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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)