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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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