Aspects of Identity-Construction and Cultural Mimicry among Dalmatian Sailors in the Roman Navy*
Dzino, Danijel, Antichthon
C. Ravonius Celer was a sailor of the Misene fleet from Dalmatia.
C. Ravonius Celer qui et Bato Scenobarbi (f.) from Naples (CIL 10.3618 = Dessau 2901):
D(IS) M(ANIBUS) / C(AIUS) RAVONIUS CELER QUI ET BATO SCE / NOBARBI NATION(E) DAL[M(ATA)] / MANIP(U)L(ARIS) EX (TRIREME) ISID[E MIL(ITAVIT) ANN(IS)] XI VIXIT [ANN(IS) ...] / P(UBLIUS) AELIUS V[...] I VENER[(E) ...]
This inscription from his tombstone provides important evidence about the process of construction of individual identities in the period of the early principate, for it reveals the parallel existence of Roman and indigenous identity in a funerary context, commemorating C. Ravonius Celer, who is also at the same time Bato, a son of Scenobarbus of the Dalmatian 'nation'. This inscription records the two identities of C. Ravonius Celer/Bato, which were incorporated into his personality as an essential part of who he was, revealing both his private and public self.
Three more sailors of the Misene fleet from Dalmatia expressed their identity in the same manner in approximately the same period. Thus we have the inscriptions commemorating:
L. Iallus Valens qui et Licca Bardi f. from Misenum (CIL 10.3468 = 2715)
D(IS) M(ANIBUS) / L(UCI) IALLI VALENTIS QUI / ET LICCAE BARDI F(ILIUS) / OPTIONIS EX (TRIREME) VENER(E) / VIXIT ANN(IS) XXXV MILIT(AVIT) / ANNIS XIII
M. Baebius Celer qui et Bato Dazantis f. from Rome (or the bay of Naples)1 M(ARCO) BAEBIO CE / LERI QUI ET BATO / DAZANTIS F(ILIUS) DELMA(TA) / MIL(ES) EX CL(ASSE) PR(AETORIA) MIS(ENATIUM) (CENTURIA) VI / BI MAXIMI VIXIT ANN(IS) / XL MILIT(AVIT) ANN(IS) XVIIII / FULVIA BASILIA CONIU / GI B(ENE) M(ERENTI) F(ECIT) ET LIBERTIS / LIBERTABUS POSTERI / QUE EORUM OMNIB(US)
L. Virridius Celer qui et Temans ... f. from Puteoli (CIL 10.3666 = 466).
D(IS) M(ANIBUS) / L(UCIO) VIRRIDIO CELERI / QUI ET TEMANS [...] / [...] FILIO DELMAT(AE) / VIX(IT) ANN(IS) XXXXIX / MILIT(AVIT) ANN(IS) XXIII / T(ITUS) COSCONIUS FIRMUS / (TRIREME) SOLIS HERES BE / NE MERENTI FECIT
These inscriptions from Puteoli, Misenum and Naples came from an area which had a high concentration of sailor tombstones, for obvious reasons: the fleet was based there, and Rome was the place where the Misene fleet had its permanent barracks, the castra Misenatium.2 These are all simple tombstones with no decorations or images, erected either by the widow (for Baebius Celer), friends or fellow-countrymen (for Ravonius Celer and Virridius Celer), or by an unstated person (for Iallus Valens). Social status, or in this case military rank, is also prominent in the inscriptions and is almost always stated: optio (Iallus Valens), manipularius (Ravonius Celer) and miles (Baebius Celer). It is missing only in the epitaph of Virridius Celer. All sailors state their origins as natione Delmata , except Iallus Valens, whose indigenous name Liccaius strongly identifies him with either northern Dalmatia or southern Pannonia.3
Saddington has recently argued for the full integration of peregrine sailors into Roman society:
They used Latin and were adept in the application of Roman legal procedures in their financial dealings. They tended to cling to their peregrine names, sometimes quoting them after their new Latin names (using the "qui et" formula). But their tombstones were Roman . . . The veteran classiarius was fully integrated into Roman society.4
The evidence of these tombstone inscriptions, however, is not consistent with the notion of the full integration of these sailors into Roman society. It is true that the sailors used a number of different strategies generally to fit into Roman society, such as the quintessentially Roman method of funerary practice and commemoration, Latin language and names, and the sense of belonging to the Roman navy and Roman world. However, as I will argue, these social strategies of fitting in, in fact, show the way in which they were balanced between two worlds, Roman and indigenous, incorporating them both into the construction of their personal identities.
The identity of these sailors with two names from Dalmatia has not been discussed previously in this way. They have been discussed in an epigraphic context, in the context of their indigenous names, or as Dalmatian sailors in the Misene fleet.5 The names of these sailors will allow this paper to focus on the aspects of their 'Dalmatianness', their 'Romanness', and the way they used both of these identity matrices for constructing their own identity as sailors of the Roman fleet stationed in Italy. It is the purpose of this paper to contribute not only to research into the identity-construction of the indigenous sailors from Dalmatia in the Roman fleets, but also to address the wider issues of the process of acculturation in the Roman world.
The formula which represents the duality of the indigenous and Roman names joined by the phrase qui /quae et in Latin and h ] kai v in Greek are quite frequent in the Roman world and exist in many different contexts.6 In relation to the indigenous inhabitants of Roman Dalmatia, it is attested on at least a dozen inscriptions, all in a funerary context, all outside Roman Dalmatia 7 and all from the first and second centuries AD. There are two groups of names: the sailors from the Misene fleet, whom this paper will discuss, and the Dalmatian miners in Dacia, whose names reveal their social and personal identities but are not useful for research into their ethnic identity.8
APPROACHES TO IDENTITIES IN ANTIQUITY
It is now widely accepted in scholarship that group identity is both socially constructed and flexible, that it changes and shifts in different circumstances in response to a group's discursive self-perception, common experiences, political interests, interaction with other groups, and perception of the group by outsiders.9 Personal identity is an even more complex notion, as it is influenced by personal experiences and circumstances, social background, memories, internal narrative and the cultural discourses that an individual is exposed to throughout his or her lifetime. The construction of selfhood occupies the interface between cultural discourses and the enduring dispositions and practices in which individuals are brought up, that is, their sense of otherness, memories and intimate discourses and the everyday social discourses/practices (habitus ) that these individuals are exposed to throughout their experience of life.10
Funerary monuments and inscriptions are a very important tool for researching the construction of personal identities from antiquity, as they are statements of selfhood, which show how the deceased wished to be remembered, and how his or her particular position and role within the social group were constructed and communicated. They are particularly important as public statements of identity, especially in the case of minority 'alien' groups, or inside the unified body of military gravestones. However, it is important to bear in mind that they present a selective part of identity, the one chosen by the deceased or his family and/or friends: a snapshot of identity constructed in the moment when the inscription was written.11
Bhabha's concept of 'cultural hybridity', developed in post-colonial literary criticism, significantly affects the way identities are seen today in scholarship, and will form the theoretical basis of the present argument. According to Bhabha, 'hybridity' is the result of acculturation between two different cultures, usually in a dominant and submissive position of power (coloniser and colonised), where the colonised re-combines and selectively accepts existing cultural stereotypes of the coloniser into a specific, own, tertium quid : an 'in-between' identity. Bhabha's hybrids have no stable identity; they imitate but never duplicate the cultural narratives of the coloniser. Although altered through imitation, they are also altering forces and figures, which change in time both coloniser and colonised. Hybrids are fashioned through the process of 'cultural mimicry' of the coloniser, seen as a form of resemblance which is a 'disruptive imitation' that disrupts colonial narratives of identity: '[m]imicry is like camouflage, not a harmonisation or repression of difference but a form of resemblance that differs/defends presence by displaying it in part, metonymically.' In Bhabha's words, identities which are formed in the process of mimicry are 'almost the same, but not quite'.12
The identity of people from antiquity is becoming a significant and fruitful field for research. Important work on major group identities from antiquity has been done in the last generation,13 but the discourse on ancient identities is shifting more and more towards the observation of individual identities, their constructions and complexity, certainly when and where evidence allows, especially through personal narratives. Today, notions of isolated, discrete cultural identities within the Roman empire have been irreparably disrupted.14 Dealing with personal identities from Roman Dalmatia and Illyricum in general is a difficult task. No indigenous literary narratives are known, and Greek and Roman writers were little interested in the area, so that epigraphy, together with archaeology, remains the most important analytical tool for research into indigenous identity narratives. The funerary context of these inscriptions commemorating the deceased Dalmatian sailors is a powerful medium for negotiating identity between integration into Romanness and maintenance of otherness,15 and thus highly relevant for the present discussion.
The fascination of modern scholars with the ancient social process of acculturation between an indigenous population and Graeco-Roman cultural templates, especially in western parts of the Empire, has not diminished in time. From the times of Mommsen and Haverfield when the meta-narrative of 'Romanisation' was conceived in modern historiography, to the most recent re-assessment and questioning of the whole concept, the process of 'becoming Roman' remains a very active and productive field of enquiry in ancient history. Instead of a top-down 'civilising' process spreading Roman civilisation to the 'barbarians', Romanisation (or 'Romanisation': some authors with good reason call for abolition of the whole concept)16 is today seen both as an active and a passive process; it is observed in the framework of the theory of globalisation - in particular through local responses and reworking of global trends, and through aspects of resistance and domination.17 Post-colonial approaches, including the application of Bhabha's 'mimicry' and 'hybridity' frameworks are used more frequently by the latest generation of scholars in order to gain better insight into the construction of individual and group identities from antiquity, mainly through analysing literary narratives, but also in the archaeological record as a two-way agency and dialogue between the conqueror and the conquered.18
'ROMANNESS' AND 'SAILORNESS'
The Roman navy, as much as the Roman army, is an interesting example of a social group which developed its own strongly shown identity, releasing its members from the hierarchy and the conventions of society in which its members were born and raised. The identities of Roman sailors have not attracted significant scholarly attention, by contrast with the rising scholarly interest in the identities of soldiers in Roman legions. There were different ways of constructing a group identity among soldiers from differing backgrounds; especially significant for their identity construction were the ways in which they used symbols and communicated their identity.19 It is possible to say that the Roman legions constructed and negotiated their own specific kinds of Romanness,20 or in some cases even constructed their own group identity, especially in those legions composed of soldiers who shared a common regional cultural habitus , such as the Illyriciani of the later Empire.21 More recent scholarly opinion strongly argues that the interaction between provincial societies and Roman army units stationed throughout the Empire resulted in different constructions of military Romannesses, with scholars arguing that 'Roman armies' is a more accurate description than the singular 'Roman army', especially in the later Empire.22
The Roman navies were very heterogeneous social units, as were the legions. The Romanness of the sailors is strongly shown by the fact that sailors discarded their old names and adopted and kept Roman ones. Sailors probably received their new names as soon as they reached the fleet, as we can see from the evidence of the letters sent home by the sailor Apion from Egypt, who was given the new name Antonius Maximus as soon as he joined the navy in Misenum.23 Their interaction with the surrounding society was quite important, especially in the winter months when the fleets were idle, and we can assume that they were significantly interacting with the civilian communities,24 who in turn significantly affected the construction of the sailors' own identities. It is also possible to postulate the existence of strongly tied societal groups (kin, village, region) from the provinces who cared for each other.25 The dual Roman/indigenous names of the sailors in the Roman fleets were not only recorded among the Dalmatians; there are also sailors from the Eastern provinces who were commemorated with dual names.26
The sailors from Dalmatia and Pannonia had a significant impact on the standing imperial fleets. Estimates of their representation in those fleets vary and go as high as 28% in Misenum and 43% in Ravenna, according to Starr, who analysed the inscriptions commemorating sailors from these fleets.27 This is also confirmed by Tacitus (Hist. 3.12, cf. 3.50), who also noted their importance in AD 69/70: Lucilius Bassus, classis Ravennatis praefectus ambiguos militum animos, quod magna pars Dalmatae Pannoniique erant ('Lucilius Bassus, prefect of the Ravenna fleet, finding that the loyalties of the soldiers were wavering because a large part were Dalmatian or Pannonian . . .'). The indigenousness of these four sailors is ascertained by their names, which were indigenous to the wider area of Illyricum: Bato and Liccaius, and the fact that three of the four sailors state their identity as Delmata, or natione Delmata. Their indigenous name is composed of a proper name, Bato, and a patronymic, Dazantis or Scenobarbi, without the term f[ilius] ,28 and with the term f[ilius] , like Liccaius Bardi f., or Temans . . . f.29 It is impossible to determine the legal status of these sailors. The inscriptions should be dated to Flavian times as terminus post quem because of the Claudian ban on the use of Italic/Roman names by non-citizens (Suet. Claud. 25).30 What is interesting in regard to their indigenous identity is that not only these sailors with their double names, but the overwhelming majority of sailors from Dalmatia, state their indigenous identity as 'Dalmatian', which is different from the auxiliaries from Dalmatia, who state their identity in accordance with their peregrine civitas.31
DALMATIA IN ROMAN GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNOGRAPHIC DISCOURSES
To understand better the cultural background of the sailors and their 'Dalmatianness', it is important to say something about Dalmatia inside the Empire. The province of Illyricum was divided into the provinces later known as Dalmatia and Pannonia at some time in the first part of the first century AD, probably in early Tiberian times.32 It was inhabited by a heterogeneous indigenous population, which had no joint sense of 'Illyrianness', 'Dalmatianness' or 'Pannonianness' in pre-Roman times. The region later known as Illyricum was incorporated into the Empire in a piecemeal way in the late Republic and early Principate and was constructed in Roman political, literary and ethnographic discourse in a similar way to Gaul, Germany or Britain.33 After the conquest the indigenous population was divided into peregrine civitates, which were apparently organised on a regional and 'ethnic' basis.34 However, we need to be careful about assuming that every civitas in Roman Dalmatia accurately represented pre-Roman cultural, ethnic and/or political structures or reflected the common identity of the indigenous population. It should not be assumed that the group identities mentioned in the narrative of the process of the Roman conquest of the region such as the 'Delmatae' or 'Iapodes' represented pre-existing unified political or ethnic units.35 These terms rather reflect the Roman perception of indigenous 'ethnography', Roman ways of thinking and discourses on the Roman position in the world, not the shared identity of the indigenous population.36 The Roman reorganisation of the provincial space began this process of change; it reconstructed the earlier local landscapes and established new regional identities in Dalmatia and Pannonia, just as the Romans did elsewhere throughout the Empire.37
In this context, it is interesting to pay closer attention to 'Dalmatianness', which is prominent as the identity of choice among the sailors. Earlier scholarship assumed it to be an administrative identity, in the same way that imperial 'Pannonianness' was: as terminology deriving from the names of the Roman provinces, Dalmatia and Pannonia, named after the indigenous groups known to the Romans as the Delmatae and the Pannonii.38 The written sources show that there are, in fact, a few parallel ethnographic discourses occurring in the early Principate. Strabo (7.5.3, 7.5.10), writing in the 10s AD calls the Pannonii a group of peoples located in the north of Roman Dalmatia and southern Pannonia (the Daesitiates, Mezaei, Breuci, Ditiones, Segestani- Colapiani etc.). Writing in the 20s AD about the bellum Batonianum (AD 6- 9), in which he personally participated, Velleius Paterculus (2.110-7) terms the same peoples 'Dalmatians' and 'Pannonians', depending on whether they were from the Dalmatian or the Pannonian province.39 However, at that time the area was also called officially Illyricum (especially Pannonia), and the term Illyrici was also applied to the indigenous population in general in the first century, as by Pomponius Mela (Chor. 2.3.55).40
All of these discourses reflect Roman cognitive geography, outsider perception of the 'natives' and their assignment to stereotypical categories, which does not account for existing heterogeneity. They were partly a product of the sloppiness of the Roman writers who were not famous for their technical accuracy, but the official renaming can also on some occasions contrast with an indigenous sense of identity, as for example the Pirustae, who were broken into different civitates by the Roman administration, but preserved their sense of identity in the early Empire.41 However, outsiderimposed administrative identities throughout the Roman empire in time were transformed, so that they became indigenous identity-narratives inside Roman imperial ideology, as for example in Gaul or amongst the Batavians;42 and the evidence we have from these sailors may confirm that a similar process was occurring with the inhabitants of Dalmatia in certain contexts as well.
'DALMATIANNESS' IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
We can gain more knowledge of the 'Dalmatianness' of our sailors by using the comparative example of identity-statements from tombstones and military diplomas commemorating indigenous auxiliaries and sailors from Dalmatia outside their province in the period from Augustus to Caracalla. Domic- Kunic lists sixty-three known auxiliaries from Dalmatia and Pannonia, mainly from tombstone inscriptions. Thirty-five stated their civitas or municipal identity (twenty-one from Dalmatia, fourteen from Pannonia), while twenty-eight are identified only by their own (or parental) indigenous names, which can be from either of these provinces.43 These auxiliaries served either in VII cohortes Delmatarum, recruited in Dalmatia, or in other units. The auxiliaries serving in the cohortes Delmatarum, if they stated their origins, predominantly show their civitas identity only. There are only three soldiers who show their identity as Delmata.44 In the non-Dalmatian units, four auxiliaries from Dalmatia state their identity as Delmata, while all the rest, if they stated their identity, stated their civitas or municipal identity.45 Thus, seven out of twenty-one soldiers from Dalmatia who state their identity state it simply as Delmata / Dalmata. The Dalmatian identity of these auxiliaries might well be the identity of the civitas Delmatarum we know from Pliny's list of peregrine civitates in Dalmatia (HN 3.142), apart from only one exception where the soldier's identity is recorded as natione Delmata , which might suggest developing 'Dalmatianness', as will be shown in other examples.46 It is also worth noting that all of these auxiliaries who wanted to state their Dalmatian identity are commemorated under their indigenous names.
In the fleets, however, the situation is completely different. In the Ravennate fleet, out of twenty-six sailors from Dalmatia, twenty-two state their identity as natione Delmata and only four state their civitas identities. All sailors who stated their identity as natione Delmata are presented only with their Roman names. There are also twelve who do not state their origins. Either they have indigenous names from Dalmatia or southern Pannonia, or they returned to their homeland after their service. Domic-Kunic lists fortyfour sailors, twenty-six from Dalmatia, six from Pannonia and twelve without stated identity.47 In Misenum, out of thirteen known sailors from Dalmatia, twelve stated their identity as natione Delmata and only one states his civitas identity. They all state only their Roman names, including four double-named sailors. There is only one sailor with an indigenous name and he does not state his origins or identity. Those who do not state their identity and origins follow the same pattern as sailors from Ravenna and preserve indigenous names. Domic-Kunic lists twenty-six inscriptions mentioning sailors, thirteen from Dalmatia, eight from Pannonia, and five without stated identity.48 A similar pattern appears amongst the sailors from Pannonia who, if they stated their identity, all stated it as natione Pannonius : six in Ravenna and eight in Misenum. All the inscriptions are dated after AD 71.49
Thus we can see that the overwhelming majority of the sailors from Misenum and Ravenna preferred to state their identity using as identifiers the statement of origin natione Delmata /natione Pannonius instead of the civitas or municipium of birth, and their Roman name instead of their indigenous name. In comparison, the majority of auxiliary soldiers from Dalmatia stated their identity with their indigenous name and the civitas or municipium of their birth.
Persons from Dalmatia are detected throughout the Empire, but there are only a few civilians who stated their identity as Delmata or natione Delmata.50 In Rome, there are few persons who stated their identity as natione Delmata in either a military or civilian context.51 In North Africa there were some Dalmatians, but only one is noted to have had his Dalmatian identity inscribed on a tombstone (CIL 8.2998). In Dacia, where there existed the settlements of the miners from Dalmatia (castella Delmatarum), it was actually rare to draw attention to one's identity. It is interesting to note that there the only inscription recording Dalmatian identity belongs to the princeps adsignatus T. Aurelius Aper Delmata who in fact adopts 'Dalmatianness', as he was not born in a Dalmatian civitas, but came from the municipium Splonum, which belonged to the civitas of the Mezaei (CIL 3.1322).52 There are also slaves, one in Raetia (CIL 3.5913) and two in Scarabantia (3.14355), who all state their 'Dalmatianness' through the identity-statement natione Delmata.
The sailors from Dalmatia who returned home do not show specific identities, or at least there is no evidence for them. Some of them are nicknamed Classici(an)us , like Aurelius Maximus Classicianus, or Panes Slator Classicius, and the nickname became part of their formal name.53 Some sailors therefore incorporate only their profession as part of their identity when they return to their homeland, regardless of whether their name was Latinised (Aurelius Maximus) or not (Panes Slator). They were also perceived and nicknamed 'sailors' after returning home. In one more known instance, a sailor from a Dalmatian island is commemorated under his indigenous name.54 There was no need for returning sailors to state their identity on inscriptions in Dalmatia, as they were not interacting with the 'other'. The cognomen Classicianus shows, however, that their 'sailorness' was perceived as a specific social identity-mark back home, especially if they originated in continental settings where sailors were probably regarded as having quite an exotic profession.
The inscriptions from the tombstones and diplomas of Roman sailors originating from Dalmatia carry important information as to how they constructed their identities, their public selves and private selves, and how they were perceived in the communities in which they lived. The evidence shows that their identity was situational: in some situations they were perceived as 'Dalmatians', in other situations as 'Romans'. The sailors employed both of their identity matrices, Roman and Dalmatian, throughout their service in the navy and switched between them, according to the context of communication, using indigenous 'Dalmatian' within the community of their fellow-countrymen, and 'Roman' for communicating with everyone else outside that community.55 The most important parts of their Roman identity would be their new Roman name and the use of Latin in communication.56 However, Latin also betrayed their otherness, as they were not native speakers and almost certainly used different syntax and morphological structures, as well as employing their indigenous language to communicate with fellow-countrymen.57 In addition, they also shared a common professional identity as sailors of the Roman fleet, which was an important part of their identity, especially if they returned home. The sailors chose several different strategies recognisable in the evidence to represent their identity on their funerary monuments. They usually chose to express their identity through their Roman name and statement of identity: natione Delmata. The second strategy was to maintain their indigenous name and either not state group identity at all or state their civitas identity. The third strategy was to employ a Roman and an indigenous name and state their identity as natione Delmata, or not state it at all, such as Iallus Valens who was also Liccaius, son of Bardis.58
The evidence also shows that the 'Dalmatianness' of these sailors was just one of many different narratives of 'Dalmatianness' in the Roman empire, and probably the same is true of imperial 'Pannonianness' as well. 'Dalmatianness' was at first an identity arising from a Roman colonial cognitive perception of the region and the imposition of Roman power. It needed a few generations to become accepted, and it is mainly shown in the inscriptions in a diasporic context, outside Dalmatia. However, 'Dalmatianness' was much more than just an imitation, or obedient acceptance of the Roman colonial construct. It was not only an 'administrative identity'. It was a deliberate choice, the statement of self-identity in particular contexts. The message about Dalmatian identity is intended for outsiders, as these sailors are almost all buried outside their homeland, and this fact explains the statement of nationality in inscriptions, whether formulated as natione Delmata or as a statement of their civitas identity. The sailors who returned to Dalmatia were not stating their identity, as they did not feel it necessary to communicate their identity to those they perceived as 'us', the community of their fellow villagers or kin group.59 It was only communicated and directed towards the 'others' if they were the perceived audience.60 The example of auxiliaries shows that Dalmatian identity was not a unified identity-narrative of indigenous inhabitants of Dalmatia in armed forces; the auxiliaries preferred to state a civitas and municipal identity as their own.
Furthermore, the Romanness of these sailors is not Romanness either. They might mimic Romanness in order to fit more easily into wider society. However, what Bhabha said of colonial mimicry: 'they are almost the same but not quite', is highly applicable here; the sailors from Dalmatia lived on the crossroads of identities, recombining and strategically repositioning their different identities, in the process of constructing specific hybrid identities. They were quite Roman, but also very much Dalmatian. When they returned home (if they had survived and chosen to return), their indigenousness was not unaltered after years without direct contact with the cultural habitus in which they were they were raised. The nickname Classicianus shows the degree of their 'Romanness', as otherness incorporated in their indigenous settings, as they were perceived as partly different, 'not quite', when they returned home after long service in the navy.
The identities of those sailors are also significantly affected by this perpetual repositioning between identity matrices, place and context and cannot be seen as 'pure' Romanness or 'Dalmatianness'. The Roman conquest of Illyricum thoroughly reshaped pre-Roman indigenous identities, and these different approaches to expression of self-identity employed by Dalmatian sailors and auxiliaries show some strategies for coping with social change in diasporic settings outside Dalmatia. With the development of Dalmatian identity (or rather identities), which will survive as an identityterm well into early medieval times, whether as an internal or external perception,61 we see the interaction of the coloniser and colonised: the coloniser was constructing the identities of the colonised, and the colonised, by accepting them, resisted the coloniser by (re)claiming these identities as their own.
* I would like to thank the Australasian Society for Classical Studies for their Early Career Award, which helped my research travel to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, resulting in this article. [Ed. note : Dr Dzino is the second winner of this Award.] Earlier versions of this paper were read at the departmental seminar at the University of Adelaide and the "Roman Byways" conference at the University of Sydney (December 2007). I also want to thank Antichthon's anonymous readers for useful suggestions and productive criticism; Dr Alka Domic-Kunic from the Archaeological Division of the Croatian Academy of Humanities and Sciences (HAZU) in Zagreb for her immense help and encouragement; and Dr Barbara Sidwell for editing and support.
1 AE (1912) 184; H. Moore, 'Latin Inscriptions in the Harvard Collection of Classical Antiquities', HSCP 20 (1909) no. 9; J. Bodel, 'Thirteen Latin Funerary Inscriptions at Harvard University', AJA 96 (1992) no. 4. The original provenance of the tombstone is unknown. Bodel (84) argues that the stone may have been originally set up either in the bay of Naples or in Rome, where it was probably purchased.
2 C.G. Starr, Roman Imperial Navy 31 BC - AD 324 , 2nd edn (Cambridge 1960) 20. All Dalmatian sailors' inscriptions were originally placed either in the bay of Naples or in Rome with a single exception: A. Domic-Kunic, 'Classis praetoria Misenatium: With Special Attention to Sailors from Dalmatia and Pannonia' (title of English abstract), Vjesnik Arheoloskog Muzeja u Zagrebu , series 3, 28-29 (1995/6) 61-2.
3 R. Katicic, 'Zur Frage der keltischen und pannonischen Namengebieten im römischen Dalmatien', Annuaire Centre D'Études Balkaniques III.1 (1965) 70-1; S. Dusanic, 'A Military Diploma of A. D. 65', Germania 56 (1978) 465.
4 D.B. Saddington, 'Classes. The Evolution of the Roman Imperial Fleets', in P. Erdkamp (ed.) A Companion to the Roman Army (Malden 2007) 216. It was also the perception of the Greek orator Aristides: 'Consequently, they [soldiers] actually became reluctant for the rest of their lives to say where they had come from originally': Aristides, Praise of Rome (Jebb) 218.3-4.
5 Indigenous names: D. Rendic-Miocevic, Iliri i Anticki svijet: Iliroloske studije Povijest - arheologija - umjetnost - numizmatika - onomastika (The Illyrians and Ancient World. Studies in Illyrology: History - Art - Numismatics - Onomastics ), collected works (Split 1989) 639, 642, 660-2, 782-3; Dalmatian and Pannonian sailors: Domic-Kunic (n. 2) 39-72; epigraphy: Moore (n. 1) 3-4; Bodel (n. 1) 82-4 (only the inscription commemorating Baebius Celer).
6 See W. Kubitschek, s.v. 'Signum' RE 2A (1923) 2448-52; G.A. Harrer, 'Saul Who Also Is Called Paul', HThR 33 (1940) 20-1, esp. n. 10 for older literature; also I. Kajanto, Supernomina: A Study in Latin Epigraphy. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 40.1 (Helsinki 1966), and G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity , Vol. 1 (North Ryde NSW 1981) 89-96 for different aspects and contexts of this epigraphic habit.
7 Signum in Dalmatia is relatively rare outside of the capital Salonae, but even when it exists there are no indigenous names: Rendic-Miocevic (n. 5) 662.
8 The miners: most recently I. Piso, 'Gli Illiri AD Alburnus Maior', in G. Urso (ed.), Dall' Adriatico al Danubio: L'Illirico nell'età graeca e romana , I Convegni della Fondazione Niccolò Canussio 3 (Pisa 2004) 271-308; see also M. Zaninovic, 'Delmati e Pirusti e la loro presenza in Dacia', Opuscula Archaeologica [Zagreb] 19 (1995) 111-5.
9 The literature is too extensive for this study to go into more detail; see the different social and anthropological aspects in: A.D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford 1986); H. Vermeulen and C. Govers (eds), The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond 'Ethnic Groups and Boundaries' (Amsterdam/Hague 1994); M. Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions (London/New York 1996); R. Jenkins, Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations (London 1997).
10 M.M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (trans. and ed. by M. Holquist) (Austin/London 1981); cf. K.P. Ewing, 'The Illusion of Wholeness: Culture, Self and the Experience of Inconsistency', Ethos 18 (1990) 251-78; P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge 1977); The Logic of Practice (Cambridge 1990); H. Friese (ed.), Identities: Time, Difference and Boundaries (London 2002).
11 V.M. Hope, 'Negotiating Identity and Status: The Gladiators of Roman NÎmes', in R. Laurence and J. Berry (eds), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire (London/New York 1998) 179-80; 'Inscription and Sculpture: The Construction of Identity in the Military Tombstones of Roman Mainz', in G.J. Oliver (ed.), The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome (Liverpool 2000) 155-60; 'Remembering Rome: Memory, Funerary Monuments and Roman Soldier', in H. Williams (ed.) Archaeologies of Remembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies (New York/London 2003) 125-40 (gladiators and soldiers), and Constructing Identity: The Roman Funerary Monuments of Aquileia, Mainz and Nimes, BAR-Int. Series 960 (Cambridge 2001).
12 H. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York 1994), the first quotation is from 131, the second from 86.
13 E.g. J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge/New York 1997); Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago 2002) (the Greeks); E. Dench, Romulus Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian (Oxford 2005); G.D. Farney, Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in Republican Rome (Cambridge 2007) (the Romans); P.S. Wells: The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe (Princeton 1999) ('Barbarians'). There are too many for all to be mentioned here.
14 R. Miles (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity (London 1997); S. Goldhill (ed.), Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Oxford 2001).
15 Hope, 'Constructing Roman Identity: Funerary Monuments and Social Structure in the Roman World' Mortality 2 (1997) 103-21; see also id., 'Inscription and Sculpture' (n. 11) 178-81.
16 E.g. D.J. Mattingly, 'Introduction: Dialogues of Power and Experience in the Roman Empire', in Mattingly (ed.), Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire , JRA Supp. 23, (Portsmouth RI 1997); idem, 'Being Roman: Expressing Identity in a Provincial Setting', JRA 17 (2004) 5-25.
17 E.g. M. Millett, The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation (Cambridge 1990) (passive); W.S. Hanson, 'Forces of Change and Methods of Control', in Mattingly, Dialogues (n. 16) 67-80; C.R. Whittaker, 'Imperialism and Culture: The Roman Initiative', in Mattingly, Dialogues (n. 16) 143-65 (active); R. Hingley, 'Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain', in Mattingly, Dialogues (n. 16) 81-102 (resistance); G. Woolf, 'The Unity and Diversity of Romanisation,' JRA 5 (1992) 349-52; id., Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilisation in Gaul (Cambridge 1998); Mattingly, 'Being Roman' (n. 16); R. Hingley, Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire (London/New York 2005) (local responses and globalisation).
18 E.g. P. Lee-Stecum, 'Tot in uno corpore formae : Hybridity, Ethnicity and Vertumnus in Propertius Book 4', Ramus 34 (2005) 22-46 (the Romans); J. Webster. 'Creolizing the Roman Provinces', AJA 105 (2001) 209-25 (Roman provincials); J. Webster and N. Cooper (eds), Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives (Leicester 1996) (Roman imperialism); R.P. Seesengood, 'Hybridity and the Rhetoric of Endurance: Reading Paul's Athletic Metaphors in a Context of Postcolonial Self-construction', The Bible and Critical Theory 1.3 (2005) 1-16. DOI: 10:2104/bc050016 (New Testament Studies); T. Whitmarsh, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire (Oxford 2001) (the Greeks).
19 R. MacMullen, 'The Legion as Society', Historia 33 (1984) 440-56; I. Haynes, 'Introduction: Roman Army as a Community', in A. Goldsworthy and I. Haynes (eds), The Roman Army as a Community , JRA Suppl. 34 (Portsmouth RI 1999) 9-11; idem, 'Military Service and Cultural Identity in the auxilia', in Goldsworthy and Haynes, 167, 173; M.P. Speidel, 'The Soldiers' Homes', in W.Eck and H. Wolff (eds), Heer und Intergrationspolitik. Die römischen Militärdiplome als historische Quelle (Cologne and Vienna 1986) 467-81.
20 Romanness of the legions: R. Alston, 'The Ties that Bind: Soldiers and Societies', in Goldsworthy and Haynes (n. 19) 175-95; N. Pollard, 'The Roman Army as "Total Institution" in the Near East? Dura-Europos as a Case Study', in D.L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East , JRA Suppl. 18 (Ann Arbor 1996) 211-28; P.M. Brennan, 'The Last of the Romans: Roman Identity and the Roman Army in the Late Roman Near East', JMA 11 (1998) 191-204.
21 The Illyriciani as a constructed identity is indirectly suggested in: J.J. Wilkes, 'The Roman Army as a Community in the Danube Lands: The Case of the Seventh Legion', in Goldsworthy and Haynes (n. 19) 95-104; G. Brizzi, 'Ancora su Illyriciani e "Soldatenkaiser": qualche ulteriore proposta per una messa a fuoco del problema', in Urso (n. 8) 319-42.
22 E.g. S. James, 'The Community of the Soldiers: A Major Identity and Centre of Power in the Roman Empire', in P. Baker, C. Forcey, S. Jundi, and R. Witcher (eds), TRAC 98: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (Oxford 1999) 14-25, esp. 14-15; A. Gardner, 'The Social Identities of Soldiers: Boundaries and Connections in the Later Roman World', in R. Roth and J. Keller (eds), Roman by Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture and Text , JRA Suppl. 66 (Portsmouth RI 2007) 97-102.
23 BGU 632, cf. 423.22-23 where he signs his new name; cf. Starr (n. 2) 84-5; C.E.V. Nixon, 'Joining the Roman Navy', Ancient History: Resources for Teachers 9.1 (1979) 14-15, 19-20.
24 Tac. Hist. 1.46; cf. Domic-Kunic (n. 5) 45. For society in Misenum see A. Parma, 'Classiari, veterani e società cittadina a Misenum', Ostraka 3 (1994) 43-59.
25 Nixon (n. 23) 17, 19.
26 E.g. CIL 10.3406; 6.3165; 6.3377 = 2753; 6.3406 = 2682 + 2684; 6.3492 = 2731; 6.3622 = 2812.
27 Starr (n. 2) 75 T 1. Other estimates vary significantly, but Starr provides the highest estimate for Dalmatians and Pannonians in Misenum; Domic-Kunic (n. 2) 56 T 4; M. Zaninovic, Ilirsko pleme Delmati (Illyrian tribe of the Delmatae ) [complete text of articles published in the 1960s] (Sibenik 2007) 236 n. 292.
28 Type IIBa: Rendic-Miocevic (n. 5) 639. For the classification of indigenous names from the region see G. Alföldy, Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatia (Heidelberg 1969) 15 f.; Wilkes, 'The Population of Roman Dalmatia', ANRW II.6 (1977) 757-9.
29 Type IIBb: Rendic-Miocevic (n. 5) 642.
30 Starr (n. 5) 71-4, 97-8 n. 24; J.C. Mann, 'The Development of Auxiliary and Fleet Diplomas', Epigraphische Studien 9 (1972) 233-41; M. Reddé, Mare nostrum. Les infrastructures, le dispositif et l'histoire de la marine militaire sous l'empire romain , Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 260 (Paris 1986) 474 ff.; Saddington (n. 4) 212.
31 Domic-Kunic, 'Auxiliaries of Illyrian and Pannonian Origin from Inscriptions and Diplomas from Augustus to Caracalla' (title of English abstract), Arheoloski Radovi i Rasprave [Zagreb] 11 (1988) 104 T 1. In English: P.A. Holder, The Auxilia from Augustus to Trajan , BAR-Int. ser. 70 (Oxford 1980), 132 (with some omissions) for auxiliaries.
32 H. Braunert, 'Omnium provinciarium populi Romani . . . fines auxi . Ein Entwurf ', Chiron 7 (1977) 215-6; J. Fitz, 'La division de l'Illyricum', Latomus 47.1 (1988) 13-25.
33 M. Sasel Kos, Appian and Illyricum. Situla 43 (Ljubljana 2005) 219-44: changing the conceptions and misconceptions of Illyricum. For the construction of Gaul see A.M. Riggsby, Caesar in Gaul and Rome: War in Words (Austin 2006); C.B. Krebs, 'Imaginary Geography in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum', AJP 127 (2006) 111-36; Germany: E. O'Gorman, 'No Place like Rome: Identity and Difference in the Germania of Tacitus', Ramus 22 (1993) 135-54; Britain: P.C.N. Stewart, 'Inventing Britain: The Roman Creation and Adaptation of an Image', Britannia 26 (1995) 1-10, and in wider context H. Schadee, 'Caesar's Construction of Northern Europe: Inquiry, Contact and Corruption in De Bello Gallico ', CQ 58 (2008) 158-80.
34 Plin. HN 3.139-44; Wilkes, Dalmatia (London 1969) 153 f., 482-6; id. 'The Danubian and Balkan Provinces', in CAH 10 2 (1996) 576-81; I. Bojanovski, Bosna i Hercegovina u anticko doba (Bosnia-Herzegovina in Antiquity ) (Sarajevo 1988) 75-344.
35 Cf. the similar situation in Britain: Mattingly, Britannia: An Imperial Possession (London 2006) 358-9.
36 See Dench (n. 13) 38-92 on Roman ethnographic genre.
37 For the empire perspective see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley/Los Angeles 2000) 353-4; S. Keay, 'Romanization and Hispaniae', in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford 2001) 131-2 (Hispania); S. Mitchell, 'Ethnicity, Acculturation and Empire in Roman and Late Roman Asia Minor', in S. Mitchell and G. Greatrex (eds), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity (London 2000) 117-51 (Asia Minor).
38 E.g. R. Syme, 'Augustus and the South Slav Lands', in Danubian Papers (Bucharest 1971) 19-21; T. Nagy, 'Die Okkupation Pannoniens durch die Römer in der Zeit des Augustus', AArchHung 43 (1991) 77-8; S. Cace, 'The Name "Dalmatia" in the Second and First Centuries B.C.' (Title of the English abstract), Radovi Filozofskog Fakulteta [Zadar] 40 (2003) 29-48; Sasel Kos (n. 33) 377-8.
39 Cf. App. I l l. 14; Sasel Kos (n. 33) 376-80.
40 D. Dzino, 'Strabo and Imaginary Illyricum', Athenaeum 98.1 (2008) 175.
41 Wilkes (n. 34) 173-6; G. Alföldy Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien (Budapest 1965) 56-59.
42 Woolf, 'The Uses of Forgetfulness in Roman Gaul', in H.-J. Gehrke and A. Möller (eds), Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historischer Bewußtsein. ScriptOralia 90 (Tübingen 1996) 361-81 (Gaul); N. Roymans, Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power: The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire , Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 10 (Amsterdam 2004), esp. 221-34 (the Batavians).
43 Domic-Kunic (n. 31) 83-114.
44 CIL 5.7893; 13.11962 = 7509, and G. Laguerre, Inscriptions Antiques de Nice-Cimiez (Paris 1975) no. 49. It was standard epigraphic procedure with auxiliaries: Speidel (n.19).
45 CIL 16.30; 16.31; 3.3261; 3.8494.
46 Only the soldier from CIL 3.8494 states that he is natione Delmata . Curiously, his tombstone is found in Dalmatia in the military camp of Burnum.
47 A. Domic-Kunic, 'Classis Praetoria Ravennatium with Special Reflection on Sailors that Originate from Dalmatia and Pannonia', ZAnt 46 (1996) 95-110.
48 Domic-Kunic, (n. 2).
49 Starr (n. 2) 75 counts only one Ravennate and one Misene sailor for Dalmatia as pre-Flavian, as they received their diploma from Vespasian and obviously a major part of their service was in pre-Flavian times. Both of them stated their civitas identity and indigenous name.
50 Zaninovic (n. 27) 229-46.
51 In a military context: CIL 6.3261, probably 6.3663, and in a civilian context 6.28053b. Also, there was a community of Dalmatians in Rome, cives Dalmates mentioned in 6.32588 = 2817.
52 See Wilkes (n. 35) 272-4; Bojanovski (n. 35) 266-303.
53 A. and J. Sasel, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt 2, Situla 25 (Ljubljana 1986) no. 753 and CIL 3.9810. The same cognomen is found in CIL 3.2757 = 9817 and probably damaged CIL 3.3185 = 10151 (Dalmatia) and 36302 = 8162 (from Pannonia); see Rendic-Miocevic (n. 5) 658-9.
54 A. and J. Sasel (n. 53) no. 2956.
55 See J. Slofstra, 'Batavians and Romans on the Lower Rhine. The Romanization of the Frontier', Archaeological Dialogues 9 (2002) esp. 29 for situational identity of the Batavian élite as assuming the matrices of the 'Germans', Batavians, and Romans.
56 See J.N. Adams, 'Romanitas and the Latin Language', CQ 53 (2003) 199-201 for Latin and Roman identity in the Roman army.
57 Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge 2003) passim; J. Clackson and G. Horrocks, The Blackwell History of Latin Language (Malden MA/Oxford 2007) 232-64. Indigenous languages were used in the Roman army units; cf. Adams, 190, 236-7, 255-60, 276, 284.
58 Certainly, a fourth strategy is also possible - to assume a Roman name only and state no identity. Those sailors are virtually undetectable and cannot be taken into account in research like this. Unfortunately the evidence shows heavy bias towards those who wanted to state their separateness, cf. D. Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers (London 2000) 157-60.
59 The names Dalmata, Dalmatius, Dalmasius are very rare in Dalmatia too and occur in and around the capital, Salonae - probably a statement of civitas or narrow regional identity in the cosmopolitan surroundings of a large city: Zaninovic (n. 27) 46-7.
60 As Noy (n. 58) 159 points out: formation of new regional imperial identities in Rome might be more readily expressed in a diasporic context (Rome), rather than in the towns or villages of their origin.
61 Constructed in completely different circumstances as a different identity: Dzino, '"Becoming Slav", "Becoming Croat": New Approaches in Research of Identities in Post-Roman Illyricum', Hortus Artium Medievalium 14 (2008) 199-200; see also with differences J.V.A. Fine Jr., When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre- Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods (Ann Arbor 2006) 94-5 and passim.
The University of Adelaide
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Aspects of Identity-Construction and Cultural Mimicry among Dalmatian Sailors in the Roman Navy*. Contributors: Dzino, Danijel - Author. Journal title: Antichthon. Volume: 44. Publication date: January 1, 2010. Page number: 96+. © Not available. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.