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.
Monday, 21 March 2011
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
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
La Legio XX Valeria Victrix in Germania Inferior
Tracked down Guido 2009. An interesting read, although I will pass swiftly over the discussion of Numina Divorum Augustorum. Not really my thing and not really sure how much it adds to the various publications of D Fishwick on the subject.
However, III 'La Legio XX Valeria Victrix in Germania Inferior e la datazione dei cognomina' is more to the point. Here in the Aachen stone we have a second dedication from the province in which the legionary cognomina are present. In seeking to date this to after the presence of the legion in the province are we merely falling into a circular argument? By just looking at the inscriptions with no cognomina we prove that the legion didn't have them while in Germany and therefore the inscriptions with cognomina must be later...
Except... it's not just the inscriptions in Germany that are used to argue against the early adoption of Valeria Victrix. The earliest records in Britain likewise omit them [or is some of the same circularity evident here? The building stone from Gloucester must be later because it has VV?].
Part of the problem may lie in changing styles of dedication. Keppie has pointed out [somewhere] that legionary cognomina are rarely included in earlier first century stones, even where we have evidence that the cognomen was already in existence.
And are we comparing like with like? The dedications with VV are a different class of monument. All the others are gravestones from legionary bases (veteran at Nijmegen?) or marks of personal ownership. Expecting the same standards of usage across different classes of document is the weak link in Tomlin’s argument re the Carlisle writing tablet (without VV as late as AD84). Altogether intractable.
However, III 'La Legio XX Valeria Victrix in Germania Inferior e la datazione dei cognomina' is more to the point. Here in the Aachen stone we have a second dedication from the province in which the legionary cognomina are present. In seeking to date this to after the presence of the legion in the province are we merely falling into a circular argument? By just looking at the inscriptions with no cognomina we prove that the legion didn't have them while in Germany and therefore the inscriptions with cognomina must be later...
Except... it's not just the inscriptions in Germany that are used to argue against the early adoption of Valeria Victrix. The earliest records in Britain likewise omit them [or is some of the same circularity evident here? The building stone from Gloucester must be later because it has VV?].
Part of the problem may lie in changing styles of dedication. Keppie has pointed out [somewhere] that legionary cognomina are rarely included in earlier first century stones, even where we have evidence that the cognomen was already in existence.
And are we comparing like with like? The dedications with VV are a different class of monument. All the others are gravestones from legionary bases (veteran at Nijmegen?) or marks of personal ownership. Expecting the same standards of usage across different classes of document is the weak link in Tomlin’s argument re the Carlisle writing tablet (without VV as late as AD84). Altogether intractable.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Recent Literature
Keeping an eye on publications:
Guido, L. 2009 'I Numina Diuorum Augustorum e la Legio XX Valeria Victrix: una nuova iscrizione da Aquisgrana', Latomus 68, 644-656
My eyes lit up at the words 'nuova iscrizione' but a little investigation establishes that Aquisgrana is in fact the Italian name for Aachen and this is again the dedication by Julia Tiberina, wife of Q Iulius [Fl]avus mentioned herein once or twice. I may have time to get up to the university library when I'm in Nottingham tomorrow...
Guido, L. 2009 'I Numina Diuorum Augustorum e la Legio XX Valeria Victrix: una nuova iscrizione da Aquisgrana', Latomus 68, 644-656
My eyes lit up at the words 'nuova iscrizione' but a little investigation establishes that Aquisgrana is in fact the Italian name for Aachen and this is again the dedication by Julia Tiberina, wife of Q Iulius [Fl]avus mentioned herein once or twice. I may have time to get up to the university library when I'm in Nottingham tomorrow...
Friday, 23 July 2010
Addition to legionary roster
Gaius Valerius Pudens
This one passed me by on first reading:
Britannia 40, 2009, 321-2
Inscription on base of jar found at Chester in L1E2 context; jar 'made in a legionary tile-works' - presumably the legionary tile-works at Holt.
G(aius) V[al(erius) G(ai) f(ilius)] Pud[ens] Maceia (tribu)
Inscribed pre-firing. More likely therefore the name of the legionary who made it than necessarily a mark of ownership (although if you were assigned to making pottery, perhaps you'd make sure you got a new set yourself!).
Compare RIB 542 + add. also from Chester:
Dis Man(ibus) L(ucius) Valerius L(ucii filius) [S]ala[r]ia Pud[....]III[...
This one passed me by on first reading:
Britannia 40, 2009, 321-2
Inscription on base of jar found at Chester in L1E2 context; jar 'made in a legionary tile-works' - presumably the legionary tile-works at Holt.
G(aius) V[al(erius) G(ai) f(ilius)] Pud[ens] Maceia (tribu)
Inscribed pre-firing. More likely therefore the name of the legionary who made it than necessarily a mark of ownership (although if you were assigned to making pottery, perhaps you'd make sure you got a new set yourself!).
Compare RIB 542 + add. also from Chester:
Dis Man(ibus) L(ucius) Valerius L(ucii filius) [S]ala[r]ia Pud[....]III[...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)