Скенирао: Μίλοβαν έν Χριστω τω Θεω πιστός βασιλεύς καί αύτοκράτωρ Σερβίας καί 'Ρωμανίας Selected Essays in Roman History and Epigraphy Slobodan Dmanic ★ This edition copyright © by “Zavod za udžbenike” Published in October 2010 by “Zavod za udžbenike” first edition, 2010 ISBN 978-86-17-17227-3 Belgrade * 2010 Contents Preface 9 I. MILITARY DIPLOMATA Edition Studia Serbica Editorial Board: Prof. Nikola Tasic, Vice-President of the Serbian Academy, 1. Pre-Severan Diplomata and the Problem of Ambassador Dr. Dusan T. Batakovic (President), Prof. Slobodan G. Markovich, Mr. Miloljub Albijanic and Dr. Vojislav Pavlovic ‘Special Grants’ !3 2. The Award of the Military Diploma 73 The book is a special publication within the edition Studia Serbica, a joint project of Zavod — the Serbian Textbook Company 3. Three Sidelights on the Early Diplomata and the Balkan Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Militaria 121 4. Fragment of a Military Diploma from Moesia ZAVOD f Λ I TίHE? SER*BIA N^ TE XtTcBOKOwK COhMdPAfNcY Iu 3GE_lJ Superior l63 Zavod — the Serbian Textbook Company 5. An Upper Moesian Diploma of A.D. 96 189 Obilicev Venae 5,11 000 Belgrade, Serbia www.zavod.co.rs 6. A Military Diploma of A.D. 65 212 For Zavod — the Serbian Textbook Company: Director and Editor-in-Chief Miloljub Albijanic 7. Military Diplomata and War Expeditions 235 Editor-in-Chief of Special and University Editions Prof. Slobodan G. Markovich 8. The Issue of Military Diplomata under Clau­ dius and Nero 246 9. Loci Constitutionum Fixarum 268 Balkan Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts 10. The Witnesses to the Early “Diplomata Mili- Knez Mihailova 35,11 000 Belgrade, Serbia taria” 297 www.balkaninstitut.com For the Balkan Institute: Director Prof. Nikola Tasic 11. The Sailor’s Calendar Notes on the Day-Dates of Military Diplomata 318 Book art and Cover Design by Tijana Rancic 12. Notes on the Early Diplomata Militaria: CIL Print Production Davor Palcic XVI 20, RMD 1 and Affairs in Germany, The book has been published in collaboration A.D.72-74 331 with the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade 13. An Early Praetorian Diploma 346 14. Military Diplomata for the Auxiliary Soldiers III. ROME, ITALY AND THE PROVINCES from the Hellenophone Provinces: The Prob­ lem of the Recipients’Roman Name-Formu­ 1. The Greeks, the Illyrians, and the Origin of lae the Salentini (Varro apud Ps. Prob. ad Verg. Buc. VI31) 777 15. Three Diploma Fragments from Viminacium 2. Bassianae and its Territory 818 16. An Early Diploma Mi/itare 17. A Diploma for the Lower Pannonian Auxilia 3. The End of the Philippi 86o of the Early 140 s 4. Severus Alexander as Elagabalus’Associate 878 5. A Foundation-Type on the Coinage of the Π. MINING IN ILLYRICUM Municipium Stobi 895 1. Aspects of Roman Mining in Noricum, 6. Nobilissimus Caesar Imperii et Sacerdotis 914 Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior 7. On the consules suffecti of A.D. 74-76 920 2. Roman Mining in Illyricum: Historical As­ pects 8. The Era of Viminacium 937 3. Mounted Cohorts in Moesia Superior 9. Moesia and Pannonia in Domitian’s Last War on the Danube 947 4. The Roman Mines of Illyricum: Organiza­ tion and Impact on Provincial Life 10. Imitator Alexandra and Redditor Libertatis. Two Controversial Themes of Galerius’Polit­ 5. The Legions and the Fiscal Estates in Moesia ical Propaganda 960 Superior: Some Epigraphical Notes 11. The Frontier and the Hinterland: the Role 6. Late Roman Mining in Illyricum: Historical Observations of Scupi in Domitian’s Wars on the Danube 986 7. Epigraphical Notes on Roman Mining in 12. The Jovian Propaganda of Philip II 1010 Dardania 13. The Flamen Quirinalis at the Consualia and 8. An Imperial Freedman Procurator at Sočanica the Horseman of the Lacus Curtius 1030 9. The Administrative History of Roman Mines 14. The Five Standards of the Pre-Marian Le­ in North-western Dardania: a Lost Document gion. A Note on the Early Plebeian militaria 1050 10. The Miners’ Cults in Illyricum 15. Asinius Maximus in AD 253 1074 11. Army and Mining in Moesia Superior 16. The Imperial Propaganda of Significant 12. Diocletian’s Visits to Quarries and Mines in Day-dates: Two Notes in Military History 1089 the Danubian Provinces 17. Notes on a Severan Document (CIL III 731 = 13. Julian’s Strategy in AD 361 7395) 1108 14. The Princeps Municipii Dardanorum and the Bibliography 1125 Metalla Municipii Dardanorum General Index 1128 Preface The present book unites Roman papers — mostly written by me alone but some of them the fruit of joint efforts with Miloje Vasić and Žarko Petković1 — which I hope may be of wider interest. They are grouped thematically in three parts, which are entitled, respectively: Military Diplomata (Ess. 11-17), Mining in Illyricum (Ess. II1-14), and Rome, Italy and the Provinces (Ess. Ill 1-17) — the unity of this last being less obvious than that of chapters I and II. All three parts open with separate studies which deal generally with the matters analysed in the articles which follow2. With rare exceptions, the Essays are in the form in which they appeared in classical journals or collections.3 Owing to the limi­ tations of space, no important corrections or critical completions have been proposed, nor reviews from learned periodicals noted, despite their relevance. My sincere thanks are due to the editors of the original papers for their consent to reprint them here. The publication of this bulky volume was made possible through the generous financial assistance of two institutions, my ----------------------------* 1 Ess. 1,4; ΙΠ, 14,15. 2 While these general studies are not presented in simple chronological order but appear at the top of the respective units (I—III), the remaining articles are arranged according to the dates of their printing (1964-2005). In the table of contents the general studies appear in bold type. 3 Thence the double numeration of pages (i.e. the pages of the original publication above and those of the main body of the present book below). 9 alma mater,; Belgrade University’s Faculty of Philosophy, and the Serbian State Publisher of Textbook (Zavod za udžbenike). Let me record my warmest gratitude to the Faculty’s editorial board and its Dean of the period, professor Aleksandar Kostić. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Slobodan Marković, Zavod’s Editor-in-Chief, who kindly agreed to include the manuscript in the series of Studia Serbica. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues from the Faculty’s Centre d’etudes epigraphiques et numismatiques “Fanoula Papazoglou”, especially Dr. Vojin Nedeljković and Dr. Žarko Petković. Their manifold support in the preparation of the manuscript and the General Index, as well as the reading of MILITARY DIPLOMATA difficult proofs, proved invaluable. Belgrade, September 2010 -k S. D. ★ I IO 1. PRE-SEVERAN DIPLOMATA AND THE PROBLEM OF‘SPECIAL GRANTS’ ★ ★ ★ Manibus Alfredi de Domaszewski This paper has been written1 in the conviction that the (so-called) 190 radical theory, which “postulates that virtually all the constitutions /diplomata name only those units/soldiers possessing extraordinary merit”2 (mainly participants in expeditiones belli but also in certain peacetime efforts3 matching, in importance, such expeditions), 1 In addition to the standard bibliographical abbreviations, the following two will be used: Roxan, Distribution (= Μ. M. Roxan, The Distribution of Roman Military Diplomas, Epigr. Stud. 12,1981,265 ff.), and Award (= S. Dušanić, The Award of the Military Diploma, Arh. Vest. 33,1982,197 ff.). The suggestions referred to simply by the authors’ names derive from the discussions which took place during our Colloquium. 2 S. Dušanić, Notes on the Early Diplomata Militaria: CIL XVI20, RMD 1 and Affairs in Germany, A.D. 72-74, in: Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Roms III, Vortrage des 13. Intern. Limeskongresses in Aalen 1983, Stuttgart 1986, 730; cf. Award 197 £, with bibliography. 3 For instance, heavy building works or naval accomplishments of some consequence such as the overseas transport of the Emperor with his suite etc, or of numerous troops in difficult situations. “Other factors may also have been relevant from time to time, e. g. the Emperors wish to secure or recompense the loyalty of his soldiers” (S. Dušanić, ZPE 47,1982,150); the donativum-\ik.z grants marking the new reign (cf. CIL XVI24 [on it: S. Dušanić, Loci Gonstitutionum Fixanim, Epigraphica 46,1984,109]) constitute a similar case. 13 provides the most economical basis for interpreting the extremely (1) The fundamental difficulty with the (so-called) traditional complex features of the diplomata militaria as a documentary thesis6, which takes the ‘normal’ diploma as an automatic reward genre. In other words, it is assumed in this paper that virtually all for every man having spent, in major non-legionary troops, the the I—II century diplomata were ‘special grants’; to my thinking, prescribed term of service (XXV plurave stipendia for the aux­ this holds for the post-Severan bronzes too4, but their case is iliaries, XXVI [XXVUI] plurave stipendia for the sailors), arises 191 different both typologically (the exclusion of candidates from the from the indications that the material known so far (CIL XVI + provincial forces) and statistically, and certainly appears more RMD I + RMD II) markedly deviates from the numbers to be difficult to assess from the standpoint of the radical conception5. expected in view of the effectives of certain units, classes of soldiers The following argumentation is centred around the salient points and provincial armies involved7; analogous statistical deviations 192 of the radical theory susceptible of modification or improvement may be observed if we focus on the temporal distribution of when one considers how they have been treated in recent scholar­ diplomata. ship. Many remaining details will be dealt with subsequently, in Of these latter, the most instructive concern the early di­ other places. plomata. It has already been remarked that the total of the Claudio-Neronian documents published so far “is so low that the ★ *----------- automatic grants thesis appears quite implausible for that period at 4 Various indications, of unequal value, have been adduced, or might be adduced, to least”8. Indeed, the strong contrast between the paucity of the support this claim; see e. g. Award 218 f. n. 97 (the argument from the praetorian pre-68 bronzes (six or seven from more than 15 years9), and the diplomata dated A.D. 221,225 etc. being inconclusive as the rhythm of the guardsmen’s comparative frequency of those dating from, and/or reflecting the honesta missio may have been faster in the third than in I—II centuries; but cf. RMD11, of A.D. 73) and 99. Note i. a. the temporal concentration of the diplomata for the events of, the year of the Four Emperors (eleven or twelve from Equites Singulares (all the four known so far—CILXVI144; 146; RMD II134; ZPE A.D. 68 and 70-7110) is best understood if a change in the criteria 64,1986,219 — fall within the reigns of Severus Alexander and Maximinus Thrax), a regulating the eligibility for diplomata is assumed: owing to the concentration which belongs to the category of significant ‘anomalies’ of the statistical order (cf. infra, ch. 1, and the next footnote). then politico-military circumstances, the grants of A.D. 68-71 5 The ratio of pre-Severan and post-Severan diplomata for the Praetorians (6 or 7 to 20) favours the latter considerably more than expected, “even allowing for the larger numbers of the guard” in ΙΠ-early IV cent. (Roxan, Distribution 271 f. + fig. 1 [cf. infra p. 284 fig. 1], who reckons with the evolution of the factor of the conubium in the whole 6 A list of its protagonists may be found in Award 210 n. 10; on the qualifications matter). Like the ‘anomaly’ concerning the diplomata for the Equites Singulares (the recently introduced into it by Dr. Roxan (Distribution 273; 274 f.) see ZPE 47,1982, foregoing note), it suggests a switch, under the Severi, in the policy of issue of our aera. 149 n. 2 and below, nn. 13 and 150. Further modifications of the traditional theory were Whatever the attraction the post-212 diplomata actually had for the Praetorians, this proposed at the Colloquium in a form which does not affect its essence (cf. notably switch cannot be understood if matters are analyzed, traditionally, from the sole Professor H.-J. Kellner’s observations on the “Fundstatistik”of diplomata and the perspective of the soldiers’ needs. Their merits, generic and/or individual, constituted possibilities of an explanation of its paradoxes [tabellae ligneae etc.]: infra p. 241 ff.). another and the decisive criterion, which explains the post-212 exclusion of provincial’ 7 Cf. Award 204 (where “the striking preponderance of Danubian material” has been candidates from the aere incisio. Coinciding with the marked increase in the production stressed) and 205 (the high percentage of the recipients from the first-named units of praetorian diplomata, the post-Severan reduction of the circle of recipients to the among the auxiliary aere incisi after c. A.D. 148); infra, chs. 4,5 and 6c. members of the Urban and Italian troops had nothing to do with the objective need the 8 Award 205. soldiers of the whole exercitus Romanus felt for the conubium (civitas/civitas liberorum), as this ius (these iura) must have been much more useful to the men from the 91. e. from the period beginning with the first diploma datable with precision (CIL XVI provincial armies than to their comrades in Rome and Italy, whose social and legal status, 1, A.D. 52): 1 naval, 5 auxiliary (CIL XVI1,3-5; RMD II79). The seventh, CIL XVI2 together with their regular place of service, tended to minimize the interest in the civitas (aux. Illyr.), may have been as early as the 40 s (infra p. 232). or the conubium with peregrine wives. Cf. infra, ch. 9. io 5 ‘legionary’, 6 or 7 naval (CIL XVI7-17, cf. 19 [ZPE 47,1982,152 n. 10]). Η 15 were much less exclusive than the previous ones11. And — to should be put down to the severity of the first three principes in remain with the auxiliary diplomata, the most illustrative evaluating the merits of candidates, among their soldiers, to the statistically — the whole evolution of their temporal distribution diplomata militaria. If the entire line of the temporal distribution up to Trajan attests to an inflation in their production12, an of the first-century diplomata is viewed in terms of a gradual inflation which resulted more from a loosening of the criteria just inflation — a process dictated by the increasing generosity of the mentioned than from the creation of new alae and cohorts13. In emperors15 and accelerated by the Claudian reform and the 193 the same sense, the fact that no pre-Claudian diploma (or a bronze consequences of the Civil War of A.D. 68-69 — the rarity of the diptychon similar to the ‘standard’ diplomata introduced by pre-Claudian documents becomes easily comprehensible. It does Claudius) has been discovered as yet — despite all the probability not rule out the very existence of those documents; on the that analogous certificates were in use under the Julians14 — contrary, the modest total of their Claudio-Neronian equivalents tends to imply that Claudius’ measure was a standardisation of the *----------------------------- earlier practice rather than an innovation revolutionary in its indiscriminative application16. 11 Which is reflected, among other things, in the fact that we possess three individual copies of the lex of A.D. 68 (G. Forni has underlined, with good reason, its statistical As to the former point, two kinds of such ‘anomalies’ seem relevance: cf. infra p. 294 £), and two copies of two leges of A.D. 70-71 (XVI12 f.; IS especially significant because they both stem from large samples f. ). The collective beneficiaries of those three constitutions (leg. I Adiutrix, cl. Misenensis) would not have been much stronger, as to the number of candidates to the and may be given coherent, if tentative, explanations. aere incisio, than the auxilia cited in the unit lists of the Claudio-Neronian diplomata (e. g. CIL XVI 4 refers to seven cohorts) if the selection of candidates depended on the (a) On the level of the three classes of troops receiving the bulk same principles in both cases. A fresh find (RMDII p. 231, no. 2: fragment of the fourth of pre-Severan bronzes (alares, cohortales, classiarii), it is evident diploma for a member of I Adiutrix; obviously, A.D. 68) makes this all the more evident; cf. also AE 1983,523, issued c. A.D. 70? (infra, note 167). that the cavalry had more than its statistical share and the Fleets far less17. Among the individual beneficiaries of the auxiliary 12 See Roxan, Distribution 274 (fig. 1), completed infra p. 284 fig. 1. The inflation left its traces also in the gradual lengthening of the unit lists (infra, nn. 37 and 42). diplomata known to us18, the alares are over-represented in 13 Contra, Roxan, Distribution 275. From the principates of the Flavians, Nerva and comparison to the cohortales: 41 vs. 7419 * * *, whereas the normal ratio 194 Trajan some 65 extant diplomata for the auxiliaries are registered, from the Claudio-Neronian age only 6; the ratio is too favourable for the former — given the comparatively small difference in time (c. 49 vs. c. 17 years) — to be explained as a consequence of the known additions to auxiliary strength under Nero, Vespasian and 15 Comparable e. g. to their increasing generosity in the distribution of donativa (Award Domitian. Dr. Roxan is inclined to ascribe the dearth of diplomata of the pre-Flavian 202; 216 n. 82). epoch also to the postulate that the “men serving under native chieftains” were denied 16 For a different view, E. Birley, infra p. 257. these certificates (Distribution 274 f.). However, wide employment of native chieftains is not to be assumed for the regular alae and cohorts, even in the reigns of Claudius and 17 Award 204 f.; 220 nn. 118 f. Nero (D. B. Saddington.The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar 18 From CIL XVI + RMD I + RMD II; as a general rule, the material included in these to Vespasian [49 B.C. —A.D. 79], Harare 1982,85 f.; 188 £; cf. the occurrence of coh. I publications provides the basis for the analyses offered in the present paper — the and II Thracum in RMD II 79, units whose members had been recruited before the diplomata edited or made known after the completion of RMD II have been taken into formation of provincia Thracia), so that the status of the auxiliary commanders should account only exceptionally. not be considered an important factor in the whole matter. 19 The figures cited by Dr. Roxan in her report (infra p. 281) are somewhat different (42 14 Cf. e. g. CIL ΧΙΠ 1041 (= XVI App. 15), line 3: aere incisso (!). The expression alludes alares [the diplomata + CIL XVI App. 2] vs. 63 cohortales); the difference immaterial to a diploma-like bronze, judging from the parallels of CIL V 889 (= XVI App. 14), lines for our purpose—probably stems from the cases wherein the exact status of a cohortalis 5-6, and of the epikrisis papyri (χαλκά). Cf. Award 209 n. 6 (contra, J. C. Mann); O. (pedes or eques) remains uncertain. (Dr. Roxan’s Table I categorizes the recipients Behrcnds, supra p. 133 ff. (E. Birley, infra p. 249 ff., defends, on the contrary, H. acording to their being cavalrymen or infantrymen, not primarily according to their NesselhauFs terminus a quo under Claudius). being alares or cohortales. The ratio of equites cohortales and pedites cohortales among 16 r7 should have been 1 vs. 3 or 420. The relatively small share of sailors larger auxiliary garrisons, whether in the provinciae armatae (e. g. — those from the provincial classes at least — is best illustrated by Britain 12, both the Germanies together 14, Syria 7+3) or the the scarcity of the (Trajanic and post-Trajanic) diplomata citing provinces without legions (e. g. Mauretania Caesariensis 1) too24. the classici together with the auxiliaries of the same command: eight or nine have been edited21, vs. more than one hundred (2) The ‘anomalies’ outlined in the preceding chapter, when Antonine diplomata with purely auxiliary lists. To appreciate fully taken together25 and closely examined, lead to the inevitable con­ this and other similar disparities, we have to remember the formu­ clusion that certain non-legionary emeriti nevertheless were not lation of CIL XVI 38 and 40 (the singular dimisso) which implies given the bronzes to which their stipendia apparently entitled that — on the traditional theory — the item classico or classicis them. A category of such people will have figured in the epikrisis must have been entered on the list whenever there were emeriti documents as the χωρίς χαλκών veterans26 * * * *. Of the alternative (even one or two of them only) with no better qualification than identifications of these Egyptian sine aeribus, two have been popu­ XXVlplurave stipendia\ lar, though both seem untenable: with the causarii from the (b) On the geographical level, several deviations of a statistical nature have been observed22 which cannot be put down exclusively ---------------------------* to the hazards of modern field research23. The most notable 24 Slightly different figures (in a different presentation) are found in Professor Kellner’s concern three provinciae inermes on the limes that obtained report (infra p. 247). In the discussion at our Colloquium, Dr. Roxan cited statistics which leaves out the majority of diploma fragments; her picture therefore gives the three X 95 considerably more constitutions — Raetia 30, Dacia Porolissensis procuratorial provinces a smaller share in the whole production. c. 9-11, Mauretania Tingitana 27 — than the commands with 25 Methodically, it is not advisable to analyze their three types — temporal, geographical and that concerning the diverse classes of troops — as wholly separate phenomena. During our Passau discussions, such separate treatment of them produced proposals to attribute the prominence of cavalry diplomata to the differences in age and material position favouring the aere indsi —16:47, in Dr. Roxan’s Table I — also favours the cavalry [it should have the equites as against the pedites (G. Alfoldy et al.), or to explain the disparities of the been 1:6-8 approximately], a circumstance to be connected with the composite structure provincial distribution of diplomata as a result of differing needs and traditions of soldiers of the vexillationes equitum — frequendy constituted from the alares and the equites serving in various parts of the Empire (H.-J. Kellner et al.), or to interpret the vacillations of cohortales [cf. e. g. CIL III 600] — rather than with the better pay of the equites the graph illustrating the temporal distribution of the second-century diplomata for auxilia cohortis.) (auxilia/classis) exclusively in the context of the history of the iura (civitas, conubium, civitas 20 Reckoning, with G. L. Cheesman (The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army, Oxford liberorum) accorded, explicitly, by the corresponding constitutions (M. Roxan et al.). As to 1914,54), that “there would be at least three cohorts to every ala” and bearing in mind this last point (cf. Roxan, Distribution 278), the sharp decline in the numbers of diplomata the relative rarity of the alae milliariae. after c. A.D. 165/167 will have reflected the difficulties created by the Marcomannic Wars rather than the change of formula in auxiliary constitutions of A.D. 140 (Award 229 n. 184). CIL XVI 45,50, RMD19, CIL XVI56,83,91,179 f. (the same constitution); cf. 59. A similar decline may be observed with the naval and praetorian diplomata of the same 22 Award 204-206,220 η. 116. Of course, the temporal aspect of such disparities should season (Roxan, Distribution 272; 283 [figs. 1; 5]; note the irregularity of the guardsmen’s not be overlooked either: Dacia Porolissensis “had a comparatively short life in the discharge at the same time approximately: M. Durry, Les cohortes pretoriennes, Paris 1938, period of the auxiliary diplomata (c. A.D. 120 — A.D. 200)” (Award 204); the Syrian 263) though, naturally, their constitutions underwent no change bearing on the civitas diplomata tend to concentrate in the first century (5 out of 7), etc. liberorum posterorumque. 23 H.-J. Kellner, infra p. 245 (contra Roxan, Distribution 279). Professor Kellner’s 2<s CIL XVI App. 4 (A.D. 140), line 5; cf. 3 (A.D. 125/133), fine 5, and 5 (A.D. 148), warning against the attempts at ascribing the “so auffallende Unterschiede” of the Fund- fines 9-11 (below, n. 28). Note that “the entries of the efikrisis fists reflect variations statistik to “einen unterschiedlichen Erforschungsstand” holds good on two points: the strongly dependent on the conditions of place and date” (Award 216 n. 73). — Our ‘anomalies’ concerning the distribution among the provinces, and the modalities of the interpretation of these sine aeribus, probably anticipated by A. v. Domaszewski (Award distribution within particular provinces. (The abundance of diplomata for Raetia and, to 209 n. 2), has been offered for the first time in Roman Frontier Studies 1979, Papers a certain extent, for Mauretania Tingitana cannot be ascribed to “the effects of long- pres, to the 12th Intern. Congr. of Rom. Frontier Studies, BAR 71, Oxford 1980,1064 -term excavation at specific sites” [Roxan, loc. cit.].) Cf. Award 220 n. 116. and 1068 n. 25; see also Award 198,201 et passim (notes 14; 48; 159; 161). 18 19 auxilia/classes (Mommsen, Degrassi, Nesselhauf et al.), or with conclusion31. It is likely that the sine aeribus (or at least some of *9 7 the ex-legionaries (Seston, Carcopino et al.), men whose military them) remained peregrine, especially in the early period32; it 196 status itself excluded the diploma grant27. Neither of the iden­ should be noted therefore that the (ex-) auxiliaries without the tifications can explain, firstly, the occurrence of the οί χωρίς civitas Romana appear sporadically in the Claudian and post- χαλκών οί νυν (CIL XVI App. 5, lines 9-11, an unavoidable -Claudian inscriptions, despite their having 25 or more years of reading)28, and, secondly, the usage of a strange periphrasis (vet- service33 * * *. Their actual numbers must have been greater than those erani sine aeribus) instead of the technical term (causarii or [vet­ eran^ legionarii). Additional obstacles to these propositions may be adduced, if necessary: officially, the causarii would not have 31 Cf. Kraft, op. cit. (cf. n. 27) 134: “Das wesentliche Ergebnis ist zusammengefafit, dafi been styled veterans at all29, while the low position of the sine wir in den ούετρανοί χωρίς χαλκών normale, ehrenvoll entlassene [auxilia/classis] aeribus in the order of the epikrisis rubrics minimizes the proba­ Veteranen vor uns haben, die keine Diplome erhielten.” That the Valerius Clemens, bility of a reference to the (ex-)legionaries30. Evidently, the χωρίς veteranus coh. II Ituraeorum (missus honesta missione a. 177, ad epicrisin pervenit a. 185), of CIL XVI App. 8 belonged to their category is virtually certain (cf. H. Nesselhauf, χαλκών of CIL XVI App. 4 f. were two subspecies of the veterani CIL XVI p. 161 η. 1), but his case deserves a word of comment. Nesselhauf hesitated ex alis et cohortibus et classe (dassibus) with whom the corresponding between a causarius (which would be a surprising qualification for a man who had no other part of the epikrisis lists opens; App. 8 recommends the same feature in his description to be noted than a minor scar [lines 22-23]) and a normal veteran who “iam inter eos fuit, qui privilegia acceperunt sine diplomatibus” (an allusion to the imminent end of the production of the auxiliary aera). The latter alternative, obviously the right one [but cf. infra p. 556 ff.], brings us back to the problem of the criteria which produced some aere incisi among the auxiliaries even in the difficult season of the plague 27 K. Kraft, Zur Rekrutierung der Alen und Kohorten an Rhein und Donau, Bern 1951, and the Marcomannic danger (to cite only diplomata later than Clemens’discharge: CIL 129 ff. (esp. 132 ff.), provides a convenient summary of the controversy. (Cf. S. Daris, XVI128; 131; 132; RMD I 69; the newly-published diptychon from Drobeta RMD Π Documenti per la storia dell’esercito romano in Egitto, Milano 1964, p. 18 ff.; 186, who 123 [ = I. Piso — D. Benea, ZPE 56,1984,263 ff.]) — but excluded Valerius Clemens. treats them as “tutti quei veterani che all’epikrisis presentano un documento diverso dal The criterion of the legal interest, in the sense of Kraft’s hypothesis (supra, n. 27), seems to diploma” [a view close to that of M. Roxan, infra p. 267 f., but difficult to share for have been irrelevant here — Clemens cites no wife or children, so that c. A.D. 177 he may several reasons].) Kraft’s own solution — the Egyptian sine aeribus did not receive the have felt the need of the ius conubii—and the formalities he had to comply with for want diplomata because, being already cives Romani and the husbands of cives Romanae, they of a diploma (lines 16 ff) would have perhaps made him to pay for one, if that were did not need either the civitas or the conubium (op. cit., 134 ff.) leaves the oi vyv possible. Naturally, our information on the military history of second-century Egypt and enigmatic again; it also suffers from the general weakness of overstressing the conubium the factual background of the epikrisis papyri (with their concise and varying formulation) element of the legal content of auxiliary diplomata (p. 137, contrast CIL XVI 160; does not permit us to reconstruct in detail the principles on which certain auxilia/classis RMD117 and 27 £; see also infra n. 31). veterans were to become aere incisi, or sine aeribus, or temporary sine aeribus. Basically, the 28 The label obviously designated the emeriti who were already candidates for diplomata ob merita discrimination should be postulated (cf. above, nn. 25,26 and 28). but who had not obtained them as yet, CIL XVI App. 5 dates from the period of Type 32 Cf. Daris, Dc. Es. Rom. Eg. (cf. n. 27) 101, lines 11-14, and infra chs. 3 and 7. The III diplomata, whose exclusion of the qui militant must have caused many of the eligible sine aeribus of the (II century) epikrisis lists, on the contrary, were Roman citizens, whose to receive their bronzes with considerable delay (“an intentional policy of [temporal] civitas (to judge from the language of those documents: Kraft, op. cit. [cf. n. 27] discrimination” may also have been a factor there: Award 213 f. n. 48). Despite Wilcken 134-136) was recent, acquired during their military service. and Lesquier, the sine aeribus of App. 4 should be dissociated from these; they obviously had no title to, or a promise of, diplomata militaria. 33 Award 226 n. 159; cf. infra, ch. 7. Professor E. Birley rightly notes (infra p. 255 £): One important point must necessarily be kept in mind: “the fact that diplomas,..., begin 29 Thence CILXVI10 refers to the causarii, 11 to the veterani. Cf. Kraft, op. cit., 133 f. by specifying grants made to men of 25 or more years’ service, does not mean that the 30 That order is descendant (note the position of the [non-military] Romans, liberti and more (autplura) necessarily involved only a brief period of years ‘overtime’; and longer servi in CIL XVI App. 3-4) and consequently the ex-legionaries would have been service, without the grant of Roman citizenship, could well outlast the reign of entered before the auxiliaries/sailors. The conubium and the civitas liberorum could not Claudius.” If there was no promise of a diploma to the first-century peregrine auxiliaries have changed anything in that sequence: in CIL XVI App. 5, the classiarii are listed after with (say) 25-27 stipendia spoken of by Professor Birley at the end of the foregoing the alares and cohortales, though, at the time of the document, the latter did not obtain quotation (a promise that would assimilate them to the temporary sine aeribus of the the civitas liberorum and the former did. — Cf. also Kraft, op. cit. (cf. n. 27) 134. epikrisis papyri), their situation, objectively, was that of the Egyptian χωρίς χαλκών. It 20 21