A
diptych on which the text is written across the grain of the wood; R.E.Birley
informs us that this leaf is cut from oak. Only two lines of text run over on
to the second half of the diptych, the great majority of which is apparently
blank. There is one physical characteristic of the text which deserves special
emphasis - the sheer size of the diptych; with the single exception of [161] which was found in close
proximity, it is very large by comparison with all the other leaf tablets,
which are no more than half its size. Given that almost half of the piece is
blank, however, it cannot be envisaged that it was cut especially for this text,
so we must conclude that it is merely accidental that almost no other leaves of
this dimension have survived. The text is complete, although badly abraded in
the middle section. The back of the tablet is blank.
The
hand is a typical example of Old Roman Cursive of this period. It is competent
without showing any pretensions to elegance. There is some use of ligature but
this is found only rarely. We have noticed nothing unusual in any of the letter
forms. It is possible that the same hand may be responsible for [161].
The
text is a strength report of the First Cohort of Tungrians. There are three
main elements. The heading contains the date, name of the unit, name of the
commanding officer and the total strength of the unit. Then follows a list of
those absent on detached duties, a total of the absentees and a total of the
remaining praesentes.
Then we are given the number of the praesentes who are unfit for active service, broken
down into categories. This section concludes with the total of ualentes, obtained by subtracting the
number of the unfit from the number of praesentes. In the ed. pr. we discussed the location of
the tablet in the Period 1 Ditch and noted that the name of the prefect of the
unit, Iulius Verecundus, suggested a connection with other documents in which
this officer is named (see [210]-[12]).
It now appears much more likely that the material in this ditch was produced by
the occupants of Period 2 (see VRR II, 23), which would place the presence of
Iulius Verecundus and the First Cohort of Tungrians at Vindolanda in the years c. AD 92-7.
Apart
from being the only document of its kind from Britain, this text provides us
with our only known example of a strength report of an auxiliary cohors
milliaria peditata.
For a full discussion of the classification of military reports see the
introduction to the ed. pr. (to the references in (4), pp.64-5, should be added ChLA XI 497, a fragment of a roll of
a cohors equitata,
with summary of strength at the bottom). It is evident that [154] cannot be straightforwardly
classified as a pridianum: the date is inappropriate and it does not list accessions,
losses and absentees in the appropriate form. Nor does it appear to be a daily
report, although it does list those who are unfit for service and might, in the
abraded section in the middle, specify what some of the detachments were doing.
The documents which it most resembles fall into the “monthly
summary” category of RMR (see Bowman and Thomas (1991), 64) but there is no doubt that
the Vindolanda report does not fall on the first of a month. It is perhaps best
to regard it as an example of an interim strength report from which a pridianum could eventually be compiled. We
might go further and suggest that the “monthly summary” and the pridianum should perhaps be regarded as
complementary types of document within the same category. It is also worth
bearing in mind that the archaeological context of the Vindolanda tablet gives
us no reason to suppose that this document went into the official archives of
the unit - it is perhaps more likely to have been an interim report compiled
for the commanding officer. There is some support for this in the text itself.
In several places the numbers are rather crushed in, as if that part of the
information was added after the outline of the report had been drafted and we
are inclined to think that the left-hand side of lines 5-15 was written first,
before the numbers were added at the right.
It
should be noted that the readings of all the numerals are not absolutely
certain (see notes to lines 3, 7, 17, 19, 26) but the orders of magnitude are
certainly correct and the margin of error applies only to digits below 10. With
this proviso, the dispositions may be tabulated as follows:
(Line 3) Total 752 inc. 6 centurions
Absentees:
(Line 5) Singulares 46
(Line 7) Coria 337 inc. 2 centurions (?)
(Line 9) Londinium 1 centurion (?)
(Line 10) ... 6 inc. 1 centurion
(Line 12) ... 9 inc. 1 centurion
(Line 14) ... 11
(Line 15) ... 1
(Line 16) ... 45
(Line 17) Total 456 inc. 5 centurions
Present:
(Line 19) 296 inc. 1 centurion
Of whom there are:
(Line 25) Unfit 31
(Line 26) Healthy 265 inc. 1 centurion
The
first point which calls for comment is the overall strength of the unit and the
number of centurions. The First Cohort of Tungrians was a peditate milliary
unit which, according to orthodox dogma based on the statement of Hyginus 28,
should have had 10 centuries. Although there is no positive proof of the notion
that the centuries will have been 80 strong (see Frere and Wilkes (1989), 118),
the figure of 752 is tolerably close to a notional strength of 800. There can
be, however, no possible doubt that the Tungrian cohort had only 6 centurions.
There is good evidence for the existence of only 6 centuries in equitate milliary cohorts (such as the
Twentieth Cohort of Palmyrenes) and it has been supposed that they might
consist of 6 centuries of 140/150 each plus 5 turmae; scholars differ in their views
of how such an arrangement might have evolved (see Hassall (1983), 99-100).
There is nothing in our Vindolanda text to indicate the size of the centuries.
Six centuries in a notional strength of 800 would give us an approximately
130-strong century, but the dispositions of the unit listed in our text do not
support such a figure. It may simply be that during a period of transition when
the size of the unit fluctuated somewhat (being brought up to milliary size in
the 80s and then reduced to quingenary between 103 and 122) it proved
impractical to maintain a strictly “correct” number of constituent
centuries (cf. VRR
II, 6-7). If we have read the figures correctly, it is striking that only 3 of
the 6 centurions are in charge of major sections of the unit, one at Vindolanda
and 2 (?) at Corbridge (see below, line 15 note); of the remaining 3, one is at
London on his own and the other 2 are in charge of 6 and 9 men respectively.
Again, this may reflect the tendency to make ad hoc arrangements in frontier regions
during periods of flux. Even so, given the small amount of documentary evidence
for the actual size and organisation of auxiliary units, it is striking that
almost all of it diverges in some degree from what orthodoxy regards as the
norm.
The
details of the disposition of the unit are also remarkable. The 46 singulares legati will have been the contribution
of pedites
made by the Tungrian unit to the governor’s guard (see line 5 note). Then
there are 337, by far the largest single group, stationed “coris”. There is every
likelihood this is Corbridge and this is the strongest single piece of evidence
relevant to the debate about its Latin name - it was probably simply Coria (see line 7 note). It is
remarkable that this large section of the unit, which outnumbers that left
behind at Vindolanda, is probably under the command of just two centurions,
possibly only one. Following this we apparently have a single centurion in
London, presumably on some special mission or message (for another connection
between Vindolanda and London see [310]). The postings or activities of the
following four groups are unfortunately impossible to elucidate; only the last
is sizeable, consisting of 45 men (with no centurion). We have considered the
possibility that these were thetati (the deceased), but this is the wrong
position in the text for such an entry (at RMR 63.ii. 11 they are included among losses,
not absentees, and at P.Brooklyn 24.ii.5, Thomas and Davies (1977), they are
the last entry before summa qui decesserunt). The number might be suitable as a
detachment for garrisoning one of the Stanegate fortlets, but then it would be
odd to find it lacking a centurion in command. Finally, it is worth noting that
of the almost 300 who remained at Vindolanda, with one centurion, more than 10%
were unfit for service; this text is unique in dividing them into categories, aegri, uolnerati and lippientes.
The
most striking feature is the division of the unit into two major sections of which
the larger was away from base at Corbridge. This strength report attests a
degree of fragmentation which is by no means unique; accumulating evidence
suggests, indeed, that it might well have been relatively normal, at least on
the British frontier at this period. Corbridge may be a case in point (see line
7 note). This text supports evidence which has accumulated in the last two or
three decades strongly militating against any notion that units would remain in
relatively permanent garrisons constructed for them according to a model which
can be reconstructed on the basis of the composition of particular types of
units (see Maxfield (1986), 59).