Looking up the latest issue of the Journal of Roman Archaeology, I found this review by Henry Hurst of the publication of the Gloucester London Road cemetery excavated by Oxford Archaeology.
Quite pertinent to the Twentieth legion (it is the findspot of the tombstone of Lucius Octavius Martialis) with interesting comments on dating. May not be up for long (its a sample review from Vol. 23 and I suppose may be replaced by a sample from Vol. 24 at some point).
Friday 18 November 2011
Thursday 17 November 2011
Unknown soldiers
The report on the Inversesk inscriptions prompts another thought...
It seems to have become de rigeur in the reporting of a new legionary centurion to attempt to identify him with some previously attested individual (or in this case to bring in individuals whom he cannot be identified with, which demonstrates access to a good database, but seems to add little otherwise [I am, of course, guilty of this myself] ). Little attention appears to be payed to the likelihood of this...
For that we need a few numbers - number of centurions, length of service etc - but data is sketchy, so we will only have broad estimates to play with, but enough to give an order of magnitude.
60 centurions per legion (round numbers); 20 years service; first 2 centuries AD; = 600 per legion
Average (low average) 25 legions = 15,000 centurions serving over this period.
How many do we know of already? Richier 2006 Centuriones ad Rhenum brings together 400-odd for the legions on the Rhine; c. 300 if we stick to the first two centuries AD and an average of 6 legions (8 in the first century; 4 in the second). Summerly 1991 Studies in the legionary centurionate was using Eric Birley's lists and as I recall his numbering got close to 1000 which fits quite well.
So we know the names of about 1/12th-1/15th of the centurions serving over this period. Sound quite good put like that, but 1/12th = 8.33%, ie we don't know the identity of 91.66% of centurions. The odds of a randomly recovered name matching one of those 8.3366% rather than being one of the previously unknown 91.66% are really not very high. Out of every 100 newly discovered centurions (and the rate of discovery is not especially high) we'd only expect 8 to be individuals already known...
...all things being equal. Which, of course they're not. Lots of factors pulling various ways. How many inscribed monuments would a centurion put up? Expensive things to commission. If a centurion was only likely to put up one or two, then once we've found one (or two), we're very unlikely to find another. Or perhaps certain centurions were more wedded to the 'epigraphic habit' and more inclined to leave their name in stone everywhere they went, in which case they would be easier to find. Not easy to know either way, but the main point stands. It's not actually very likely that we will already know of a newly discovered centurion. Certainly worth a comment if we do! Hardly worth noting if we don't.
It seems to have become de rigeur in the reporting of a new legionary centurion to attempt to identify him with some previously attested individual (or in this case to bring in individuals whom he cannot be identified with, which demonstrates access to a good database, but seems to add little otherwise [I am, of course, guilty of this myself] ). Little attention appears to be payed to the likelihood of this...
For that we need a few numbers - number of centurions, length of service etc - but data is sketchy, so we will only have broad estimates to play with, but enough to give an order of magnitude.
60 centurions per legion (round numbers); 20 years service; first 2 centuries AD; = 600 per legion
Average (low average) 25 legions = 15,000 centurions serving over this period.
How many do we know of already? Richier 2006 Centuriones ad Rhenum brings together 400-odd for the legions on the Rhine; c. 300 if we stick to the first two centuries AD and an average of 6 legions (8 in the first century; 4 in the second). Summerly 1991 Studies in the legionary centurionate was using Eric Birley's lists and as I recall his numbering got close to 1000 which fits quite well.
So we know the names of about 1/12th-1/15th of the centurions serving over this period. Sound quite good put like that, but 1/12th = 8.33%, ie we don't know the identity of 91.66% of centurions. The odds of a randomly recovered name matching one of those 8.3366% rather than being one of the previously unknown 91.66% are really not very high. Out of every 100 newly discovered centurions (and the rate of discovery is not especially high) we'd only expect 8 to be individuals already known...
...all things being equal. Which, of course they're not. Lots of factors pulling various ways. How many inscribed monuments would a centurion put up? Expensive things to commission. If a centurion was only likely to put up one or two, then once we've found one (or two), we're very unlikely to find another. Or perhaps certain centurions were more wedded to the 'epigraphic habit' and more inclined to leave their name in stone everywhere they went, in which case they would be easier to find. Not easy to know either way, but the main point stands. It's not actually very likely that we will already know of a newly discovered centurion. Certainly worth a comment if we do! Hardly worth noting if we don't.
Monday 14 November 2011
Inveresk - finally this time
The latest issue of Britannia (Vol. 42 2011) arrived at my door this week and with it more detail of the Inveresk inscriptions. 'To the unconquered god Mithras, C Cas(sius) Fla(vianus) (dedicated this altar)'. That is, Flavus or Flavinus or Flavianus, or indeed possibly Flaccus (Tomlin 2011, 441-4). Still not to be seen in other than an uncleaned state (paint evidently survives and further work will be sensitive). Work towards full publication is ongoing.
Of particular interest from my point of view is the potential link to the Twentieth Legion. Entirely from the form of the letter A, but convincing nonetheless as this is distinctive on the Antonine Wall distance slabs of the legion, So, welcome C Cassius Flavus to the roster of the legion.
I am slightly less convinced by the parallels from Chester (neatly though that might tie things up), at least without seeing them again. RIB461 and RIB497 are referenced, the latter clearly shown with this letter form in RIB I, the former less clearly so.
RIB461 is in Greek in any case, so the choice of letter form may be less relevant. Unfortunately the photographs in the 1955 corpus (Wright and Richmond The Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester) are in neither case very clear. 497 is cracked across close to the relevant point (but as drawn would indeed seem to be a clear example). Of the three letter As on 461 the first has no clear crossbar at all, the final one only a medial mark which isn't convincingly part of the letter, leaving only the third which doesn't appear entirely clear either and in the photograph the stone surface appears damaged at the relevant point. A reason for another visit to the Grosvenor Museum, I think.
Of particular interest from my point of view is the potential link to the Twentieth Legion. Entirely from the form of the letter A, but convincing nonetheless as this is distinctive on the Antonine Wall distance slabs of the legion, So, welcome C Cassius Flavus to the roster of the legion.
I am slightly less convinced by the parallels from Chester (neatly though that might tie things up), at least without seeing them again. RIB461 and RIB497 are referenced, the latter clearly shown with this letter form in RIB I, the former less clearly so.
RIB461 is in Greek in any case, so the choice of letter form may be less relevant. Unfortunately the photographs in the 1955 corpus (Wright and Richmond The Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester) are in neither case very clear. 497 is cracked across close to the relevant point (but as drawn would indeed seem to be a clear example). Of the three letter As on 461 the first has no clear crossbar at all, the final one only a medial mark which isn't convincingly part of the letter, leaving only the third which doesn't appear entirely clear either and in the photograph the stone surface appears damaged at the relevant point. A reason for another visit to the Grosvenor Museum, I think.
Wednesday 20 July 2011
Binchester Inscription
Reported last week on the blog for the Roman Binchester project:
More learned specialists will doubtless opine shortly, in the meantime a few throughts of my own (since the Binchester blog doesn't appear to take comments).
The final two lines look to be something like
[name of unit] cui prAEST [name of commander] praef eQVITVM
ie ...which is commanded by [name] prefect of cavalry
cf RIB 897 from Papcastle
ala Aug Gordia(na)...cui praest Aemilius Crispinus pref eq
and other examples (RIB 817,1585,1688,1976, 2149).
The upper line would give us ...SACER. This does appear as a cognomen, especially in the celtic provinces, but it's not really in the right place (who's name would it be? the commander's name should come later. if not part of the name of the unit, it should form part of the subject of the dedication).
Much more interesting would be SACER(dos), or some such, which is found in the imperial titulature of Elagabalus.
cf RIB1465 - dedication to the emperor recording rebuilding at Chesters in AD221.
Except the emperor's name - in particular the sacerdos...dei invicti solis elegabali bit - has been erased there, so this is only inferred... and there doesn't seem enough space here to fit all of this, however abbreviated.
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Inveresk Again (Again)
A bit more info on this Museum blog
(same photos, though. still none in a cleaner state)
DAEO INVICTO MY C CAS FLA
wouldn't really go with 'to the glory of...'; nor necessarily 'invincible', though this is the usual translation... is 'unconquered' the same as 'unconquerable'?
MY is a fairly extreme abbreviation, given there's clearly no lack of space, but the second inscription is equally terse
SOL C CAS FLA >
That should be C(aius) Cas(sius) Fla(vus), not Fla(vius) which would be the nomen. Sadly the nomenclature is rather undistinctive. I wish them luck in tracing other postings.
The association of Sol and Mithras is much attested, most relevantly perhaps on the dedications at the Temple of Mithras at Housesteads (RIB 1599, 1600)
(same photos, though. still none in a cleaner state)
DAEO INVICTO MY C CAS FLA
wouldn't really go with 'to the glory of...'; nor necessarily 'invincible', though this is the usual translation... is 'unconquered' the same as 'unconquerable'?
MY is a fairly extreme abbreviation, given there's clearly no lack of space, but the second inscription is equally terse
SOL C CAS FLA >
That should be C(aius) Cas(sius) Fla(vus), not Fla(vius) which would be the nomen. Sadly the nomenclature is rather undistinctive. I wish them luck in tracing other postings.
The association of Sol and Mithras is much attested, most relevantly perhaps on the dedications at the Temple of Mithras at Housesteads (RIB 1599, 1600)
Friday 8 April 2011
Historia de las legiones Romanas
Fruits of some recent library research. A potentially embarassing omission from my thesis...
J. Rodriguez Gonzalez 2001 Historia de las legiones Romanas, Madrid
An ambitious attempt to write histories of all of the Imperial legions. If intended as an update of Ritterling 1925, this isn't quite explicit (it would seem to me the only possible starting point, but although R is referenced later, he doesn't get much of a look in in the introductory material)... The main difference is the lack of Ritterling's useful assembling of personnel (well, officers, at least) and evidence for nomenclature etc as the end of each entry. Very much in need of update, but a large job in itself. Based on a 1997 PhD thesis, so unfortunately missing any reference to Le Bohec et al. 2000 Les Legions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (explicitly looking to update Ritterling). Perhaps this is why a 2nd edition appeared in 2003?
It would be more embarassing were it better, and becomes a little less so on discovering that the Institute of Classical Studies library only got hold of a copy in 2008 (and after a search through COPAC and WorldCat suggests that this is still the only copy to be had in the country). Still, would have liked to have seen it sooner (ie about 5 years sooner!) and will really have to get hold of a copy.
The treatment of the Twentieth legion doesn't entirely impress. He gets off on a bad foot by referring to it as legio XX Valeria throughout; this despite referencing McPake 1981 on the subject and despite reproducing a photograph of CIL VI 3492 = ILS 2288 on the cover of the book (the clue is in the XX VICTR). I wouldn't concur that the legion (or at least the same Twentieth legion) was raised by Caesar in 49BC in northern Italy; nor be quite so sure that 'Valeria' derives from the command of Valerius Messalinus (a possible explanation, but deserving of more argument). Was the legion at Camulodunum in a joint camp of 49.5ha (surely that's the whole town!) with XIIII Gemina? If so, certainly not 'en territorio de los icenios'; that might come as news to the Trinovantes/Catuvellauni. The supposed command of a vexillation in Numidia by Sex. Flavius Quietus is illusory (the point is disposed of by Dobson 1978 Die Primipilares)... I might go on, and may well come back to the subject, but perhaps I'm being picky. An impressive breadth of coverage, perhaps let down by detail. Certainly deserving of a more in depth look.
J. Rodriguez Gonzalez 2001 Historia de las legiones Romanas, Madrid
An ambitious attempt to write histories of all of the Imperial legions. If intended as an update of Ritterling 1925, this isn't quite explicit (it would seem to me the only possible starting point, but although R is referenced later, he doesn't get much of a look in in the introductory material)... The main difference is the lack of Ritterling's useful assembling of personnel (well, officers, at least) and evidence for nomenclature etc as the end of each entry. Very much in need of update, but a large job in itself. Based on a 1997 PhD thesis, so unfortunately missing any reference to Le Bohec et al. 2000 Les Legions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (explicitly looking to update Ritterling). Perhaps this is why a 2nd edition appeared in 2003?
It would be more embarassing were it better, and becomes a little less so on discovering that the Institute of Classical Studies library only got hold of a copy in 2008 (and after a search through COPAC and WorldCat suggests that this is still the only copy to be had in the country). Still, would have liked to have seen it sooner (ie about 5 years sooner!) and will really have to get hold of a copy.
The treatment of the Twentieth legion doesn't entirely impress. He gets off on a bad foot by referring to it as legio XX Valeria throughout; this despite referencing McPake 1981 on the subject and despite reproducing a photograph of CIL VI 3492 = ILS 2288 on the cover of the book (the clue is in the XX VICTR). I wouldn't concur that the legion (or at least the same Twentieth legion) was raised by Caesar in 49BC in northern Italy; nor be quite so sure that 'Valeria' derives from the command of Valerius Messalinus (a possible explanation, but deserving of more argument). Was the legion at Camulodunum in a joint camp of 49.5ha (surely that's the whole town!) with XIIII Gemina? If so, certainly not 'en territorio de los icenios'; that might come as news to the Trinovantes/Catuvellauni. The supposed command of a vexillation in Numidia by Sex. Flavius Quietus is illusory (the point is disposed of by Dobson 1978 Die Primipilares)... I might go on, and may well come back to the subject, but perhaps I'm being picky. An impressive breadth of coverage, perhaps let down by detail. Certainly deserving of a more in depth look.
Monday 21 March 2011
Inveresk (Musselburgh) again
Finally some follow up on the altars from Inveresk (Musselburgh) on the BBC (and elsewhere. well, the East Lothian Courier, at least). These were first reported (and mentioned here) last April/May.
The reports answer some questions, but leaves many open. It does seem that the altars were face down in the initially published photos and that the suggestion that 'at least one' was dedicated to Jupiter seems to have been supposition. We are now told that one is dedicated to Sol and the other to Mithras, thus the most northerly known dedication to that god.
Frustratingly, the only photos so far released don't allow much to be made of the inscriptions (and the front faces don't seem to have been fully cleaned as yet - the report mentions remains of painted decoration, which is a good reason not to take a scrubbing brush to them, but unless they're so fragile that the surface is in danger of flaking away, I'm not sure why they are being treated quite so delicately...but see this news report and footage which does show them as rather more fragile than the early photos would lead you to suspect).
DAEO INVICT.M.C CAS...? etc
the form DAEO is not recorded in RIB I (where's that index to RIB III when you need it?), but easy enough to find Daeo Mercurio (CIL 13.5047) in Germany.
Certainly looks like a centurial symbol at then end of the only visible line on the other. More please.
The reports answer some questions, but leaves many open. It does seem that the altars were face down in the initially published photos and that the suggestion that 'at least one' was dedicated to Jupiter seems to have been supposition. We are now told that one is dedicated to Sol and the other to Mithras, thus the most northerly known dedication to that god.
Frustratingly, the only photos so far released don't allow much to be made of the inscriptions (and the front faces don't seem to have been fully cleaned as yet - the report mentions remains of painted decoration, which is a good reason not to take a scrubbing brush to them, but unless they're so fragile that the surface is in danger of flaking away, I'm not sure why they are being treated quite so delicately...but see this news report and footage which does show them as rather more fragile than the early photos would lead you to suspect).
DAEO INVICT.M.C CAS...? etc
the form DAEO is not recorded in RIB I (where's that index to RIB III when you need it?), but easy enough to find Daeo Mercurio (CIL 13.5047) in Germany.
Certainly looks like a centurial symbol at then end of the only visible line on the other. More please.
Saturday 12 March 2011
Legio XX on Wikipedia
To edit or not to edit? Perhaps I will get round to it...
Somewhat of a sparse entry. Fair enough in outline, but misleading on a couple of points, most notably on the question of 'Valeria'. The 4th century province on the Danube was named for Valeria, the wife of the emperor Galerius (and daughter of Diocletian); or at least so say Ammianus Marcellinus 19.11.4 and Aurelius Victor de Caes. 40. The fact that the legion was active in that region 300 years earlier is neither here nor there. If the nomenclature is to be linked to the historical exploits of AD6 then much more likely that they received the name from their commander Valerius Messalinus than that the region was silently known as Valeria for 300 years before Galerius (perhaps this can't be entirely ruled out - classical writers could be quite partial to a bit of folk etymology when attempting explanations of this sort - but Ammianus at least was well enough connected to know).
At Colchester 'from the AD 50s'? The usual reading of Tacitus is that the colonia was founded in 48 with the legionary garrison (presumed to be the Twentieth) moved to fight in South Wales, based initially at Kingholm and then at Usk.
Somewhat of a sparse entry. Fair enough in outline, but misleading on a couple of points, most notably on the question of 'Valeria'. The 4th century province on the Danube was named for Valeria, the wife of the emperor Galerius (and daughter of Diocletian); or at least so say Ammianus Marcellinus 19.11.4 and Aurelius Victor de Caes. 40. The fact that the legion was active in that region 300 years earlier is neither here nor there. If the nomenclature is to be linked to the historical exploits of AD6 then much more likely that they received the name from their commander Valerius Messalinus than that the region was silently known as Valeria for 300 years before Galerius (perhaps this can't be entirely ruled out - classical writers could be quite partial to a bit of folk etymology when attempting explanations of this sort - but Ammianus at least was well enough connected to know).
At Colchester 'from the AD 50s'? The usual reading of Tacitus is that the colonia was founded in 48 with the legionary garrison (presumed to be the Twentieth) moved to fight in South Wales, based initially at Kingholm and then at Usk.
Thursday 6 January 2011
Legionaries in the Crimea
OK. Quick bit of digging around. Try the Crimea Project site. Some use of google translate may be necessary (give me German, most Romance, or even east Slavic, languages and I'll get by, but I'm afraid Polish is beyond me), so some of this is reading between the lines...
As noted below, there is other evidence of the Roman Army in the Crimea, the Greek settlements there having turned to Rome for assistance in the 2nd century. The newly discovered buildings at Balaklava are interpreted as barracks. Nearby is a temple to Jupiter Dolichenus with dedications by a tribune (Antonius Valens) and centurion (Novius Ulpianus) of legio I Italica, so legionary barracks seem quite probable. The texts of the several inscriptions can be found here. Apparently this was a vexillation of the legion, so not quite a legionary fortress.
More detail in
Sarnowski, T. 2000 Balaklava: Militärstation Römische und des Heiligtum Iupiter Dolichenus = Balaklava: rimskaâ voennaâ base and svâtiliŝe Ûpitera Dolihena, Institute of Archaeology Warsaw University
which I see the Institute of Classical Studies Library does hold, so I may get to look at this (or at least a German summary) at some point.
As noted below, there is other evidence of the Roman Army in the Crimea, the Greek settlements there having turned to Rome for assistance in the 2nd century. The newly discovered buildings at Balaklava are interpreted as barracks. Nearby is a temple to Jupiter Dolichenus with dedications by a tribune (Antonius Valens) and centurion (Novius Ulpianus) of legio I Italica, so legionary barracks seem quite probable. The texts of the several inscriptions can be found here. Apparently this was a vexillation of the legion, so not quite a legionary fortress.
More detail in
Sarnowski, T. 2000 Balaklava: Militärstation Römische und des Heiligtum Iupiter Dolichenus = Balaklava: rimskaâ voennaâ base and svâtiliŝe Ûpitera Dolihena, Institute of Archaeology Warsaw University
which I see the Institute of Classical Studies Library does hold, so I may get to look at this (or at least a German summary) at some point.
Remains of a Roman Fort in the Crimea?
Details here: Polish archeologists discover Roman fort in UkraineNews from Poland.
Well, not much detail. 'Roman legionary quarters', consisting of several spacious rooms, is what it says. At Balaklava, the ancient Greek settlement of Symbolon, on the Crimean peninsula. Very interesting, if not clear exactly what they've found.
More, please...!
Presumably the dates given for activity - 1AD, 2AD, 3AD - rather than denoting an improbable degree of precision, are meant to indicate 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, in which case the suggestion is: construction of legionary fortress(?) in the 2nd century, building maintained until the 3rd century and destruction by fire.
Vexillations of several of the Moesian legions are known in the Crimea (Chersonesus Taurica): see ... in Le Bohec (ed.) 1995 La Hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l'armée romaine sous le haut-empire
Well, not much detail. 'Roman legionary quarters', consisting of several spacious rooms, is what it says. At Balaklava, the ancient Greek settlement of Symbolon, on the Crimean peninsula. Very interesting, if not clear exactly what they've found.
More, please...!
Presumably the dates given for activity - 1AD, 2AD, 3AD - rather than denoting an improbable degree of precision, are meant to indicate 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, in which case the suggestion is: construction of legionary fortress(?) in the 2nd century, building maintained until the 3rd century and destruction by fire.
Vexillations of several of the Moesian legions are known in the Crimea (Chersonesus Taurica): see ... in Le Bohec (ed.) 1995 La Hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l'armée romaine sous le haut-empire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)