, London.
Maxfield, V. A. 1986. “Systems of Reward in Relation to Military Diplomas,” in Eck and Wolff
(edd.) 1986: 26-43.
Maxfield, V. A. 1989. The Military Decorations of the Roman Army, London.
M. Chr. = Mitteis, L. and Wilcken, U. 1912. Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde,
Leipzig.
Merkelbach, R. and Stauber, J. 1998. Steinepigramme aus dem Griechischen Osten I: Die
Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion, Stuttgart.
233
Millett, M. M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain. An essay in archaeological Interpretation,
Cambridge.
Milner, N. P. 1993 (trans.). Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science (Translated Texts for
Historians 16), Liverpool.
Mitchell, S. 2003. “Inscriptions from Velli (Kocaalier) in Pisidia”, Anat. St. 53: 139-159.
Mirković, M. 1986. “Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Verliehung des Conubium,” in Eck
and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 167-86.
Mirković, M. 2007: “Married and Settled. The Origo, Privileges and Settlement of Auxiliary
Soldiers,” in M. A. Speidel and Lieb (edd.) 2007: 327-342.
Mócsy, A. 1970. Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der römischen Provinz Moesia Supierior,
Amsterdam.
Mócsy, A. 1974. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A history of the Upper Danube Provinces of the
Roman Empire (tr. and ed. S. Frere), London.
Mócsy, A., Feldmann, R., Marton, E. and Szilágyi M. 1984. Nomenclator provinciarum Europae
Latinarum et Galliae Cisalpinae cum indice inverso (Dissertationes Pannonicae 3.1),
Budapest.
Mócsy, A. 1986. “Die Namen der Diplomempfänger,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 437-466.
Mommsen, T. 1885 (4th ed. 1894). Römische Geschichte, fünfter Band: die Provinzen von
Caesar bis Dioceltian, Berlin.
Mommsen, T. 1910. “Die römischen Provizialmilizen,” in id., Gesammelte Schriften 3,
234
Berlin: 145-155.
Mommsen, T. 1965. “Protectores Augusti,” in id., Gesammelte Schriften 8: 419-446.
Morpurgo Davies, A. “Greek personal names and linguistic continuity,” in Hornblower
and Matthews (edd.) 2000: 15-30.
Mullen, A. 2007: “Linguistic evidence for „Romanization‟: Continuity and Change in Romano-
British Onomastics: A Study of the Epigraphic Record with Particular Reference to
Bath,” Britannia 38: 35-61.
Müller, M. 1975. Die Jupitergigantensäulen und ihre Verwandten (Beiträge zur klassischen
Philologie 66), Meisenheim and Glan.
Niehr, H. “Atargatis” Brill’s New Pauly 2, Leiden and Boston: 219-220.
Nock, A. 1972. Selected essays on religion and the ancient world (Stewart, Z. (ed.)), Oxford.
Noelke, P. 1996. “Römische Grabaltäre in der Germania Inferior,” in Bauschenss (ed.) 1996: 77-
104.
Noelke, P., Naumann-Steckner, F. and Schneider, B. (edd.) 2003. Romanisation und Resistenz in
Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Neue Funde
und Forschungen, Mainz.
O‟Balance, E. 1974. The Story of the French Foreign Legion. London and New York.
Okun, M. 1989, The Early Roman Frontier in the Upper Rhine Area: Assimilation and
Acculturation on a Roman Frontier (BAR Int. Ser. 547), Oxford.
OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary.
235
OPEL = Onomasticon provinciarum Europae Latinarum (OPEL) ex materiale ab András Mócsy,
Reinhardo Feldmann, Elisabetha Marton et Mária Szilágyi collecta composuit et correxit
Barnabás Lörincz (4 vols.), Vienna 1994-2002.
Parker, H. M. D. 1961. The Roman Legions (rev. Watson, G.), Cambridge.
Pauli-Gabi, T. and Trumm, J. “Ausgrabungen in Vindonissa im Jahr 2003,” Pro Vindonissa
2003: 45-55.
Pelham, H. 1911. Essays by Henry Francis Pelham (Haverfield, F. (ed.)), Oxford.
Phang, S. E. 2001. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B. C. – A. D. 235). Law and Family in
the Imperial Army, Leiden.
Pietsch, M. 2003. “Das augusteische Legionslager Marktbreit,” in Wiegels and Woesler (edd.)
2003: 41-66.
Pferdehirt B. 2002. Die Rolle des Militärs für den sozialen Aufstieg in der römischen
Kaiserzeit, Mainz.
Pflaum, H.-G. 1969. “Forces et faiblesses de l‟armée romaine du Haut-Empire,” in
Brisson (ed.) 1969: 85-98. Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1963-1964. “XRHSMOI di Apollo Kareios e Apollo Klarios a
Hierapolis in Frigia,” ASAA 25-26: 351-370.
Rankov, B. 1990. “Frumentarii, the Castra Peregrina and the Provincial Officia,” ZPE 80:
176-180. Raybould, M. 1999. A Study of Inscribed Material from Roman Britain (BAR Bit. Ser. 281),
Oxford.
Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. 1999. “Les institutions municipales dans les Germanies sous le Haut-
236
Empire: bilan et questions,” in Dondin-Payre and Raepsaet-Charlier (edd.) 1999: 271-
352. Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. 2003. [Review of Grunewald 2001] AC 72: 578-584.
Rebuffat, R. 2000. “L'armée romaine à Gholaia” in Alföldy, Dobson and Eck (edd.) 2000: 227-
259. RECapua = Chioffi, L. 2005. Museo provinciale Campano di Capua. La raccolta epigrafica,
Capua.
Riddle, J. M. 1992. Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance,
Cambridge, MA.
Rives, J. 1999. Tacitus: Germania. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford.
Rives, J. 2007. Religion in the Roman empire, Oxford.
RIU = Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns. (1972-) Barkoczi, L. and A. Mocsy (edd).
Amsterdam.
Robertson, A., 1979. The Antonine Wall, Glasgow.
Roldan Hervas, J. M. 1974. Hispania y el ejercito Romano, Salamanca.
Ross, A., 1968. “Shafts, pits, wells – sanctuaries of the Belgic Britons?” in Coles and
Simpson (edd.) 1968, 255-285.
Rothenhöfer, P. 2005. Die Wirtschaftsstrukturen im südlichen Niedergermanien.
Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung eines Wirtschaftsraumes an der Peripheriedes
Imperium Romanum (Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 7),
Rahden.
237
Roxan, M. 1986. “Observations on the Reasons for Changes in Formula in Diplomas circa AD
140,” in Eck and Wolff (ed.) 1986a: 265-92.
Roxan, M. M. 1991. “Women on the Frontiers,” in Limes 1991: 462-467.
Roymans, N. 1996. “The Sword or the Plough. Regional dynamics in the romanisation of
Belgic Gaul and the Rhineland area,” in id. (ed.), From the Sword to the Plough,
Amsterdam: 9-126.
Roymans, N. 2001. “The Lower Rhine Triquetrum Coinages and the Ethnogenesis of the
Batavi,” in Grünewald (ed.) 2001: 93-145.
Roymans, N. 2004. Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power. The Batavians in the early
Roman empire, Amsterdam.
Rüpke, J. 1990. Domi Militiae: Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart.
Saddington, D. 1982. The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to
Vespasian (49 B.C. – A.D. 79), Harare.
Saddington, D. 1988. “The Parameters of Romanization,” in Limes 1989: 413-418.
Saddington, D. 1997. “The Witnessing of Pre- and Early Flavian Military Diplomas and
Discharge Procedure in the Roman Army,” Epigraphica 69: 137-172.
Saddington, D. 2009. “Recruitment patterns and ethnic identities in Roman auxiliary regiments”
in Hanson 2009: 83-89.
Saller, R. P. and Shaw, D. B. 1984. “Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate:
Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves,” JRS 74: 124-155.
238
Salway, P. 1998. Roman Britain, Oxford
Sandys, J. E. 1927. Latin Epigraphy. An introduction to the study of Latin Inscriptions,
Cambridge.
Sauer, E. 2007. “Native deities in Southern Germany in the Roman period,” in Gilmour (ed.)
2007: 13-46.
Sayer, R. 1964. Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus
bis Diocletian, Köln-Graz.
Scheidel,W. 1996. Measuring Sex, Age and Death in the Roman Empire. Explorations in Ancient
Demography, Ann Arbor.
Scheidel, W. 2007. “Marriage, Families and Survival: Demographic Aspects,” in Erdkamp 2007:
417-454.
Schleiermacher, W. 1933. “Studien an Göttertypen der römischen Rheinprovinzen,” BRGK 23:
109-143.
Schönberger, H. 1969. “The Roman Frontier in Germany: An archaeological survey,” JRS 59:
144-197.
Schönberger, H. 1985. “Die römischen Truppenlager der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit
zwischen Nordsee und Inn,” BRGK 66: 321-497.
Schönfeld, M. 1911. Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen. Heidelberg.
Schumacher, L. “Mogontiacum. Garnison und Zivilsiedlung im Rahmen der Reichsgeschichte”
in Klein (ed.) 2003: 1-28.
239
SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.
Seeck, O. 1893. “Die Zusammensetzung der Kaiserlegionen,” RhM 48: 601-621.
Selzer, W. 1988. Römische Steindenkmäler: Mainz in römischer Zeit, Mainz.
Serrati, J. 2005. [Review of Phang 2001] JRS 95: 265-266.
Shaw, B. 1987. “The age of Roman girls at marriage. Some reconsiderations,” JRS 78: 30-46.
Shipley, G. 2000. The Greek world after Alexander: 323-30 BC, London.
Solin, H. and Salomies, O. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum,
Hildesheim-Zürich-New York.
Solin, H. 2000. [Review of OPEL 1] Gnomon 72: 234-239.
Solin, H. 2004. [Review of OPEL 2-4] Gnomon 76: 244-247.
Sommer, C. S. 1999a. “From conquered territory to Roman province: recent discoveries and
debate on the Roman occupation of SW Germany,” in Creighton and Wilson (edd.) 1999:
160-198.
Sommer, C. S. 1999b. “The Roman army as an instrument of colonisation in Southwest Germany
– the relationship of forts to military and civil vici” in Goldsworthy and Haynes (edd.)
1999: 81-94.
Sommer, C. S. 2006. “Military vici in Roman Britain revisited,” in Wilson (ed.) 2006a: 95-146.
Southern, P. The Roman Army: A social and institutional history, Oxford.
Spaul, J. 1994. ALA²: The Auxiliary Cavalry Units of the Pre-Diocletianic Imperial Roman
Army, Andover.
240
Spaul J. 2000. COHORS² : The evidence for and a short history of the auxiliary infantry units of
the Imperial Roman Army (BAR Int. Ser. 841), Oxford.
Speidel, M. A. 1993. “Miles ex cohorte. Zur Bedeutung der mit ex eingeleiteten
Truppenangaben auf Soldateninschriften,” ZPE 95: 190-196
Speidel, M. A. 1996. Die römischen Schreibtafeln von Vindonissa. Lateinische Texte des
militarischen Alltags und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung (Veröffentl. d. Gesellsch. Pro
Vindonissa 12), Windisch.
Speidel, M. A. 2000. “Sold und Wirtschaft der römischen Soldaten”, in Alföldy, Dobson and Eck
(edd.) 2000: 65-94.
Speidel, M. A. and Lieb, H. (edd.) 2007. Militärdiplome. Die Forschungsbeiträge der Berner
Gespräche von 2004, MAVORS 15, Stuttgart.
Speidel, M. P. 1984. “The Pay of the Auxilia,” in id., Roman Army Studies 1. Amsterdam: 83-90.
Speidel, M. P. 1986. “The Soldiers‟ Homes,” in Eck and Wolff (edd.) 1986a: 467-481.
Speidel, M. P. 1992: “A Latin Papyrus with a Recruit‟s Request for Service in the Auxiliary
Cohorts,” in id., Roman Army Studies 2, Stuttgart: 306-309.
Speidel, M. P. 1994. Riding for Caesar: The Roman Emperors’ Horseguards, London.
Spickermann, W. 1997. “Aspekte einer „neuen‟ regionalen Religion und der Prozeß der
„interpretatio‟ im römischen Germanien, Rätien und Noricum,” in Cancik and Rüpke
(edd.) 1997: 145-167.
Spickermann, W. (ed.) 2001. Religion in den germanischen Provinzen Roms, Tübingen.
241
Spickermann, W. 2001a. “Romanisation,” DNP 10: 1121-1122.
Spickermann, W. 2003. Religionsgeschichte des römischen Germanien. 1, Germania
Superior, Tübingen.
Spickermann, W. 2006. “Mogontiacum (Mainz) als politischer und religiöser Zentralort der
Germania Superior,” in Cancik et al. (edd.) 2006: 167-194.
Stauner, K. 2004. Das offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus
(27 v.Chr. – 268 n.Chr.), Bonn.
Stein, E. 1932. Die kaiserlichen Beamten und Truppenkörper im römischen Deutschland unter
dem Prinzipät. Mit benützung von E. Ritterlings Nachlass, Wien.
Stewart, P. 2009. “Totenmahl reliefs and in the northern provinces: a case study in imperial
sculpture,” JRA 22: 253-272.
Stoll, O. “The Religions of the Armies,” in Erdkamp (ed.) 2007: 451-476.
Swoboda, E 1954. “Zur Frage der Romanisierung,” in B. Sutter (ed.) Festschrift Julius
Franz Schütz. Graz and Köln: 224-234.
Swoboda, E. 1963. “Zur Frage der Romanisierung: Aen. VI 851f.,” AAWW 100: 153-173.
Syme, R. 1984. “Antonius Saturninus,” in id., Roman Papers 3 (Birley, A. R. (ed.)), Oxford:
1070-1084.
Thorne, J., 2007. “Battle, Tactics and the Emergence of the Limites in the West,” in Erdkamp
(ed.) 2007: 218-234.
Timpe, D. 1970. Arminius-Studien, Heidelberg.
242
TLL: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae
Todd, M. 1991. The Coritani, Stroud.
Todd, M. 1997. Roman Britain (55 BC-AD 400), Oxford.
Todd, M. (ed.) 2004. A Companion to Roman Britain, Padstow.
Tomlin, R. S. O. 1998. “Roman manuscripts from Carlisle: the ink-written tablets,” Britannia 29:
31-84.
Tomlin, R. S. O. 2006. “Was Roman London ever a colonia? The written evidence,” in Wilson
(ed.) 2006a: 49-64.
Tomlin, R. S. O. and Hassall, M. W. C. 2007. “Roman Britain in 2006 III. Inscriptions,”
Britannia 38: 344-365.
Turner, E. G. 1956. “A Roman Writing Tablet from Somerset,” JRS 56: 115-118.
Van Driel-Murray, C. 1993. “The Leatherwork,” VRR 3:1-75.
Van Driel-Murray, C. 2003. “Ethnic Soldiers: the Experience of the Lower Rhine Tribes,” in
Grünewald and Seibel (edd.) 2003: 200-217.
Visy, Z. 1977. Intercisa: Dunaújváros in the Roman Period, Kecskemét.
Vittinghoff, F. 1986. “Militärdiplome, römischen Bürgerrechts- und Integrationspolitik der
Hohen Kaiserzeit” in Eck and Wolff 1986a: 535-55.
VRR: - 1994: Vindolanda Research Reports, New Series I: The early wooden forts, Hexham. - 1993: Vindolanda Research Reports, New Series II: Reports on the auxiliaries, the writing tablets, incriptions, brands and graffiti. Hexham. - 1993: Vindolanda Research Reports, New Series III: Preliminary reports on leather, textiles, environmental evidence and dendrochronology. Hexham.
243
Walde-Hofmann = Walde, A. and Hofmann, J. 1938-1956. Lateinisches etymologisches
Wörterbuch, Heidelberg.
Watson, G. R. 1969. The Roman Soldier, London.
Webster, G. 1985. The Roman Imperial Army, London.
Weiss, P. 2003. “The Future of Roman Military Diplomata – Fortschritte, Probleme und
künftige Aufgaben” in Wilkes (ed.) 2003: 187-195.
Weiss, P. 2005. “Roman Military Diplomas IV: Das Vermächtnis von Margaret M.
Roxan,” JRA 18: 655-659.
Weiss, P. 2008. “Die vorbildiche Kaiserrehe. Zwei Senatsbeschlüsse beim Tod der
älteren und jüngeren Faustina, neue Paradigmen und die Herausbildung des
Welch, K. and Powell, A. (edd.) 1996. Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The war commentaries
as political instruments, Swansea.
Wenskus, R. 1977. Stammesbildung und Verfassung: Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen
gentes, Köln.
Weynand, R. 1902. “Form und Dekoration der römischen Grabsteine des Rheinlands im 1. Jh.,” BJ 108/109: 185-238.
Wheeler, E., 2007. “The Army and Limes in the East,” in Erdkamp (ed.) 2007: 235-266.
Wiegels, R. 2000. Lopodunum 2, Inschriften und Kultdenkmäler aus dem römischen Ladenburg
am Neckar, Stuttgart.
Wiegels, F. and Woesler, W. (edd.) 2003. Arminius und die Varusschlacht: Geschichte – Mythos
244
– Literatur. München-Wien-Zürich.
Wigg, A. 1999. “Confrontation and Interaction: Celts, Germans and Romans in the Central
German Highlands,” in Creighton and Wilson (edd.) 1999a: 35-53.
Wigg, D. 1999. “The development of the monetary economy in N Gaul in the late La
Tene and early Roman periods”, in Creighton and Wilson 1999a: 99-124.
Wilkes, J. J. (ed.) 2003. Documenting the Roman Army: Essays in honour of Margaret Roxan
(BICS Suppl. 81), London.
Will, W. 1987. “Römische „Klientel-Randstaaten‟ am Rhein? Eine Bestandstaufnahme,” BJ: 1-
61.
Willis, S. 1996. “The Romanization of pottery assemblages in east and north-east of England
during the first century A.D. : a comparative analysis,” Britannia 27: 179-221.
Wilson, R. J. A. 2002. A Guide to the Roman Remains in Britain, London.
Wilson, R. J. A. (ed.) 2006a. Romanitas. Essays on Roman archaeology in honour of
Sheppard Frere on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. Exeter.
Wilson, R. J. A. 2006b. “Urban defences and civic status in early Roman Britain” in
Wilson, R. J. A. (ed.) 2006a: 1-48.
Wilson, R. J. A. 2006c. “What‟s new in Roman Baden-Württemberg?” JRS 96: 198-212.
Wolff, H. 1974. “Zu den Bürgerrechtsverleihungen an Kinder von Auxiliaren und
Legionaren,” Chiron 4: 479-510.
Wolff, C. 2004. “Primus pilus ou primipilus?” REMA 1: 5-22.
245
Wolters, R. 2008. Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald. Arminius, Varus und das römische
Germanien, Munich.
Woolliscroft, D. and Hoffmann, B. Rome's first frontier : the Flavian occupation of northern
Scotland, Stroud.
Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge.
Woolf, G. 2001a. “Representation as cult : the case of the Jupiter columns” in Spickermann
2001: 117-134.
Woolf, G. 2001b. “Romanisierung,” DNP 10: 1122-1127.
Woolf, G. 2003. “Local cult in imperial context: the Matronae revisited,” in Noelke et al. 2003:
131-138.
Zanier, W. 1992. Das römische Kastell Ellingen. Mit Beiträgen von Angela von den Driesch und
Corinna Liesau und von Peter Schröter (Limesforsch. 23), Mainz.
Zaninovic, M. 1971. “The Delmatae in Roman Britain,” Acta of the Fifth International Congress
of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge: 299-304.
246
Appendix I: Auxiliary Unit Lists for Germania and Britannia
1. Alae assigned to garrison Germania (to 89 CE), Germania Inferior and Germania Superior to ca. 2121
Unit Tribe Original Date of Province of origin Province(s) garrisoned, Recruitment in sequence
1. Ala Afrorum Veterana Afri Ca. 70 CE Africa Germania, Germania Inferior
2. Ala Agrippiana N/A (Commander) Augustan Gaul Germania, Britannia, Miniata Syria
3. Ala I Asturum Astures Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Germania, Moesia Inferior, Dacia, Dacia Inferior
4. Ala I Batavorum2 Batavi Claudian Germania (Inferior) Germania, Pannonia Superior, Dacia Superior
5. Ala I Flavia Augusta N/A Augustan-Claudian ? Germania, Britannia, Britannica3 Italy, Dalmatia, (Province) Pannonia, Dacia, Pannonia Inferior, Syria
6. Ala I Cannanefatium Cannanefates Augustan Germania (Inferior) Germania, Germania Superior, Pannonia Superior
1 Notes on individual units are not intended to be exhaustive and are offered in cases where relevant disputes or unclear elements in the titles warrant comment. 2 Participated in the Batavian rebellion and was transferred out of Germania ca. 70 CE (cf. Tac. Hist. 4.18). Spaul 1994: 63 suggests Raetia as another possible province for this unit, citing its absence from Pannonian diplomas of 80, 84, and 85, although the same circumstances apply to Raetia. Spaul‟s argumentum ex silentio neglects the possibility that the absence of this ala from the Pannonian diplomas may result from there being no eligible soldiers of this unit for discharge during these issues, and no subsequent diploma discoveries have resolved the issue. 3 The title is an honorific, not an ethnic, designation.
247
7. Ala I Claudia Galli Augustan Gaul Hispania, Germania, Gallorum Capitoniana Moesia Inferior, Dacia, Dacia Inferior
8. Ala Gallorum et Galli, Thraces Augustan Gaul Britannia, Germania Thracum Classiana4 Inferior
9. Ala I Claudia Nova N/A Claudian Gaul Dalmatia, Germania, miscellanea Moesia, Moesia 5 (Emperor) Superior
10. Ala I Flavia Gemina6 N/A (Emperor) Flavian Amalgamation Germania, Germania Superior
11. Ala II Flavia N/A (Emperor) Flavian Amalgamation Germania (Gemina), Gemina / ∞ pia fidelis7 Syria, Raetia (∞ p. f.)
12. Ala I Tungrorum Tungri8 Augustan Gaul Germania, Dalmatia, Frontoniana Pannonia, Britannia, Dacia Porolissensis
13. Ala I Hispanorum9 Hispani Augustan Hispania Germania, Pannonia, Dacia Inferior
14. Ala Gallorum Galli Tiberian Gaul Germania, Britannia, Indiana Germania Superior
15. Ala Longiniana10 N/A (Commander) Neronian ? Germania
16. Ala Moesica N/A Pre-Neronian Moesia Germania, Germania Inferior, Germania (Province) Superior
4 The two ethnic groups represented in this unit‟s titulature almost certainly were not originally recruited together. The honorific Classiana, named after an unknown Classius, indicates an Augustan origin. A Thracian element surely came later, following the annexation of Thrace, this change being preserved in the unit‟s ethnic title. 5 Originally recruited from Gauls and Spaniards; see Spaul 1994: 90-91, with references. 6 Not to be confused with the ala I Gemelliana, which recruited from Gauls and Spaniards and was assigned to garrison Mauretania Tingitana. Spaul‟s argument that the unit was briefly assigned to garrison Germania and Hispania should be rejected. For Germania he cites a diploma of 64 (CIL 16, 5) which does not preserve the province in the text, and the Baetican ancestry of the mother of Valerius Severus, an eques of the unit (IAM 2, 250, from Tingis) is hardly proof that the unit was stationed in Spain. 7 Whether this was one unit (see Spaul 1994: 113, following others) or two (see Baatz 1993) is currently disputed. As Spaul notes, the titles gemina and ∞ pia fidelis never overlap, and if this is one unit, its titles must have changed. Subsequent diploma discoveries have not permitted a definitive resolution. 8 This unit only acquired the ethnic title after leaving Germania, its original province of station. 9 Possibly an amalgamation of the early units ala Hispanorum veterana and ala Hispanorum tironum, which are attested only on the cursus inscription of P. Cornelius Scipio (MEFRA 104 (1992), 178). 10 Destroyed in the Batavian revolt. Survivors were most likely amalgamated with other units when ala I or II Flavia was formed.
248
17. Ala I Noricorum Norici Augustan Noricum Germania, Germania Inferior
18. Ala I Parthorum (et Parthi Augustan Armenia Minor Dalmatia, Germania, Araborum)11 Mauretania Caesarensis Arabi
19. Ala Pomponiani / Galli Augustan Gaul Germania, Britannia Gallorum Petriana12
20. Ala Gallorum Galli Augustan Gaul Germania, Britannia Picentiana
21. Ala Rusonis Galli Augustan Gaul?13 Germania
22. Ala Scubulorum Scubuli?14 Claudian Pannonia? Moesia, Pannonia, Germania, Germania Superior
23. Ala Gallorum Galli Tiberian Gaul Hispania, Germania, Sebosiana Britannia
24. Ala Siliana N/A (Commander) Augustan Gaul Africa Proconsularis, Germania, Pannonia, Pannonia Inferior, Dacia Porolissensis
25. Ala I Flavia N/A (Emperor) Flavian Germania15 Germania, Germania
11 Subsequently abbreviated to Parthorum. Spaul‟s skepticism regarding the possibility of two units, ala Parthorum et Araborum and ala Parthorum, which Holder 1980: 286-287 had distinguished, seems appropriate, given the long history of the latter unit, attested in Not. Dig. Or. 35.30, and the existence of only two early texts, both from Moguntiacum, of the former unit (AE 1959, 188 = Ness-Lieb 169 = AE 1967, 339 and Schillinger 99 = AE 1976, 495). If the units are distinct, then it is not clear why ala Parthorum et Araborum disappeared. 12 Most likely amalgamated with another unit when the alae I and II Flaviae Geminae were formed. The coincidental names of a prefect buried at Regium Lepidum, T. Pomponius T. f. Petra (CIL 11, 969) are, as Spaul states, “suggestive.” This does not negate the observation of E. Birley 1988: 374 that ala Pomponiani is a rare example of an early cohort identified by the name of its commander in the genitive case. The early service of the ala Petriana in Germania is attested in a dedication to Nero (CIL 13, 6820, 56 CE) and also suggests that these titles belong to the same unit. 13 This unit is attested in only one inscription, a tombstone at Mogontiacum of Adbogius Conigi f., na(tione) Petrucorius (CIL 13, 7031) from Aquitania (Spaul 1994: 20). It must have been renamed later, or amalgamated with another unit. 14 The question of this unit‟s identity is vexing. It is unclear whether scubulorum recalls (a) a commander named Scubulus (b) a reference to equipment or (c) a tribe of Scubuli, otherwise unattested. The former option seems unlikely; Spaul‟s suggestion (1994: 193) that a commander‟s name in the genitive might have been mistaken for a nominative plural is unconvincing. What a scubulus might otherwise be is, essentially, a mystery. On the other hand, no ethnic “Scubulus” is attested either. A diploma recipient (CIL 16, 20, 74 CE) is Veturius Teutomi f., Pannonius, whose “provincial” ethnic designation is common among Pannonians serving outside of the province of their recruitment (M. P. Speidel 1986: 469-470). If he is a Scubulus, perhaps Pannonia is the province of their location. He would have been recruited in 49 CE, and no earlier evidence of the unit survives.
249
Singularium Superior, Raetia
26. Ala Sulpicia16 N/A (Emperor) Galban? Thrace? Germania Inferior
27. Ala Gallorum Galli Tiberian Gaul Spain, Gaul, Italy Tauriana Germania Inferior, Mauretania Tingitana
28. Ala I Thracum Thraces17 Tiberian Thrace Germania, Britannia, Germania Inferior
29. Ala Treverorum18 Treveri Julio-Claudian Gaul Germania
30. Ala Vallensium19 Vallenses Julio-Claudian ? Germania
31. Ala Augusta Vocontii Augustan Gallia Narbonensis Germania, Germania Vocontiorum Inferior, Britannia
2. cohortes assigned to garrison Germania (to 89), Germania Inferior and Germania Superior to ca. 212
15 Formed from the bodyguard of the provincial governor (cf. ala I Ulpia Singularium, which served in Cappadocia and Syria), this unit was commanded by Julius Briganticus, a local commander who was the nephew of Julius Civilis and probably the son of an enfranchised Germanus. He died during the Batavian revolt at Vada in Germania Inferior (Tac. Hist. 2.22, 4.70, 5.21). 16 The dispute over whether this unit is named after the emperor Galba or an earlier “Sulpicius” unit name is summed up neatly by Spaul 1994, 209-210. His observation that Sulpicia conforms to the structure of Kaiserbeinamen seems plausible, but fails to convince on several points. Indeed, a title named after an early commander should be Sulpiciana, but the practice was not uniform. Units that remained loyal to Domitian were given the title Domitiana, which is paralleled by Caracalla‟s Antoniniana, but Domitian did not usher in a comprehensive onomastic shift: under Trajan, Hadrian and Pius units took the Kaiserbeinamen Ulpia and Aelia, not Ulpiana and Aeliana. Furthermore, the legion raised by Galba in Spain constructed its Kaiserbeiname (Galbiana) after the emperor‟s cognomen, for which there was Augustan precedent. It seems odd that a legion and an auxiliary cohort would follow different honorific practices. The unit kept the name after Galba‟s death, perhaps indicating further that this name was not “tainted” by its association with a deposed emperor. The presence of men who must have been recruited during Nero‟s reign seems a definitive point against an Imperial origin for this unit‟s title, which seems best understood as an anomaly in early naming practices for alae. The identity of the unit‟s namesake thus remains unknown. 17 Thracian recruits served in this unit throughout its history, despite general trends toward local recruitment (Spaul 1994: 221-222, with references). 18 The fact that this unit is attested in a disputable inscription is effectively counterbalanced by several references by Tacitus to an ala Trevirorum; contra Spaul 1994: 252-253, arguing without evidence that the Tacitean references need not designate the same unit. He may be right, but this possibility seems to contradict his wider assertion that this is a „suspect unit‟. 19 Not distinguished as a separate unit by Spaul 1994: 253. Whether the Vallenses is a toponym (cf. Taunenses) or a peregrine ethnonym should remain an open question, unless further evidence of this unit appears.
250
Unit Tribe Original Date of Province of origin Province(s) garrisoned, Recruitment in sequence
1. Coh. I Aquitanorum Bituriges (Aquitani) Augustan Gaul Germania, Germania Biturigum Superior
2. Coh I Aquitanorum Aquitani Augustan Gaul Sardinia?, Veterana Germania, Germania Superior, Britannia20
3. Coh. II Aquitanorum Aquitani Augustan Gaul Germania, Germania equitata21 Superior, Raetia Bituriges?
4. Coh. III Aquitanorum Aquitani Augustan – Tiberian22 Gaul Sardinia?, Germania, equitata Germania Superior
5. Coh. IIII Aquitani Augustan – Tiberian Gaul Germania, Germania Aquitanorum equitata Superior
6. Coh. I Asturum Astures Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Germania, Noricum, equitata Britannia
7. Coh. II Asturum Astures Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Germania, Britannia equitata
20 Perhaps also Sardinia was an early assignment for this unit, based on the appearance of Sardinian recruits among three lower ranking troops (CIL 10, 7596, AE 1920, 96, ZPE 30: 168). All are early first century tombstones (deceased‟s name in the nominative, formula h(ic) s(itus) e(st)). It was part of the garrison for Germania by 74 CE (CIL 16, 20). There is similar evidence from Sardinia of Coh. III Aquitanorum, but much about either unit‟s presence in Sardinia remains unclear. The Sardinians serving in the Gallic cohorts might have been transferred, or simply recruited by these units from Sardinia‟s neighbour province. 21 Identified by Spaul 2000: 146 with coh. II Biturigum, on analogy with coh. I Aquitanorum Biturigum. The evidence is scarce, however, since only one early tombstone from Moguntiacum records the existence of the former unit (CIL 13, 6812). 22 Spaul‟s suggestion of a Claudian date for this unit‟s original formation is incongruous with the history of Coh. IIII Aquitanorum equitata, a centurion of which, Ti. Iulius Ittixionis f. Niger, is attested at St. Lizier (CIL 13, 17). No years of service are given, but the text c(o)hort(is) Aquit(anorum) quart(ae) indicates a very early date. Niger was clearly enfranchised during the reign of Tiberius and may have been a veteran of the unit. However, no reference to his age or period of service is given on the monument. This is a rare omission, even in early tombstones. As St. Lizier is in Aquitania, there seems no reason seriously to doubt that Niger was buried in his homeland, and perhaps his hometown. His father‟s name, as with the names of his two heirs and fellow soldiers (fratres) Lepidus Dannoni f. and Dunomagius Toutannorigis f., are all Celtic in origin, further pointing to an early date for this unit‟s formation. Since coh. IIII has a higher number than coh. III, these two units were at least raised coterminously, and the St. Lizier inscription thus provides a useful terminus post quem for dating the formation of coh. III Aquitanorum.
251
8. Coh. I Belgarum Belgae Claudian Gaul or Britannia23 Illyricum, Germania equitata
9. Coh. III Breucorum Breuci Pre-Flavian Pannonia Germania, Germania Inferior
10. Coh. VI Breucorum Breuci Pre-Flavian Pannonia Moesia Superior, Germania Inferior
11. Coh. VII Breucorum Breuci Pre-Flavian Pannonia Germania, Pannonia, Moesia Superior, Pannonia Inferior
12. Coh. VIII Breuci Pre-Flavian Pannonia Germania Breucorum
13. Coh. I civium N/A (citizen cohort) Augustan N/A Germania, Germania Romanorum Superior, Raetia Ingenuorum equitata
14. Coh. II Civium N/A (citizen cohort) Augustan N/A Germania, Germania Romanorum equitata24 Inferior, Numidia
15. Coh. I Aelia N/A (citizen cohort) Augustan25 N/A Gaul, Germania, Classica Britannia
16. Coh. II Augusta N/A (citizen cohort) Augustan?26 N/A Germania, Germania
23 As noted by A. R. Birley in Birley and Blake 2007: 105, there is no evidence that this unit was raised from Belgae living in Britannia, as suggested by Spaul 2000: 190-192; the balance of the evidence rather indicates that the personnel of this unit were originally raised in Gallia Belgica. It later gained the title Septimia, perhaps, as suggested by Spaul 2000: 191, for participating in Severus‟ victory at Lugdunum in 197. It is clearly a Kaiserbeiname. 24 The skepticism regarding the Augustan date for the levying of the various citizen cohorts (see Spaul 2000: 19-20, 48 contra M. P. Speidel 1984: 91-100) is understandable, but gaps in the evidence do not permit a clear reconstruction of the sequence. Coh. XVIII Voluntariorum, for example, is not attested earlier than 138 in the diploma record, but several tombstones are pre-Flavian in date, which corresponds to Tac. Hist. 1.64, specifically mentioning this unit as having Lugdunum as its “usual winter-quarters.” Thus the first eighteen citizen cohorts are certainly pre-Flavian in origin. The conundrum of pre-Commodan evidence for the coh. XXXII Voluntariorium in Germania Superior should not be dismissed either. The Pre-Flavian characteristics of CIL 13, 7382 were recognized by E. Birley 1986. This does not mean that Augustus raised all units at once. Augustus ruled, of course, for many years, as did his successor Tiberius; the citizen cohorts may have thus been raised gradually, and the lopsided evidence for some of them is due, it seems, to accident of preservation. 25 Aelia in this case was added later as an honorific title. This unit was created from marines who fought under Messalla Corvinus in Aquitania (28 BCE), who were then enfranchised. See Spaul 2000: 478, with references. An inscription from Anzio (CIL 10, 6672) records one of the earliest members of this unit, Sex. Nonius L.f. Vot. Severus, veter(anus) deduct(us) Anti(o). 26 Attested on no diplomas before 74 CE, on two inscriptions and on two tilestamps, this unit is a case in point concerning the limitations placed by the evidence on what can be reconstructed about the history and personnel of auxiliary units. Augusta does not necessarily mean that the unit was raised under Augustus, but an early origin cannot be dismissed a priori. The title Cyrenaica indicates that this unit began its existence as part of the army protecting that area of North Africa. Since eastern units are rare in Roman Germany, perhaps it arrived in the
252
Cyrenaica equitata Superior
17. Coh. I Flavia Damasceni Pre-Flavian Syria Germania, Germania Damascenorum Superior equitata sagittaria
18. Coh. III Delmatae Pre-Claudian Dalmatia Britannia, Germania, Delmatarum Germania Superior, Dacia Superior
19. Coh. IIII Delmatae Pre-Claudian Dalmatia Germania, Britannia Delmatarum
20. Coh. V Delmatarum Delmatae Pre-Claudian Dalmatia Germania, Germania Superior
21. Coh. III Gallorum Galli Augustan Gaul Germania, Moesia equitata Inferior, Dalmatia, Mauretania Tingitana
22. Coh. I Germani Julio-Claudian Germania Germania, Germania Germanorum27 Superior
23. Coh. I Helvetiorum Helvetii Flavian Gallia Belgica Germania, Germania (et Brittonum) Superior
24. Coh. I Flavia Hispani Augustan Spain Germania, Germania Hispanorum equitata28 Inferior
25. Coh. II Hispanorum Hispani Augustan Spain Illyricum, Germania equitata29 Superior, Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, Britannia
province as part of Vespasian‟s army during the civil war of 68-69 CE. Whether it was raised by Augustus or by one of his successors must remain an open question. Its history parallels that of Coh. I Flavia Damascenorum, also raised in Julio-Claudian times and sent to Germania. 27 Unlike the units raised from the Thracians, Gauls and Spaniards, few auxiliary units bear the ethnonym Germanorum, although the numeral may indicate the existence of at least another coh. Germanorum, as yet unattested. 28 Spanish tribes which did not provide ethnic units provided troops for cohorts bearing the geographic „ethnic‟ title Hispanorum, analogous to Gallorum, Germanorum and Thracum. Three funerary monuments of men serving in this unit correspond to post-Flavian epigraphic practice (i.e. the invocation of Dis Manibus, deceased‟s name in the dative case). It is possible that an „ethnic‟ tribal unit dropped the specific tribal reference in favour of the generic „Hispani,‟ as argued by Spaul 2000: 498, “it is much more probable that the distinctive tribal names became inaccurate and were changed into the generic term. Thus units of Ausetani, Cantabri and Carletum et Venaesium if renamed account for three of six cohortes I Hispanorum.” This is a tempting hypothesis, given the fluidity in the epigraphic record of unit titles and names, although auxiliary units might occasionally add another ethnic to their title. This phenomenon would explain not only the numerical overlap of many units, but would also be another tangible sign of how the ethnic identity of auxiliary units was transformed over the course of the first century. 29 Coh. II Hispanorum equitata is attested on one of the earliest diplomas, 54 CE from Illyricum (CIL 16, 2).
253
26. Coh. III Hispani Flavian? Spain Germania, Germania Hispanorum30 Superior
27. Coh. V Hispanorum Hispani Julio-Claudian –Flavian Spain Germania, Moesia equitata Superior
28. Coh. VI N/A (citizen cohort) Augustan N/A Dalmatia, Germania Ingenuorum / Voluntariorum
29. Coh. I Ituraeorum Ituraei Flavian Judaea Germania, Mauretania Tingitana
30. Coh. I Latobicorum Latobici Flavian Pannonia Germania Inferior et Varcianorum equitata Varciani
31. Coh. I Ligurum et Ligures Julio-Claudian Alpes Cottiae + Alpes Cottiae, Hispanorum Hispania Germania Superior Hispani
32. Coh. III Lucensium Lucenses Julio-Claudian Hispania Tarraconensis Germania, Germania Inferior
33. Coh. Lusitanorum Lusitani Julio-Claudian Lusitania Germania
34. Coh. I Pannonii Julio-Claudian Pannonia Germania, Germania Pannoniorum Superior, Britannia
35. Coh. I Pannonii Trajanic? Pannonia Germania Inferior Pannoniorum et Delmatarum equitata31 Delmatae Dalmatia
36. Coh. I Raetorum Raeti Julio-Claudian Raetia Moesia, Raetia, equitata Germania Inferior, Raetia, Asia, Rateia
37. Coh. Raetorum et Raeti Julio-Claudian Raetia Germania, Germania Vindelicorum (II Superior Raetorum)
38. Coh. VI Raetorum Raeti Julio-Claudian Raetia Germania, Germania Superior
30 Stationed at Vindonissa, but little evidence of its personnel remains. It must therefore have been raised before Vindonissa was closed at the start of the second century, perhaps in the Flavian period; cf. Hartmann and Speidel 1991. 31 The earliest diploma to mention this unit is RMD 4 (127 CE), which may indicate an original recruitment during Trajan‟s Dacian Wars.
254
39. Coh. VII Raetorum Raeti Julio-Claudian Raetia Germania, Germania equitata32 Superior
40. Coh. I Aelia N/A (specialist cohort) Julio-Claudian N/A Germania, Pannonia Sagittariorum Superior
41. Coh. III N/A (specialist cohort) Julio-Claudian N/A Germania, Mauretania Sagittariorum33 Caesarensis
42. Coh. I Sequanorum Sequani Flavian Gallia Belgica Germania, Germania et Rauracorum equitata Superior Rauraci
43. Coh. Silaucensium34 Seleucenses? Julio-Claudian Syria? Germania
44. Coh. I Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Germania, Germania Germanica equitata Superior, Pannonia Inferior
45. Coh. II Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Germania, Britannia veterana equitata
46. Coh. IIII Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Germania, Germania equitata35 Inferior
47. Coh. VI Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Germania, Pannonia, equitata Moesia Superior, Dacia, Dacia Porolissensis
48. Coh. II Treveri Severan? Gallia Belgica Germania Superior Treverorum36
32 Coh. VII Raetorum may have succeeded Coh. VI Raetorum at Vindonissa, but the evidence for the latter unit is meager (cf. Spaul 2000: 284). 33 The brief first century stay of this unit in Germania is attested by CIL 14, 3955, which lists this province in the career inscription of a prefect. Cf. Spaul 2000: 487. 34 Spaul 2000 interprets this unit as a mistake for III Lucensium, based on the suggestion that a Spanish cohort‟s name would be unfamiliar to local stonecutters in Germania. This is unconvincing; while the spelling of many inscriptions may often fail the standards applied in the modern classroom, Spaul‟s interpretation asks too much of his reader. The reading Seleucensium has also been suggested, and seems preferable. Errors in transcribing vowels are common inscriptions. While it was uncommon for eastern units to be stationed in Germania, the example of Coh. I Damascenorum, also stationed in Germania during the first century, may be cited as a parallel. Perhaps the lack of other evidence may be attributed to the possibility that this unit was very short-lived, being either destroyed in battle or absorbed into another unit. 35 It is untenable to claim, as in the case of Spaul 2000: 379, that this unit “certainly possessed the epigraphic habit to a greater extent than other units of Thracians.” This cohort has left information of six milites caligati, one of whom is known from a diploma. What evidence remains from this cohort does not suggest any observable difference in the use of Latin epigraphy, apart from the accident of preservation in the corpus of auxiliary tombstones. At a total of five, however, this is not a significant number.
255
49. Coh. II Varciani Julio-Claudian Pannonia Germania, Germania Varcianorum equitata Inferior
50. Coh. IV Vindelici Flavian-Trajanic? Raetia Germania Superior Vindelicorum37
51. Coh. XV N/A (volunteer cohort) Augustan N/A Numidia, Germania Voluntariorum Superior
52. Coh. XXIV N/A (volunteer cohort) Julio-Claudian N/A Germania, Germania Voluntariorum Inferior
53. Coh. XXVI N/A (volunteer cohort) Julio-Claudian N/A Germania, Germania Voluntariorum Inferior
54. Coh. XXXII N/A (volunteer cohort) Julio-Claudian38 N/A Germania, Germania Voluntariorum Superior
3. Alae assigned to garrison Britannia to ca. 212 CE
Unit Tribe Original Date of Province of origin Province(s) garrisoned, Recruitment in sequence
1.. Ala Agrippiana N / A Augustan Gaul Germania, Britannia, miniata (Commander) Syria
36 Little survives to document this unit. Perhaps it was a third century creation (Spaul 2000: 188), but a bronze plate from Holzhausen (CIL 13, 7615, 213 CE) demonstrates that this unit was already in existence by the time of Caracalla‟s reign, and may owe its creation either to him or his father. 37 Perhaps formed from the remnants of the mixed cohort of Raeti and Vindelici, but the details are obscure. Cf. Spaul 2000: 290-291. 38 Spaul‟s criticism (2000: 48) of E. Birley 1988 is not convincing The Cappadocian serving in this unit (CIL 13, 7382) is surely not an example of local recruitment in Germania Superior, and his presence in this unit may be due to any number of factors, about which speculation would be pointless. The fact that this unit is missing from diplomas may be due to a low number of peregrine recruits eligible to receive them, especially if the unit was not recruiting locally from the peregrine population. This seems best taken as an example of flexibility in recruitment, understandable in cases of emergency.
256
2. Ala Praetoria I Astures Julio-Claudian Hispania Tarraconensis Britannia Hispanorum Asturum
3. Ala II Asturum Astures Claudian Hispania Tarraconensis Pannonia, Britannia
4. Ala I Flavia Augusta N/A (Province) Augustan-Claudian ? Germania, Britannia, Britannica Italy, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Dacia, Pannonia Inferior, Syria
5. Ala Hispanorum Campagones Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Britannia (?), Pannonia, Campagonum (?)39 Dacia Inferior, Dacia Superior
6. Ala Gallorum et Galli, Thraces Augustan Gaul Britannia, Germania Thracum Classiana40 Inferior
7. Ala Gallorum Indiana Galli Tiberian Gaul Germania, Britannia, Germania Superior
8. Ala Pomponiani / Galli Augustan Gaul Germania, Britannia Gallorum Petriana
9. Ala Gallorum Galli Augustan Gaul Germania, Britannia Picentiana
10. Ala Augusta Galli Augustan Gaul Britannia Gallorum Proculeiana (ob virtutem appellata)41
11. Ala I Pannoniorum Pannonii Tiberian Pannonia Hispania, Britannia Sabiniana42
12. Ala Sarmatarum43 Sarmatae Marcus Aurelius Sarmatia Britannia
39 See AE 2003, 1042a-b. Contrary to the views of the original editors of this text, a fragmentary military diploma, the fact that this unit appears on a nearly contemporary diploma of Pannonia (CIL 16, 42) implies that the recipient was a British recruit who returned home following his service. More evidence is needed before this unit may be confidently assigned to the garrison of Britannia. 40 The only evidence of this unit‟s station in Britannia is provided by military diplomas; even in Germania Inferior only two inscriptions record personnel of this unit (CIL 13, 8306, 8668). 41 As noted by Holder 1982: 107, this unit often appears in the epigraphic record as the ala Augusta ob virtutem appellata. Thus the two epigraphic practices apply to the same unit. The presence of a Treveran in the epigraphic record of this unit (RIB 606) is not a sufficient basis to assume, as Spaul 1994: 56 does, that this unit served in the Rhineland before arriving in Britannia. The unit is clearly very old, evidently dating to ca. 36-30 BCE (Birley 1986: 379), but its previous locations of service are unclear. 42 CIL 3, 4269 (PME N 25bis) attests the presence of this unit‟s prefect, C. Nymphidius Sabinus, at Szony in Pannonia. This is clearly a record of the unit‟s namesake, dating from the earliest phase of its recruiting history. The sole evidence for its station in Hispania is a single inscription from Aldeia Nova / Miranda de Douro (EE 8 128), of first century date. For further bibliography, see Spaul 1994: 189-190.
257
13. Ala I Gallorum Galli Tiberian Gaul Hispania, Germania, Sebosiana Britannia
14. Ala I Pannoniorum Pannonii Augustan or Tiberian Pannonia Britannia, Noricum Tampiana
15. Ala I Thracum Thraces Tiberian Thrace Germania, Britannia, Germania Inferior
16. Ala I Tungrorum44 Tungri Augustan Germania Germania, Britannia
17. Ala Hispanorum Vettones Claudian Lusitania Britannia Vettonum
18. Ala Augusta Vocontii Augustan Gallia Narbonensis Germania, Germania Vocontiorum Inferior, Britannia
Table 4: cohortes assigned to garrison Britannia to ca. 212
Unit Tribe Original Date of Province of origin Province(s) garrisoned, Recruitment in sequence
1. Coh. I Afrorum c. R. Afri Julio-Claudian Africa Proconsularis Britannia, Egypt equitata
2. Coh. I Alpinorum Alpini Augustan Alpes Illyricum, Pannonia, equitata45 Britannia, Pannonia
43 Little remains of this unit, but its fortification of Bremetennacum / Ribchester in the reign of Gordian III (RIB 583). The unit‟s origins may be connected with the Sarmatians and Iazyges sent to Britain by Marcus Aurelius (Dio 71.46.16, cf. Spaul 1994: 191). 44 This unit was amalgamated with the ala Frontoniana ca. 130 CE to form the ala I Tungrorum Frontoniana. (Spaul 1994: 117-123, with bibliography). Until then it served almost exclusively in Britannia, but only one partial inscription from Carnuntum / Petronell attests a caligatus from this unit, who may have been an Aeduan. The dedication to Hercules Magusanus by a duplicarius of this unit is noteworthy (RIB 2140, from Polmont). 45 This unit stayed only briefly in Britannia. It has been suggested that its short stay was perhaps part of a recruiting drive (Spaul 2000: 260-261), but a brief stint as part of the British garrison seems the likelier explanation. There is a 25 year gap in the diploma record of this unit‟s presence in Pannonia (85-110 CE). The Britannia diploma falls well
258
Inferior
3. Coh. I Aquitanorum Aquitani Augustan Gallia Aquitanensis Germania (Superior), equitata Britannia
4. Coh. I Asturum Astures Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Germania, Noricum, equitata Britannia
5. Coh. II Asturum Astures Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Germania, Britannia equitata
6. Coh. I Baetasiorum Baetasii Flavian Germania (Inferior) Britannia
7. Coh. I Batavorum Batavi Julio-Claudian Germania (Inferior) Britannia equitata46
8. Coh. III Batavorum Batavi Julio-Claudian Germania (Inferior) Britannia, Raetia, equitata Pannonia
9. Coh. VIIII Batavorum Batavi Julio-Claudian Germania (Inferior) Britannia, Raetia equitata47
10. Coh. III Bracari Julio-Claudian Hispania Tarraconensis Britannia, Syria Bracaraugustanorum48 Palaestina within this gap (CIL 16, 48,103 CE). The inclusion of the diploma recipient‟s unit in the British garrison clearly indicates that this cohort was officially considered to be part of Britannia‟s provincial garrison. 46 Jarrett 1994: 55 assumed that all Batavian cohorts were equitatae on the basis of the tribe‟s swimming prowess, but so far only three of the five epigraphically attested units were part mounted. The number and deployment of Batavian units is unclear. Recent research has stressed the significant role of auxiliary service in the development of a Batavian identity during the imperial period (e.g. Roymans 2004, Derks and Roymans 2006; cf. Tac. Ger. 29), and there is no doubting the importance of the Batavians as a recruiting source for auxiliary units. How many units were raised is unclear. Holder 1982: 113-114 assumed that there were two series of units: eight cohorts, numbered I-VIII, were raised before the Batavian revolt and involved in Claudius‟ invasion of Britain in 43 CE (cf. Tac. Agr. 36) and disbanded when Petillius Cerialis crushed the rebellion of Julius Civilis in 69 CE (cf. Tac. Hist. 2.27; 4.1, 12, 18- 19). Subsequently another series, numbered I-IX, were raised. According to Holder, all nine of these units were then sent to Britannia, but only three are attested there. Coh. II Batavorum is attested on the Adamklissi victory altar in Dacia (CIL 3, 14214), while IIII and VIIII Batavorum are attested in Dacia in the second century. Against Holder Spaul 2000: 206 argued that there was no evidence for the disbanding of the units, since the Batavians, who were not Roman citizens, “could not technically be guilty of treason” and that only the unit commanders needed to be replaced. Spaul‟s suggestion assumes the unlikely scenario that the Romans would tolerate the continued service of rebellious troops after the end of the rebellion. Clearly the Batavians continued to provide troops to the auxilia commanded by their nobility, but a fresh levy in 71 to replace those who had died, fled, or whose loyalty had been compromised by supporting Civilis seems to be the likeliest scenario. The fact that the Romans expanded the number of units levied from the Batavians to nine from eight should be seen as an added punishment on the tribe, which would have been required to sacrifice nine units‟ worth of its youth to auxiliary service. 47 Bowman and Thomas 1983 originally read the evidence from Vindolanda as referring to an eighth cohort, but later discoveries proved that the unit‟s number was VIIII and that it was equitata (Tab. Vindol. 628). 48 The unit seems to have been named after Bracara Augusta, located in the territory of the Bracari, but this is a problematic interpretation. Spaul 2000: 70, based on abbreviations of this unit found on diplomas, rejects the argument of Roldan Hervas that the unit‟s title indicated a distinction between the men of the town and other Bracares / Bracari. It would be an anomaly to find a town, and not a tribal ethnic on a unit; thus Le Roux 1986, lending support to Spaul‟s suggestion. Few auxiliary soldiers of this unit have been attested, but of these only one, [-
259
11. Coh, IIII Breuci Claudian Pannonia Britannia Breucorum49
12. Coh. I Celtiberorum Celtiberi Augustan Hispania Tarraconensis Hispania, Britannia, equitata50 Mauretania Tingitana
13. Coh. I Aelia Classica N/A (citizen Augustan N/A Germania, Britannia, cohort) Germania Inferior
14. Coh. I Cornovii Hadrianic Britannia Britannia Cornoviorum51
15. Coh. I Ulpia Traiana Cugerni Flavian Germania (Inferior) Britannia Cugernorum
15. Coh. I Aelia Daci Trajanic Dacia Britannia Dacorum ∞52
16. Coh. I Delmatarum53 Delmatae Pre-Claudian Delmatia Germania, Britannia
17. Coh. II Delmatarum Delmatae Pre-Claudian Delmatia Britannia
18. Coh. IIII Delmatae Pre-Claudian Delmatia Germania, Britannia
--]adigenus Laturus of a fifth cohort of Bracaraugustani, was a Spaniard (AE 1980, 586, Lara de los Infantes). He evidently returned home after serving in Raetia. 49 There is no evidence to support the suggestion of Holder 1982: 114 that this unit served in Germania before arriving in Britain. The Breuci were Pannonians and, as Spaul 2000: 322 noted, probably went directly to Britannia following their recruitment, perhaps with legio IX Hispana in 43. In Britannia it was involved in tile production, leading Spaul to conclude that it was not a “fighting” unit. This should not be taken to mean that these troops were not trained like all auxiliaries. 50 Perhaps surprisingly, this is the only auxiliary unit provided by this tribe which was renowned in antiquity for its fierce and persistent resistance to the Carthaginians and the Romans. Spaul seems to think that the Celtiberi are called togati by Strabo 3.2.15, but Strabo is referring to the inhabitants of towns located in the southern and western part of the peninsula (Pax Augusta, Caesaraugusta “near Celtiberia,” and Augusta Emerita), and not the Celtiberi themselves. The limitation of the Celtiberi to a single auxiliary unit may reflect the decimation of this tribe overall as a consequence of its long conflict with Rome, if the claim by Strabo, following Polybius, that 300 Celtiberian towns were destroyed is to be believed (Strab. 3.4.13). The number, probably inflated, may nevertheless point to a large-scale destruction. 51 A rare example of a tribe serving as auxiliaries in its home province. 52 Spaul‟s argument that this unit could have been raised before Trajan‟s accession seems based on an unjustifiable interpolation from the ethnic Dacus of Itaxa Stamillae f., a veteran infantryman from coh. II Lingonum in Britannia (RMD 240). As Holder notes in his commentary in RMD 4: 472, “Dio (51.22.6-7) said that Dacians lived on both sides of the Danube and that those living south of the river were either a branch of the Getae or Thracians belonging to the Dacian race that once inhabited Rhodope. It is probable that he served as many as 27 years and had been recruited from among Dio‟s Thraco/Dacian peoples.” Itaxa‟s presence in the auxilia does not imply that coh. I Aelia Dacorum predates Trajan‟s conquest of Dacia. The imperial title Aelia is a later addition (Holder 1998: 255-257). 53 Holder 1982: 115-116 claimed that this unit came to Britannia in 43 CE, but the earliest evidence dates to 122 CE (CIL 16, 69). This led Spaul 2000: 302-303, following Jarrett 1994: 59, to suggest that the unit arrived by ca. 90 CE. Holder evidently assumed that all cohortes Delmatarum came to Britannia at the same time. He may have been right, but overall the evidence for this cohort is too meager to support an association with Claudius‟ invasion of Britain.
260
Delmatarum54
19. Coh. I Frisiavonum Frisiavones Flavian Germania (Inferior) Britannia
20. Coh. II Gallorum Galli Claudian Gallia Lugdunensis Moesia Inferior, equitata Mauretania Caesarensis, Britannia
21. Coh. IIII Gallorum Galli Claudian Gallia Lugdunensis Hispania, Moesia equitata55 Inferior, Thrace, Britannia
22. Coh. V Gallorum Galli Claudian Gallia Lugdunensis Britannia equitata
23. Coh. I Hamiorum Hamii Julio-Claudian Syria Britannia sagittariorum56
24. Coh. I Aelia Hispani Augustan Hispania Galatia, Britannia Hispanorum equitata57
25. Coh. I Lingonum58 Lingones Flavian Gallia Belgica Britannia
26. Coh. II Lingonum Lingones Flavian Gallia Belgica Britannia
27. Coh. III Lingonum Lingones Flavian Gallia Belgica Britannia
54 Spaul 2000: 307 claims that this unit was amalgamated with Pannonians to create coh. I Pannoniorum et Delmatarum equitata c. R. This is plausible, but “the lack of any evidence from the later second and third centuries” is not, given the overall paucity of evidence, proof that this was the case. 55 Spaul 2000: 164-165 provides the most comprehensive summary of previous research on this unit‟s movements. Material from Vindolanda and Castlesteads dates to 213 CE and later, and is excluded from this study. 56 This ethnic name seems to derive from the former name of Epiphaneia in Syria, Hamath (cf. Spaul 2000: 401-402, with references). This would conform to the common eastern practice of auxiliary units taking the names of cities rather than of tribes, but, as the cohortes Ituraeorum demonstrate, this was not a universal practice. The Hamii are not attested in literary sources, but the “Epiphanenses” were (Pliny HN 5.13-23). This suggests that the „Hamii‟ should be considered as a „tribe‟ which was not necessarily limited to the inhabitants of Epiphaneia / Hamath. Spaul 2000: 409 speculates that the Hamii were originally recruited “around AD 40” and that they served “in the desert” before being transferred to Britannia following the conclusion of Trajan‟s Parthian campaign. This reconstruction has, unfortunately, no supporting evidence; the earliest attestation of this unit is CIL 16, 69 (122 CE). 57 Holder 1982: 118 and Jarrett 1994: 46-48 distinguished two cohortes I Hispanorum in Britannia, based, as noted by Spaul 2000: 120-123, on inferences from dubious evidence. RMD 184 (178 CE) was formerly thought to distinguish these two cohorts, but the number for the second cohort was lost. This has now been shown to have been [II] Hispanor(um). In this case, as elsewhere, Aelia is a later addition to the unit‟s titulature and is therefore not an indicator of the date of its original creation. 58 Holder 1982: 118 assumed that five cohorts were stationed in Britannia, but there is no extant evidence of the fifth cohort in this province. It is attested only in Dacia, but no earlier than 110 CE. He may be right in claiming that it was raised at the same time as the other four cohorts, since it seems to belong to this series (contra Spaul 2000: 182, claiming that it “may have been [raised] under Domitian”). If the fifth cohort were raised later than the first four, one would expect it to bear the number I as the first of a new series; however, the Romans were not uniform in their numbering system, so this can only be a possibility. There is no reason to assume, as Holder apparently did, that the fifth cohort served in Britannia before being stationed in Dacia, and Jarrett 1994 rightly excluded it from his list.
261
28. Coh. IIII Lingonum Lingones Flavian Gallia Belgica Britannia
29. Coh. I Menapiorum Menapii Flavian Gallia Belgica Britannia (nautarum?)59
30. Coh. I Morinorum et Morini Julio-Claudian Gallia Belgica Britanna Cersiacorum (!)60 Gesoriaci
31. Coh. I Nerviorum / Germani Flavian Germania Britannia, Mauretania Nervana Germanorum61 Caesarensis
32. Coh. II Nerviorum Nervii Flavian Germania Britannia
33. Coh III Nerviorum Nervii Flavian Germania Britannia
34. Coh. IIII Nerviorum Nervii Flavian Germania Britannia
35. Coh. V Nerviorum62 Nervii Flavian Germania Britannia
36. Coh. VI Nerviorum Nervii Flavian Germania Britannia
37. Coh. I Pannoniorum Pannonii Julio-Claudian Pannonia Germania, Germania Superior, Britannia
38. Coh. II Pannonii Julio-Claudian Pannonia Britannia Pannoniorum
59 Spaul 2000:185 incorrectly claimed that Jarrett 1994: 63 identified the coh. I Menapiorum recorded on diplomas (CIL 16, 69, 70) with a fragmentary diploma record of [---]n(---) nautarum (CIL 16, 82). Holder 1982: 119 thought that these were two distinct units. In fact, Jarrett only suggested the possibility, noting also that coh. I Morinorum was an “unlikely” second possibility. Spaul‟s argument may be correct, given the lack of epigraphic evidence for either unit apart from diplomas and one doubtful inscription on a piece of leather from Vindolanda (RIB 2445.1). However, his explanation for the absence of any other epigraphic evidence is unconvincing. The duties of “sailing, managing shipping and carrying or supplying land-based materials” would hardly prevent veterans of this unit from setting up monuments either in stone or in a more perishable medium. 60 See Spaul 2000: 186 for references on the Gesoriaci, inhabitants of the pagus where the Morini lived. Only one inscription mentioned the “Cersoriaci” and the errors in spelling may indicate that this tribe was not normally included in the usual unit title. 61 This unit was previously known as I Augusta Nerviorum or Nerviana velox (CIL 16, 51 for the latter, CIL 69 and RMD 240 for the former attestations). It also seems to have been identified as coh. I Nerviorum (Spaul 2000: 217, following Holder 1997: 17). It stayed in Caesariensis briefly ca. 107 CE (CIL 16, 56) before returning to Britannia. Spaul‟s suggestion that the variations in this unit‟s titulature may be due to “inter-unit rivalry” among the Germanic Nervii assumes that this unit maintained a strong Nervian Germanic identity during its service in Britannia. A significant Nervian presence would still have characterized this unit in 105, but the need to go to Mauretania Caesariensis for a brief recruiting drive demonstrates that membership in this unit was not restricted solely to Nervii. Nervana cannot, as Spaul 2000: 218, observed, refer to the emperor Nerva and may be an “expansion” for the simpler tribal name. The reasons for this peculiarity cannot be ascertained. 62 Not included by Spaul 2000 in his list, but included by Jarrett 1994: 64. There is no extant evidence of this unit, but the circumstantial case for its presence in Britannia is strong. Many other auxiliary units have left only meager traces, and, moreover, as Jarrett noted, five other units of this series are attested solely in Britannia.
262
39. Coh. V Raetorum Raeti Julio-Claudian Raetia Germania?, Britannia, equitata63 Egypt?
40. Coh VI Raetorum Raeti Julio-Claudian Raetia Germania, Germania Inferior, Britannia
41. Coh. I Sunucorum Sunuci Flavian Gallia Belgica Britannia
42. Coh. I Thracum64 Thraces Augustan Thrace Britannia
43. Coh. I Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Britannia equitata65
44. Coh. II Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Germania, Britannia veterana equitata
45. Coh. VI Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Germania, Britannia, equitata66 Pannonia, Moesia Superior, Dacia, Dacia Porolissensis
46. Coh. VII Thracum Thraces Augustan Thrace Britannia equitata67
47. Coh. I Tungrorum Tungri Vespasianic Gallia Belgica Britannia ∞68
63 Much has been speculated about this unit‟s movements, but little is known. If this is the ancestor of the ala V Raetorum (Not. Dig. Or. 28.30; cf. Holder 1982: 120 and Jarrett 1994: 65), then it would have been transferred to Egypt sometime after 122 CE, when it is attested in Britannia (CIL 16, 69). It may have gone directly to Britannia following its creation, or spent some time garrisoning Germania or Moesia (cf. Spaul 2000: 203). It is equally impossible to ascertain when the cohort would have been converted into an ala. 64 Should one or two cohortes I Thracum be distinguished? Spaul 2000: 357-358 is skeptical, but Holder 1982, and Jarrett 1994, both following Breeze and Dobson 1972, distinguished two. Holder also claimed that the unit was stationed in Germania until 61, but the basis of this (CIL 13, 7803, from Rigomagus) is unsound; this text should be associated with the Coh. I Thracum Germanica (see also Jarrett 1994: 66). Spaul may be right in separating the evidence from Britannia and Germania, but multiple series of Thracian units, each bearing the numeral I, is not an impossibility in the case of larger ethnic groups which were compelled to provide auxiliary units. 65 See also the previous note. A 1st century inscription from Astorga in Spain (AE 1928, 165) commemorates one Fuscus Dorilsis Eptaecenti f., a soldier of this unit who died after nine years of service. This seems to be the basis of the suggestion of Spaul 2000: 358 that this unit was stationed in Hispania prior to being transferred to Britannia. One inscription does not, however, make a convincing case. 66 Whether this unit should be distinguished from another coh. VI Thracum is a manner of dispute, largely due to the absence of this cohort from any British diplomas and the survival of only one inscription in Britain and several lead sealings of third century date (RIB 121, dated to the first century by Jarrett 1994: 67). Spaul 2000: 380-381 argued that the sealings could have been imported, noting that the findspots of these items are not known. While these observations are important, they do not prove the absence of this cohort from Britannia. The inscription, while not necessarily sufficient to prove the location of this unit‟s station in Britannia, clearly demonstrates that it was a part of the province‟s first-century garrison. By 80 CE, however, it had already left for Germania (CIL 16, 125). 67 “Probably stationed in Germany until 43” according to Holder 1982: 122. In the absence of direct evidence it was omitted from Appendix I, table 2.
263
48. Coh. II Tungrorum Tungri Vespasianic Gallia Belgica Britannia ∞ equitata c. L.
49. Coh. I Usiporum69 Usipi Domitianic Germania (Superior) Germania, Britannia
50. Coh. I Vangionum ∞ Vangiones Vespasianic Germania (Inferior) Britannia equitata
51. Coh. I fida Vardulli Claudian Hispania Tarraconensis Britannia Vardullorum ∞ equitata c. R.
52. Coh. II Vasconum c. Vascones Galban Hispania Tarraconensis Germania Inferior, R. equitata Britannia
68 This unit must have taken part in the battle at Mons Graupius (Tac. Agric. 36). A vexillation of this unit was perhaps assigned to Noricum in the first half of the second century; otherwise the unit remained in Britannia. See Jarrett 1994: 49, Spaul 2000: 225-227. Evidence from the Vindolanda tablets indicates that this unit continued to recruit from its homeland, much like the Batavian units (Crow 1995: 56-63, A. Birley 2000). 69 This cohort‟s existence was brief. Tacitus records that it mutinied soon after its enlistment. The Usipi, unlike the Batavi, were not compelled to provide another unit.
264
Appendix II: Auxiliary diploma recipients from Germania and Britannia
Legend: A – Auxiliary unit (ala or cohort), which cannot be restored; C – Classis, i.e. diploma could belong to a sailor); [R] – „Roman‟ name; [P] – „Peregrine‟ name; [M] – Mixed (Roman and Peregrine names identifiable among children); X – None; FSU – Findspot unknown. Diplomas that may have been issued to veterans of Germania’s or Britannia’s garrisons are printed in bold.
Abbreviations for Appendix II
CIL: Corpus Inscriptionun Latinarum
FSHell: Eck, W and Pangerl, A. 2008. “Beobachtungen zu den diplomata militaria für die Provinz Germania
inferior”, in Naumann-Steckner, F., Päffgen, B. and Thomas, R. (edd.) Archäologie in Ost und
West: Festschrift Hellenkemper (in press).
RMD: Roman Military Diplomas
I: Roxan, M. M. 1978. Roman Military Diplomas 1954-1977. Occasional Publ. Inst. of Arch. 2, London.
II: Roxan, M. M. 1985. Roman Military Diplomas 1978-1984. With contributions by Helen Graniaris and
J. C. Mann. Occasional Publ. Inst. of Arch. 9. London.
III: Roxan, M. M. 1994. Roman Military Diplomas 1985-1993. Occasional Publ. Inst. of Arch. 14,
London.
IV: Roxan, M. M. and Holder, P. A. 2004: Roman Military Diplomas IV. BICS Suppl. 82, London.
V: Holder, P. A. 2006. Roman Military Diplomas V. BICS Suppl. 88, London.
REMA: Revue des etudes militaries anciennes.
265
1: Eck, W., MacDonald, D. and Pangerl, A. 2004: “Neue Militärdiplome für Truppen in Britannia,
Pannonia Superior, Pannonia Inferior sowie in Thracia”, 63-101.
RGZM: Pferdehirt, B. 2004: Römische Militärdiplome und Entlassungsurkunden in der Sammlung des römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums. 2 vols. Mainz.
ZPE: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
147: Weiss, P. 2004. “Ein neuen Legat Domitians von Germania Superior in einem Militärdiplomen: Sex.
Lusianus Proculus,” ZPE 147, 229-234
148: Eck, W. and Pangerl, A. 2004. “Neue Diplome für die Heere von Germania superior und Germania
Inferior,” ZPE 148, 259-268
156: Weiss, P. 2006. “Neue Militärdiplome für den Exercitus von Britannia,” ZPE 156, 245-254.
162: Eck, W. and Pangerl, A. 2007 “Neue Diplome für die Hilfstruppen von Britannia,” ZPE 162, 223-234.
1. Family data for diplomas issued to auxiliary veterans of Germania Inferior / Superior1
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Name Offspring (Dative) ‘Family’ Province where Name and Origo and Origo Classification issued (FSU if (Dative) (Dative) findspot unknown)2
1. RMD Negoslavci; Coh. VII Liccaio Liccai f., X X X 79, 17, Germania Breucorum Breuco [P] Jun. 65
2. CIL 16, Sikator; Germania Ala Scubulorum Veturio Teutomi X X X 20, 21 f., Pannonio [P] May, 74
3. RGZM FSU (lower A Incerto ? ? ? 2, 76 Danube);
1 Diplomas in this table are listed chronologically by date of issue, and include veterans of both Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. Abbreviations not listed above are expanded in the bibliography. 2 Partial or complete square brackets indicate restorations, made possible by comparison of the formulaic texts with other more complete diplomas from the same province.
266
[Germ]ania
4. CIL 16, Wiesbaden; Ala Moesica Tertio M. f., X X X 23, 15 Germania Treviro [R] Apr. 78
5. CIL 16, Kamensko; Cohors IIII Durise Bithi f., X X X 158, 26 / Germania Thracum Thraci 28 Jan. 80
6. RGZM FSU (lower Coh. IIII Thracum Disaevae Dipini X X X 4, [14-30] Danube); f., [---] [P] Jan. 80 [Germania]
7. CIL 16, Debelec; Cohors I L. Valerio L. f. X X X 28, 20 Germania / Aquitanorum Pudenti, Sept. 82 Moesia Ancyrano [R]
8. RMD FSU, Germania A Incerto ? ? ? 327, 81-84
9. CIL 16, Mainz and Cohors I Mucapori X X X 36, 27 Worms; Germania Aquitanorum Eptacentis f., Oct. 90 Superior veterana Thraci [P]
10. RMD FSU; Germania Coh. I Thasi Cassiporis X X X 333, 27 Superior Aquitanorum f., Thraci [P] Oct. 90 veterana
11. ZPE FSU (Balkans), Coh. I Tharsae [--- f., X X X 148, p. [Germania Aquitanorum Thraci?3] 259, [27 Superior] veterana Oct. 90]
12. ZPE FSU (Balkans), A Incerto ? ? ? 147, p. Ge[rmania 229, 94 / Superior] 96
13. RMD FSU; [Germania A Incerto ? ? ? 336, (14 Superior] Sept.) 95 / (13 Sept.) 96
3 As noted by the editors of this diploma, the name Tharsa is attested at Comum for a freedman named Plinius Tharsa; from this evidence argue that the veteran named here was of Thracian origin. This seems likely, since two unambiguous examples of Thracian auxiliaries in the same issue of diploma certificates bear the origo of Thrax. It is alo possible to determine, based on the line spacing of the fragment, that no children were included in the grant.
267
14. RMD Elst; Germania Ala I Batavorum [---] Gaveri f., [--- Pere]grini Incertae ? 216, 20 Inferior Batavo [P] fil., Batavae Feb. 98 [?] Incertae
15. RGZM FSU (lower Coh. I civium Mucacento Zyasceli X X 9, 11 Mar. Danube); Romanorum pia Eptacentis f., Polydori fil., 101 Germania Inferior fidelis Thraci [P] Thraci [P]
16. CIL Kalkar / A Incerto ? ? ? 16, 59, 99 Burginatium; / 100; 102 [Germania Inferior]
17. CIL Stockstadt; Cohors inc. [---]is f., [---] ? ? ? 16, 172, [Germania [P/M] 115? Superior]
18. CIL Wiesbaden; Cohors II Cn. Cornelio [---] Pra[---] [?] X R/M 16, 62, 8 [Germa]nia Raetorum [R] Sept. 117 Superior
19. CIL Moguntiacum; A Incerto ? ? ? 16, 63, [8 [Germania Sept.] 117 Superior]
20. CIL Noviomagus / A Incerto ? ? ? 16, 65, 98 Nijmegen; /117 [Germania Inferior?]
21. RMD FSU; [Germania A [---] f. Auluseno, [--- fi]l. Incertae M 348, (6 Superior] Besso [M / P] Valentinae, Mar. / 15 Besso [M] May), 118
22. RMD Kozovskoto; Cohors III [---]sae Natusis f., X X X 239, 20 Germania Inferior Thracum pia Daco [P] Aug. 127 fidelis
23. RGZM FSU (Balkans); [Coh. I [---] Daubasgi [f., [---]namesis X P 24, [20 [Germania Latobicorum et] ---] [P?] fil. [P?] Aug.] 127 Inferior] Varcianorum
24. FSHell FSU (eastern Ala Sulpicia Diero Diensis f. X X X (1), 127 Balkans); civium [Daco?] [Germania Romanorum In]ferior
268
25. FSHell FSU (eastern Coh. I Lucensium [---]onu[---] ? ? ? (2), 127 Balkans) pia fidelis
26. RMD Köngen; A Incerto ? ? ? 90, (10 [Germania Dec.) 129 Superior] / (9 Dec.) 130
27. RMD Bad Wimpfen; A Incerto ? ? ? 159, [Germania (Sept. / Superior?] Dec.) 132 or 133
28. CIL Neckarburken; A Incerto ? ? ? 16, 80, 16 Germania Oct. 134 Superior
29. CIL Nida / A Incerto Incertae X X 16, 129, Heddernheim; 114 / 134 [Germania Superior?]
30. RMD Köngen; A Incerto ? ? ? 258, 129 / [Germania 138 Superior]
31. RGZM FSU (lower A/C Incerto ? X ? 35, [5 Danube); Sept.? Germania Inferior 152]
32. ZPE FSU (Balkans); Coh. XV Surodago X X X 148, p. , 5 Germania Inferior Voluntariorum Surpogissi f., Sept. 152 Daco [P]
33. RMD FSU; Germania Coh. XV Githossi D[--- f., - X X X 408, (5 Inferior V[oluntariorum] -- Daco4] [P?] Sept.) 152
34. RMD FSU; Germania Cohors I Ligurum [---] Cissae f., X X X 274, 5 Superior et Hispanorum Daco [P] Mar. 153
35. RMD Vetera / Xanten; Cohors I Ahucconi X X X
4 Holder, RMD V comm. ad loc., restores the origo based on the Dacian name Geithozi, attested in Egypt.
269
52, [Jul.?] Germania Inferior Pannoniorum at Leub[asni? f., ---] 158 Dalmatarum [P] equitata
36. RMD Monster-Poeldijk; Ala I Noricorum [---] Amandi f., X X X 120, post [Germania Cannanefati [P] Dec. 8 Inferior] 161 / Mar. or Jul. (23 or 28) 167
2. Family data for diplomas issued to auxiliary veterans of Britannia5
Diploma Findspot and Unit Recipient’s Wife’s Name Offspring (Dative) ‘Family’ Province Name and Origo and Origo Classification (Dative) (Dative)
1. CIL 43, Flemalle, A Incerto ? ? ? 98 Britannia
2. CIL 16, Malpas Ala I Reburro Severi f. X X X 48, 19 Jan. (Cheshire); Pannoniorum Hispan(o) [M] 103 Britannia Tampiana
3. CIL 16, Sydenham; A Incerto X X X 51, [1 Britan[nia] May / 13 Jul. 105]
4. RMD 8, Middlewich; Ala Classiana [---]o Ramni f., [- Amabili Firmi X R [1 May / [Britannia] civium --] [P/M] filiae [---] [R] 13 Jul.] Romanorum 105
5 Diplomas issued to veterans of Pannonian garrisons have also been discovered in Britain: AE 2003, 1033a-b, Jan. 98 and AE 2005, 954 [19 Nov. 102]. The texts are fragmentary, but the veteran of AE 2003: p. 1033a-b must have belonged to [--- Pan]nonior[um], which must be either ala I Pannoniorum Tampiana or ala I Pannoniorum Sabiniana (comm. ad. loc). The original editors suggested that the diploma might record the garrison of Britannia. This would place the only other unit mentioned in the fragmentary text, ala I Hispanorum Campagonum, in Britannia until its departure for Pannonia Inferior ca. 110-114 CE. Without more evidence, however, it would be premature to add this unit to the list of auxiliary units garrisoning Britannia, and these seem to be cases of auxiliary veterans returning to their homelands in Britannia (cf. AE 2005, 954 comm. ad loc.).
270
5. RMD Venta Icenorum / A Incerto ? ? ? 145, May Caistor St. 91 / 105 Edmund; Br[itannia]
6. RMD Londonium / A Incerto ? ? ? 83, 96 / London; 108? [Britannia?]
7. RMD FSU (York?); A Incerto ? ? ? 146, (Jan. [Britannia?] / May) 108
8. RMD Delwijnen; A Incerto ? ? ? 151, pre- [Britannia] 114
9. CIL 16, Szony; Britannia Ala I Gemello Breuci X X X 69, 17 Jul. Pannoniorum f., Pannon(io) 122 Tampiana
10. RMD Aldwincle; A Incerto ? ? ? 360, [17 Britannia Jul. 122]
11. REMA FSU (Balkans); Ala Galllorum [---] Busidia [f., -- X X X 1: 64, 17 [Britannia] Picentiana -]6 Jul. 122
12. CIL Stannington; Cohors I [---] Albani [f. X X X 16, 70, 16 Britannia Sun(uc)orum Su]nu[co] [R/M] Sept. 124
13. CIL Walcot (near Ala I Augusta Incerto ? ? ? 16, 88, 15 Aqua Sulis / Gallorum Sept. 125? Bath); Proculeiana [Bri]tann(ia)
14. RMD FSU (Bulgaria); Cohors II Itaxae Stamillae X X X 240, 20 Brittannia (!) Lingonum f., Daco [P] Aug. 127
15. ZPE FSU (Balkans); A Incerto ? ? ?
6 The name seems Pannonian (comm. ad loc.; cf. OPEL I: 329).
271
162, p. [Brittannia (!)] 223, 20 Aug. 127
16. ZPE FSU ; (eastern A [---]V[---]aecesto X Vannio [P] P/M 162, p. Balkans); N[--- f., ---] [P?] 225, 119 / [Brittannia (!)] Incertae/o 121 or 127
17. ZPE FSU (eastern A Incerto X X X 156, p. Balkans), 245, 130- [Britannia] 131
18. CIL Viroconium / Cohors I [---]sueto Luci f., X X X 16, 82, 14 Wroxeter; Dalmatarum Treviro [R] Apr. 135 [Britannia]
19. ZPE FSU (Balkans); A [---] f., V[---] ? Incertae/o7 P/M 162, p. [Britannia] 231, pre- Bi[---] (m/f) [P?] 140
20. ZPE FSU (Balkans); A [---], Cornovio X Incerto/ae ? 162, p. [Britannia] [?]8 232, 126 / 140
21. RMD Vindolanda / Cohors I [---]mandio [--- f., X X X 97, Jan. / Chesterholm; Tungrorum [∞?] ---] [R/M] Mar. 146 Britannia
22. CIL Cilurnum / A Incerto ? ? ? 16, 93, (10 Chesters; Dec.) 145 Brittan(ia) (!) / (9 Dec.) 146
23. RMD Corinium / A? [---]arcio Nab[--- ? ? ? 45, 141- Cirencester; f.?] [M?]
7 Possibly designates a wife. As the editors (W. Eck and A. Pangerl) note, the naming of two individuals (signified by the appearance of et twice) clearly places this diploma before 140. Little else remains of the names, unfortunately. The second name Bi[---] clearly denotes a child. A peregrine expansion seems likely, perhaps Bi[tho], the name of the Bessian recipient (serving in the coh. Musulamiorum) of CIL 16, 35 (7 Nov., 88). 8 No. 20 is a rare example of a native Briton recorded by tribe; usually British recruits were recorded as Brittones (comm. ad loc.). If the Balkan provenance is correct, then this Cornovian did not return to his homeland in Wales following his discharge. The presence of a son or daughter, almost certainly born during his service in Thrace, may have been one significant influence on his decision not to move back to Britannia.
272
147, post [Britannia?] Aug. 143 / 146
24. RMD Turiaso / A Incerto ? X ? 168, 140 / Tarazona; 154? Br[itannia]
25. RMD Ravenglass; Coh. I Aelia [---] Cassi f., X X X 420, 27 Britannia classica Heliopoli [R?] Feb. 158
26. CIL Union Grounds A Incerto ? X ? 16, 130, (Camulodunum / [25 May Colchester); or 24 June [Britannia] 160]
27. CIL Cilurnum / A Incerto ? X ? 16, 115, Chesters, 140 / 161 [Britannia?]
28. RMD FSU (Bulgaria); Cohors VII Thiodo Rolae fil., X X X 184, 23 B[rita]nnia Thracum Daco [P] Mar. 178
29. RMD Rhodope Cohors II Thiae Timarchi f., X X X 293, 23 Mountains Gallorum Daco Mar. 178 (Bulgaria); veterana Brittannia (!)
30. RMD FSU; Britannia Cohors I Augusta Sisceo Aptasae X X X 294, 23 Nerviana fil., Daco Mar. 178
31. REMA FSU (eastern A Incerto ? X ? 1, p. 68; Balkans); 23 Mar. [Britannia] 178
32. REMA FSU (eastern A Incerto ? X ? 1, p. 73; Balkans); 23 Mar. Br[itannia] 178
33. ZPE FSU (Balkans); A Incerto ? X ? 156, p. [Brittania (!)] 251, 23
273
Mar. 178
34. ZPE FSU (eastern Coh. I Aelia Ta[u]risio Titi f., X X X 162, p. Balkans); Hispanorum Daco [R] 226, 23 [Britt]ania (!) Mar. 178 35. RMD 450, [114 Noviomagus / A Incerto ? X ? / 125 or Nijmegen; 154 / 203] [Britannia]
274
Appendix III: Auxiliary Inscriptions from Germania and Britannia to ca. 212 CE
Reference legend : Inscriptions are sorted by province (GI = Germania Inferior, GS = Germania Superior, and B = Britannia). For each province, the inscriptions are subclassified by auxiliary rank, descending from highest to lowest and arranged in 5 tables (table 1 : P = prefects, tribunes and praepositi, i.e. unit commanders, table 2 : U = unit dedications, which do not mention any auxiliary soldiers by name, table 3 : IP = inscriptions mentioning soldiers above the rank of gregalis, table 4 : A = auxiliary gregales, i.e. equites and pedites , and table 5 : ARU = auxiliary inscription too fragmentary to be classified in any of the aforementioned groups). For example, CIL 13, 8095 = AE 1892, 35 (Bonn / Bonna), the tombstone of Vellaunus, eques of the ala Longiniana, corresponds with GI A 6. Within each of these subclasses, the inscriptions are arranged alphabetically by findspot. The monument‟s function is subclassified into one of three general categories. F = funerary, D = dedication, frequently to commemorate the (re)construction of a building of some kind, and V = a religious vow, dedicated to a deity or deities. Inscriptions on materials that do not fit any of these categories are listed as „other‟ (O). Data for the military diplomas of Germania and Britannia are summarized in Appendix II.
Abbreviations for Appendix III1
AE: l’Année Épigraphique
CCID: Hörig, M. and Schwertheim, E. Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni (CCID), Leiden: 1987
1 The abbreviations given here correspond to those used by the online EDCS database (Epigraphische Datenbank Clauss-Slaby, http://www.manfredclauss.de), except that I have used ILS instead of D to abbreviate Dessau‟s Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. This useful research tool generally has reliable citations, but inscriptions which have been edited multiple times occasionally (but not always) have multiple entries. Thus careless use of this resource can lead to double-counting and statistical errors. All texts have accordingly been checked in standard published collections. The most recent editions of individual texts are included here, but in cases involving a significant dispute in the reading I have provided the previous edition in a note, with relevant discussion. I have also corrected errors in the online transcription, of which the most serious are incorrect reports of an unknown findspot, e.g. CIL 13, 8699, which was found at Bedburg, near Cleves (Cliviae), and errors in transcription, e.g. M(axiom) for (Maximo). Occasionally, significant new readings are given, but I have refrained from speculative reconstructions, and have discussed texts generally in cases where the interpretation might contribute to a clearer understanding of auxiliary frontier life.
275
CIL : Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
EE: Ephemeris Epigraphica
IAvenches: Frei-Stolba, R. and Bielmann, A. Les inscriptions. Musée romain d'Avenches, Lausanne: 1996.
ILS : Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
Finke: Finke, M. 1927: “Neue Inschriften,” BRGK 17, 1-107; 198-231.
Nesselhauf: Nesselhauf, H. 1937: “Neue Inschriften aus dem römischen Germanien und den angrenzenden
Gebieten,” BRGK 27, 51-134.
Ness-Lieb: Nesselhauf, H. and Lieb, H. 1959: “Dritter Nachtrag zu CIL XIII: Inschriften aus den germanischen
Provinzen und dem Treverergebiet,” BRGK 40, 120-228.
RHP: Lörincz, B. 2001: Die römischen Hilfstruppen in Pannonien während der Prinzipatszeit. I: Die Inschriften,
Vienna.
RIB: Roman Inscriptions of Britain
RISch: Walser, G. 1979-: Römische Inschriften in der Schweiz, Bern.
RSK: Die Römischen Steininschriften aus Köln, Wissenschaftliche Kataloge des römisch-germanischen Museums
Köln 2. Köln: 1975
RSO: Castritius, H., Clauss, M. and Hefner, L. 1977: “Die römischen Steininschriften des Odenwaldes (RSO)” in
Beiträge zur Erforschung des Odenwaldes und seiner Randlandschaften 2, Breuberg and Neustadt, 237- 308.
RSOoster: Stuart, P. and Bogaers, J. E. 2001: Nehalennia. Römische Steindenkmäler aus der Oosterschelde bei
Colijnsplaat. Leiden.
Schillinger: Schillinger-Häfele, U. 1977: “Vierter Nachtrag zu CIL XIII und zweiter Nachtrag zu Fr. Vollmer,
Inscriptiones Baivariae Romanae. Inschriften aus dem deutschen Anteil der germanischen Provinzen und
des Treverergebiets sowie Raetiens und Noricums,” BRGK 58, 452-603.
276
1-5: Auxiliary Inscriptions of Germania Inferior (GI) to ca. 212
1. GI unit commanders: praefecti / tribuni / praepositi
Reference and Designation Text Findspot (ancient Names given first, if known)
P 1: AE 1975, 632 = AE V [Coh(ortis)] VI Breuc(orum) cui prae/[est] Vitel(lius) Ampliatus pr(aefectus) 1980, 657 (Alphen aan der Rijn)
P 2: Schillinger 171 = D [P(ublio)] Helv[io Pertin]aci / [e]q(uo) p(ublico) p[raef(ecto)] coh(ortis) AE 1963, 52 = AE 1988, IIII(?) G]al/[l]or(um) e[q(uitatae) trib(uno) leg(ionis) VI(?) Vi]ct(ricis) / 894 (Brühl, near CCAA [p]rae[f(ecto) coh(ortis) I Tung(rorum) pr]aef(ecto) / [a]lae [--- / Köln)2 p]ro/cura[tori ad alime]nt(a) / [p]rae[f(ecto) class(is) Ger(manicae) pr]oc(uratori) / [A]ug(usti) a[d ducen(a) III Dac(iarum) i]d(em) / M[oesiae super(ioris)] / Agr[ippinense]s / [publice]
P 3: Ness-Lieb 257 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / M(arcus) Val(erius) Ch/alcidic[us] / praef(ectus) (Herwen) c[oh(ortis)] / II c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) p(iae) [f(idelis)]
P 4: CIL 13, 7797 = AE F [---] / Cla[---] / prospere [---] / curante I[u]lio / Firmo praef(ecto) coh(ortis) / 1905, 62 (Rigomagus / I Fl(aviae) marito suo / dicavit / domini[s] n(ostris) Antonino / Aug(usto) II Remagen) [[[Geta Caesare]]] co(n)s(ulibus)
P 5: CIL 13, 8271 = RSK F Ti(berio) Claudio / Haloto vixi[t] / annis XVIII / Claudius Iustus / patr(onus) 201 = AE 1896, 101 praef(ectus) coh(ortis) III / Dalmat(arum) (CCAA / Köln)
P 6: CIL 13, 8517 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / pro salute / imp(eratoris) T(iti) Aeli An/tonini
2 The future emperor Pertinax; cf. Alföldy1986: 326-348.
277
(CCAA / Köln) Aug(usti) Pii / p(atris) p(atriae) et M(arci) Aurel(i) / Caes(aris) fili(i) eius / T(itus) Fl(avius) Firmus / praef(ectus) eq(uitum) / [alae No]ric(orum)
P 7: CIL 13, 8699 F Cla[udius A]eli[anus (?)] / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) I I(ngenuorum) (?) OR (Bedburg / near (H)i(spanorum) (?) / quem [g]enuit / terra / Mauretania / p(raefectum) obruit / Cliviae)3 terra
P 8: CIL 13, 8842 (?) F L(ucius) Claudius An[---] / Prudens Consi[di]/anus praefectus / alae Frontonianae / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
2. GI Unit dedications identifying no specific soldiers
U 1: CIL 13, 8827 D Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) / Anto[nino ---] / Aug(usto) coh(ors) / Raetoru[m] / (Katwijk aan Zee) P(ia) F(idelis)
U 2: CIL 13, 7787 V [Fortuna]e coh(ors) Flavia (Rigomagus / Remagen)
U 3: CIL 13, 8823 D [Imp(eratori) Ca]es(ari) Nerva(e) Traia/[no Au]g(usto) Ger(manico) Dacico (Roomburg) p(ontifici) / [m(aximo) t]rib(unicia) p(otestate) p(atri) p(atriae) co(n)s(uli) V / [coh(ors) ---] Lucensiu[m] P(ia) F(idelis)
U 4: CIL 13, 8824 = ILS O4 Imp(erator) Caes(ar) L(ucius) Septimius Sever/us Aug(ustus) et M(arcus) 9178 (Roomburg) Aurelius Antonin/us Caes(ar) coh(ortis) XV vol(untariorum) arma/mentarium vetustate conla/bsum restituerunt sub Val(erio) Pu/dente leg(ato) Aug(usti)
3 Probably third century, but perhaps within the bounds of this study. CIL reported N[-] / [---]ELI[---] / [p]raef(ectus) coh(ortis) II / quem genui[t] / terra / Mauretania / p(eregrina) obruit / terra. The text was edited by G. Alföldy (cf. PME C 113) to read Cla[udius?] / Aeli[anus] / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) II [c(ivium) R(omanorum)] / quem [g]enui[t] / terra / Mauretania[e] / p(---) obruit terra / [Germaniae?]. His suggestion of a lost line is not necessary to construe this inscription, and the solution p(eregrina) has no parallels. P(raefectus), however, does have parallels and also has the virtue of being stated explicitly earlier in this very text: see D 1297: P(raefectus) P(raetorio); D 5648: P(raefectus) i(ure) d(icundo); D 6213: p(raefectus) L(ege) P(etronia). The numeral II with no unit on a funerary monument has not parallels, and it seems better to read I I(ngenuorum) or I (H)i(spanorum); on the apocope of H, cf. CIL 13, 6295 = Finke 338a = AE 1899, 192 : coh. V Sp(anorum). The epitaph is similar to others from across the empire, all of which were inspired, ultimately, by Vergil‟s famous epitaph Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc Parthenope; cecini pascua rura duces (Suet. Vit. Ver. 38). For another example of a relatively simple epitaph for a prefect, cf. CIL 13, 8842. 4 This text is an Imperial Bauinschrift, as indicated by the nominative forms of the emperors‟ names, acknowledging credit for their funding of the restoration of the cohort‟s armoury. Similar texts recording an emperor‟s name in the nominative are also classified under O.
278
pr(o) pr(aetore) cura(nte) et Caecil(io) Batone // PRE[
U 5: CIL 13, 8825 = ILS O Impp(eratores) Caess(ares) L(ucius) Septimius Severus Pius Pert[inax et] / 9186 (Roomburg) M(arcus) Aurellius Antoninus Augg(usti) e[[[t L(ucius) Sept(imius) Geta Caesar]] d(onum) d(ederunt)] / numero expl(oratorum) Bat(avorum) cur(ante) Q(uinto) {OC} Ven(i)dio Ruf[o leg(ato) Augg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aetore)]
U 6: CIL 13, 8826 O [Imp(erator) Caes(ar) L(ucius) Septimius Seve]rus Pius Pertinax Aug(ustus) / (Roomburg) [pontifex] maxim(us) trib(unicia) pot(estate) VIII [et] Im[p(erator) Caes(ar)] / [M(arcus) Aurel(lius) Antoninus] Aug(ustus) Pius pontif(ex) max(imus) / [trib(unicia) pot(estate) III] L(uci) Septimi Sev[e]r[i] Pii Pe[rtinacis Aug(usti) fil(ius)] / coh(ors) XV vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) P(ia) F(idelis) / [--- le]g(atus) Augg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aetore) pe[r] vexi(llarios)
U 7: AE 1989, 559 D [Imp(eratori) Caesari] / [divi Nervae f(ilio)] / [Nervae Traiano] / [Aug(usto)] (Praetorium Agrippae / Ge[r(manico) Dacico] / [Parthi]co pon[t(ifici) max(imo)] / coh(ors)] IIII Valkenburg) Th/rac(um) p(ia) f(idelis)]
3. GI High-ranking auxiliaries: immunes and principales
IP 1: CIL 13, 8098 = ILS F Pintaius Pedilici / f(ilius) Astur trans/montanus castel(l)o / Intercatia signifer / 2580 (Bonna / Bonn) c(o)ho(rtis) V Asturum / anno(rum) XXX stip(endiorum) VII / h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit) / ave
IP 2: AE 1997, 1161 = V Deae Nehale/niae Sumaro/nius Vitalis / sesquip(licarius) alae / Noric(orum) RSOoster B, 30 Averini/us Secundus / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito) (Colijnsplaat)5
IP 3: CIL 13, 10024,35 = D Decu(rionibus) alae / P(a)rt(horum) vet(erana) / u{o}i prae(e)s[t] / ILS 9147 (Düsseldorf) P(ublius) Vibius / Rufus
IP 4: CIL 13, 8805 = ILS V Deae Vagdavercusti Sim[p]li/cius Super dec(urio) alae Vocontior(um) / 2536 (Hemmen) exerci[t]uus(!) Britannici
5 Currently the only dedication to Nehalennia made by an auxiliary soldier, namely, a sesquiplicarius.
279
IP 5: CIL 13, 8185 = RSK V Deae Hariasae / HDTI Ulpius / Acutus du[p(licarius)] al(ae) / Sulp(iciae) 33 = ILS 4743 (CCAA / sing(ularis) co(n)s(ularis) / cives Traianenses / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) Köln) m(erito) Crispino et / Aeliano co(n)s(ulibus)
IP 6: CIL 13, 8208 = RSK V In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) / diabus Malvisis / et Silvano / Aur(elius) 79 = ILS 4762 (CCAA / Vere/cundus ordi(narius) Brito(num) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Köln)
IP 7: CIL 13, 8306 = RSK F M(arcus) Marius Valen[s] Galata / veter(anus) [ex] dec(urione) alae 248 = ILS 2534 (CCAA / Classianae / sib[i et Petr]oniae(?) Severae uxo/[ri obit]ae fecit Köln)
IP 8: CIL 13, 8307 = RSK F Apolloniae Victorinae Bessula[e] / Valgas Maieri dec(urio) alae Fid(a)e 249 (CCAA / Köln) Vindicis / coniugi carissimae memoriam quem / rogavit fecit
IP 9: CIL 13, 8503 = RSK F [---]o Rufino / [veteran]o ex dec(urione) / [alae Felici]s(?) Moesicae / [--- 251 (CCAA / Köln) ]nsus |(centurion) leg(ionis) / [--- a]micus et he/[res f(aciendum) c(uravit)]
IP 10: CIL 13, 10027,219 O 7(Centuria) Pritoni / Ineturi(?) = AE 1938, 77a (CCAA / Köln)
IP 11: CIL 13, 12058 = F D(is) M(anibus) / Q(uinti) Didi Lemoni[a] (tribu) / Euhodian[i] / [p]raef(ecti) RSK 200 (CCAA / Köln) eq(uitum) al(ae) I Trhac(um!) / [---]
IP 12: CIL 13, 12060 = F [---]lio Cla[---] / [---] ex equ[ite ---] / [--- I]ulianu[s ---] / [---] curant[e ---] RSK 258 (CCAA / Köln)
IP 13: CIL 13, 12061 = F L(ucio) Val(erio) Verec/undo Rut(eno) / mil(iti) coh(ortis) I Class/icae RSK 262 = ILS 9159 = 7(centuria) Ingenu(i) / ann(orum) XXV stip(endiorum) IIII / [h(eres) e]x AE 1906, 153 (CCAA / t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit) Köln)
IP 14: CIL 13, 12062 = F Scen[obarbo? ---] / Licc[onis f(ilio) ---] / [Bre]VC[orum?] RSK 479 (CCAA / Köln)
IP 15: Finke 365 = AE F [---]mi filiae / [Domitius] / [mil(es) coh(ortis)] II Varc(ianorum) / [--- 1929, 109 = RSK 271 f]aciundum / [curavit] (CCAA / Köln)
IP 16: AE 1975, 638a-b O 7(Centuria) Cris(pi?) con(tubernio) Cusioni (Maurik)
IP 17: AE 2003, 1221 V [---]nnis / [Lon]ginius(?) / Aeternus / d(ecurio) s(ingularis) c(onsularis) al(ae) (Mohnheim) Noric(orum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
280
IP 18: CIL 13, 8558 F M(arcus) Lucilius Secu/ndus decurio / mis(sicius) ex ala Front(oniana) / domo (Novaesium / Neuss) camp(---) pil(---) / Luciliae M(arci) l(ibertae) Pal/ladi M(arco) Lucilio / Blando lib(erto) h(eres) e(x) t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
IP 19: Finke 304 = AE F Oclatio Carvi f(ilio) / signif(ero) alae Afror(um) / Tungro frater h(eres) 1924, 21 = AE 1926, 67 f(aciundum) c(uravit) (Novaesium / Neuss)
IP 20: Finke 311 O 7(centuria) Avon(is) (Noviomagus / Nijmegen)6
IP 21: AE 1975, 634 F Tul(l)o Loucoru(m) / Albano medico (Praetorium Agrippae / Valkenburg)
IP 22: AE 1975, 637 O |(Centuria) Bisae (Praetorium Agrippae / Valkenburg)
IP 23: CIL 13, 10024,34 D Dupl(icariis) / et sesquipl(icariis) / alae veter(anae) / Flav(ius) Simplex / = ILS 9146 (Vetera / vet(eranus) ex dup(licario) / al(a)e eiusd(em) / d(onum) d(edit) // R Xanten)
IP 24: AE 1893, 53 D [---] / dupl(icariis) et sesquipl(icariis) / alae veter(anae) Flav(ius) / Simplex (Vetera / Xanten) vet[e]r(anus) ex / dup(licario) al(a)e eiusd(em) d(onum) d(edit)
IP 25: AE 1991, 1254a O T(urmae) Veracis Pupi (Zwammerdam)
IP 26: AE 1991, 1254b O T(urmae) Veri Hahuci (Zwammerdam)
IP 27: AE 1991, 1254d O T(urmae) Mansuetti Pupi (Zwammerdam)
4. GI Auxiliary infantry and cavalry milites gregales (excluding diplomas)
6 Perhaps a legionary centurion, although the name Avo suggests an auxiliary soldier.
281
A 1: CIL 13, 8592 F DOM[--- e]qu[es] alae / Moe[sicae tu]r[ma] Ru[fi ---]NI / cives [---]V[--- (Asciburgium / Asberg) s]tip(endiorum) / XX[
A 2: CIL 13, 8593 = ILS F Tib(erius) Iul(ius) Car/etis f(ilius) Sedeb/das domo / Turo missi/cius ex 2567 (Ascibugium / coh(orte) / Silauciens/iu(m) h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Tib(erius) Iul(ius) / Antus Asberg) f(aciendum) c(uravit) / et Primigenia / lib(erta) eius anno(rum) / III h(ic) s(ita) e(st)
A 3: Nesselhauf 242 = F [---]cin[---]s Dacraio/nis f(ilius) [---]VC IS cives / Tribocus aeques (sic) alae / AE 1931, 30 [Fro]ntonianae an(n)o(rum) [---] / st[ipe]ndi(orum) XX[I]V hic situs / est (Asciburgium / Asberg) her(es) fu(nus) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 4: CIL 13, 8092 F Biturix Na[---]/tionis(?) f(ilius) (H)aedu(u)s equ[es] / ala Longin(i)a[na] / (Bonna / Bonn) ann(orum) XLII stip(endiorum) XX[II] / heres ex testa(mento) [f(aciendum) c(uravit)]
A 5: CIL 13, 8093 = AE F Regtugnus Magilonis f(ilius) / Segontilieses eques ala / Longiniana ann(orum) 1893, 33 (Bonna / Bonn) L aer(orum) XXII
A 6: CIL 13, 8094 = AE F Vellaunus Nonni / f(ilius) / Biturix eques / ala Longiniana / turma L(uci) Iuli 1892, 126 (Bonna / Reguli / an(norum) XXXVIII stipendio/rum XVIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / ex Bonn) testamento factu / cura(ve)runt L(ucius) Iulius Reg/ulus decurio et Macer Aspadi / f(ilius) eiusde(m) turma // L C T
A 7: CIL 13, 8095 = AE F Vonatorix Du/conis f(ilius) eques ala / Longiniana an/norum XLV 1892, 35 (Bonna / Bonn) stipen/diorum XVII h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 8: CIL 13, 8096 F [--- e]q(ues) ala L[onginiana] / [---]atissae a[nn(orum) ---] / [st]ip(endiorum) (Bonna / Bonn) XIII [---]
A 9 : CIL 13, 8097 = ILS F Niger Aetonis f(ilius) / Nemes ala Pomponi/ani anno(rum) L / aera(rium) XXV / 2501 = AE 1890, 26 h(ic) s(itus) e(st) (Bonna / Bonn)
A 10: CIL 13, 8099 F [---] ex c[oh(orte)] / [--- T]rhaecum (sic) / ann(orum) XXX sti[p(endiorum)] / (Bonna / Bonn) VIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / Mucasius f(ilius) p(osuit)
A 11: Schillinger 162 F Reburrus Fra/tton(i)s f(ilius) eques al(ae) / Fr[o]nt(onianae) an[n(orum) --- (Bonna / Bonn) stip(endiorum) ---]
A 12: CIL 13, 8692 V [---] / eq(ues) [alae] / Afror(um) [tur(ma)] / Crescen[tis] / v(otum) s(olvit)
282
(Cliviae / Cleve) l(ibens) [m(erito)]
A 13: CIL 13, 8693 = ILS F Marcinus Sur/conis f(ilius) Breucus / mil(es) ex coh(orte) VIII / Breuc(orum) 2559 (Cliviae / Cleve) ann(orum) XXXV / stip(endiorum) XII h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 14: CIL 13, 8806 F M(arcus) Traianiu[s] / Gumattius Gai/sionis f(ilius) vet(eranus) alae / (Dodewaard) Afror(um) t(estamento) p(oni) i(ussit)
A 15: CIL 13, 8524 V Deo Soli Imp(eratori) s(acrum) T(itus) Sura[---]is Didil[---] / dup[l(arius)] (Durnomagus / al(a)e Noricorum c[ivi]s T(h)rax v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito)] Dormagen)
A 16: AE 1955, 38 O S(---) Ces(---) in kan(abis) (sic) l(egionis) [I M(inerviae)] / coh(ors) II (Gelduba / Gellep) Varc(ianorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum)
A 17: AE 1937, 80 O [Ge]nial[i]s c(o)h(orte) I Flavia (Grimmlinghausen)
A 18: AE 2001, 1515 F Ti(to) Iul[lio C(ai) f(ilio) An(iensi)] / Pro[bo(?) Foro] / Iuli m[issicio(?)] / (Houten) c(o)hort(is) [---] / an(norum) [---] / Iulia Ti(ti) [f(ilia?) ---] / Mater[nus(?) h(eredes) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt?)]
A 19: CIL 13, 8188 = V Herclinti / sacrum / Petitor Piro/bori mil(es) / coh(ortis) II Var(cianorum) / RSK 36 (CCAA / Köln) sing(ularis) co(n)s(ularis) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
A 20: CIL 13, 8223 = V Simplex Sepli / eques a(lae) Af[f](orum) / sing(ularis) co(n)s(ularis) / Matribus RSK 106 (CCAA / Köln) Ma/sanabus sa/crum l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
A 21: CIL 13, 8243 = V Quadrivi[s] / Trivis Viis / Semitis ex / voto M(arcus) / Cocceius / Dasius RSK 133 = ILS 9270 = vet(eranus) / alae Noric(orum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) AE 1904, 104 (CCAA / Köln)
A 22: CIL 13, 8303 = F L(ucius) Crispi f(ilius) cives / Marsacus eq(ues) alae / Affro(rum!) turma Flavi RSK 245 = ILS 2508 / ann(orum) XXVIII stip(endiorum) VIIII / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) (CCAA / Köln)
A 23: CIL 13, 8304 = AE F Oluper Cergaepuri / f(ilius) eq(ues) alae Afrorum / tur(ma) Preci Capitonis / 1903, 275 = RSK 246 ann(orum) XXXX stip(endiorum) XX / h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) (CCAA / Köln) c(uravit)
A 24: CIL 13, 8305 = F Romanus Atti f(ilius) Dar[danus] / eq(ues) alae Afr(orum) tur(ma) Firmani RSK 247 = AE 1903, 276 an(norum) XXX st[ip(endiorum) ---] / h(eres) t(estamento) f(aciendum) (CCAA / Köln)
283
c(uravit)
A 25: CIL 13, 8308 = F T(itus) Flavius Bassus Mucalae / f(ilius) Dansala eq(ues) alae Nori/coru(m) RSK 252 = ILS 2512 tur(ma) Fabi Pudentis / an(norum) XXXXVI stip(endiorum) XXVI h(eres) (CCAA / Köln) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 26: CIL 13, 8309 = F Marcus Sacrius / Securi f(ilius) Primigenius / eques alae Noricor(um) tur(ma) / RSK 253 (CCAA / Köln) Paterc(u)li cives Remus ann(orum) XXVI / [s]tip(endiorum) XI h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 27: CIL 13, 8311 = F M(arcus) Aemilius Durises eq(ues) al(ae) / Sulp(iciae) tur(ma) Nepotis RSK 255 = ILS 2502 an(norum) XXXVI / stip(endiorum) XVI heredes ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) (CCAA / Köln) c(uraverunt)
A 28: CIL 13, 8312 = F Longinus Biarta Bisae f(ilius) / Bessus eq(ues) alae Sulp(iciae) an(norum) RSK 256 (CCAA / Köln) XXXXVI / d[e suo] f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 29: CIL 13, 8313 = F Sassaius Liccai / f(ilius) miles ex coh(orte) / VIII Breucorum / anno(rum) XXXII RSK 261 (CCAA / Köln) stip(endiorum) XII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) t(estamento) f(ecit)
A 30: CIL 13, 8314 = F D(ecimo) Sen[i]o Vital[i] / mil(iti) [coh(ortis) VI In]genuorum c(ivium) RSK 265 = ILS 2572 R[o]m(anorum) civi Brit[to(ni)] / ann(orum) LV stip(endiorum) XVIIII heredes (CCAA / Köln) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
A 31: CIL 13, 8315 = F [---]adus dom[o ---] / [--- mil(es?)] coh(ortis) VI Ing[enuorum] / [--- RSK 266 (CCAA / Köln) an]n(orum) XXII s[tip(endiorum
A 32: CIL 13, 8316 = F Hemilius Lasci/us ci(vis) Cannan(efas) / mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) I Latabi(corum) / RSK 267 = ILS 9163 ann(orum) VL sti(pendiorum) XXII h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) (CCAA / Köln)
A 33: CIL 13, 8317 = F Mansuetus Arraceni f(ilius) / mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) III Lusitano/[rum civ]es RSK 268 (CCAA / Köln) Marsacus [---]
A 34: CIL 13, 8318 = F C(aius) Iulius C(ai filius) Gale/ria (tribu) Baccus Lugu/duni (!) mil(es) RSK 270 = ILS 2569 coh(ortis) I Thracum ann(orum) XXXIIX / stip(endiorum) XV Antistius / Atticus (CCAA / Köln)7 et Bassius / Communis h(eredes) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
A 35: CIL 13, 8319 = F [---] / milit[i coh(ortis)] / I Raetorum ann[orum] / XXXIV stipendiorum / XIV RSK 269 (CCAA / Köln)
7 This individual‟s ancestor was enfranchised by Augustus; he was a Roman citizen from Lugdunum / Lyon in Gallia Lugdunensis. His presence in a Thracian cohort as a low-ranking miles is striking.
284
h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 36: CIL 13, 8320 = F Cassius Gesatu[s] / Borissi f(ilius) mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) I / Vindelicoru(m) RSK 272 = ILS 9162 = ann(orum) L / [s]tip(endiorum) XIIX h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) AE 1904, 24 (CCAA / c(uravit) / [---] frater [---] Köln)
A 37: CIL 13, 8399 = F [---] Iul[---] / [---] eq(ues) e[x ala? ---] / [---] mil(itavit) [---] RSK 257 (CCAA / Köln)
A 38: CIL 13, 8519 = F Albanio Vitali / eq(uiti) alae Indianae / tur(ma) Barbi civi / Trevero an(norum) RSK 250 (CCAA / Köln) XXX stip(endiorum) X / h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 39: AE 1974, 454 F Iovincatus / Velageni f(ilius) / mil(es) ex coh(orte) / Alpina II ann(orum) LV / (CCAA / Köln) stip(endiorum) XXX h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 40: AE 1974, 455 F D(is) M(anibus) / T(ito) Flavio Tulli/oni mil(iti) coh(ortis) II / Astorum (CCAA / Köln) sing(ulari) / [---]
A 41: AE 1974, 457 F [D(is)] M(anibus) / [---]nius Lenti/[---]nus mil(es) c(ohortis) / [---] fr[at]er / (CCAA / Köln) [f]ecit
A 42: AE 1990, 727 V Deae Matri App/ius Mercato/r Attonis eq/ues coh(ortis) I Lato(bicorum) / (CCAA / Köln) stator Pompei / Honorati pr(a)ef(ecti) eq(uitum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
A 43: AE 1990, 732 V Matronis / sacrum / Victor eques / alae I Astur(um) / militat in Mysia / v(otum) (CCAA / Köln) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
A 44: AE 2002, 1037 O [Tr]a(n)sr(h)enan[a (tegularia)] / C(aius) Sec(---) Nat(---) / coh(ortis) XV 8 (CCAA / Köln) vol(untariorum)
A 45: AE 2003, 1218 F Catunec/tus Aesug/esli f(ilius) Trino/vas mil(es) coh(ortis) IIII B{e}reuc(orum) (CCAA / Köln) / |(centuria) C(ai) Induti / Reperti an(norum) / XXX stip(endiorum) VI / [h(ic)] s(itus) [e(st) s(it)] t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis)
A 46: RSK 260 (CCAA / F D(is) M(anibus) / T(ito) Flavio Tulli/oni mil(iti) coh(ortis) II / Astorum Köln) sing(ulari) / [co(n)s(ularis) ---]
A 47: AE 1974, 456 = F D(is) M(anibus) / et memori[ae] / Secundini Ama[bi]/lis mil(itis) coh(ortis) I
8 Tile stamp from a factory based on the right bank of the Rhine under the supervision of an auxiliary soldier.
285
RSK 264 (CCAA / Köln) F[l(aviae)] / qu[i v]ixit annis XVIIII / mens(ibus) X dieb(us) XXV / patres ei f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
A 48: RSK 273 (CCAA / F [D(is)] M(anibus) / [---]nius Lenti/[nian]us(?) mil(es) c(ohortis) / [---] fra[t]er Köln) / [f]ecit
A 49: CIL 13, 8669 F L(ucius) Carantiu[s ---] / f(ilius) Senecio R[aura]/cus(?) eq(ues) alae (Monterberg) N[ori]/cor(um) anno(rum) XXX[---] / h(eres) d(e) s(uo)
A 50: CIL 13, 8670 = ILS F C(aio) Iulio Adari f(ilio) / Primo Trevero / eq(uiti) alae Noric(orum) / statori 2523 (Monterberg) an(norum) XXVII / stip(endiorum) VII h(eres) a s(e) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 51: CIL 13, 8671 F Atil[l]us Di(vi)x/ti f(ilius) m[i]ssicius / ala(e) [V]ocon
A 52: CIL 13, 8672 V [---]TO[---] / [---]o eq(uiti?) [---] / [---]IT [---] / [---] co(n)s(ulibus) (Monterberg)9
A 53: CIL 13, 8560 F [--- I]ulius Ad[---] / [--- F]uscus(?) v[et(eranus)] / [ex coho]rte Te[---] (Novaesium / Neuss)10
A 54: Ness-Lieb 244 F Tiber(ius) Iulius / Pancuius / mil(es) coh(ortis) / Lusitanorum / an(norum) LV (Novaesium / Neuss) stip(endiorum) XXVIII / hic s(i)t(us) est
A 55: Finke 310 O Ducce 7(centuria) Latron(is) (Noviomagus / Nijmegen)
A 56: CIL 13, 7801 = F Dasmenus / Dasi f(ilius) Breucus / mil(es) ex coh(orte) VIII / Breuc(orum) CIL 13, 7802 = AE 1903, anno(rum) XXXV / stip(endiorum) XII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) 306 (Rigomagus / Remagen)
A 57: CIL 13, 7803 F Ruimus Tabusi f(ilius) / Thrax mil(es) ex coh(orte) / I Thracum anno(rum) XLVI (Rigomagus / Remagen) / stip(endiorum) XXIII et Veranio / f(ilius) h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 58: CIL 13, 7804 F [--- ex coh(orte) II] / Varc(ianorum) an(norum) X[--- stip(endiorum) ---] / h(ic) (Rigomagus / Remagen) s(itus) e(st) f(rater?) [p(osuit]
9 Although it is unclear whether this individual served in an auxiliary unit from the text alone, the context suggests association with the ala Vocontiorum. 10 Perhaps Ad[namatius (?)]. Coh. Te[---] may also designate a locally recruited “numerus”. Even if one were to read T as the numeral I, there would be no solution for coh. I E[---]. The solution te[rtia ---] seems improbable, given the rarity of comparanda.
286
A 59: CIL 13, 11982 F M(arco) Cassio Verecu/ndo veter(ano) ex coh(orte) I His/pano(rum) sibi et (Rigomagus / Remagen) Anniae / [A]vitae uxori et Cassio / Verecundino Firmo / fil(io) suo vivos(!) fecit
A 60: CIL 13, 8818 F D(is) M(anibus) Valenti / Bititrali / vet(erano) ex N(---) ala I / [Tr]achum(!) (Utrecht) h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 61: AE 1975, 633 F Tigernilo mil(iti) / c(o)hor(tis) III Gallor(um) e(quitatae) (Praetorium Agrippae / Valkenburg)
A 62: CIL 13, 8655 = F Silvano Loupi f(ilio) Trever(o) / eq(uiti) ala(e) Vocont(ii) an(norum) XXX / CLE 1006 (Vetera / stip(endiorum) XII et vivis Primae / sorori eius hered(es) f(aciendum) Xanten)11 c(uraverunt) / vos rogitat quaeso soror unica / fratris amantis ni dissigilletis / nive violetis opus
A 63: CIL 13, 884312 (?) F Heliades / Adrasti / Antioc(h)esis / ann(orum) LV stip(endiorum) / XXXIV h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / h(eres) e(x) t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
5. GI Auxiliary Rank / Text Uncertain
ARU 1: AE 1981, 68613 V Matribus Octocannis / Albinius Gratinus Albinius / Albulus / Albinius Ursulus / (Gelduba / Gellep) Albinius Paternus milis (sic) / Oglannius Lubainus mil(es) / [O]glannius Messor milis(!) / [--]issinius Verinus / pro se et suis ex iussu ip/sarum v(ota) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito)
ARU 2: CIL 13, 8325 = D [--- coh]ortis / [---] Class(icae) / [---] P(iae) F(idelis) f(ecit) RSK 263 (CCAA / Köln)
ARU 3: CIL 13, 8324 = F D(is) M(anibus) / Aprilioni qui vixit m(enses) XI / et dies VII / et Inno/centiae RSK 284 (CCAA / qui vixit an/nos VII et dies XXXXVIII / Verinius Friattius / miles et Apra / Köln)14 fili(i)s dulcissi/mis curavit faciun/dum
11 An example of a “dactylic elegiac” inscription. The second line does not scan, and requires a dissignetis neu instead of disigilletis nive. Cf. Bücheler‟s commentary on CLE 1006. 12 A rare example of a soldier failing to record his unit of service on his tombstone. 13 The actual unit of service is not stated, but the peregrine name Oglannius of this family, combined with the ambiguity of expression, may suggest auxiliary service. 14 The unit of this soldier, the father of the deceased, is obscure. His name Friattius suggests a peregrine ancestry.
287
ARU 4: AE 2000, 1000 F [---] / m(iles?) c(o)ho[rtis] / novaes sin[gula]/ris co(n)sula[ris] / fratribus / 15 (CCAA / Köln) posuit / cives Suebi C(---) / creati Lopodun(---)
ARU 5: AE 2000, 1014 ? [---] coh(ortis?) II[---] / [---]nica [---] (Noviomagus / Nijmegen)
ARU 6: AE 1995, 1111 F [---] f(ilius?) Ma[---] / [---]x coh[---] (Rigomagus / Remagen)
6-10: Auxiliary Inscriptions of Germania Superior (GS) to ca. 212
6. GS Unit commanders: praefecti / tribuni / praepositi
P 1: CIL 13, 6295 = V Minervae / sacrum / Nympheros / L(uci?) Lolli(?) Certi / praef(ecti) Finke 338a = AE 1899, coh(ortis) V Sp(anorum?) / [---] 192 (Baden-Baden)16
P 2: CIL 13, 6449 = V Campestribus / sacrum / P(ublius) Quintius L(uci) fil(ius) / Quir(ina) ILS 2604 (Benningen Terminus(?) / domo Sicca / Veneria / trib(unus) / coh(ortis) XXIIII am Neckar) vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum)
P 3: CIL 13, 6472 = V Fortunae / Respicienti sacr(um) / Nasellius Pro/clianus 7(centurio) ILS 2613 leg(ionis) / VIII Aug(ustae) prae/positus c(o)hor(tis) / I Helvetiorum / (Böckingen)17 Torquato et / Iuliano co(n)s(ulibus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
15 These German bodyguards evidently came from Ladenburg (Lopodunum) in Germania Superior, the location of an extensively studied auxiliary fort. 16 Nympheros was possibly the slave of the prefect. The stone is also notable for the rare rendering of Hispanorum as Spanorum. 17 148 CE.
288
P 4: CIL 13, 6475 V Seno(nibus) / Matro(nis) / coh(ors) I / Helvet(iorum) / [c]ui [p]ra[e]/est (Böckingen) V[a]l(erius) / Ci[t]us [|(centurio)] / leg(ionis) [V]III [Aug(ustae)] / P(iae) F(idelis) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) [m(erito)]
P 5: CIL 13, 6212 V C(aius) Baburius / Festus Pom(ptina) Ar/retio trib(unus) leg(ionis) / VII (Borbetomagus / G(eminae) F(idelis) / praef(ectus) / alae Scubu/lorum / Iovi Worms)
P 6: CIL 13, 6213 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Octavius / Celer praef(ectus) / (Borbetomagus / coh(ortis) VII Breu(corum) / et coh(ortis) I Thrac(um) Worms)
P 7: CIL 13, 7693 V Herc(u)lenti / vexel(l)atio(!) c/o(ho)rts Ti(beri) Astur(i) / votum (Brohl) retul(l)i(t) / l(---) l(aeta) lib(ens) s(olvit)
P 8: CIL 13, 7697 V Her[c]u[li Sax(ano?)] / vexillari(i) / [lim(itanei)] l[e]g(ionis) [VI] (Brohl) Vic(tricis) et / l(egionis) X G(eminae) P(iae) F(idelis) et al(ae) co[h(ortis) / [---]L q(uae) s(ub) Q(uinto) Acut(io) / [s]u(nt) [cu(r)a] M(arci) Iu[l]i / [C]ossuti |(centurionis) l(egionis) V[I] / Vic(tricis) P(iae) [F(idelis)]
P 9: CIL 13, 7716 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Her(culi) Sax(ano) / vexil(latio) / l(egionis) (Brohl) VI Vic(tricis) P(iae) F(idelis) l(egionis) X G(eminae) P(iae) F(idelis) / et al(ae) coh(ortis) cla{g}(ssis) / P(iae) F(idelis) q(uae) s(ub) Q(uinto) Acut(io) / su(nt) cu(ra) M(arci) Iul(i) / Cossuti 7(centurio) / l(egionis) VI Vic(tricis) P(iae) F(idelis)
P 10: CIL 13, 7411 = V [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo)] Doliche/[no ---] / [---] / [---] / [---] / [---]RIA CCID 527 [---] / [---] Fl(avius) [A]ntio[chia]n(us) / [p]raef(ectus) coh(ortis) I (Grosskrotzenburg) c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) / P(iae) F(idelis) [p]raep(ositus) coh(ortis) IIII V(indelicorum) / d(omo) PRILASEC [--- Cae]/sarea p[ro concor]/dia coh(ortium) [s(upra) s(criptarum) Aproni]/ano(?) et B[radua(?) co(n)s(ulibus)]18
P 11: CIL 13, 7615 = V [In h(onorem)] d(omus) d(ivinae) deo Marti / c[oh(ors) I]I Treverorum / ILS 9153 = AE 1898, sig(num) [M]artis de suo / inst[auraver]unt l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito) / 10 (Holzhausen) inst(ante) Fl[avio Pate]rnio(?) |(centurio) l(egionis) XXII
P 12: Schillinger 138 V [--- p]raee[s]t C(aius) ILI/[---]ius Secun/dus praef(ectus) / v(otum) (Ingelheim am Rhein) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
18 191 CE.
289
P 13: CIL 13, 6553 = V [In] h(onorem) [d(omus) d(ivinae)] / di(a)e(!) Fortu[nae ---] / [---]i RSO 3 (Jagsthausen) trib(unus?) [---] / [---]anu[---]
P 14: AE 1995, 1165 D Impp(eratoribus) L(ucio) Septimio Severo Pio / Pertinaci et M(arco) (Jagsthausen) Aur(elio) Antoni/no Aug[[g(ustis) et Geta(e) Caes(ari)]] / balneum coh(ortis) I Ger(manorum) / vetustate dilabsum a solo / restitutum ex precepto / Caesoni Rufiniani leg(ati) Augg(ustorum) / pr(o) pr(aetore) cura agente Iulio / Clodiano trib(uno) coh(ortis) s(upra) s(criptae)
P 15: CIL 13, 5271 = F [---]NO[---] / [--- tri]b(uno) mil(itum) / [leg(ionis) --- praef(ecto) CIL 13, 11545 = AE coh]ort(is) I / [--- h]astis II / [---]IN / [---] 2000, 1037 (Kaiseraugst)
P 16: CIL 13, 7444 V Fortunae / C(aius) Mogillo/nius Prisc[i]/anus pra/ef(ectus) coh(ortis) II (Kapersburg) Raet(orum) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 17: CIL 13, 5684b = F Iul[ius (?) ---] tribunus / [alae] Celerum / [---] AE 1992, 1278 = ILingons 354 (Langres)
P 18: CIL 13, 7613 = D Pedat(ura) Treveror/um p(edum) LXXXXVI / sub curagente Cres/centino ILS 9183a (Liebach) Respecto |(centurione) / leg(ionis) VIII Aug(ustae)
P 19: AE 1956, 71 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Astur(um) eq(uitata) / cura(m) (Mainhardt) agente M(arco) Mevio M(arci) f(ilio) Fab(ia) / [C]apriolo praef(ecto) / fec(it)
P 20: Ness-Lieb 134 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Ast(urum) / cui prae(e)st / C(aius) (Mainhardt) Iul(ius) Arte/mo praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
P 21: Ness-Lieb 13519 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) Ast(urum) / cui prae/est C(aius) (Mainhardt) Iul(ius) / Artemo / praef(ectus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
P 22: Ness-Lieb 136 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / c(o)h(ors) I Astur(um) / eq(uitata) cura(m) / (Mainhardt) agente / Diodoto
P 23: Ness-Lieb 138 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Astur(um) eq(uitata) / cura(m) (Mainhardt) agente M(arco) / Mevio M(arci) f(ilio) Fab(ia) / [C]apriolo praef(ecto) /
19 A rare example of an auxiliary cohort identified without a numeral; cf. the almost identical Ness-Lieb 134.
290
fec(it)
P 24: Ness-Lieb 139 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I / Astur(um) / eq(uitata) cur(am) (Mainhardt) a[g(ente)] / [---] / [---]o prae[f(ecto)]
P 25: CIL 13, 6608 = V [In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae)] / [Victoriae] / [Perpetuae sacrum] / sub 20 RSO 51 (Miltenberg) cur(a) Sexti Cat[i] / Clement[ini] / co(n)s(ularis) p[r(ovinciae) G(ermaniae) s(uperioris)] / [C(aius) Semproni]/[us Martialis] / [praef(ectus)]
P 26: CIL 13, 6612 = F [---]per / [---]us ex pro/[v(incia) Mauret(ania) Caes]ariensi in/[---] RSO 110 (Miltenberg) coloniae / [---]ase praefec/[tus ---]
P 27: CIL 13, 6812 F [D(is)] M(anibus) / C(aio) Antestio C(ai) f(ilio) / Vet(uria) Seve[---] / (Mogontiacum / praef(ecto) fabr(um) praef(ecto) / coh(ortis) II Bituricum(!) / praef(ecto) Mainz) coh(ortis) I Cyren(aicae) / trib(uno) mil(itum) leg(ionis) IIII / M[ac(edonicae)] vixit annos / XXXXVI Antestii / Fortunatus et Cec/ilius f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
P 28: CIL 13, 6817 F D(is) M(anibus) / Tito Statilio Tauro / praef(ecto) fabrorum(!) / (Mogontiacum / praef(ecto) coh(ortis) I Aug(ustae) Itur(a)e/or(um) et VI Thracum Mainz) trib(uno) / mil(itum) leg(ionis) XXII Pr(imigeniae) P(iae) F(idelis) vixit / an(nos) XXXVI Statilius For/tunatus lib(ertus) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
P 29: AE 1968, 321 = F [Claudia T]i(beri) fil(ia) Fa[---] / [Ti(berio) Clau]dio Tiber[i fil(io) --- AE 1976, 505 sacerdot]i Romae [et Aug(usti) ad aram in? c]olon(ia) Trev[erorum] / (Mogontiacum / [praefec]to ad ripa[m et alae] / [Trevero]rum(?) qua[estori in] / Mainz)21 [civita]te Treve[rorum ---]
P 30: CIL 13, 6530 V S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / Sex(tus) Iulius / D(ecimi) f(ilius) Hor(atia) (Murrhardt) Flo/rus Victori/nus trib(unus) co[h(ortis)] / XXIIII V(oluntariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) tem[p(lo)] / a solo restitu/to votum pro / se ac suis solvit
P 31: CIL 13, 7735 V Fortunae / Gn(aeus) Calpurnius / Verus praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) VII (Niederberg) Raetor(um) / eq(uitatae)
20 The identity of this prefect‟s unit is uncertain, but it may be coh. I Sequanorum et Rauricorum (CIL 6609 = RSO 27). 21 The only example from Germania of an auxiliary in civilian government, if correctly restored.
291
P 32: AE 1903, 89 V Fortunae / Cn(aeus) Calpurnius / Verus praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) VII (Niederberg) Raetor(um) eq(uitatae)
P 33: CIL 13, 11959 = V [I(ovi] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [c]oh(ors) IIII Aquit(anorum) / [e]q(uitata) RSO 19 = AE 1964, c(ivium) R(omanorum) cui / [praeest C(aius) Tet/[t]ius Secun/dus 150 (Nieder- praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito) Ingelheim)
P 34: CIL 13, 5007 F D(ecimo) Iul(io) L(uci) f(ilio) Vol(tinia) Ripano / Capitoni Bassiano / (Noviodunum equo publico honorato / praefect(o) fabrum / trib(uno) mil(itum) Equestrium / Nyon) coh(ortis) I Gal[l(ica)] i[n Hi]sp(ania) / L(ucius) Iul(ius) Brocchus / Valer(ius) Bassus / filio
P 35: AE 1996, 1115 F [--- pro]c(uratori) XX h[ered(itatium) ---] / [--- pro]c(uratori) (Noviodunum Chersonen[si ---] / [--- pr]aef(ecto) coh(ortis) II Raeto[rum ---] / patr[ono Equestrium / Nyon) ---]
P 36: CIL 13, 6620 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Petronius / Florentinus / domo Saldas RSO 24 = AE 1903, / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) IIII / Aq(uitanorum) eq(uitatae) c(ivium) 381 (Obernburg am R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) Main)
P 37: AE 2003, 1274 V Campestr/ibus sacrum / L(ucius) Petron[ius] / L(uci) filius Ste[l]/latina / (Obernburg am Main) Florentinus / domo Sald/as(!) praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) IIII Aq(uitanorum) / [[Commodia]]/[[nae]] eq(uitatae) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 38: CIL 13, 6621 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Apollini et Aes/culapio Saluti / Fortunae ILS 2602 = RSO 31 = sacr(um) / pro salute L(uci) Pe/troni Florenti/ni praef(ecti) coh(ortis) IIII AE 1903, 382 / Aq(uitanorum) eq(uitatae) c(ivium) R(omanorum) M(arcus) Ru/brius (Obernburg am Main) Zosimus / medicus coh(ortis) s(upra) s(criptae) / domu Ostia / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 39: CIL 13, 6542 D Liberoru]mque [---] / [---] eiu[s ---] / [Ne]mesi P(ublio) Cor(nelio) (Oehringen) An[ulli]/[n]o leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) / coh(ors) I Helve(tiorum) et Brit(tonum) et [n(umerus)] / Aure(lianorum) sub cura G(ai) V[al(eri)] / Titi 7(centurionis) leg(ionis) ex corn(iculario) [co(n)s(ularis?)]
292
P 40: CIL 13, 6543 D [---]IO[---] / [--- liberoru]mq(ue?) et T[---] / [---]DE P(ublio) Corne[lio (Oehringen) Anul]/[lin]o leg(ato) Aug(usti) p[r(o) pr(aetore)] / [coh(ors) I] Helve(tiorum) et Brit(onum) [et num(erus)] / [Aure(lianorum) sub] cur(a) C(ai) V[aleri] / [Titi 7(centurionis) leg(ionis)] ex cor[nicul(ario?) co(n)s(ularis?)]
P 41: RSO 115 = F [---]CIS P(ublius) Allius / Proculus / domo Ro/ma praef(ectus) / Schillinger 49 = AE [coh(ortis) III Aqui]t(anorum) / [---] 1978, 530 (Osterburken)
P 42: CIL 13, 7445 V [For]tuna[e]/ [S]extiu[s] / [Vi]cto[r] / [p]ra[ef(ectus)] / [coh(ortis) II (Saalburg, Bahnhof) Raet(orum)
P 43: CIL 13, 7452 V [I(ovi)] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [et Geni]o loc[i] / [in] h(onorem) d(omus) (Saalburg, Bahnhof) d(ivinae) pr[o] / [sa]lute Impp(eratorum) L(uci) / [Sep]t(imi) Severi [P(ii)] / [Pertinac(is)] Aug(usti) et [M(arci)] / [Aur(eli) Antonini Aug(usti)] / [et P(ubli) Sept(imi) Getae Caes(aris)] / [et Iuli]ae A[ug(ustae)] / [mat(ri) Aug(ustorum)] Q(uintus) A[---]/[---]ndr[us] / [praef(ectus) coh(ortis) II Raet(orum)]
P 44: CIL 13, 7460 V Numfhis(!) / sacrum / coh(ors) II Raet(orum) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) cui / (Saalburg, Bahnhof) pr(a)eest / [--- S]exti/[us V]ictor / [prae]fect(us) / [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
P 45: CIL 13, 7462 D Imp(eratori) Ca[e]s(ari) [di]vi / Hadri(ani) f[i]l(io) d[i]vi / Trai(ani) 22 (Saalburg, Bahnhof) Pa[r]thici / nep(oti) / div[i] Nervae / pronep(oti) T(ito) Ael(io) / Hadri(ano) A[ntoni]/[n]o A[u]g(usto) [pon]/[ti]f(ici) max(imo) [trib(unicia)] / pot(estate) II co(n)[s(uli) II] / d[e]sig(nato) III / coh(ors) II Ra[et(orum) c(ivium) R(omanorum)
P 46: CIL 13, 7465 D [Im]p(eratori) Caes(ari) M(arco) [A]urel(io) / Antonino Pio [Fe]/lici 23 (Saalburg, Bahnhof) Aug(usto) pontif[ici] / max(imo) Britan(nico) ma[x(imo)] / Parthico ma[x(imo)] / [t]ribunic(ia) pote[s]/tatis XV co(n)s(uli) I[II] / p(atri) p(atriae) proco(n)s(uli) coh(ors) / [II Raet(orum)] Antoninia[na] / [c(ivium)] R(omanorum) d[e]vota numin[i] / ei[u]s
P 47: CIL 13, 6658 = V [I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / Helio[p]oli[ta]/no V[e]ner[i F]/elici
22 140 CE. 23 212 CE.
293
RSOR 15 (Stockstadt) Merc/urio [A]ug[ust(o) M(arcus?)] / Iulius Ma[rci] / fil(ius) Fab[i]a R[uf]/us Pap[irianus?] / Sentiu[s] Gem[el]/lus do[m]o B[---] / praef(ectus) c[oh(ortis) I] Aqu[it(anorum)] / castris [---]III[---] / [---]N[-- -] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus)] m(erito)
P 48: CIL 13, 11780 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Doliche/no coh(ors) / I Aquit(anorum) / RSOR 11 = CCID 530 vet(erana) eq(uitata) / cui prae/est T(itus) Fa/bius Libe/ralis praef(ectus) / (Stockstadt) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
P 49: CIL 13, 11782 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Dolicheno / L(ucius) Caecilius Cae/cilianus RSOR 9 = CCID 532 praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) I Aquitanor(um) / domo Thaenis / v(otum) s(olvit) (Stockstadt) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 50: CIL 13, 11783 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Dol[i]chen(o) / L(ucius) Caecilius L(uci) f(ilius) RSOR 10 = CCID 533 / Quirina Caecili/[a]nus praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / [I Aq]uit(anorum) domo (Stockstadt) Th[a]/[enis] Afric[ae ---]
P 51: CIL 13, 11523 = F [---]DOM[---] / [---]assus [---] / [--- p]r(aefectus) coho[rtis ---] / [---]A[- RISch 2, 174 --] (Vindonissa / Windisch)
7. GS Unit dedications identifying no specific soldiers
U 1: AE 1992, 1290 D [I(mperatore) C(ommodo)] A(ugusto) coh(ortis) V Del(matarum) / (Arnsburg) [|(centuriae)] Victorini / Ursidi
U 2: CIL 13, 7706 V Herculi / Saxano / vexellatio(!) / cohortis / I c(ivium) R(omanorum) / (Brohl) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
U 3: CIL 13, 7708 V Herculi Sa/xsano(!) sac/ru(m) coh(ortis) II / [---]VM / [---] (Brohl)
U 4: CIL 13, 7721 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Hercu/li vexil(l)a/ti[o] c(o)ho(rtis) [X]V / (Brohl) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
U 5: CIL 13, 7325 = D [Pro s]al[ute] / [Imp(eratoris) C]ae[s(aris) M(arci) Aur(eli)] / RSO 53 (Frankfurt am
294
Main)24 [Co]mmod[I Aug(usti)] / [co]h(ors) I Seq(uanorum) et R[aur(icorum)] / [c]uram ag[ente] / [S]extilio P[---]/o 7(centurione) leg(ionis) XXII [P(rimigeniae) P(iae) F(idelis)] / [I]mp(eratore) Commod(o) VI c[o(n)s(ule)]
U 6: CIL 13, 7418 D [In h(onorem)] d(omus) d(ivinae) / [c]oh(ors) IIII V[ind(elicorum)] / (Grosskrotzenburg) [cur(am] agen[te?] / [---]TI[ // ]R[---] / [---]PI[ // ]ES[---]
U 7: Ness-Lieb 141 = D [---][[L(uci) Se[ptimi]]] / [[Se[veri]]] / veterani con/sistenses ad hi/berna RSO 54 (Jagsthausen) cohor(tis) / I Ger(manorum) duobus / Silanis co(n)s(ulibus)
U 8: CIL 13, 11740 = V Sulevis so/roribus L(ucius) / Gallionius Ianuar(ius) / dec(urio) al(ae) I ILS 9323 = RSOR 19 Cannanef(atium) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) (Lopodunum / Ladenburg)
U 9: CIL 13, 6609 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [ // coh(ortis) I] / Seq(uanorum) et RSO 27 (Miltenberg) Rauracor/um curaverunt
U 10: AE 1929, 131 V D(eo) I(nvicto) M(ithrae) / pro salute / [tu]r(mae) equi[tum] / [coh(ortis) I (Mogontiacum / I]tur(aeorum?) / [---] / [---] / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Mainz)
U 11: CIL 13, 6531 = D Iuliae Augus/tae matr[i i]ndul/gentis[si]mi / prince[pis] M(arci) / AE 1895, 33 [A]ur(eli) An[to]ni/n[i p]ii [Aug(usti)] ma/tri [sen]atus ma/tri (Murrhardt) c[as]tror(um) matri / pat[ri]ae coh(ors) XXIIII / Vol(untariorum) Antonini/ana c(ivium) R(omanorum) devo/[ta] n[um]ini eius
U 12: Finke 201 = RSO D Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Marco [Aurelio] / Antonino Aug(usto) [tr(ibunicia) 69 = AE 1923, 30 p(otestate) XVI] / [c]o(n)s(uli) III et imp(eratori) C[aes(ari)] / [L(ucio) (Obernburg am Main) A]urelio Vero [Aug(usto)] / [tri]b(unicia) potest(ate) II co(n)s[uli II] / [co]h(ors) IIII Aq(uitanorum) eq(uitata) c(ivium) R(omanorum)
U 13: CIL 13, 7736 = V [Genio l]oci |(centuria) coh(ortis) VI[I] / [Raetor(um) eq]uit(atae) AE 1897, 111 Anton(inianae) / [---]irio (Niederberg)
U 14: AE 1903, 90 V [Genio l]oci coh(ors) VI[I] / [Raetorum eq]uit(ata) Anton(iniana) / (Niederberg) [votum solvit m]erito
U 15: CIL 13, 11769 = O [--- coh(ors)] / II[I Aquit(anorum)] / eq[uitata re]/stitu[it(?)]
24 192 CE.
295
RSO 81 (Osterburken)
U 16: CIL 13, 6361 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Al(a?) Valle/nsium / posue/runt / ex voto / (Rottenburg) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
U 17: CIL 13, 6503 = V Minervae / aeneatores / coh(ortis) I Seq(uanorum) / et Raur(icorum) ILS 2584 = RSO 43 eq(uitatae) / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito) (Steinbach)25
U 18: CIL 13, 6509 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / vexil(latio) / coh(ortis) I / Seq(uanorum) et ILS 2614 = RSO 20 Raur(icorum) / eq(uitatae) sub cur(a) / Antoni Nata/lis |(centurionis) (Schlossau) leg(ionis) XXII P(rimigeniae) / P(iae) F(idelis) ob burg(um) ex/plic(itum) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
U 19: CIL 13, 7457 = V I(ovi) [O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / Do[lich]en(o) / [sacru]m coh(ors) / [II CCID 501 (Saalburg, Raet]or(um) cu[i] / [praeest ---] Bahnhof)
8. GS High-ranking auxiliaries: immunes and principales
IP 1: CIL 13, 6292 V Matri Deum / C(aius) Sempronius / Saturninus 7(centurio) / coh(ortis) (Baden-Baden) XXVI vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens)
m(erito)
IP 2: CIL 13, 6236 = F M(arcus) Semproni/us L(uci) f(ilius) domo / Termestinus / anno(rum) XX[- ILS 2533 --] / dec(urio) eques alae / Sebosianae / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) (Borbetomagus / Worms)
IP 3: CIL 13, 7513a D |(centuria) Leubacci G(---) / p(edatura) p(edum) LXXII su/b cur(a) (Bingium / Cres(centini) / Respecti 7(centurionis) leg(ionis) VIII Aug(ustae) Bingerbruck)
IP 4: CIL 13, 7705 V Herc(u)li Saxa/no Gemell/us im[a]ginif(er) / coh(ortis) III Astu/rum (Brohl) P(iae) F(idelis) D(omitianae) et / vexil(latio) s(?) coh(ortis) / eiusdem / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
25 An aeneator specialized in playing a bronze trumpet; cf. OLD 64 s.v. “aeneator.”
296
IP 5: CIL 13, 7707 V Herc(uli) Saxsan(o!) sacr(um) / Iulius Verecund(us) / centurio (Brohl) c(o)ho[r(tis)] II Var/cianorum(?) ex voto
IP 6: CIL 13, 7722 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Iun(oni) / Marti Her(culi) / [s]acrum C(aius) / (Brohl) Domitius / Rufinus d(ecurio) / coh(ortis) II c(ivium) R(omanorum) P(iae) F(idelis) D(omitianae) / [e]t commilitones / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) l(aeti) m(erito)
IP 7: Schillinger 140 = V Nimphis(!) et A[p]/ollini sacr[.] / [.] Iunius Ela[..]/us |(centurio) AE 1978, 555 coh(ortis) I ci[v(ium)] / Romanor[u]/m v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) (Burgbrohl)
IP 8: CIL 13, 7433 = D Im(peratore) Co(mmodo) Au(gusto) al(a) Moe(sica) t(urma) Placid[i] AE 1969/70, 438 Firmi // Apron(i) X (Butzbach)
IP 9: AE 2001, 1538 F [---] / [decuri]oni / [---]oci f(ilio) Treviro (Gross-Gerau)26
IP 10: CIL 13, 7410 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) P(---) / M(--- ) |(centurio) c(o)h(ortis) IIII / AE 1895, 145 Vin(delicorum) / ex iu(ssu) d(edit) (Grosskrotzenburg)
IP 11: CIL 13, 7741 D I[n honore]m d(omus) d(ivinae) et co[h(ortis) [---] vo[l(untariorum) [---] (Heddesdorf) ob inco]lu/mitatem M(arcus) Alpinius Auli fi[l(ius) --- Qu]irina / [c]lassicianu[s 7(centurio) c]oh(ortis) s(upra) s(criptae) flame[n ---] et Prima / [et Po]tenti[---] signum ae]reum rever[sus Fortu]nae Conser/[va]tric[i] posuit
IP 12: CIL 13, 5247 = V C(aius) Oc(tavius?) Provin/cialis sign(ifer)
IP 13: CIL 13, 6555 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Iunoni Reg(inae) / L(ucius) Petronius / Tertius RSO 35 (Jagsthausen) 7(centurio) coh(ortis) / I Ger(manorum) ex voto / suscepto pro / se et suis pos/uit l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
IP 14: AE 2000, 1097 O T(urmae?) Imagini (Lopodunum / Ladenburg)
IP 15: CIL 13, 6538 F D(is) M(anibus) / Maximo Dasan/tis mensori coh(ortis) I / Asturum (Mainhardt)
26 The findspot of this inscription suggests that this is a military, rather than civilian, decurio.
297
7(centuria) Co[---]/uni Quin[t]ini s[ti]/pendiorum XVIII / an(n)orum XXXVIII / c(ivis) Dalmata ex m/unicipio Magn[o] / et Batoni Beusantis / optioni coh(ortis) s(upra) s(criptae) 7(centuria) [ea]/dem stip(endiorum) XVIII ann[o]/rum XL ex munici/pio Salvio A[---]E[---] / [---]ionis [---]
IP 16: CIL 13, 6604 = V [I]n h(onorem) [d(omus) d(ivinae)] / Mercur(io) Cimb[riano] / RSO 40 (Miltenberg) Mansuetinius Se[---] / 7(centurio) coh(ortis) I Seq(uanorum) et R[auric(orum)] / sigil(lum) Mercur(i) [posuit?] / Apronian(o) et Bra[dua co(n)s(ulibus)] 27
IP 17: CIL 13, 6611 = O Se(q)ue(n)s / signifer RSO 119 (Miltenberg)
IP 18: CIL 13, 6742 = V In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) deo / Mercurio / C(i)m{a}briano(?) / ILS 4596 = RSO 41 aed(em) cum si/gillo et ar/am posuit / Marcellin/ius Marcianu/s (Mogontiacum / cor(nicen?) coh(ortis) IIII Aq(uitanorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) Mainz) l(aetus) mer(ito) Fau/stino et Ru/fino co(n)ss(ulibus)28
IP 19: CIL 13, 7028 F Sequentiae Faustinae / coniugi sanctissimae / et dulcissimae / quae vixit (Mogontiacum / annos XXXVII m(enses) IIII / sarcophagum iussu ipseius(!) / Fl(avius) Mainz) Flavianus Aventi/nus dec(urio) alae Indianae / coniugi incomparabili f(aciendum) c(uravit)
IP 20: CIL 13, 7032 F Iuliae Privatae sive Florentiae / coniugi inconparabili Ianuarius / Potens (Mogontiacum / decurio alae I Scub(u)lor(um) sin(gularis) / co(n)s(ularis) dulcissimae ob Mainz) merita eius f(aciendum) c(uravit)
IP 21: CIL 13, 7042 F Sibbaeus Eron/is f(ilius) tubicen ex / cohorte I / Ituraeorum / miles (Mogontiacum / ann(orum) XXIV / stipendiorum VIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz)
IP 22: CIL 13, 7257 F Marcelliniae Marcellae coniug(i) / dilectissimae et dulcissimae (Mogontiacum / sarco/fagum(!) iussu eius Iul(ius) Paterninus dec(urio) alae / Indianae Mainz) coniugi incomparabili f(aciendum) c(uravit)
IP 23: CIL 13, 7296 F C(aio) Iulio C(ai) f(ilio) Volt(inia) / [---]s dec(urioni) alae Pi/[ce]ntin(a)e (Mogontiacum / an(norum) XXXXVIII / [---]F h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) Kastel)
IP 24: AE 1992, 1277 V Tib(erius) Cl(audius) Andecamulus / dec(urio) alae Gem[ell(ianae)] /
27 191 CE. 28 210 CE.
298
(Muttenz) veteran[us] / Apol(lini) et M[inervae?] / v(otum) [s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]
IP 25: CIL 13, 7345a = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) [M(aximo)] / Doli[che]/no Tib(erius) Cl(audius) CCID 518 = AE 1948, 7(centurio) co(hortis) / I Dam(ascenorum) [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) 158 (Nida / m(erito)] Heddernheim)29
IP 26: CIL 13, 7362 V D(eo) in(victo) C(aius) / Lollius / Crispus]/ |(centurio) coh(ortis) XXXII / (Nida / Heddernheim) Vol(untariorum)
IP 27: Schillinger 105 V Deae Candidae / Reginae / L(ucius) Augustius / Iustus |(centurio) = AE 1978, 535 (Nida / coh(ortis) / II Raetorum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) Heddernheim)
IP 28: Schillinger 106 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Sextius Ur/sus vetera/nus ex dec(urione) / = AE 1978, 536 (Nida / c(o)ho(rtis) I Damas/cenorum in / suo ex voto / posuit Albi/no et Maximo Heddernheim) co(n)s(ulibus)
IP 29: AE 1903, 144 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et Iu/noni Regi/nae Titio/nius Prim/us (Niederberg) 7(centurio) coh(ortis) VIII / Raet(orum) eq(uitatae) / v(otum) m(erito) s(olvit)
IP 30: CIL 13, 7736a V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et Iu/noni reg/[i]nae Titio/niu[s] Prim/us (Niederberg) 7(centurio) [c]oh(ortis) VII / Rae[t(orum)] eq(uitatae) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [l(aetus)] m(erito)
IP 31: CIL 13, 6286 F L(ucio) Valerio Alb/ino dom(o) IIIISI[---] / 7(centurio) c(o)ho(rtis) I (Offenburg) Trhacu[m] (!) / ann(orum) LXV sti(pendiorum) XXIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
IP 32: CIL 13, 6569 = V Genio t(urmae) I[us]/ti At[ti]an[i] / Iustius At/tianus d[ec(urio)] / de suo RSO 18 = AE 1893, 42 pos(uit) [---] (Osterburken)
IP 33: CIL 13, 11767 = D [--- pr]o salute coh(ortis) III Aq[uit(anorum)] / [Ul]pius(?) Iulianus RSO 52 medicus / [c]oh(ortis) s(upra) s(criptae) bene merentib[us] / [d]e suo (Osterburken)30 pos(u)it Saturn[ino] / [e]t Gal(l)o co(n)s(ulibus) l(ibens) [m(erito)]
IP 34: AE 1971, 278 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Florentini(us) / Quintianus / vet(eranus) Schillinger 30 coh(ortis) XXIIII / vol(untariorum) ex corni/cul(ario) pr(a)ef(ecti) / (Stettfeld)
29 227 CE, included because the soldier is a veteranus, and therefore recruited before the constitutio Antoniniana. 30 198 CE.
299
v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
1P 35: CIL 13, 11775 V [I]n h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) Herc(uli) [---]i/no Adn(amatius) = RSOR 4 (Stockstadt) Superstis(!) / dec(urio) coh(ortis) II Hisp(anorum) v(otum) / s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
IP 36: CIL 13, 11785 = V Minervae / [P]apias sig/[n]if(er) coh(ortis) I / [Aquit(anorum) vet(eranae) RSOR 17 (Stockstadt) eq(uitatae) ---]
IP 37: Schillinger 58 = V In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) / I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Attius RSOR 5 = AE 1967, Terti/[u]s 7(centurio) coh(ortis) II His/[pa]norum p/[ro] salute sua / [et] 335 (Stockstadt) Cissonis / coniugis su/ae et filior/um suoru/m v(otum) s(usceptum) p(osuit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
IP 38: CIL 13, 7395 = V Marti et Victo/riae / Soemus Severus / cornicul(arius) coh(ortis) ILS 2585 (Strassheim) Fl(aviae) / Damas(cenorum) (milliariae) eq(uitatae) sag(ittariorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
IP 39: CIL 13, 6528 D [---] cura M[---] / [---] sesq(uiplicarius) al[ae // ]OS IM[---] (Welzheim)
IP 40: AE 2001, 1544 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Quintioni/us Servian/us veteran(us) / 31 (Wolfersheim) ex (sesquiplicario) al(a)e In/dianae Ant/oninian[ae] / [---]
IP 41: CIL 13, 7743 (?) F [D]is Manib(us) C(aius) I(ulius) Fl[----] / c(ornicularius) trib(uni) mil(itum) coh(ortis) / [v]o[l(untariorum)] 7(centuria) Capitonis / [milit(avit)] annis XV C[---]
9. GS Auxiliary infantry and cavalry milites gregales
A 1: CIL 13, 6270 = D F Faustinio Faustino Sennauci Florionis fil(io) mil(iti) / coh(ortis) I 2588 (Altiaea / Alzey) F(laviae) D(amascenorum) ped(iti) sing(ulari) co(n)s(ularis) Gemmellinia Faustina mat(er) / et Faustinia Potentina sor(or) her(edes) secundum volumt(atem!) / testamenti pos(uerunt) vixit an(nos) [---]V decidit in flore
31 211-222 CE (AE comm. ad loc).
300
iuvent(a)e / f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
A 2: CIL 13, 7684 F [F]irmus / Ecconis f(ilius) / mil(es) ex coh(orte) / Raetorum / natione (Andernach) M/ontanus / ann(orum) XXXVI / stip(endiorum) X[IIII] h[---] [---]es Fuscus / serv[us] heres [e]x tes[t(amento)] / po[sui]t
A 3: CIL 13, 5095 F [---] 7(centuria?) [---]V[---] / [---] Anien[si ---] / [---]ius [---] / [---] (Aventicum / mi[l(es) c]oh(ortis) I Ho[---] / c(ivium) R(omanorum) |(centuria) Senecae Avenches) a[n(norum)] / XL stip(endiorum) XVIII hi[c] / situs est testa[m(ento)] / fieri iussit
A 4: CIL 13, 11605 = V Marti / Loucet(io) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito) / Fittio ILS 9136 (Argentorate Cond/olli f(ilio) eq(ues) al/a Petri(ana) Treve(rorum) / Strasbourg)
A 5: CIL 13, 6305 = F L(ucius) Reburrinius / L(uci) f(ilius) Cl(audia) Candidus / Ara mil(es) ILS 2573 (Baden- c(o)h(ortis) XXVI / vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) (!) Anici Baden) Vic/toris stip(endiorum) XIII / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 6: AE 1909, 130 = F C(aius) Veturiu[s] / C(ai) f(ilius) Vetur[ia] / Dexter Pla/cent(ia) mil(es) CIL 13, 11717 (Baden- co[h(ortis)] / XXVI Vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / |(centuria) Baden) Victoris a[n(norum)] / XXXX stip(endiorum) XV[I] / h(eres) f(ecit)
A 7: CIL 13, 7507 F Annaius Pravai f(ilius) Daverzus / mil(es) ex coh(orte) IIII Delmatarum / (Bingium / ann(orum) XXXVI stipend(iorum) XV / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) p(osuit) Bingerbruck)
A 8: CIL 13, 7508 F Bato Dasantis fil(ius) / natione Ditio mil(es) ex / coh(orte) IIII (Bingium / Delmatarum a/nn(orum) XXXV stipendior(um) XV / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Bingerbruck) h(eres) p(osuit)
A 9: CIL 13, 7509 = F Beusas Sut/ti f(ilius) Delmat(us) / mil(es) coh(ortis) IIII / [Delm]atar(um) CIL 13, 11962 / ann(orum) XXVI / stip(endiorum) VII h(eres) p(osuit) / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) (Bingium / Bingerbruck)
A 10: CIL 13, 7510 F [B]reucus Blaedar[I f(ilius)] / miles ex coh(orte) I Panno(niorum) / (Bingium / natione Breucus / [a]n(norum) XXXVI stip(endiorum) XVI h(ic) s(itus) Bingerbruck) e(st) h(eres) p(osuit)
A 11: CIL 13, 7511 F Scenus Assenionis / f(ilius) mil(es) ex c(o)ho(rte) I Pannoni/or[u]m (Bingium / ann(orum) XXXV stip(endiorum) / [X]VII <
301
Bingerbruck)
A 12: CIL 13, 7512 F Biddu[---] Astor(is) / f(ilius) Tripo[li Sur]us c(o)h(ortis) / I (Bingium / Bingen) sag(ittariorum) a[nn(orum)] XXVII / s(t)i(pendiorum) / XV hi(c) s(itus) est / Asipa [---]
A 13: CIL 13, 7513 = F Hyperanor Hyperano/ris f(ilius) Cretic(us) Lappa mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) / I ILS 2570 (Bingium / sag(ittariorum) ann(orum) LX stip(endiorum) XVIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Bingerbruck)
A 14: CIL 13, 7514 = F Tib(erius) Iul(ius) Abdes Pantera / Sidonia ann(orum) LXII / ILS 2571 (Bingium / stipen(diorum) XXXX miles exs(!) / coh(orte) I sagittariorum / h(ic) s(itus) Bingerbruck) e(st)
A 15: CIL 13, 7515 F C(aius) Iulius H/astaius / c(o)hor(tis) sagi(ttariorum) / mis(s)icius / (Bingium / Bingen) Amoena l(iberta ) h(ic) s(iti) s(unt)
A 16: CIL 13, 7516 ? [--- miles] / co(hortis) IIII [Delmatarum --- h(ic s(itus) e(st)?]32 (Bingium / Bingerbruck)
A 17: CIL 13, 11962a F [---] / natione Sur/us miles exs(!) |coh(orte) / I sagittarior/um an(norum) L (Bingium / Bingen) stip(endiorum) / XI h(ic) [s(itus) e(st)
A 18: CIL 13, 6230 = F Argiotalus / Smertulitani / f(ilius) Namnis equ(es) / ala(e) Indiana(e) / ILS 2496 stip(endiorum) X anno(rum) / XXX h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / (h)eredes posue/runt (Borbetomagus / Worms)
A 19: CIL 13, 6233 F Q(uinto) Carminio In/gen[u]o [eq]uit[i ala(e) I?] / Hispanorum (Borbetomagus / a[nn(orum) ---] / stip(endiorum) XXV signifero / sacer(doti) Iulius h(eres) Worms) e(x) t(estamento)
A 20: CIL 13, 6234 F Licinius Clossi / f(ilius) Helvetius ann(orum) / XLVII eques ala(e) I / (Borbetomagus / Hisp(anorum) stip(endiorum) XXVI h(ic) [s(itus) e(st)] / Tib(erius) Iul(ius) Worms) Capito h(eres) [---]
32 The unit‟s ethnic title can be securely restored based on comparanda from Bingium. There is no evidence that this unit was equitate. CIL 13, 07509 = CIL 13, 11962, a first century tombstone from Bingium using the expected formula mil(es) coh(ortis) contemporaneously with mil(es) ex coh(orte), preserves a welcome comparandum on which to base reconstruction. This is probably an auxiliary tombstone rather than a religious dedication. If it is a tombstone, then it should conform to pre-Flavian formulae.
302
A 21: CIL 13, 6235 = F Partus Mutii f(ilius) / eques ala(e) Agrippi/ana(e) natione Trever / ILS 2503 annoru(m) XXXV stip(endiorum) / [X]IIII hic sit(us) est / fratres posuerunt (Borbetomagus / Worms)
A 22: CIL 13, 6240 F Veiagenus / Sisgi f(ilius) mil/es ex coh/orte Raeto(rum) / an(norum) XLVI (Borbetomagus / stip(endiorum) / XXIV natus M/onte / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Worms)
A 23: CIL 13, 6242 F [---]S / [---]ni f(ilius) / miles ex / cohorte / [R]aetor(um) et (Borbetomagus / Vindol(corum!) / ann(orum) XL[---] / stip(endiorum) XXIV / h(ic) Worms) s(itus) e(st) / frater p(osuit)
A 24: CIL 13, 11709 = F Leubius Claupi / f(ilius) eq(ues) missicius / ala Sebosiana / an(norum) AE 1899, 191 LXXXI h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / Gratus f(ilius) miles / ex t(estamento) f(ecit) (Borbetomagus / Worms)
A 25: RISch 2, 186 = F Caeno [---] / f(ilius) c(enturio) coh(ortis) His[pa]nor(um) / domo Tancia / AE 1971, 276 = AE Norbana ann(orum) XL stip(endiorum) XVIIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / 1972, 353 (Brugg) Cundigus Boeli f(ilius) / h(eres) p(osuit)
A 26: CIL 13, 7399a V Victor/iae / M(arcus) Iuni[us] / Iovin[ia]/[n]us m[il(es)] / [c]oh(ortis) I (Freidberg) Aq(uitanorum) (v(otum) [s(olvit)] / l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
A 27: CIL 13, 6407 = V [--- eques] / coh(ortis) II Aug(ustae) / C[y]ren(aicae) eq(uitatae) / tur(ma) RSO 58 (Heidelberg) Au[r]el(i) Res/titut(i) v(oto?) a(nimo?) l(ibens?) f[e]c[i]t
A 28: CIL 13, 11734 = F [---]N[---] / [---]ac[---] / [---]a mi[l(es)] / [--- co]h(ortis) XXIII[I] / RSO 109 (Heidelberg- [vol(untariorum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) 7(centuria) V]etti [---] Neuenheim)
A 29: AE 2000, 1096 O Tur(mae) Corneli Genialis SVP (Lopodunum / Ladenburg)
A 30: CIL 13, 7436 = D Imp(eratore) Com(modo) Vag(usto!) / coh(ortis) I Bit(urigum) AE 1893, 38 = AE 7(centuriae) Primi/tivi Masclioni / Primus 1900, 211 = AE 1969/70, 439 (Langenhain)
A 31: AE 1992, 1292 O Titus / 7(centuriae) Vitrii (Langenhain)
303
A 32: AE 1992, 1293 D Imp(eratore) Com(modo) Aug(usto) / coh(ortis) I Bit(urigum) t(urmae) (Langenhain) Vero/niani(?) / [.] A[---]isu[s]
A 33: AE 1992, 1294 D Imp(eratore)] Com(modo) Aug(usto) / coh(ortis) I Bit(urigum) (Langenhain) 7(centuriae) C(ai) / [..]nsani / Sattonis
A 34: CIL 13, 7023 = F Andes Sex(ti) f(ilius) / cives Raeti/nio eq(ues) ala(e) / Claud(iae) ILS 2504 an(norum) XXX / stip(endiorum) V h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) f(aciendum) (Mogontiacum / c(uravit) Mainz)
A 35: CIL 13, 7024 = F Iulius Ingenius / Massae f(ilius) / cives(!) (H)elvetius / miss(icius) ex al(a) AE 1898, 72 Fl(avia) / hic sit(us) est h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 36: CIL 13, 7025 F Annauso Seda/vonis f(ilius) cives / Betasiu[s eq(ues) al(ae)] / II Flavia(e) (Mogontiacum / [---] Mainz)
A 37: CIL 13, 7026 F Rufus Coutus/vati f(ilius) natio(ne) (H)elvetius / eques ala(e) (H)ispanae / (Mogontiacum / sti(pendiorum) XIIX an(n)o(rum) XXXVI / her(es) p(osuit) h(ic) s(itus) Mainz) e(st)
A 38: CIL 13, 7027 F [---] eques / [a]la(e) Hispanorum / [st]p(endiorum) XXII an(n)o(rum) (Mogontiacum / XLV / hi(c) situs est Mainz)
A 39: CIL 13, 7029 F C(aius) Romanius / eq(ues) alae Norico(rum) / Cl(audia) Capito / Celeia (Mogontiacum / an(norum) XL stip(endiorum) XIX / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) ex Mainz) t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 40: CIL 13, 7030 F [---]rationis / [f(ilius) eques alae N]oricorum / [an(norum) --- (Mogontiacum / s]tip(endiorum) VII h(ic) s(itus) / [e(st) heres?] fecit Mainz)
A 41: CIL 13, 7031 = F Adbogius Coi/nagi f(ilius) na(tione) Petr/ucorius eq(ues) ala / Rusonis ILS 2500 an(norum) XXIIX sti(pendiorum) X / hic situs est / ex testamen/to libertus / (Mogontiacum / fecit Mainz)33
A 42: CIL 13, 7036 = F Freioverus / Veransati f(ilius) / cives Tung(rus) eq(ues) ex / coh(orte) I ILS 2575 Astur(um) an(norum) / XL stip(endiorum) XXII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) /
33 The cavalryman‟s libertus was presumably his former calo.
304
(Mogontiacum / t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit) h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) Mainz)
A 43: CIL 13, 7037 F Ogrigenus / Pintil(i?) f(ilius) ex / cohorte / A{e}stur
A 44: CIL 13, 7038 F Aprilis Soi f(ilius) 7(centurio) c(o)ho(rtis) / Belgica(e) / natione / (Mogontiacum / Li(n)gauster / ann(orum) XXII / h(ic) [s(itus) e(st)] Mainz)
A 45: CIL 13, 7039 F Talanio(?) / Plassi f(ilius) / Docleas / mil(es) ex coh/orte V Dal(matarum) (Mogontiacum / / 7(centuria) Capitonis / anno(rum) XXXV / stip(endiorum) VI h(ic) s(itus) Mainz) e(st) / Ziraeus po/s{s}uit mun/iceps(!) suo
A 46: CIL 13, 7040 F Caeus Han/eli f(ilius) m{h}iles / ex coh(orte) I Itu/ra
A 47: CIL 13, 7041 = F Monimus / Ierombali f(ilius) / mil(es) c(o)hor(tis) I / Ituraeor(um) / ILS 2562 ann(orum) L stip(endiorum) XXI / h(ic) s(itus) est (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 48: CIL 13, 7043 F Ca(ius) Vinicar(ius?) L(uci) / f(ilius) coh(ortis) I Ytu/raior(um!) (Mogontiacum / annor(um) / XXXVII stip(endiorum) IIII / L(ucius) Vinicar(ius?) / fra(ter) Mainz)34 fa(ciendum) cu(ravit)
A 49: CIL 13, 7046 F [---] f(ilius) mil(es) / [--- Panno]nioru(m?) / [---]TE / [---] (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 50: CIL 13, 7047 F Attio L[i]ani(?) f(ilius) Mo/ntanus annor(um) XLV / mil(es) co(ho)r(tis) (Mogontiacum / Raitorum(!) / stip(endiorum) XIX / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz)
A 51: CIL 13, 7048 F Cuses Sug/ent(i) f(ilius) Regus ex / c(o)ho(rte) Raet(orum) et (Mogontiacum / Vin(delicorum) / annor(um) XL stip(endiorum) / XX h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz)
A 52: CIL 13, 7049 F [---]/sese Lenulae f(ilius) D[a]/nsala mil(es) ex coh(orte) [IIII?] / (Mogontiacum / Thracum ann(orum) XXXI / stip(endiorum) XII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz)
34 It is uncertain whether L. Vinicarius was an auxiliary like his brother. Frater is ambiguous here, but the gentilicium shared by both dedicant and deceased is not.
305
A 53: CIL 13, 7050 F C(aius) Tutius Mani f(ilius) / Dans(ala) eq(ues) ex co[h(orte)] / IIII (Mogontiacum / Trhac(um!) an(norum) XXXV / st(ipendiorum) X h(ic) s(itus) e(st) posu(it) Mainz) / Bitus Stac(---) f(ilius) ex / testament
A 54: CIL 13, 7044 F [--- coh(ortis) I I]/turaeo[r(um) an(norum) ---] / stip(endiorum) II h(eres) (Mogontiacum / f(aciendum) c(uravit) Mainz)
A 55: CIL 13, 7045 F Reburrus Co/roturetis f(ilius) mil(es) / c(o)ho(rtis) I Lucensiu(m) / (Mogontiacum / Hispanorum / an(norum) LIII sti(pendiorum) XXIIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz) h(eres) ex t(estamento) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 56: CIL 13, 7051 F [---] Thrac(um) / [--- s]tip(endiorum) XIII / [he]res posuit (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 57: CIL 13, 7052 F Petronius Disacentus / Dentubrise f(ilius) eq(ues) turma(e) / Longini ex (Mogontiacum / c(o)ho(rte) VI Thra(cum) / ann(orum) XXV stip(endiorum) V h(ic) s(itus) Mainz) e(st) / heres pos(u)it
A 58: CIL 13, 7060 O 7(Centuria) Octiumei / Fers(---) Sabini (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 59: CIL 13, 7060a O 7(Centuria) Prionimi(?) / Sen/ti (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 60: CIL 13, 7246 F Capito Auguri / f(ilius) veteranus ex / coh(orte) II Raetoru(m) / an(norum) (Mogontiacum / LII h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) Mainz)
A 61: CIL 13, 11868 = F Genialis Clusiodi / f(ilius) imag(inifer) ex coh(orte) VII / Rae(torum) ILS 9167 an(norum) XXXV stip(endiorum) / XIII h(eres) p(osuit) (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 62: AE 1910, 211 = F [---]us Paturi / [fil(ius) eq(ues) a]l(ae) Pice(ntianae) nati/[one Nori]cus CIL 13, 11869 an(norum) XXXV / [stip(endiorum) V(?)] h(eres) posuit / [---]o CIVERVM (Mogontiacum / / [---] Mainz)
A 63: CIL 13, 11870 F Surus Coc/ae f(ilius) nati(one) / Dansala / mil(es) e[x ---] (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
306
A 64: AE 1938, 120 = F Paulla Ti(beri) / Iuli Selvani / ex c(o)hor(te) Sur(orum) / anno(rum) XXIIX Nesselhauf 113 / h(ic) s(ita) e(st) / (h)ospes si vacu(u)m / est tumuli cog/noscere cas{s}us / (Mogontiacum / perlege nam mo/rtis [[---]] caus{s}a / dolenda fu{u}it / dic rogo nu(n)c Mainz) iuve/nis sit tibi terra / levis
A 65: AE 1940, 114 = F Nunadus / Sacri f(ilius) Runi/cas miles ex / c(o)ho(rte) Raet(orum) et / Nesselhauf 114a Vindelico(rum) / anno(rum) XXXIIII / stip(endiorum) XI h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / (Mogontiacum / hered(e)s / 7(centuriones) Rufus / et Munnis Mainz)35
A 66: AE 1940, 115 F Sterio Exi/mnii f(ilius) miles / ann(orum) XL stip(endiorum) / XVI ex (Mogontiacum / c(o)hor(te) / Raet(orum) et Vndel(icorum) / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz)
A 67: AE 1962, 290 = F Abaius [---] / f(ilius) na(tione) Pan(nonicus) / eq(ues) ala[e Schillinger 92 P]ic(entianae?) [---] (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 68: AE 1965, 251 = F Theander Aristome/ni f(ilius) Cretensis mil(es) / coh(ortis) I Noricor(um) Schillinger 66 optio / an(norum) XLV stip(endiorum) XXVI h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) (Mogontiacum / f(aciundum) c(uravit) Mainz)
A 69: AE 1959, 188 = F Maris Casiti f(ilius) anno(rum) L / stip(endiorum) XXX ala Part(h)o(rum) Ness-Lieb 169 = AE et / Araborum turma / Variagnis Masicates / frater et Tigranus / posierunt 1967, 339 (!) (Mogintiacum / Mainz)
A 70: Finke 212 F [---] eq(ues) ala(e) Nori[corum ---] / [---] an(norum) XXX stip(endiorum) (Mogontiacum / [---] Mainz)
A 71: Nesselhauf 112 F [---]ili f(ilius) d(omo) IO[---] / anoru[m ---] / eques d[upla]ius (?) ala[e = AE 1940, 116 Ind?]/ iana? [---] (Mogontiacum /Mainz)36
35 Centurions are the heirs and dedicants of this infantryman‟s monument. 36 Nesselhauf‟s text differs significantly from that of AE 1940, 116: [---]/ili f(ilius) d(omo) To[---] / an(n)or(um) V[- --] / eques p[ecua]/rius ala(e) / [Ind]iana(e?) [---]. An identification of this text with ala Indiana Gallorum is probable, given the existence of other inscriptions at Mogontiacum mentioning this unit (AE 1929, 130, CIL 13, 7028). Cf. Spaul 1994: 152-153, esp. 153 n.2, although Spaul does not record Nesselhauf‟s edition in his references. There are no direct parallels for an eques pecuarius, although, as Spaul notes, CIL 13, 7077 and CIL 13, 8287 record a miles pecuarius. However, Nesselhauf read d instead of p; his solution d[upla]ius, an alternate form of duplicarius, is plausible, although comparanda in Roman Germany are lacking. The apparent nominative case of the unit is puzzling, unless the editors of AE were correct in assuming an error in inscription, but the possibility of
307
A 72: Nesselhauf 115 F [---]us Iucu/ndus m/il(es) coh(ortis) / XXIIII vol(untariorum) / an(norum) (Mogontiacum / L sti(pendiorum) / XXI[---] Mainz)
A 73: Schillinger 59 = F M(arcus) Traidua Did[ae f(ilius)] / natione Salet[a eq(ues)] / ex coh(orte) AE 1965, 258 = AE IV Thra[cum] / [--- h(ic)] s(itus) e(st) [h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)] 1978, 556 (Mogontiacum /
Mainz)
A 74: Schillinger 99 = F Antiochus / Antiochi f(ilius) / Parthus Anaz/arbaeus eques / ala(e) AE 1976, 495 Parthorum / et Araborum evo/catus triplicarius / stip(endiorum) X donis (Mogontiacum / don/atus Belesippus / frater posuit Mainz)
A 75: Schillinger 101 F Molaecus / Samuti f(ilius) / an(norum) L ex co(horte) III / Ituraius / = AE 1976, 497b = AE stip(endiorum) XIIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) 1978, 562 (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
A 76: CIL 13, 7297 F [---] C(ai) Iuli Aqui[t]i / [---] nat(ione) Pictav(i) / [---] eques(!) [---]II / [- (Mogontiacum / --] Kastel)
A 77: CIL 13, 11938 = V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Meloni/us Nigr/inus vex(illarius) / [coh(ortis) I RSO 23 (Mogontiacum Lig(urum)] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)] // I(ovi) O(ptimo) / Kastel) M(aximo) / Meloni/[us Nig]/[rinus] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)]
A 78: AE 1945, 78 = F Pradus / Sarn(i) f(ilius) / mil(es) ex / coh(orte) VII Br/eucorum / Ness-Lieb 170 an(norum) XXV / stip(endiorum) IIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) (Mogontiacum / Weisenau)
A 79: Finke 352 = AE F Fronto / Dregeni f(ilius) natione / Ubius eques / ala(e) Ind[ianae 1929, 130 ann(orum) --- stip(endiorum) --- h(ic) s(itus) e(st)?] (Mogontiacum / Weisenau)37
A 80: Ness-Lieb 171 F [--- Ner]rviro(um) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / [|(centuria?)] Vari(?) Prisci / (Mogontiacum / [an(norum?) --- stip(endiorum) ---] I h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Weisenau) eq(ues) (ex) ala [Ind]iana, could solve this problem. Thus there might be a parallel with the miles ex cohorte formula, which had a usage peculiar to Roman Germany (see M. A. Speidel 1993: 193, 196, and discussion in ch. 3). 37 The sole mention of the ethnic Ubius among extant auxiliary personnel; see also ch. 3.
308
A 81: CIL 13, 6533 F D(is) M(anibus) / Asson(ius) Iustus mil(es) / coh(ortis) XXIIII (Murrhardt) Vol(untariorum) vix(it) / an(nos) XL Cintusmus / s[e]c(undus) her(es) sua vol(untate) f(ecit)
A 82: CIL 13, 7331 V Divabus SO[---] / Solimarus m[il(es)] / coh(ortis) IIII Vind(elicorum) [ex (Nida / Heddernheim) i]/us(su?) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito) s(olvit?)
A 83: CIL 13, 7342 = V Deo Dol(icheno) / Atilius / Tertius / ex coh(orte) / II Aug(usta) CCID 519 (Nida /
A 84: CIL 13, 7365 V Fortu[n(ae)] / sacrum / Tacilus eq(ues) / alae I Fla(viae) / t(urma?) (Nida / Heddernheim) Cl(audi) Amici / v(otum) [s(olvit)] l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
A 85: CIL 13, 7381 F Dis Man(ibus) / Q(uinto) Favonio / Varo fil(io) / Q(uintus) Favoni/us (Nida / Varus / coh(ortis) XXXII / Vol(untariorum) pater / et Terenti/[a mater? --- Heddernheim)38 fecerunt?]
A 86: CIL 13, 7382 F D(is) M(anibus) / P(h)iladelp(h)us / P(h)ilandri Ca[p]/padox [m]i[l](es) / (Nida / Heddernheim) [c]o[h(ortis)] XXXII Vol(untariorum) / |(centuria) Ianuari / an(norum) [L] st(ipendiorum) [X]XX
A 87: CIL 13, 7383, F Diis(!) Manibus / L(ucius) Val(erius) Felix / Galeria Lug(uduno) / miles (Nida / Heddernheim) coh(ortis) XXXII Vo[l(untariorum)] / 7(centuria) Nerati Cleom[e]/nis / [a]nnorum XXXX/ [a]erorum(!) XXI / cura(m) egit her(es)
A 88: CIL 13, 11947 F G(aius?) Rant(ius) / Manibus / Atrectus N/ani fil(iu)s coh(orte) IIII / (Nida / Heddernheim) Vindel(icorum) 7(centuria) Mura/esi heres sec/un(d)us d(e) s(uo) p(osuit)
A 89: CIL 13, 11948 F [---] f(ilius) civ[is --- eq(ues)] / al(ae) I Flavi(ae) t[ur(mae?) -----]/ani (Nida / Heddernheim) an(norum) XXV [---]
A 90: CIL 13, 11952 D Imp(eratore) Com(modo) Aug(usto) / coh(ortis) XXXII Vol(untariorum) / (Nida / Heddernheim) 7(centuria) Victo(---) Dasius / Masuri
A 91: Schillinger 115 D I(mperatore) C(ommodo) A(ugusto) c(ohortis) / XXXII / v(oluntariorum) = AE 1978, 542 (Nida / |(centuriae) C(---) Q(---) / Val(eri) / Pri(---) Heddernheim)
38 Terentia seems most likely to be the mother of the younger Q. Favonius Varus; if so, then the text appears to anticipate mater after her name, in parallel with pater which immediately follows the name of the elder Favonius. It is impossible to determine whether the tombstone specified these people as heredes.
309
A 92: RSO 106 = F D(is) M(anibus) / Marcellus Bolgedonis / miles coh(ortis) I Ligur(um) / Schillinger 57 = AE civis Sequan(us) / stip(endiorum) XXIII / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) 1967, 338 (Niedernberg)
A 93: Schillinger 135 O T(urmae) Grati / Ulpi / Aprilis / t(urmae) Tulli (Okarben)
A 94: CIL 13, 6277 = F Silius Attonis f(ilius) / eq(ues) alae Picent(ianae) / an(norum) XLV ILS 2497 (Oppenheim) stip(endiorum) XXIV / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 95: CIL 13, 6585 = O 7(Centuria) Messoris / Saciro RKO 3 (Osterburken)
A 96: AE 1907, 247 = D Imp(eratore) Com(modo) Aug(usto) / coh(ors) XXXII Vol(untariorum) / CIL 13, 11952 7(centuria) Victo(ris?) / Dasius Masuri (Saalburg, Bahnhof)
A 97: CIL 13, 11678a D [In h(onorem) d(omus) [d(ivinae)] / [I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / [---]s / (Schweighausen-zur- Lucius vet(eranus) / c(o)ho(rtis) XXIIII vol(untariorum) / c(ivium) Moder) R(omanorum) v(ivus) f(ecit) L[---]
A 98: CIL 13, 6456 V [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et] Ion[on(i)] (!)/ [Reg]in[ae pr]o sal(ute) / (Steinheim) L(uci) Dur[i] A(uli) [f(ilii)] Pereg/rini vet(erani) ex (cohorte) vol(untariorum) / et suorum omni/um voto (!) suscepit l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
A 99: CIL 13, 6656 = F [---] / Diomed[es] / mil(es) coh(ortis) II [H]/isp(anorum) natione / RSOR 50 (Stockstadt) Isaur(us) stip(endiorum) VI Fron/ton et Marcus vexil(l)a(rii) / cur(averunt)
A 100: AE 1992, 1285 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Val(erius) Qua/rtus vet(eranus) / ex coh(orte) (Stockstadt) II H/isp(anorum) pro sal(ute) / et suorum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
A 101: CIL 13, 7579 = F Muranus / eq(ues) ala(e) I Flavia(nae) / Androuri f(ilius) civis / Secuanus ILS 2507 (Wiesbaden) (!) stip(endiorum) XXI / N
A 102: CIL 13, 7580 F T(itus) Flavius Celsu[s] / veter(anus) ex ala Scubu[l]/orum cives(!) (Wiesbaden) Sappa/us ann(orum) L h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) f(aciendum) [c(uravit)]
310
A 103: CIL 13, 7581 = F Dassius Da/etoris fil(ius) / Maeseius / mil(es) coh(ortis) V / Delmatarum / ILS 2561 (Wiesbaden) an(norum) XXXV sti(pendiorum) / XVI h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 104: CIL 13, 7582 F Licaius Seri f(ilius) miles / ex c(o)ho(rte) I Pa(n)nonioru(m) an(norum) / (Wiesbaden) XXX sti(pendiorum) XVI h(ic) s(itus) e(st) frater op(!) pie(tatem) / f(ecit)
A 105: CIL 13, 7583 F C(aius) Iul(ius) C(ai) f(ilius) / Cleme(n)s / Foro Iuli / vet(eranus) 39 (Wiesbaden) an(norum) LX // C(aius) Iul(ius) Sab[i]/nus filiu[s] / |(centurio) coh(ortis) II Rae[t(orum)] / c(ivium) R(omanorum) an(norum) XXV // [h(ic)] s(iti) s(unt) t(estamento) f(ieri) i(usserunt) hered(es) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
A 106: CIL 13, 7584 = F Q(uintus) / Vibius A(u)g/ustus Raetus / mil(es) coh(ortis) II Raet(orum) / ILS 2566 (Wiesbaden) an(norum) XXX stip(endiorum) XIII / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 107: CIL 13, 7585 F Dolanus Esbe/ni f(ilius) Bessus eq(ues) ex / coh(orte) IIII / Thracum / (Wiesbaden) anno(rum) XXXXVI / stipendi(orum) XXIIII / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 108: AE 1996, 1149 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Iul(ius) Iblio[m]/arus [mil(es)] / coh(ortis) I[I (Wimpfen) His]pan(orum) b(ene)f(iciarius) [pra]/ef(ecti) v(otum) [s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)]
10. GS Auxiliary Rank / Text Uncertain
ARU 1: CIL 13, 7686 F Dis Man(ibus) / Fouttie/nus L(uci) f(il)i(us) / Cai(---) |(centuria) IIVI(?) / 40 (Andernach) Valentinia
ARU 2: CIL 13, 7428 O [Coh(---) ---] Aqu[i(tanorum) ---] (Echzell)
39 Two auxiliaries of different rank, father and son, are commemorated on the same monument. Both were Roman citizens. 40 Both the findspot and the deceased‟s peregrine name, with an unknown tribal origo Cai(---), suggests auxiliary service. Valentinia‟s relationship to the deceased is unclear; her failure to mention any specific family relationship may be indicative of status as a concubina. If she were Fouettienus‟ daughter, one would expect this to be mentioned; cf. CIL 13, 7687: [Sul]picio(?) / [---]uco / [---]ania / [---] et fil(ia) / [---]tina.
311
ARU 3: CIL 13, 7419 F [---] Spera/[tus --- c]oh(ortis) IIII Vin(delicorum) / [---] (Grosskrotzenburg)
ARU 4: Finke 192 = ? [---]S[---] / [---]us [---] / [--- co]h(ors) I G[erm(anorum) RSO 113 (Jagsthausen)
ARU 5: RISch 2, 246 F [---] Moes[icae Felicis] / [--- torqu]atae [---] / [---] usu ex [---] / [--- (Kaiseraugst) a]lae His[panorum] / [--- c]uravi[t ---]
ARU 6: AE 1969/70, F [---] / [alae] Moes[icae] / [torqu]atae [h(ic) s(itus) e(st)] / [---]us 421 = AE 1971, 277 = vex[illa]/[rius a]lae His[pa]/[nae fac(iendum) c]uravi[t] AE 1992, 1276 (Kaiseraugst)
ARU 7: CIL 13, 6687 V In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) Genio c(o)hor(tis) I / Septimi(a)e (Mogontiacum / Bel(garum) [[---]] p(ecunia) s(ua) / pos(uerunt) / Clau(dius) Valerius / Mainz) Genti(lius?) Augustus / Simili(us?) Pat[e]rnus / Senec(ionius?) F[---]inus / Hibern(ius?) Agilis / Iunian(us) Rogatus / S[---I[---]M[---]S / Resti(tutius?) Patruinus / [ // [G](e)ntius Verinus / S[enu]r(ius?) Maternus / P(ublius) Ae[lius] Moderatus / Aquin(ius) M[---]nus / [(A)e]lius Lupionis / Decemi(us?) Florinus / [---]V[---]
ARU 8: CIL 13, 7053 F [---]TYE[---] / [---]MA[---] / [--- e]x coh(orte) III[---] (Mogontiacum / Mainz)
ARU 9: CIL 13, 7381, F Dis Man(ibus) / Q(uinto) Favonio / Varo fil(io) / Q(uintus) Favoni/us Mogontiacum / Mainz Varus / coh(ortis) XXXII / Voluntariorum pater et Terenti/[a…]
ARU 10: AE 1916, 125 O [---]I[---] / [---]nam castr[o]rum / [--- s]ignis tuendos et / [---] proposui = CIL 13, 11831 = CIL ipse ingr/[---]s provincias dimi/[ssi ---] legionum o[m]nium / [---]redique 13, 11832 in locand[is] / [--- p]raescriptum a me / [--- cohor]tium [a]uxiliariar[um] (Mogontiacum / Mainz)41 (sic) / [---]nque pertes
ARU 11: CIL 13, F [---]GA[ // a]l[ae ---] / [---] an(norum) X[--- stip(endiorum) ---] / [--- 11867 (Mogontiacum / ]GV[---] Mainz)
ARU 12: AE 1901, 86 F [---]orius [---] / [coh(ortis) I] Itura
41 Von Domaszewski‟s suggestions, CIL ad loc.: [---]I[---] / [--- discipli]nam castrorum [---] / [--- s]ignis tuendos et [colendos(?) ---] / [---] proposui ipse ing[---] / [---]s provincias dimi[si ---] / [---] legionum omnium [---] / [--- reg]redique in locan[dis ---] / [--- p]raescriptum a me [---] / [--- cohor]tium [a]uxiliariar[um ---] / [---]aque pert[in]e[rent ---].
312
(Mogontiacum / stip(endiorum) / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Mainz)
ARU 13: CIL 13, 7384 F [---] ann(orum)] L stip(endiorum) / [---] h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)42 = CIL 13, 7385 (Nida / Heddernheim)
ARU 14: CIL 13, ? [---]NN A[---] / eq(uitata) [---] 11773a = RSO 117 (Obernburg am Main)
ARU 15: CIL 13, 6278 F [---]orius III[--- f.?] / [mil(es) ex coh(orte)? I Aug(usta)? I]turaiorum [--- (Oppenheim) ] / [--- ann]o(rum) XXX sti[p(endiorum) ---] / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
ARU 16: CIL 13, 6577 V In h(onorum) d(omus) d(ivinae) deae / Victoriae / [V]erinus(?) V[---]/[--- = RSO 49 = AE 1896, ]cal[---] / equit[um] / coh(ortis) III Aq/uitanorum / ex voto po/suit l(ibens) 15 (Osterburken) l(aetus) m(erito)
ARU 17: CIL 13, F D(is) [M(anibus)] / Q(uinto) Gavit(i)o [---]/coni c(---) [---] / coh(ortis) III 6586a = RSO 105 [Aq(uitanorum?) ---] / [---]ge su[---]43 / Augus[ta ---] (Osterburken)
ARU 18: Finke 199 = ? [--- co]h(ors) III [Aquitanorum ---] / [---]CI[---] RSO 116 (Osterburken)
ARU 19: CIL 13, 7421 F [---]I[--- / [---]ori D[---] / [--- coh(ortis)] III Dalmat[arum ---] (Rückingen)
ARU 20: CIL 13, 7468 D [---] C[---] / [---] Aug(usto) [---] / [---] Brit(annico) [ // ]I[---] / [---]ER [- (Saalburg, Bahnhof) --] / [--- c]oh(ors) [---]
ARU 21: CIL 13, 7469 D [--- A]ug(usto) co[h(ors)] / II Ra[e]t(orum) c(ivium) R(omanorum) [---] (Saalburg, Bahnhof)
ARU 22: CIL 13, 7470 F [---] / DI[---] / prae[f(ectus)] // ] / [c]oh(ortis) II R[aet(orum) ---] (Saalburg, Bahnhof)
ARU 23: CIL 13, 6527 F [---]I[---]I[---] / [---]O[.]I[.]A[---] / [--- e]q(ues?) a(lae?) I [---] (Welzheim)
ARU 24: CIL 13, 7586 F Blan[---]an[---]iti[---] / civi[s ---]V[---]II[---] / coh(ortis) I[---]I[---] /
42 Tentatlively included. The name and unit are both lost, but the findspot suggests a probable auxiliary identification. 43 [coniu]ge su[o]?
313
(Wiesbaden) stip(endiorum) XX[---] IV / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
ARU 25: CIL 13, F [---] an(norum) / [---] stip(endiorum) IIII / [h(ic)] s(itus) e(st) frater / 7586a (Wiesbaden) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
ARU 26: Finke 348 = ? [---]ario coh(ors) I [Germ(anorum)] / [---]IV[---] RSO 111 (Bad Wimpfen)
ARU 27: Finke 240 = V [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et Iuno]ni Reg(inae) [---] / [--- A]ug(usti) CCID 493 (Zugmantel) M(arci) [A]ure[li ---] / [---] et cast(rorum) [ // [---]IM[---] / [--- co]h(ors) I [Trever(orum)] // ] s [---] / [---] sacer[dote(?) ---]
11-15 : Auxiliary inscriptions of Britannia (B) to ca. 212
11. B Unit commanders: praefecti / tribuni / praepositi
Reference and Designation Text Findspot (ancient Names given first, if known)
P 1: RIB 1724, Aesica / V D[(e)ae F]or[t]u(nae) / vexs(illatio)! G(aesatorum) R(a)eto(rum) / 44 Great Chesters quorum cur/am agit Tabe/llius Victor / 7(centurio)
P 2: RIB 1731, Aesica / V Victoriae Aug(usti) coh(ors) VI / Nerviorum cui praeest G(aius) / Great Chesters Iul(ius) Barbarus praefec(tus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(aeta) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 3: RIB 810, Alauna / V Dis deabusq(ue) / P(aulus) Postumius / Acilianus / praef(ectus) / Maryport coh(ortis) I Delm(atarum)
44 Gaesatorum is a reference to a spear-like weapon in the use of which these Raeti were especially skilled. This unit‟s ethnic title should thus be translated “Raetian spearmen.”
314
P 4: RIB 812 = ILS 3657, V Genio loci / Fortun(ae) Reduci / Romae aetern(ae) / et Fato bono / 45 Alauna / Maryport G(aius) Cornelius / Peregrinus / trib(unus) cohor(tis) / ex provincia / Maur(etania) Caesa(riensi) / domo Sald[i]s / d[e]c(urio) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [l(aetus)] m(erito) // Volanti vivas
P 5: RIB 814, Alauna / V Iovi Aug(usto) / M(arcus) Censorius / M(arci) fil(ius) Voltinia / Maryport [C]ornelianus |(centurio) leg(ionis) / [X Fr]etensis prae/[posi]tus(?) coh(ortis) I m(illiaria) / Hisp(anorum) ex provincia / Narbone[n(si)] domo / Nemauso [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 6: RIB 815, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Num(ini) / Aug(usti) coh(ors) / I Maryport Hispa(norum) / pos(uit)
P 7: RIB 816, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Hisp(anorum) / eq(uitata) cui Maryport praeest / L(ucius) Antistius L(uci) f(ilius) / Quirina Lupus / Verianus praef(ectus) / domu Sic/ca ex Africa
P 8: RIB 817, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I / Hispano(rum) / cui Maryport pra(e)/est C(aius) Cab(allius) / Priscus / trib(unus)
P 9: RIB 818, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / C(aius) Cabal(lius) / Priscus / tribunus Maryport
P 10: RIB 819, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / G(aius) Cabal(lius) / Priscus / Maryport trib(unus)
P 11: RIB 820, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / G(aius) Caba/llius P/riscus / tribun/[us] Maryport
P 12: RIB 821, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) [I Hisp(anorum)] / eq(uitata) Maryport c(ui?) p(raeest?) Pub(lius) / Corn[elius] / Pu[b(li)] fil(ius) / Gal(eria) Ur[---] / [p]raef(ectus) F(---) / P(---) ROMAN(---) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito)]
P 13: RIB 822, Alauna / V Iovi Op(timo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I / Hispa(norum) / cui Maryport pra[e(est)] / Helstri/us Nove[l]/lus prae/fect(us)
P 14: RIB 823, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I His(panorum) / cui prae(est) Maryport
45 The secondary inscription translates “Long live Volantius.”
315
/ M(arcus) Maeni/us Agrip(pa) / tribu(nus) / pos(uit)
P 15: RIB 824, Alauna / V Iovi Op(timo) M(aximo) / et Num(ini) Aug(usti) / M(arcus) Maryport Mae(nius) Agripp(a) / tribun/us pos(uit)
P 16: RIB 825, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Num(ini) Aug(usti) / M(arcus) Maryport Mae(nius) Agrip/pa tribun/us / [p]os(uit)
P 17: RIB 826, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [et Num(ini)] / [Aug(usti)] / Maen(ius) Maryport [Agrip(pa)] / tribu[n(us)]
P 18: RIB 827 = RHP 474, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Cammi/[u]s Maxi/mus Alauna / Maryport prae(fectus) / coh(ortis) I His(panorum) / eq(uitatae) et tri(bunus) XVIII / cohor(tis) volu(ntariorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 19: RIB 828, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Cammi/us Maxim/us Maryport praefec/tus coh(ortis) / I Hispano(rum) / eq(uitatae) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 20: RIB 829, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / L(ucius) Cammi/us Maxi(mus) / Maryport pr(a)efe(ctus) coh(ortis) / I His(panorum) eq(uitatae) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 21: RIB 830, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Baeta/siorum / c(ivium) Maryport R(omanorum) cui prae/est T(itus) Attius / Tutor praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 22: RIB 831, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Da/lmatar(um) cui / praeest Maryport L(ucius) Cae/cilius Veg[e]/tus praefec(tus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 23: RIB 832 = ILS 3009, V Iovi Optim(o) Maxi(mo) / Capitolino / pro salut(e) An/tonini Alauna / Maryport Aug(usti) / Pii Postumi/us Acilianus / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) I Delm(atarum)
P 24: RIB 833, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Acilianus / praefect(us) / {P} Maryport
316
P 25: RIB 834, Alauna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / p[r]o [salute? ---] / [---] / [---] / [---] / 46 Maryport [---] / [---] / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / fecit
P 26: RIB 837, Alauna / Marti militari / coh(ors) I Baetasi/orum c(ivium) R(omanorum) Maryport [c(ui)] / praeest [T(itus) Atti]/us Tutor [prae]/fectus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
P 27: RIB 838 = ILS 3155, V Marti militari / coh(ors) I Baetasi/orum c(ivium) R(omanorum) Alauna / Maryport [c(ui)] / praeest [T(itus) Atti]/us Tutor [prae]/fectus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aeta) m(erito)
P 28: RIB 842, Alauna / V Victoriae Aug(ustae) / coh(ors) I Baeta/siorum c(ivium) Maryport R(omanorum) / cui praeest / T(itus) Attius Tutor / praefec(tus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 29: RIB 843, Alauna / V Victoriae Aug(ustae) / coh(ors) I Baetasior(um) / c(ivium) Maryport R(omanorum) / cui praeest / Ulpius Titia/nus praefec/tus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 30: RIB 846, Alauna / V Helstri/us Novel/lus prae/fectus / Numini / Volcan[i] / [p]o[s(uit)] Maryport
P 31: RIB 847, Alauna / V Postumiu]s Ac[ilian]/us praefe[ctus] / [c]oh(ortis) I Maryport Delma[t(arum!)]
P 32: RIB 850, Alauna / D Pro sa[lute Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris)] / Antonin[i] Aug(usti) Pii Maryport p(atris) [p(atriae)] / [P]aulus [1] f(ilius) Palatina / [Postumi]us Acil[i]anus / praef(ectus) c[o]h(ortis) I Delmatar(um)
P 33: RIB 1067, Arbeia / V Pr]oculus p(rae)p(ositus) South Shields
P 34: RIB 722 = AE D Imp(eratori) Caesari L(ucio) Septimio [Severo] / Pio Pert[i]naci 1969/70, 328, Augu[sto et] / Imp(eratori) Caesari M(arco) Aurelio A[ntonino] / Bainbridge47 Pio Feli[ci] Augusto et P(ublio) S[[[eptimio]]] / [[[Getae nobilissimo Caesari]] vallum cum] / bracchio caementicium [fecit coh(ors)] / VI Nervio[ru]m sub cura L(uci) A[lfeni] / Senecion[is] amplissimi [co(n)s(ularis) institit] / operi L(ucius) Vin[ici]us Pius
46 This is surely a loyalty vow made for the health of the emperor. Salute, which may have been abbreviated, can be restored. The identity of the emperor mentioned here is lost. 47 205-208 CE.
317
praef[(ectus) coh(ortis) eiusd(em)]/ [l]egio[nis
P 35: RIB 723 = AE D [Imp(eratori)] Caesari Augusto [---] / Marci Aurelii filio [---] / [--- 1969/70, 329, sub cura L(uci) Alfeni] / Sen[ec]ionis amplissimi [co(n)s(ularis) Bainbridge48 coh(ors) VI Nerviorum] / [fecit cui praeest L(ucius)] Vinic[ius] Pius [praef(ectus) coh(ortis) eiusd(em)]
P 36: AE 1962, 260 = AE D Imp(eratori) Caesari Lucio Septimio / Severo Pio Pertinaci 1969/70, 327, Bainbridge Aug(usto) et / Imp(eratori) Caesari M(arco) Aurelio / Antonino Pio
Felici Aug(usto) et P(ublio) Septimio Getae no/bilissimo Caesar(i) dd(ominis) / nn(ostris) Imp(eratore) Antonino II et / Geta Caesare co(n)s(ulibus) centuria
P 37: RIB 278, Bakewell V Deo / Marti / Braciacae / Q(uintus) Sittius / Caecilian(us) / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / I Aquitano(rum) / v(otum) s(olvit)
P 38: RIB 2189 = AE V Deae Fortunae / Caecilius Nepos / trib(unus) 1914, 290, Balmuildy
A 39: RIB 2167 = AE V [D]eo Silv[ano] / [C]aristan[ius] / [I]ustianu[s] / praef(ectus) / 1898, 152, Bar Hill [c]oh(ortis) I Ham[ior(um)] / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 40: RIB 2172, Bar Hill F D(is) M(anibus) / C(ai) Iuli / Marcellini / praef(ecti) / coh(ortis) I Hamior(um)
P 41: RIB 880, Bibra / D [---]/lia praef(ectus) coh(ortis) II Pannon(iorum) fecit Beckfoot
P 42: RIB 2094, V Fortunae [pro] / salute P(ubli) Campa[ni] / Italici praef(ecti) Blatobulgium / Birrens coh(ortis) I[I] / Tun(grorum) Celer libertus / [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 43: RIB 2097, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I / Nervana / Germanor(um) / Blatobulgium / Birrens m(illiaria) eq(uitata) cui / praeest L(ucius) Faeni/us Felix trib(unus)
P 44: RIB 2100 = ILS V Marti et Victo/riae Aug(usti) c(ives) Rae/ti milit(antes) in coh(orte)
48 205-208 CE.
318
2555, Blatobulgium / / II Tungr(orum) cui / praeest Silvius / Auspex praef(ectus) / 49 Birrens v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito)
P 45: RIB 2108 = ILS V Deae Viradec/thi pa[g]us Con/drustis milit(ans) / in coh(orte) II 4756, Blatobulgium / Tun/gror(um) sub Silvi/o Auspice praef(ecto) Birrens
P 46: RIB 2110 = AE D Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) T(ito) A[el(io)] Hadr(iano) / An[to]nino 1897, 59, Blatobulgium / Aug(usto) [Pio po]nt(ifici) / max(imo) [tr]ib(unicia) pot(estate) XXI Birrens50 co(n)s(uli) IIII / coh(ors) II [Tung]r(orum) m[i]l(liaria) eq(uitata) c(oram?) l(audata?) / sub Iu[lio Vero] leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore)
P 47: RIB 2117 = ILS V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) ve[x]/il(l)atio R(a)eto/rum Gaesat(orum) 2623, Blatobulgium / / q(uorum) c(uram) a(git) Iul(ius) / Sever(inus) trib(unus) Birrens
P 48: RIB 1263 = ILS V Genio et signis / coh(ortis) I f(idae) Vardul(lorum) / c(ivium) 2557, Bremenium / High R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) m(illiariae) / T(itus) Licinius Valeri/anus Rochester [t]rib(unus)
P 49: RIB 1286, V P(ublius) Ael(ius) Era/sinus trib(unus) Bremenium / High Rochester
P 50: RIB 1288 = ILS V [---]S / [---] / [..]HII[---]I[..]II[---]II[.] / [..] coh(ortis) I 1425 = AE 1953, 241c, Vardul(lorum) [---] / [--- praef(ecto)] coh(ortis) I Aug(ustae) / Bremenium / High Lusitanor(um) item coh(ortis) I / Breucor(um) subcur(atori) viae / Rochester51 Flaminiae et aliment(orum) / subcur(atori) operum publ(icorum) / Iulia Lucilla c(larissima) f(emina) marito / b(ene) m(erenti) vix(it) an(nos) XLVIII / m(enses) VI d(ies) XXV
P 51: RIB 589, D Imp(eratori) Ca[es(ari) M(arco) Au]rel(io) A[ntonino ---] / Bremetennacum / Imp(eratori) Ca[es(ari) L(ucio) Au]rel(io) Ve[ro --- Augg(ustis)] / Ribchester vex(illatio) eq(uitum) [provinc]iae [Germaniae] / sup(erioris) Se[x(to) Calpu]rn(io) [Agricola leg(ato) Augg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aetore)]
P 52: RIB 782, Brocavum V [---]/ri[---] / Gall[o]r(um) [trib(unus)] / mil(itum) leg(ionis) VIII /
49 153-157 CE. 50 10 Dec. 157 – 9 Dec. 158. 51 Possibly a 3rd century inscription.
319
/ Brougham Castle Aug(ustae)
P 53: RIB 1534 = ILS V Deae / Couventinae(!) / T(itus) D(omitius?) Cosconia/nus 4725, Brocolitia / pr(aefectus) coh(ortis) / I Bat(avorum) l(ibens) m(erito) Carrawburgh52
P 54: RIB 1536 = ILS V Fortunae / coh(ors) I Batavor(um) / cui praeest / M(arcus) 2549, Brocolitia / Flaccinius / Marcellus prae(fectus) Carrawburgh
P 55: RIB 1545 = AE V D(eo) In(victo) M(ithrae) s(acrum) / Aul(us) Cluentius / Habitus 1951, 125b, Brocolitia / pra(e)f(ectus) / coh(ortis) I / Batavorum / domu Ulti/n(i)a colon(ia) Carrawburgh53 / Sept(imia) Aur(elia) L(arino) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 56: RIB 1546 = AE V Deo Invicto / Mit(h)rae M(arcus) Sim/plicius Simplex / 1951, 125c, Brocolitia / pr(a)ef(ectus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Carrawburgh54
P 57: RIB 1550 = AE D [---]v[er]o leg(ato) / [Aug(usti) pr(o) p]r(aetore) coh(ors) I 1947, 129, Brocolitia / Aquit/[anorum] fecit / [sub ---]io Nepote / [pra]ef(ecto) Carrawburgh55
P 58: RIB 1535, Brocolitia V Couven[ti(nae!)] / Aelius Te[r]/tius p[raef(ectus)] / coh(ortis) I / Carrawburgh Bat(avorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 59: AE 1962, 261, V Nymphis et Genio / loci M(arcus) Hispanius / Modestinus Brocolitia / Carrawburgh praefectus / coh(ortis) I Bat(avorum) pro se / et suis l(ibens)
m(erito)
P 60: RIB 2187, Cadder V Deo / Silvano / L(ucius) Tanicius / Verus / praef(ectus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 61: RIB 1884 = AE V [I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo)] / [coh(ors) I] Ael(ia) [Daco]/[rum] 1991, 1158, Cambloganna c(ui) p(raeest) Do[mit]/[ius H]onor[atus] / tri[b(unus)] / Birdoswald56
52 One would expect Coventina. Other expansions of the abbreviated gentilicium D(---) are possible. 53 On the familial connection between this Cluentius and his ancestor, also named A. Cluentius Habitus, defended by Cicero, see RIB comm. ad loc. Larinum, the hometown of that famous Cluentius, was referred to by Cicero as a municipium (Cic. Clu 11.9), but is here attested as Colonia Septimia Aurelia Larinum, belonging to the tribe Voltinia (rendered Ultinia in the text). 54 Both Celtic and Germanic origins have been suggested for Simplicius Simplex; for references, see RIB comm. ad loc. His name provides a good example of the practice of forming a gentilicium (Simplicius) from a Roman cognomen (Simplex). The omission of a praenomen indicates a late 2nd – third century date. 55 130-133 CE. 56 Ca. 160 CE; around thirty altars and votive tablets have been discovered at Cambloganna‟s, but almost all were dedicated by equestrian tribuni cohortis in the 3rd century. Thus I have omitted most of them, with the exceptions made for clearly datable inscriptions.
320
P 62: RIB 1909 = AE D Impp(eratoribus) Caess(aribus) L(ucio) / Sept(imio) Severo Pio / 1930, 113 = AE 1947, 107, Pert(inaci) et M(arco) Aur(elio) A[nt]o/nino Augg(ustis) [[[et Cambloganna / P(ublio) Sep(timio)]]] / [[[Getae nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari)]]] Birdoswald57 hor/reum fecer(unt) coh(ortes) I Ael(ia) / Dac(orum) et I T(h)racum c(ivium) R(omanorum) sub / Alfeno Senecione co(n)s(ulari) / per Aurel(ium) Iulianum tr(ibunum)
P 63: RIB 1914, D Sub Modio Iu/lio leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) / pr(aetore) coh(ors) I Cambloganna / Ael(ia) D(a)c(orum) / cui praeest M(arcus) / Cl(audius) Menander / Birdoswald trib(unus)
P 64: RIB 1919, F D(is) M(anibus) / Aureli / Concor/di vixit / ann(um) un/um d(ies) V Cambloganna / / fil(ius) Aurel(i) / Iuliani / trib(uni) Birdoswald
P 65: RIB 2118 = AE V [---] / coh(ors) I fid(a) Vardul(lorum) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) 1924, 96, Cappuck m(illiaria) eq(uitata) et G(aius) / Quintius Severus / trib(unus) coh(ortis) eiusdem / dom(o) Camil(ia) Ra/venna / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(aeti) l(ibentes) m(erito)
P 66: RIB 2149, V Deo / Neptuno / cohors I / fid(a) Vardul(lorum) / c(ivium) Castlecary R(omanorum) eq(uitata) m(illiaria) / cui prae(e)st / Trebius / Verus pr/aef(ectus)
P 67: RIB 2195 = ILS V Campes/tribus et / Britanni(ae) / Q(uintus) Pisentius / Iustus 4829, Castlehill pr(a)ef(ectus) / coh(ortis) IIII Gal(lorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 68: RIB 1462, Cilurnum D [Impp(eratoribus) Caess(aribus) L(ucio)] Sept(imio) / [Severo Pio 58 / Chesters Pertin]ace / [et M(arco) Aur(elio) Antonin]o Pio / [Augg(ustis) [et [[P(ublio) Sep(timio) Get]a]]e / [nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari) ala II Ast(urum) cu]rante / Alf[eno Senecione co(n)]s(ulari) et / Oc[latinio Advento p]roc(uratore) / ins[tante ---]
P 69: RIB 1463 = AE D Aqua adducta / alae II Astur(um) / sub Ulp(io) Marcello / leg(ato) 1898, 35, Cilurnum / Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) Chesters59
57 205-208 CE. 58 198-209 CE. 59 181-185 or 217 CE, based on the ambiguous evidence of Ulpius Marcellus; see RIB comm. ad loc.
321
P 70: RIB 1464, Cilurnum D Ala] II Ast[urum] / [sub] Ulpio [Marcello] / [le]g(ato) pr(o) 60 / Chesters [pr(aetore)]
P 71: RIB 1482, Cilurnum F D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Fabi(a)e Honor/at(a)e Fabius 61 / Chesters Hon/oratus tribun(us) / coh(ortis) I Vangion(um) / et Aurelia E[g]lec/[t]iane fecer/unt fili(a)e d/ulcissim(a)e
P 72: RIB 792, Clifton62 V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(axiom) / Genio loci / Su{u}brius Ap/ollinaris prin/cep(s) c(ohortis) I V(---)
P 73: RIB 1328 = ILS V Deo An[t]enocitico / sacrum / coh(ors) I Va[n]gion(um) / quib(us) 9316 = AE 1924, 4, praeest / [---]c(ius) Cassi/[anus p]raef(ectus) / [v(otum) s(olvit) Condercum / Benwell63 l(ibens)] m(erito)
P 74: RIB 1329 = ILS V Deo An(ten)ocitico / iudiciis optimo/rum maximorum/que 4715, Condercum / Impp(eratorum) n(ostrorum) sub Ulp(io) / Marcello co(n)s(ulari) Benwell64 Tine/ius Longus in p[rae]/fectura equitu[m] / lato clavo exorna/tus et q(uaestor) d(esignatus)
P 75: RIB 1337 = AE V Victoriae / [Au]gg(ustorum) Alfe/no Senecio/n[e] co(n)s(ulari) felix 1976, 375, Condercum / / ala I Asto[ru]m pr(aetoria?) Benwell65
P 76: RIB 1128, Coria / D [Disci]p(linae) Augusto[rum?] / [milit]es coh(ortis) I Corbridge V[ar]/[dullo]rum m(illiariae) [c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae)] / [cui] praees[t Pub(lius)] / [Calpur]nius Vic[tor tr(ibunus)]
P 77: RIB 2134, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) V Gall(orum) / cui praeest / 66 Cramond L(ucius) Minthonius / Tertullus / praef(ectus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(aeta) / li(bens) m(erito)
60 181-185 or 217 CE (see note on RIB 1463). 61 The DMS formula appears occasionally in Britannia. 62 Either V(ardullorum) or V(angionum) are possible expansions. The numeral IV seems unlikely, given the space in between the two letters. The omission of fida would be unusual for the coh. Vardullorum, but not without precedent (RIB 1288, from Bremenium). 63 Pre-197 CE, based on numismatic evidence discovered at the findspot. 64 Pre-197 CE (see note on RIB 1329). 65 205-208 CE. The interpretation felix is disputed, but its location on the stone seems to indicate, following AE comm. ad loc., that it is acting as an adjective, rather than an honorific, and alludes to military action during the Severan campaigns ("fortunate is the first ala of Asturians"). Set up during the governorship of Senecio (hence the ablative case). 66 Ca. 209-211.
322
P 78: RIB 2135 = ILS V Matrib(us) Ala/tervis et / matrib(us) Cam/pestrib(us) coh(ortis) I[I] 4801 = AE 1977, 496, / Tungr(orum) ins(tante) / VERSCARM / [|(centurione)] leg(ionis) Cramond XX V(aleriae) v(ictricis)
P 79: RIB 2136, Cramond D [---] C(aius) Publius Cr[---] / [---] in(---) Pomponian[---] / [---] / [- --] p[r]a[e]f(ectus) p(osuit) d(edit?) d(edicavit?)
P 80: AE 1975, 559, D [---] / I[---] / Can[didus] / praef(ectus) [alae] / Picen[tian(ae)] / Derventio / Malton d(e)d(icavit)
P 81: RIB 576, Deva / V [---]RIC / [prae]posi/[tus] vexil(lationis) / Raetor(um) et / Chester Noricor(um) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 82: RIB 1042, Eastgate V Deo / Silvano / Aurelius / Quirinus / pr(aefectus) f(ecit)
P 83: RIB 649 = ILS 3598, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(axiom) / dis deabusque / hospitalibus Eburacum / York pe/natibusq(ue) ob con/servatam salutem / suam suorumq(ue) / P(ublius) Ael(ius) Marcian/us praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / aram sac(ravit) ac ded(icavit)
P 84: RIB 1214, V [D]e[o] / (H)e[r]cul[i C(aius)] / V[al(erius)] Lon/[g]inu[s] / Habitancum / Risingham trib(unus) / [---]
P 85: RIB 1215, V Deo Invicto / Herculi sacr(um) / L(ucius) Aemil(ius) Salvianus / Habitancum / Risingham tr[i]b(unus) coh(ortis) I Vangi(onum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 86: RIB 1216, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / v[e]xi[l(latio)] G(aesatorum) Habitancum / Risingham R(aetorum) / q(uorum) c(uram) a(git) / Aemil(ius) Aemilianus / trib(unus) coh(ortis) I Vang(ionum)
P 87: RIB 1217, V [I(ovi?) O(ptimo?) M(aximo?)] / [ve]xi[l(latio)] G(aesatorum) Habitancum / Risingham R(aetorum) / q(uorum) c(uram) a(git) / Iul(ius) Victor / tr[i]b(unus) coh(ortis) I V/angionum
P 88: RIB 1231, V [--- Coh(ors)] I Va[ng(ionum)] / [e]q(uitata) mil(liaria) cu/i Habitancum / Risingham praeest M(arcus) / Peregrinius / Super trib(unus)
323
P 89: RIB 1234 = ILS D [Impp(eratoribus) Caess(aribus) L(ucio)] / [Sept(imio) Severo Pio 2618, Habitancum / Pertin]/[aci Arab(ico) Adi]ab(enico) Part(h)[i]co maxi(mo) / Risingham67 co(n)s(uli) III et M(arco) Aurel(io) Antonino Pio / co(n)s(uli) II Augg(ustis) [[et P(ublio) Sept(imio) Getae nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari)]] / portam cum muris vetustate di/lapsis iussu Alfeni Senecionis v(iri) c(larissimi) / co(n)s(ularis) curante Oclatinio Advento proc(uratore) / Augg(ustorum) nn(ostrorum) coh(ors) I Vang(i)onum m(illiaria) eq(uitata) / cum Aem[i]l(io) Salviano trib(uno) / suo a solo restit(uit)
P 90: RIB 1241, D Coh(ors) I Vang(ionum) / fecit curante / Iul(io) Paullo trib(uno) Habitancum / Risingham
P 91: RIB 1242, D [Coh(ors) I Vang(ionum)] / [e]q(uitata) m(illiaria) cui pr(a)e[est -- Habitancum / Risingham -] / [---] M(arcus) Aurel(ius) Cast[us ---] / [---] vetustate conlabs[um(?) ---]
P 92: RIB 635 = ILS 4731, V Verbeiae / sacrum / Clodius / Fronto / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / II Ilkley Lingon(um)
P 93: RIB 636, Ilkley V [Pro salute] / [Imperato]/rum Caes(arum) / Augg(ustorum) / Antonini / et Veri / Iovi Dilect(ori) Caecilius / Lucanus / praef(ectus) coh(ortis)
P 94: RIB 1073, V Fortunae / Aug(ustae) sacr(um) / P(ublius) Ael(ius) Atti/cus Longovium / Lanchester praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 95: RIB 1075, V Genio praetori / Cl(audius) Epaphroditus / Claudianus / tribunus Longovium / Lanchester c(o)ho(rtis) / I Ling(onum) v(otum) l(ibens) p(osuit) m(erito)
P 96: RIB 1083, V Num(ini) Aug(usti) et / Gen(io) coh(ortis) I f(idae) / Vardullorum / 68 Longovium / Lanchester c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) m(illiariae) sub An/tistio Adven/to leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) p[r(aetore)] / F(lavius) Titianus trib(unus) / d(e) s(uo) d(edit)
P 97: AE 1988, 841, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo)] / [coh(ors) I] Ling(onum) / [e]q(uitata) Longovium / Lanchester c(ui) p(raeest) / [--- F]ulvius / [Fel]ix praef(ectus) / [---]
67 205-207 CE. 68 Although Antistius Adventus was governor of Britain from ca. 175-178, this text (following RIB comm. ad loc) must predate Nov. 27, 176 CE, when Commodus became Augustus.
324
P 98: RIB 730, Lavatrae / V D(e)ae Fortunae / Virius Lupus / leg(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o) Bowes pr(aetore) / balineum vi / ignis exust/um coh(ortis) I Thr/acum resti/tuit curan/te Val(erio) Fron/tone praef(ecto) / eq(uitum) alae Vetto(num)
P 99: RIB 732 = AE 1947, V [Deo] / Vinotono / Silvano Iul(ius) / Secundus 7(centurio) / 69 133, Lavatrae / Bowes coh(ortis) I Thrac(um) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(libens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 100: RIB 733 = AE V Deo Vin/otono / L(ucius) Caesius / Frontinus pr/aef(ectus) 1949, 96a, Lavatrae / coh(ortis) I Thrac(um) / domo Parma / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) Bowes70 l(aetus) m(erito)
P 101: RIB 734 = AE V [---]/no L(ucius) Cae[sius] / Frontinus [praef(ectus)] / coh(ortis) I 1949, 96b, Lavatrae / Thrac(um) [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)] Bowes71
P 102: RIB 739, Lavatrae / D Im[p(eratori)] Caesari divi Traiani [Parthici f(ilio)] / divi Nervae 72 Bowes nepoti Traia[no Hadria]/no Aug(usto) pontifici maxi[mo tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) ---] / co(n)s(uli) I[II] p(atri) p(atriae) coh(ors) IIII B[reucorum] / [sub Sex(to) Iul]io Sev[ero leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore)]
P 103: RIB 740 = AE D Impp(eratoribus) Caess(aribus) L(ucio) Septim(io) / Severo Pio 1930, 111, Lavatrae / Pertinaci / Arab(ico) Adiab(enico) Part(hico) maxi(mo) / et Bowes73 M(arco) Aur(elio) Anton(ino) Pio Augg(ustis) / [[[et P(ublio) Sept(imio) Getae nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari)]]] ius/su L(uci) Alfeni Senecionis leg(ati) / Augg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aetore) coh(ors) I Thrac(um) eq(uitata)
P 104: RIB 741, Lavatrae / D [---]us Aem[ilian]us [leg(atus)] / [Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) 74 Bowes co]h(orti) I Thrac[um] ins(tante) / [---]llo praef(ecto) / [---] fecit
P 105: AE 1988, 850 = AE V Deo Vino/tono Silva/no Aug(usto) T(itus) / [.]rbius Pri/[---]nus 1990, 672, Lavatrae / p[r]/aef(ectus) coh(ortis) I Thrac(um) / [---]
69 3rd century. 70 1st half of 3rd century. 71 1st half of 3rd century. 72 130-133 CE. 73 205-208 CE. 74 Ca. 212 CE.
325
Bowes
P 106: RIB 886, V [D]eae Ae[tern]/ae te[mplum] / L(ucius) Vater[ius Mar]/cellus Luguvalium / Carlisle [praef(ectus) eq(uitum)] / rest[ituit]
P 107: RIB 890, V Deae Bel/lonae Rufi/nus prae[f(ectus)] / eq(uitum) a[l]ae Luguvalium / Carlisle Aug(ustae) / et Lat[i]nia/nus fil(ius)
P 108: RIB 893, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / ala Aug(usta) o[b] virtut(em) 75 Luguvalium / Carlisle appel(lata) cu[i] / [pr]aeest Tib(erius) Cl(audius) Tib(eri) fi(lius) / INGM Iustinu[s] / praef(ectus) Fuscian[o] / II Silano II c[o(n)s(ulibus)]
P 109: RIB 894, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / ala / Aug(usta) ob virtutem / [a]ppellata 76 Luguvalium / Carlisle cu[i] prae/[e]st P(ublius) Ael(ius) Pub(li) f(ilius) Ser/gia Magnus d(omo) Mursa ex Pannon(ia) / inferiore praefec(tus) / Aproniano et Br[a(dua) co(n)s(ulibus)]
P 110: RIB 895, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) [D(olicheno?)] / pro salut[e] / 77 Luguvalium / Carlisle Imp(eratoris) L(uci) Sept[i]m[i] / Severi Aug(usti) n(ostri) / equites alae / Aug(ustae) curan[t]e / Egnatio Vere/cundo pra/ef(ecto) posuerunt
P 111: RIB 902, V T(---) B(---) A(---) T(itus) A/ur(elius) Ate/co c(urator?) alae(?) Luguvalium / Carlisle Au/g(ustae) vot(um) / s(olvit) l(ibens) a(nimo) fe(cit)
P 112: RIB 903, V [---] / [cu]i p[r]aee[st] / Septimenus / Rusticus pr(a)ef(ectus) / 78 Luguvalium / Carlisle Materno et Bra/dua co(n)s(ulibus)
P 113: RIB 946 = AE V Dei Herc[ulis Romani In]/victi con[ditoris virtu]/tibus pro sa[lute 1999, 973b, Luguvalium / ipsius et] / commiliton[um caesa manu] / barbaroru[m ab ala Carlisle79 Augusta] / ob virtu[tem appellata] / P(ublius) Sextaniu[s ---] praef(ectus) e civi/tat(e) Traianens(ium) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 114: RIB 957, D [---] Luca / [pr]aef(ectus) alae Augustae / Petrianae torq(uatae) Luguvalium / Carlisle
75 188 CE. 76 191 CE. 77 197 CE. 78 185 CE. 79 The prefect‟s hometown was Ulpia Traiana / Vetera (Xanten) in Germania Inferior.
326
m(illiariae) c(ivium) R(omanorum) / d(onum?) d(edit?)
P 115: RIB 1778 = ILS V Fortunae Aug(ustae) / pro salute L(uci) Aeli / Caesaris ex visu / 2551, Magnae / T(itus) Fla(vius) Secundus / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) I Ham/iorum Carvoran80 sagittar(iorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 116: RIB 1791 = CLE V Imminet Leoni Virgo caeles/ti situ spicifera iusti in/ventrix urbium 81 24, Magnae / Carvoran conditrix / ex quis muneribus nosse con/tigit deos ergo eadem mater divum / Pax Virtus Ceres Dea Syria / lance vitam et iura pensitans / in caelo visum Syria sidus edi/dit Libyae colendum inde / cuncti didicimus / ita intellexit numine inductus / tuo Marcus Caecilius Do/natianus militans tribunus / in praefecto dono principis
P 117: RIB 1792, Magnae V Deae Suri/ae(!) sub Calp/urnio Ag[r]/ico[la] leg(ato) Au[g(usti)] / 82 / Carvoran pr(o) pr(aetore) Lic[in]ius / [C]lem[ens praef(ectus)] / [co]h(ortis) I Ha[miorum]
P 118: RIB 1809, Magnae D Sub Calpur]/[ni]o Agri/cola co(n)s(ulari) / Licinius Cl[e]/mens 83 / Carvoran p[raef(ectus)]
P 119: RIB 1818 = AE D 7(Centuria) Primi[---] / v[alla]vit / p(edes) CX[II] / sub / Fl(avio) 1947, 109, Magnae / Secundo / pr(a)ef(ecto) Carvoran84
P 120: RIB 1820 = AE D 7(Centuria) Silvani / vallavit / p(edes) CXII sub / Fla(vio) Secundo / 1947, 108 = AE 1958, 117, [pr]aef(ecto) Magnae / Carvoran85
P 121: RIB 1421 = AE V Matrib(us) / templ(um) / cum ara / vex(illatio) coh(ortis) / I 86 1933, 133, Milecaste 19 Vard(ullorum) / instante / P(ublio) D(---) V(---) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 122: RIB 797, Moresby V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) II T(h)ra(cum) / eq(uitata) c(ui) p(raeest) Manili/us Nepos pra/ef(ectus)
80 136-138 CE. 81 197-217 CE. 82 163-166 CE. 83 163-166 CE. 84 136-138 CE. 85 135-139 CE. 86 Spaul 2000: 107 n. 1 speculates this stone was moved from Coria, which lies 5 miles away from this site. However, the fact that milecastes “are usually too small to hold a temple or shrine in addition to barrack blocks” does not explain the reason for the stone‟s transfer. The altar, which is 12 x 29 in., is not grand by any means and seems appropriate to a small shrine.
327
P 123: RIB 798, Moresby V Deo Silvan[o] / coh(ors) II Ling[on(um)] / cui praees[t] / C(aius) Pompeius M(arci) [f(ilius)] / Saturnin[us]
P 124: RIB 800 = AE D [---] / curan(te) Valerio / Lup[e]rco praef(ecto) / coh(ortis) II 1951,127, Moresby Ling(onum)
P 125: RIB 283 = AE D Imp(eratori) Caesari T(ito) [Ael(io) Hadr(iano)] / [An]tonino 1904, 229, Navio / Au[g(usto) Pio p(atri) p(atriae)] / coh(ors) I Aquitan[orum] / sub Brough-on-Noe87 Iulio V[ero leg(ato)] Aug(usti) / pr(o) pr(aetore) inst[ante] / [C]apitoni[o Pri]sco prae(fecto)
P 126: AE 1971, 226 = AE V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Bae/tasiorum / c(ivium) 1983, 642, Old Kilpatrick R(omanorum) cui pr/aeest Publicius / Maternus praef(ectus) /
c(uram) a(gente) Iulio / Candido 7(centurione) leg(ionis) I Italicae / v(otum) s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 127: RIB 2144, Rough V Victoriae / coh(ors) VI Ner/viorum c(uius) c(uram) / Fl(avius) Betto Castle 7(centurio) leg(ionis) / XX V(aleriae) V(ictricis) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
P 128: RIB 1300, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Ael(ius) Rufus / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / Segedunum / Wallsend IIII Lingo/num
P 129: RIB 1301, V [I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / [Cor]nel(ius) / Celer pr/aef(ectus) Segedunum / Wallsend coh(ortis) / IIII L[ing(onum)] / [
P 130: RIB 1302, V [---] / [Di]dius Seve/rus praef(ectus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) Segedunum / Wallsend m(erito)
P 131: EE 9, 1157 = ILS V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) IIII Lin/gonum eq(uitata) / cui 9151 = RIB 1299 = AE attendit / Iul(ius) Honor/atus 7(centurio) leg(ionis) II / Aug(ustae) / 1892, 127, Segedunum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Wallsend
P 132: RIB 1578 = ILS V Deo / Silvano / Cocidio / Q(uintus) Florius / Maternus / 4723, Vercovicium / praef(ectus) coh(ortis) / I Tung(rorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) Housesteads m(erito)
87 Ca. 158 CE.
328
P 133: RIB 1580, V Herculi / coh(ors) I Tungror(um) / mil(liaria) / cui praeest Vercovicium / P(ublius) Ael(ius) / Modestus prae(fectus) Housesteads
P 134: RIB 1584, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et numinibus / Aug(ustorum) coh(ors) I / Vercovicium / T[un]gror(um) / cui praeest / Q(uintus) Iul(ius) Maxi/mus Housesteads praef(ectus)
P 135: RIB 1585, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et numinibus Aug(ustorum) / coh(ors) I Vercovicium / Tungr[orum] / cu[i] prae(e)st Q(uintus) Iulius / [---]sus Housesteads praef(ectus) / v(otum) [s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]
P 136: RIB 1586 = ILS V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et numinibus / Aug(ustorum) coh(ors) I 2550, Vercovicium / Tu/ngrorum / mil(liaria) cui praee/st Q(uintus) Verius / Superstis / Housesteads prae[fec]tus
P 137: RIB 1587, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) [M(aximo)] / et numinibus / [---] / [---] / [---] / Vercovicium / [Ve]rius / [S]upe[rstis] / [p]raefectu[s] Housesteads88
P 138: RIB 1588, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [et numinibus A]ug(ustorum) / [---] / [-- Vercovicium / -] / [---] / [p]raefectu[s] Housesteads
P 139: RIB 1591, V Deo / Marti Quint(us) / Florius Ma/ternus praef(ectus) / coh(ortis) I Vercovicium / Tung(rorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Housesteads
P 140: RIB 2071, V [S]ive deo si/ve d[e]ae Cl(audius) / Marcian[u]s / [pr]aef(ectus) [-- Vercovicium / -] Housesteads
P 141: AE 1967, 260, D P(ublio) Sep(timio) Get]ae [nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari)] / [coh(ors) I Vercovicium / Tungr(orum) m(illiaria) restit]uit pra[etor(ium)] / [L(ucio) Alfeno Housesteads Senecione l]eg(ato) A[ugg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aetore)]
P 142: RIB 1395, V Deo Invicto / Myt(h)rae(!) P(ublius) Ael(ius) / Titullus prae(fectus) / Vindobala / Rudchester v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
88 On the basis of RIB 1586, the text of RIB 1587 can in the main be restored as I(ovi) O(ptimo) [M(aximo)] / et numinibus / [Aug(ustorum) coh(ors) / I Tungr(orum)? mil(liaria)? / cui praeest / Q(uintus) Ve]rius / [S]upe[rstis] / [p]raefectu[s]. If the prefect included the unit‟s milliaria title (∞ or mil(liaria)), this would probably have been inscribed in lines four or five. The degree of abbreviation for the ethnic Tungrorum varies, however, in other inscriptions (e.g. RIB 1578, 1584 and 1586, all from Vercovicium).
329
P 143: RIB 1396, V Deo Soli Invic(to) / Tib(erius) Cl(audius) Dec(i)mus / Cornel(ius) 89 Vindobala / Rudchester Anto/nius praef(ectus) / templ(um) restit(uit)
P 144: RIB 1099, V Genio [---] / [---]IV / A[u]relius / [---] / [p]r[a]ef(ectus) v(otum) Vindomara / Ebchester l(ibens) s(olvit)
P145: AE 1998, 835, F D(is) [M(anibus)] / T(itus) Ann[ius ---] / centur[io leg(ionis) --- Vindolanda / Chesterholm praepositus coh(ortis) I] / Tungr[orum |(milliaria) annorum --- stipen]/diorum [--- cecidi]/t in bell[o --- inter]/fectus [T(itus) Annius?] / fil(ius) et Arc[---] / h(eredes) e[x testament(o) fec(erunt)]
P 146: RIB 1683, V Deo / Cocidio / Decimus / Caerelli/us Victor / pr(aefectus) Vindolanda / Chesterholm coh(ortis) II Ner(viorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
P 147: RIB 1685, V Genio / praetori(i) / sacrum Pi/tuanius Se/cundus prae/fectus Vindolanda / Chesterholm coh(ortis) IIII / Gall(orum)
P 148: RIB 1688 = AE V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [c]oh(ors) IIII G[al]l(orum) / [cu]i 1950, 131 = AE 1952, 87 p[rae]est L(ucius) II/[.]gius Puden/[s] pr[a]efect(us) / [a]ram = AE 1953, 102, [p]osuit / v(otum) [l(ibens)] m(erito) s(olvit) Vindolanda / Chesterholm90
P 149: RIB 1691, V Marti Victor[i] / [coh(ors) III Nervioru]m / [cui] praeest [T(itus)] Vindolanda / Chesterholm Caninius [---] / [---]MI[I]IVS
P 150: RIB 917 = AE V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) / II Gal(lorum) eq(uitata) / 1995, 1008, Voreda / T(itus) Dom[i]ti/us H[i]eron / d(omo) Nicomedia / praef(ectus) Penrith91
12. B Unit dedications identifying no specific soldiers
89 2nd Century; this combination of multiple nomina is rare. 90 3rd century. The earliest datable inscription attesting coh. IIII Gallorum at Vindolanda is RIB 1705: [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) M(arco) Aur]el[i]o An[t]on[i]no P[i]o [F]el[i]c[i] / [Aug(usto) Parthi(co) ma]x[i(mo)] Britan(n)i(co) maxi(mo) ponti(fici) / [maxi(mo) trib(unicia)] potest(ate) XVI imp(eratori) II / [co(n)s(uli) IIII pa]tr[i] patriae proco(n)s(uli) pr[o] / [pietate a]c devotione communi / [---] / [coh(ors)] IIII Gallo[rum] cui pr[ae(est)] / [---]. This inscription must date to 213, since Caracalla is in the 16th year of his tribunicia potestas, but has not yet acquired the title Germ. max., bestowed on him later in that year. It is not clear, however, when the unit first arrived at Vindolanda (Birley and Blake 2007: 105-106). 91 178 CE (cf. RMD 184, recording him as prefect).
330
U 1: RIB 855, Alauna / D Coh(ors) I / [H]i[sp(anorum)] / [fecit] Maryport
U 2: RIB 1059, Arbeia / D [Co]h(ors) V Gal(lorum) / [fecit?] South Shields
U 3: AE 1952, 92, Arbeia D Coh(ors) V Gallorum / South Shields
U 4: AE 1975, 560, D Coh(ors) V G[al(lorum)] Arbeia / South Shields
U 5: AE 1992, 1138, D C(ohortis) V G(allorum) Arbeia / South Shields
U 6: AE 1997, 1002a, O Al(ae) S(abinianae) Arbeia / South Shields
U 7: RIB 2166, Bar Hill V Deo Mar(ti) / Camulo / [m]ilites coh(ortis) [I] / Hamioru[m] / [..]CIV[.]SC[..] / [..]IVI[---]
U 8: RIB 2169 = AE D Coh(ors) I / Baetasior(um) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) 1904, 30, Bar Hill
U 9: RIB 2170 = AE D I[mp(eratori) Cae]sari / T(ito) Ael(io) [Hadr(iano) An]tonino / 1904, 31, Bar Hill Au[gusto Pio p(atri) p(atriae) c]oh(ors) / I B[aetasior(um) c(ivium)] R(omanorum) ob / vir[tutem et fi]dem
U 10: RIB 2092, V Discip(linae) / Aug(usti) / coh(ors) II / Tungr(orum) / mil(liaria) Blatobulgium / Birrens eq(uitata) c(oram?) l(audata?)
U 11: RIB 2093, V Fortunae / coh(ors) I / Nervana / Germanor(um) / m(illiaria) Blatobulgium / Birrens eq(uitata)
U 12: AE 1964, 174, D [--- I Ger]/man[orum] / m(illiaria) [---] Blatobulgium / Birrens
U 13: AE 1976, 374, D C(o)h(ors) I Aq(uitanorum) Branodunum / Brancaster
331
U 14: RIB 1285, D Coh(ors) I Va/rdullo/rum fecit Bremenium / High Rochester
U 15: RIB 1276, D Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) T(ito) Aelio / H[a]d(riano) Antonino Bremenium / High Aug(usto) Pio p(atri) p(atriae) / sub Q(uinto) Lol(lio) Urbico / Rochester92 leg(ato) Aug(usti) pro prae(tore) / coh(ors) I Ling(onum) / eq(uitata) f(ecit)
U 16: AE 1983, 641, D Vex(illation) coh(ortis) IIII Gall(orum) et / vex(illatio) coh(ortis) II Bremenium / High Nerv(iorum) / fecerunt Rochester
U 17: AE 1966, 222 = AE D [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Traiano] / [Had]ri[ano Aug(usto)] / 1967, 249, Brocolitia / co(n)s(uli) / [co]h(ors) I Tun[gr(orum)] / fec(it) Carrawburgh
U 18: RIB 2154, D [co]h(ors?) I Bat(avorum?) Castlecary
U 19: RIB 2155, D Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) T(ito) Ael(io) Ant(onino) / Aug(usto) Pio 93 Castlecary p(atri) p(atriae) / coh(ors) I Tungro/rum fecit m(illiaria)
U 20: RIB 414 = AE D [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) divi] / [Ner(vae) f(ilio) Ner(vae) Traiano] / 2001, 1277, Castle Collen [Aug(usto) Germ(anico) Dac(ico) pont(ifici)] / [max(imo) tr(ibunicia) p(otestate)] p(atri) p(atriae) c[o(n)s(uli) V] / [coh(ors) IIII De]lma[tarum]
U 21: AE 1979, 388, V [D]iscipulinae(!) / Imp(eratoris) Had(riani) Aug(usti) / ala Cilurnum / Chesters Aug(usta) / [o]b virt(utem) appel(lata)
U 22: AE 1940, 109, D A(la) II As(turum) Coria / Corbridge
U 23: RIB 2313 = AE D [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) T(ito)] / [Ael(io) Hadr(iano) Anto]/nino 94 1975, 581, Cramond Aug(usto) Pio / p(atri) p(atriae) co(n)s(uli) [I]II / [[[et P(ublio) Sep(timio) Getae]]] / [[[nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari) co(n)s(uli) II]]] / [co]h(ors) I Cugernor(um) / [Tri]monti(o) m(ilia) p(assuum) / [---]
U 24: AE 1958, 102, D Coh(ors) I / Dalmat(arum) / fecit
92 138-161 CE. 93 138-161 CE. 94 Ca. 209-211 CE.
332
Deva / Chester
U 25: RIB 1206, Gloster V [Ca]mpestri/[bus c]oh(ors) I / [---] Hill
U 26: AE 1958, 116, D Coh(ors) IIII Bre(ucorum) Grimscar
U 27: RIB 1227, V Numinib(us) / Augustor(um) / coh(ors) IIII Gal(lorum) / eq(uitata) / Habitancum / fec(it) Risingham95
U 28: RIB 1240, D Vexil(latio) [coh(ortis) ..] / Nerv[ior(um)] / fec[it] Habitancum / Risingham
U 29: RIB 2014, D C(ohors) IV / Lin(gonum) f(ecit) Irthington
U 30: AE 1951, 126, D C(ohors) IV / Lin(gonum) f(ecit) Irthington
U 31: AE 1993, 1082, D Ala I T(hracum) Isca / Caerleon
U 32: AE 1959, 159, D [Coh(ors)] / I Van[g(ionum) Kelvedon
U 33: RIB 407, Llanio D Coh(ors) II Astur(um) / [---]
U 34: RIB 408, Llanio V [---]mibus [..] / [--- coh(ors) I]I Astu[r(um) ---]
U 35: RIB 2 (8) 2504.23, O Ala I A(sturum)96 Londinium / London
U 36: RIB 1823 = RIB D Coh(ors) VI / [Ner]/v[i]orum f[ec]i[t] 1824 = AE 1988, 836, Magnae / Carvoran97
U 37: RIB 581, D [---]I[---] / [--- Anto]ninus [Aug(ustus)] / [coh(ors) I Mamucium / Manchester Ba]etas[iorum] / [---]
U 38: AE 1965, 217, D [Imp(eratori) Ca]es(ari) di[vi Traiani] Part[hici] / [fil(io) div]i Mediobogdum / Ne[rvae nep(oti) Tr]aian[o] / [Hadrian]o Augusto pont(ifici)]
95 161-169 CE or later, based on the reference to two Augusti. 96 A lead tag found at Southwark, south London. The earliest datable evidence for ala I Hispanorum Asturum is a military diploma of 98 (CIL 16, 43). 97 A lead sealing which may belong to Legio VI; cf. Spaul 2000: 209-211.
333
Hardknott m[ax(imo)] / [---] / [le]g(ato) Aug(usti) p[r(o)] pr(aetore) / coh(ors) II[II De]lmatar(um) / [---]
U 39: AE 1977, 503, D C(ohors) III B[r(acaraugustanorum)] Melandra Castle
U 40: AE 1966, 223, D Coh(ors) I Melrose
U 41: RIB 803, Moresby D Coh(ors) II / T(h)raq(um!) fec(it)
U 42: RIB 1323, Pons D Coh(ors) I Th/racum Aelius / Newcastle
U 43: AE 1976, 366, D C(ohors) I Aq(uitanorum) Ratae Coritanorum / Leicester
U 44: AE 1969/70, 314, D [C(ohors)] I Baetasiorum Regulbium / Reculver
U 45: AE 1991, 1129, D [---? Coh(ortis) III? G]allor(um) Rocester
U 46: RIB 2145 = ILS D [Imp(eratori) Ca]esari Tito / [Aelio] Hadriano / [Anto]nino 9176 = AE 1904, 29, Aug(usto) / [Pio] p(atri) p(atriae) coh(ors) VI / [Ner]viorum Rough Castle98 pri/[nci]pia fecit
U 47: RIB 1303, V Deo M(ercurio) s[igil(lum?)] d(edicavit) et p(osuit) coh(ors) / II Segedunum / Wallsend Ner[vioru]m pago / [---]diorum
U 48: AE 1976, 369b, D Al(a) I A(sturum) Segedunum / Wallsend
U 49: AE 1987, 742a, D C(ohors) IIII / L(ingonum) Segedunum / Wallsend
U 50: RIB 430, D [Imp(eratores) Caes(ares) L(ucius)] Sept(imius) Severus Pius 99 Segontium / Caernarvon Per/[tinax et M(arcus) A]urel(ius) Antoninus / [Pius Aug(usti)] et [[P(ublius) Sep]]t(imius) [[Geta no]]b(ilissimus) [[C[aes(ar)]]] / [rivos aq]uaeductium vetus/[tate conla]bs(os) coh(orti) I Sunic(orum) restit(uerunt) / [---]ARE[---] / [---]NL[---]
98 138-161 CE. 99 198-209 CE.
334
U 51: RIB 1579 = ILS V Diis Deabusque se/cundum interpre/tationem oracu/li Clari 3230, Vercovicium / Apollinis/ coh(ors) I Tungrorum Housesteads
U 52: RIB 1598, V [Ma]tribus / coh(ors) I Tungr/[or]u[m] Vercovicium / Housesteads
U 53: AE 1975, 568, V Deo Mapono Vindolanda / Chesterholm
U 54: AE 1975, 571, V Mer(curio?) Vindolanda / Chesterholm
U 55: AE 1975, 572 = D Co(hors) II P(annoniorum) // c(ivium?) R(omanorum?) RIB 2411.143, Vindolanda / Chesterholm100
U 56: AE 1979, 392, V Deo / Huiti/ri(!) v(otum) s(olvit) Vindolanda / Chesterholm
U 57: AE 1979, 393, V Ara Vi/tirum Vindolanda / Chesterholm
U 58: AE 1998, 837a, V Ma/tribu(s) / Parc(is) Vindolanda / Chesterholm
U 59: RIB 1113, D [Coh(ors)] IIII B[reucorum] Vindomara / Ebchester
U 60: AE 1968, 264, D Coh(ors) IIII Br(eucorum) Vindomara / Ebchester
100 It is tempting to read civium Romanorum on this lead sealing. This title is hitherto unattested for coh. II Pannoniorum (see Spaul 2000: 337), and the latest record on a diploma dates to 124 CE, CIL 16, 70 (II PAN[N]). The total evidence, however, is too meager to exclude the possibility that this cohort received a special grant of citizenship for meritorious service.
335
13. B High-ranking auxiliaries: immunes and principales
IP 1: RIB 1742, Aesica / F D(is) M(anibus) / Ael(io) Mercu/riali cornicul(ario) / Vacia soror / Mumrills fecit
IP 2: AE 1997, 1002b, O I(ulius) G(---) d(ecurio) Arbeia / South Shields
IP 3: RIB 2213, Ardoch101 F Dis Manibus / Ammonius Da/mionis |(centurio) coh(ortis) / I Hispanorum / stipendiorum / XXVII heredes / f(aciendum) c(uraverunt)
IP 4: RIB 991, Banna / V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / coh(ors) I Dac(orum) [---] / [---] / 102 Bewcastle [.]at[.]e[..]t(---) centur(io) / leg(ionis) II [Aug(ustae)] / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]
IP 5: RIB 2115, F D(is) M(anibus) / Afutiano / Bassi or/dinato / coh(ortis) II Blatobulgium / Birrens Tung(rorum) / Flavia Baeti/ca coniunx / fac(iendum) curavit
IP 6: RIB 765, Bravonium V [F]el(icitati?) eqq(uitum) LL(---) Aurelius M/arcus dec(urio) alae / Kirkby Thore v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus) m(erito)
IP 7: RIB 769, Bravonium O [---] filia / Cres(centis) / imag/(i)nif(e)ri / Kirkby Thore
IP 8: RIB 1269, V Dis / Mo{u}nti/bus(?) Iul(ius) / Firmin/us dec(urio) f(ecit) Bremenium / High Rochester
IP 9: RIB 1289, F D(is) M(anibus) [s(acrum)] / Aureli Ex[---]/im[i] 7(centurionis) Bremenium / High coh(ortis) I Da[---] Rochester103
IP 10: RIB 586, V [Deab(us) Ma]trib[us] / M(arcus) Ingenui/us Asiati[cus] / dec(urio) Bremetennacum / al(ae) II As[t(urum)] / [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito) Ribchester
101 The unabbreviated formula Dis Manibus indicates a first century date. 102 2nd century. 103 Da[lm(atarum) or –ac(orum)], although in the former case the more usual spelling is Delm(atarum).
336
IP 11: RIB 595, F D(is) M(anibus) / [--- de]c(urio) al(ae) Sarmata[rum] / [---] Bremetennacum / Ribchester
IP 12: RIB 596, F [EG]NATIA [---] / curam eg[it ---]/lis dec(urio) filius Bremetennacum / Ribchester
IP 13: RIB 1523, V De(ae) Conve(n)ti(nae) / vot(um) ret(t)u/lit Maus(aeus) / optio Brocolitia / Carrawburgh c(o)ho(rtis) / p(rimae) Frixiav(onum)!104
IP 14: RIB 1527, V [Ny]mphae Coventinae / [---]tianus dec[u]ri(o) / [---]SLE[.]V / [--- Brocolitia / Carrawburgh ] m(erito)
IP 15: RIB 1559, F D(is) M(anibus) [s(acrum)] / Longi[ni ---] / buc(inatoris) Brocolitia / c[oh(ortis) I Bat(avorum)] / [---] Carrawburgh105
IP 16: RIB 1560, F [D(is)] M(anibus) / [---]S Mileni / [signi]fero / cohor(tis) I Brocolitia / Bat/[avorum] / [---] Carrawburgh106
IP 17: RIB 1561, F D(is) M(anibus) / Ael(iae) Comindo / annorum XXXII / Nobilianus Brocolitia / Carrawburgh dec(urio) / coniugi car[i]ss[i]m(ae) p(osuit)
IP 18: AE 1952, 86, V Matribus / Albinius / 7(centuria) (uinti) Vari mil(es) Brocolitia / Carrawburgh d(edicavit)
IP 19: RIB 1445, Brunton D Turm(a) / L(uci) A(---) Fani // T(urma) L(uci) A(---) F(ani) / p(er) val(lum) / p(edes) CXIII
IP 20: AE 1952, 85, D 7(Centuria) Marci / f(ecit) p(edes) XXXXVI Castle Collen
IP 21: RIB 1918 = AE D 7(Centuria) Deci Sax(ae) / coh(ortis) I Dac(orum) 1947, 115 Cambloganna / Birdoswald107
IP 22: AE 1991, 1160, D 7(Centuria) Cl(audi) Agisi Cambloganna /
104 One would expect Frisiav(onum). 105 3rd century. 106 Ca. 205-212 CE. 107 Ca. 126 CE.
337
Birdoswald
IP 23: AE 1991, 1161, D [---] / 7(Centuria) Cove[---] Cambloganna / Birdoswald
IP 24: AE 1994, 1129, O Martini dec(urionis) Cambloganna / Birdoswald
IP 25: AE 1996, 956, D [7(Centuria)] Ulpi Regini Cambloganna / Birdoswald
IP 26: RIB 1480, F D(is) M(anibus) / Aventino / curatori alae / II Astur(um) Cilurnum / Chesters stip(endiorum) XV / Ael(ius) Gemellus dec(urio)/ h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
IP 27: RIB 1172 = ILS F Dis Manibus / Flavinus / eq(ues) alae Petr(ianae) signifer / tur(ma) 108 2520, Coria / Corbridge Candidi an(norum) XXV / stip(endiorum) VII h(ic) s(itus)
IP 28: RIB 1178, Coria / F Em]erit[o ex e]q(uite) alae [---] / [---]ae / [---] Corbridge
IP 29: RIB 1365 = AE D Coh(ortis) I / Dacor(um) / |(centuria) Ael(i) Dida(e) 1938, 118, Denton Hall
IP 30: RIB 458, Deva / V Numini Aug[usti ---] / ALMAECERT[---]/NVS act(arius?) 109 Chester co(ho)r(tis?) [---] / [---] / ex voto faci[end(um) cur(avit)]
IP 31: RIB 521, Deva / F D(is) M(anibus) / Au[re]lius Diogen[es] / [ima]ginifer / [---] Chester
IP 32: AE 1964, 169, F D(is) b(onis) M(anibus) / Fla(vius) Fuscinus eme(ritus) / ex Galava / Ambleside ordi(nato) visi(t)(!) an(n)is LV // D(is) b(onis) M(anibus) / Fla(vius) Romanus act(arius) / vixit anni(s) XXXV / in ca(stris) inter(fectus) ab hosti(bus)
IP 33: RIB 2015 = ILS V [D]eo / Marti [C]ocidio / [..] Martius / [7(centurio)] [c]oh(ortis) I 4724b, Irthington Ba[t(avorum)] / [et] Genio / [Lugu]vali / [v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens)]
108 The unabbreviated formula indicates a first century date. 109 For the suggestion almae Cereri t[emplum] see RIB comm. ad loc. The erased line is probably the result of an emperor‟s damnatio memoriae, most likely Caracalla or Severus Alexander.
338
m(erito)
IP 34: RIB 600, Lancaster V Deo / Ialono / Contre(bi) / sanctiss[i]/mo Iuliu[s] / Ianuarius / em(eritus) ex dec(urione) v(otum) [s(olvit)]
IP 35: RIB 2415,41 = AE D Coh(ors) IIII Bre(ucorum) // 7(centuria) Cl(audi) Senioris / Anni 1995, 1002, Lincolnshire
IP 36: RIB 266, Lindum / F [---] ex / [d]ec(urione) alae II / Astor(um!) vixit / [a]nnis LXX[.] Lincoln
IP 37: RIB 409, Llanio D 7(Centuria) Arti M(arcus) / Ennius / Primus
IP 38: RIB 410, Llanio D 7(Centuria) Arti
IP 39: RIB 411, Llanio D 7(Centuria) Verioni[s]
IP 40: RIB 1076, V [I(ovi)] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [ord]inati coh(ortis) / [I f(idae)] Longovium / Lanchester Vard[ul]lor(um) / c(ivium) R(omanorum) eq(uitatae) m(illiariae) / v(otum) s(olverunt) l(aeti) l(ibentes) m(erito)
IP 41: RIB 907, F D(is) M(anibus) / Mae[lo]/nius Sec/undus / equi[s(!)] / al(a)e Luguvalium / Carlisle Aug(ustae) / sesq(uiplicarius)
IP 42: RIB 1795, Magnae V Deo sanct[o] / Veteri / Iul(ius) Pastor / imag(inifer) coh(ortis) II / / Carvoran Delma(tarum!) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
IP 43: RIB 577, D Coho(rtis) I Frisiav(onum) / 7(centuria) Masavonis / p(edes) XXIII Mamucium / Manchester
IP 44: RIB 578, D Coh(o)r(tis) I / Frisiavo(num) / 7(centuria) Quintiani / p(edes) Mamucium / Manchester XXIIII
IP 45: RIB 579, D 7(Centuria) Cudreni c(o)hor(tis) I / [F]ris[iav(onum)] p(edes) [---] Mamucium / Manchester
IP 46: RIB 580, D 7(Centuria) Candidi / [pe]des XX/IIII Mamucium / Manchester
IP 47: RIB 279, Melandra D C(o)ho(rtis) I / Frisiavo(num) / 7(centuria) Val(eri) Vit/alis Castle
339
IP 48: RIB 2140 = ILS V Herculi / Magusan(o) / sacrum / Val(erius) Nigri/nus dupli(carius) / 110 4628, Mumrills alae Tun/grorum
IP 49: RIB 1433, Onnum / F [---]rmat[---] / [civ]is Norici an(norum) XXX / [M]essorius 111 High Chesters Magnus / [f]rater eius dupl(icarius) al{i}ae / Sabinianae / [f(aciendum)] c(uravit)
IP 50: RIB 620, V Dis Manibus Croto Vindicis em/erito coh(ortis) IIII Gallorum 112 Templeborough annorum / XXXX monimentum fecit Flavia Pe/regrina coniunx pientissima marito pientis/simo titulum posuit
IP 51: RIB 2121, V Campestr(ibus) / sacrum Ael(ius) / Marcus / dec(urio) alae 113 Trimontium / Newstead Aug(ustae) / Vocontio(rum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) l(aetus)
m(erito)
IP 52: AE 1967, 262, D 7(centuria) Iuli Valen(t)i(s) Turret
IP 53: AE 1967, 263, D 7(centuria) Eppi / Con Turret
IP 54: AE 1975, 565, V Veteri/bus pos/uit Sen/ilis Vindolanda / Chesterholm
IP 55: AE 1975, 566, V Dibus(!) Ve/teribus / pos(uit) Longi/nus Vindolanda / Chesterholm
IP 56: RIB 1618, F D(is) M(anibus) / Anicio / Ingenuo / medico / ord(inario) coh(ortis) Vercovicium / / I Tungr(orum) / vix(it) an(nos) XXV Housesteads
IP 57: AE 1962, 262, V 7(centurio) Saturninus / 7(centurio) Rufinus / Henoenus / optio Vercovicium / Housesteads
110 2nd century 111 1st half of 3rd century. 112 The unabbreviated formula indicates an early date; the unit arrived in Britannia during Hadrian‟s reign, as indicated by diplomas (cf. Spaul 2000:164-165). His wife‟s name includes two markers of a former peregrine status: her imperial gentilicium and her telling cognomen Peregrina, which is well attested on the German and British frontiers. Crotus‟ status as a veteran (emeritus) at age 40 is noteworthy. If he was a Celtic recruit from Britannia, this monument should date to ca. 160 CE. 113 142-145 CE.
340
IP 58: RIB 1713, F D(is) M(anibus) / Corn(elius) Victor s(ingularis) c(onsularis) / Vindolanda / Chesterholm mil(itavit) ann(os) XXVI civ(is) / Pann(onius) fil(ius) Saturni/ni p(rimi) p(ilaris) vix(it) an(nos) LV d(ies) XI / coniu(n)x procuravi(t)
IP 59: AE 2003, 1052, D T(urma) Pruso(n)iana Marc[---] Vindolanda / Chesterholm
IP 60: RIB 1028, Vinovia V [Aesc]ulapio / [et] Saluti / [pro salu]te alae Vet/[tonum] c(ivium) / Binchester R(omanorum) M(arcus) Aure/[lius ---]ocomas me/[dicus v(otum) s(olvit)] l(ibens) m(erito)
IP 61: RIB 1039, Vinovia F D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Nem(onius) Montanus dec(urio) / vixit / Binchester ann(os) XL Nem(onius) / Sanctus fr(ater) et coher{r}(edes) / ex testamento fecer(un)t
IP 62: RIB 918 = ILS V Deo / Marti / Belatucad/ro et Numi/nib(us) Augg(ustorum) / Iulius 114 4543, Voreda / Penrith Au/gustalis / actor Iul(i) Lu/pi pr(a)ef(ecti)
IP 63: RIB 935, Voreda / F [---]/gaduno / Ulp(ia) Trai(ana) / em(erito) al(ae) Petr(ianae) / Penrith Martius / f(ilius) p(onendum) c(uravit)
14. B Auxiliary infantry and cavalry milites gregales
A 1: RIB 159 = ILS 2517, F L(ucius) Vitellius Ma/ntai f(ilius) Tancinus / cives(!) Hisp(anus) Aquae Sulis / Bath Caurie(n)sis / eq(ues) alae Vettonum c(ivium) R(omanorum) / ann(orum) XXXXVI stip(endiorum) XXVI / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A2: RIB 1064, Arbeia / F D(is) M(anibus) Victoris natione Maurum / [a]nnorum XX libertus South Shields Numeriani / [e]q(u)itis ala(e) I Asturum qui / piantissime(!) pr[ose]qutus(!) est
114 The exact duties of this prefect‟s actor are unclear; this may be a corruption of the well attested rank of actarius who belonged the the officium of the unit commander and thus had the rank of principalis. This is also the likeliest solution to RIB 458, from Deva. Cf. Domaszewski-Dobson 1967: 53-59; contra Spaul 2000: 157, classifying Augustalis as an immunis. It is unlikely that this title is related to the legionary actor primipili (CIL 5, 8237, ca. 244 CE) since auxiliary units had no rank analogous to the primus pilus.
341
A 3: RIB 2107 = ILS V Deae Ricagam/bedae pagus / Vella(v)us milit(ans) / coh(orte) II 4752, Blatobulgium / Tung(rorum) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Birrens
A 4: RIB 2109, V Dib(us!) de/ab(us)q(ue) / omnib(us) / Frument/ius mil(es) coh(ortis) Blatobulgium / Birrens II / Tungr(orum)
A 5: RIB 1921, F [---]spa Septimo vi[xi]t ann(os) / XXXX mil(itavit) XVIII coh(orte) I Cambloganna / Ae/lia Dacorum / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit) Birdoswald
A 6: RIB 1529, Brocolitia V Deae Coven/tin(a)e P[---]a/nus m(i)l(es) c(o)ho(rtis) V / / Carrawburgh R(a)eto[rum] / votum [li]/be(n)s animo / r(eddidit) et posivit(!)
A 7: RIB 418, Caer Gai115 V Iulius Gaveronis f(ilius) / fe(cit) mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) I Ner(viorum)
A 8: AE 1995, 994b, V Boud[us c(o)h]o(rtis) Ast(urum) Caersws
A 9: RIB 1667, F D(is) M(anibus) [s(acrum)] / Dagualda m[i]l(es) [coh(ortis) I] / 116 Cawfields Pan(noniorum) vixit an(nos) [---] / Pusinna [con]/[iu(n)]x titulu[m pos(uit)]
A 10: RIB 201 = AE F Longinus Sdapeze / matygi f(ilius) duplicarius / ala prima 1928, 156 = AE 1929, 34 T(h)racum pago / Sardica(!) anno(rum) XL aeror(um) XV / heres = AE 2002, 888, exs(!) testam(ento) [f(aciendum)] c(uravit) / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Camulodunum / Colchester
A 11: AE 1952, 12, D [Imp(erator) Caes(ar) M(arcus) Aur(elius) Antoninus] / Concangium / Chester-le- [perpet(uae) sal(uti) et usibus] eq(uitum) / [---] / [aquam per agros Street t]errit(orium)q(ue) / [alae s(upra) s(criptae) ped(es) ---] induxit / [et balneum milit(um) a s]olo in/[struxit ---]diani leg(ati) / [Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) Sabino et An]ullino co(n)s(ulibus)
A 12: RIB 1350 = AE F D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) D(ecimus) Iuliu/s Q(uinti) f(ilius) 1940, 110 = AE 1947, 99, Candidus c(o)ho(rtis) / p(rimae) Vangionum a(nnorum) XXXX Condercum / Benwell
A 13: RIB 108, Corinium F Dannicus eq(u)es alae / Indian(ae) tur(ma) Albani / stip(endiorum) / Cirencester
115 Fragmentary reliefs of Herculean iconography indicate that this was an altar set up to that god. Cf. Spaul 2000: 218. 116 Late 2nd-early 3rd century CE.
342
XVI cives(!) Raur(icus) / cur(averunt) Fulvius Natalis it(!) / Fl[av]ius Bitucus ex testame(nto) / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 14: RIB 109, Corinium F Sextus Vale/rius Genialis / eq(u)es alae Trha{e}c(um!) / civis 117 / Cirencester Frisia(v)us tur(ma) / Genialis an(norum) XXXX st(ipendiorum) XX / h(ic) s(itus) e(st) (h)e(res) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 15: AE 1914, 293, F Iulius Aventinus mil
A 16: RIB 522, Deva / F [D(is)] M(anibus) / Aureli Luci / equitis / h(eres) f(aciendum) Chester c(uravit)
A 17: RIB 523, Deva / F D(is) M(anibus) / C(a)ecilius Donatus B/essus na/tione mili/tavit Chester ann/os XXVI vix/it annos XXXX
A 18: RIB 121, Glevum / F Rufus Sita eques c(o)ho(rtis) VI / T(h)racum ann(orum) XL Gloucester stip(endiorum) XXII / heredes exs(!) test(amento) f(aciendum) curave(runt) / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
A 19: RIB 1249, F [---] mil(es) coh(ortis) IIII Gal(lorum) / sti(pendiorum) XIIII Habitancum / Risingham def(unctus) / [vix]sit an(n)is / XXXXIIII
A 20: AE 1975, 549, Isca D [7(Centuria)] Ge(r)mani / [D]animacus f(ecit) / Caerleon
A 21: RIB 606 = AE F Dis Mani/bus / L(ucius) Iul(ius) Apol/linaris / Trever an(norum) / 1969/70, 292, XXX eq(ues) al/ae Au[g(ustae)] / h(ic) [s(itus) e(st)] Lancaster118
A 22: AE 1998, 852, F [--- eq(uiti) al]ae Sebosianae sing(ulari) / Agricolae Luguvalium / Carlisle
A 23: RIB 804 = AE F D(is) M(anibus) / Smert[ri]/o Mac[ri f(ilio)] / m(iliti) coh(ortis) I[I] 1951, 130, Moresby / [T]hrac[um] / [e]q(uitatae) stip(endiorum) / X vicsit(!) [an(nos)] / XXXV d(ies) V
A 24: RIB 2142, F Dis M(anibus) Nectovelius f(ilius) / Vindicis an(norum) IXXX / 119 Mumrills stip(endiorum) VIIII nat/ionis Brigans / militavit in / coh(orte) II
117 End 1st – early 2nd century. 118 1st century. 119 1st century.
343
Thr(acum)
A 25: RIB 619, F Dis M(anibus) Cintusm/us m(iles) coh(ortis) IIII Gall/orum po(suit) Templeborough Melisus
A 26: RIB 1619, F D(is) M(anibus) / Hurmio / Leubasni / mil(iti) coh(ortis) I / Vercovicium / Tungror(um) / b(ene)f(iciario) praef(ecti) / Ca[l]pur[ni]us(?) / Housesteads120 her(es) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
A 27: RIB 291 F Tib(erius) Claud(ius) Tiri/ntius eq(ues) coh(ortis) [..] / Thracum 121 Viroconium / Wroxeter an[n]/orum LVII sti[p]/endior(um) XX[---] / h(ic) s(itus) [e(st)]
A 28: RIB 403, Y-Gaer F Diis M[anibus] / Cand[idi ---]/ni fili(i) [eq(uitis) alae] / Hisp(anorum) Vett(onum) [c(ivium) R(omanorum) tur(ma)] / Clem(entis) dom[o ---] / an(norum) XX stip(endiorum) III H[---]
A 29: RIB 405, Y-Gaer122 F D[is] Man[i]bus / Val(eri) Pr[i]mi [.]et[.] / fil(ii) / [e]q(uitis) [a]lae NER / opt[io]nis / h(eres) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
15. B Auxiliary Rank / Text Uncertain
ARU 1: RIB 1727, Aesica V [I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) / [---] Gal(l)or(um) / [---]N[---] / Great Chesters
ARU 2: RIB 1737, Aesica D [Impp(eratoribus) Caesarib]us Antonino et [Vero] / [Augustis 123 / Great Chesters Par]thicis Medicis [Armen]/[iacis coh(ors) V]I(?) Raetoru[m ---] / [---]misia [---]cci[..] et [---] / [---]iiat[---]
ARU 3: AE 1996, 961, O Vitalis Arbeia / South Shields
120 An auxiliary who later served as a beneficiarius of the unit‟s prefect. 121 1st century. 122 If the text has been reported correctly, the only possibility would be Ala I Augusta Nerviana, but the extant evidence is entirely located in Mauretania Caesariensis. 123 166-169 CE. The incomplete preservation of the names is unfortunate, since they include some obviously peregrine elements.
344
ARU 4: RIB 1538 = ILS V Genio / hu(i)us lo/ci Texand(ri) / et Suve(vae?) / vex(illarii) 2556, Brocolitia / cohor(tis) / II Nervior/um Carrawburgh
ARU 5: RIB 1562, F Coh(ortis)] I Bat(avorum) / [--- et] Hilario / heredes f(aciendum) Brocolitia / Carrawburgh c(uraverunt)
ARU 6: RIB 1920, F D(is) [M(anibus)] / Deciba[li vixs(it)?] / dieb[us ---] / et Blae[--- Cambloganna / vix]/s[i]t a(nnos) X Et[---]/us frat[er ---] Birdoswald
ARU 7: AE 1991, 1159, O Iulius Cambloganna / Birdoswald
ARU 8: RIB 205, F D(is) [M(anibus)] / Ar[---] / Re[---] / Val[--- coh(ortis)] / I Va[---] / Camulodunum / qui m[ilitavit ---] / ex a[ere collato] Colchester
ARU 9: RIB 1348, ? [---]NIO / [---]BI[---]VV / [---]I[---]SV[---] / [---]AVG [---]E / [--- Condercum / Benwell a]lae I As/[turum ---]OI I / [---]V / [---] I [---]
ARU 10: RIB 1186, Coria O [Coh(ors) I(?)] / Ling(onum) / Iliom/[arus]? / Corbridge
ARU 11: RIB 557, Deva / F [---] an(norum) XXVI / turma VILIX(!) / frater fec(it) Chester124
ARU 12: RIB 558, Deva / F D(is) M(anibus) / Fl(avi) Callimor/phi vix(it) an(n)i(s) XXXXII / et 125 Chester Serapioni vix(it) / ann(is) III m(ensibus) VI Thesa/eus fratri et filio / f(aciendum) c(uravit)
ARU 13: RIB 1230, V [.]RAN[---] / [.]I[.]I[..]L[..] / [---] / [---] / [--- coh(ortis)] / I Habitancum / Risingham Van[g(ionum)] s(olvit)
ARU 14: RIB 1870 = AE V [Deo sanc]/[to Si]l[v]an[o] / [F]lavius / Marcel/linus dec(urio) / 1956, 108, Harrow‟s v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) Scar126
124 VILIX is inscribed next to turma and in a separate line from frater; clearly it qualifies the former noun. It has generally been understood as a corruption of Felix, in which case one would expect turma Felicis. This, however, is not certain and the use nominative case is odd. Even if this is a peregrine name, it would be simple to decline. An oversight on the part of the engraver seems, in this case, to be the likeliest explanation. 125 Two brothers and a son, all bearing Greek names, are commemorated here. They should not be assumed to be of servile origin solely on the basis of their names. The lack of any mention of a military rank may indicate a connection with camp-followers. 126 An auxiliary decurion is very likely recorded here, but the text is ambiguous.
345
ARU 15: AE 1996, 942, O [---]IRA[---] / [--- T]hraec(um)? Aug(usta)? [---] Londinium / London127
ARU 16: RIB 896, V [I(ovi)] O(ptimo) M(aximo) / [p]ro sal[u]te L(uci) Septi[mi] / 128 Luguvalium / Carlisle [S]everi et M(arci) Aur(eli) Anto/[nini Augg(ustorum)] / [---]
ARU 17: RIB 898, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) C(onservatori) / [p]ro salut[e] / [---]MI[- Luguvalium / Carlisle --] / [---]V[---] / [---] / [---] / [---] / [c]onsec[ra]v[it]
ARU 18: RIB 1810, D [---]ius Agripp[a ---] / [--- coh(ortis) I] Hamioru[m ---] Magnae / Carvoran
ARU 19: AE 1967, 261, D [---]V[---]V[---] // Co[h(ors)] V[---]AXN[---] Turret
ARU 20: AE 1975, 567, V Deo Mo/gunti et / Genio lo/ci / Lupul[us] / [v(otum)] s(olvit) Vindolanda / m(erito) Chesterholm129
ARU 21: AE 2003, 1038, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) // [et Ge]nio pra/[e]tor[ii ---] / [---] / C[- Vindolanda / Chesterholm --]OR] / [---]NC[.] / [---]/orum / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
ARU 22: AE 2003, 1051, D C(ohors) I Va(rdullorum) // Q(uinti) [---] Vindolanda / Chesterholm
ARU 23: RIB 1687, V I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / et Genio / diisq(ue) cus/todib(us) Vindolanda / coh(ortis) II[II] / Gall(orum) et Vindo(landae) Caecil(ius) / OP Chesterholm130 CELER[---]
ARU 24: RIB 1035, V [---] / Sulp(icius) Vic(tor) / [--- alae] Vett[on(um)] / [civis] 131 Vinovia / Binchester Cann(inefas) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)
ARU 25: RIB 926 = AE V Omnibus / dibus(!) Unse/nis Fersome/ris Burcanius / Arcavius 1911, 131, Voreda / Vagda/varcustus Pou[.]/[.]c[.]arus vex(illationis) MA/VI [.. pr]o Penrith salute / sua et suorum v(otum) s(olverunt) l(ibentes) m(erito)
127 The reading has been doubted by the editors of AE. The artifact was discovered in an archaeological context dated by dendrochronology to 63 CE, but this unit is not otherwise attested in in Britain during the first century. 128 197-211 or 208-211 CE, depending on the now lost titles of Geta. 129 The single name Lupulus suggests a peregrine origin, but this text is brief and the dedicator need not have inscribed his full name. 130 3rd century. 131 The deceased‟s rank is lost.
346
ARU 26: RIB 1198 = AE V D[e]o / Apo[lli]n[i] C(aius) / [Iul?]ius / [---] / [..] coh(ortis) [II] 1947, 116 = AE 1947, Ne[r(viorum)] / [---] 119, Whitley Castle132
ARU 27: AE 2002, 896,? V Deo / Invicto / coh(ors) I / Batavor(um) / fecit Aulo / Maximo
ARU 28: CCID 588,? F? [---] coh(ortis) V Gal(lorum) ex / [tes?]t(amento?)133
ARU 29: RIB 2089,?134 V [C]n(aeus) Egnat[i]us [---] / [--- A]sturum [---]
132 The deceased seems to have been a Roman citizen. His praenomen C(aius) suggests the gentilicium [Iul]ius. 133 Probably [tes]t(amento). 134 Infantry and cavalry units of Astures are attested in Britannia. This, and the unclear provenance of the inscription, make a closer identification of the unit presently impossible.