|
From Alan Bowman and David Thomas, Vindolanda: the Latin writing
tablets London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies,
1983, pp. 73-78
The texts grouped under this rubric are, apart from the reports
with the renuntium-heading and the requests for leave (see below),
a miscellaneous collection. Some of these documents may have belonged
to, or been preserved with, groups of letters associated with individuals;
there is an obvious possible connection, for instance, between 154
and the correspondence of Verecundus (210-212);
the renuntium texts, almost all of which are attributed
to the Period 3 praetorium, might belong with the papers
of Flavius Cerialis, as do several of the requests for leave (166-177).
It is important to emphasise, however, that we cannot identify these
documents as belonging to the official archives of the unit or units
stationed at Vindolanda. In this respect there is a clear contrast
with the papyri from Dura-Europos and the ostraca from Bu Njem,
all or some of which quite clearly do belong to official archives.
It is, of course, possible that some of the Vindolanda tablets may
be copies of archive documents and it should be borne in mind that
two of the official reports originating in the tabularium at Bu
Njem were actually found in the praetorium (see O.Bu
NJem, pp.5-l0).
(a) Military reports with renuntium-heading
Five fragmentary texts in this category were edited and discussed
by Bowman and Thomas (1987), no.2.A-E (and cf. Bowman and Thomas
(1991), 65). They are clearly formulaic reports and we have been
able to identify a total of 27 texts which are certainly or probably
of this type (for other possible examples see 165,
393,
410,
453,
458,
511,
545).
Of the 23 tablets which were found in the excavations of the 1980s,
21 are attributed to Period 3 and the praetorium. 136
is attributed to Period 2 (Room C) and 128
is attributed to Period 4 (Room III); in view of the location of
the others, however, the inevitable margin of error in attribution,
and the tendency of objects to move between strata (see Vol.
II, Ch. 1), no conclusion can be drawn with confidence about
the aberrant examples. 12 of the 21 tablets from Period 3 were found
on the via principalis adjacent to the courtyard designated as Room
VIA (129,
132,
133,
134,
135,
137,
138,
140,
141,
142,
145,
146);
7 in the courtyard (130,
131,
139,
147,
148,
149,
150);
and 2 by the South Gate (143,
144).
These groupings are suggestive of the process of dumping or disposal
of out-of-date material; compare the 9 commeatus applications
from the 1980s attributed to Period 3, of which 7 were found on
the via principalis. If the reports of this type are confined
to Period 3, the group might be connected with Flavius Cerialis
and belong to his files, but this we cannot demonstrate.
It is noteworthy that all the texts are written along the grain
of the wood, as are several other brief military reports (155-157).
In only one case (145)
does it seem that the text was written on a diptych and in that
instance not in columns, but across the fold (cf. 292).
There are notches and tie-holes in 137.
Some of the texts were certainly not justified at the right. As
for the hands, it is striking and important that no two are certainly
or even very probably by the same hand; the only possibilities for
identity seem to be 136
with 138
and 150
with 153
but neither connection is at all certain. In this respect the contrast
with the “rapports journaliers” from Bu Njem and several
of the groups of ostraca from Mons Claudianus is striking (O.Bu
Njem, pp.41-5, O. Claud. 48-82). Since the closing
formula is always, as far as we can tell, written by the same hand
as the remainder of the text, we are probably justified in concluding
that most or some of these reports were written by the optiones
who submitted them (cf. Bowman (1991) and (1994b)), although in
three cases they appear to have been delivered by someone else (127,
128,
129);
we note that two reports by an optio named Candidus (146,
148)
are written in different hands, but the name is a very common one
indeed. Like the applications for commeatus (166-177),
these are not pro forma chits, but the comparative uniformity
of the laconic formulae and the regular use of the idiosyncratic
q(ui) uidebunt (see below) suggests that the writers are
following an exemplar.
Although we have by no means solved all the problems of reading
and interpretation, the formulaic elements in the texts can now
be more securely identified and understood. We first offer some
comments on the formulae and the variations, before considering
the general characteristics and significance of the reports.
Date. The reports are dated by month and day and there is no reason
to doubt that all reports began thus (although 130
is an oddity). The date is preserved at least partially in 13 texts
and there are month-names in 127
(probably June), 130
(January/?February), 132
(June), 133
(December/February), 135
(probably March), 136
(April), 143
(December), 151
(July). It is striking that there is no example in the months August-November
but this may well be pure chance.
renuntium. This is once written as renutium (136). It occurs immediately
after the date in 9 examples (127,
131,
133,
135,
136,
140,
143,
147,
149;
130
again appears to be an oddity) and there is no problem in supplying
or restoring this pattern in all the others. The lexica cite two
examples of renuntius meaning “reporter” (Plautus,
Trin. 254,
C.Th. 3.7.1). It might be explained grammatically as a noun meaning
“report” in the accusative case as the subject of an
implied verb (cf. ‘Accounts
and lists’, Vol. II)). The construction with the name
of the unit following in the genitive is paralleled in RMR 64.1,
Pridianum coh(ortis) I Aug (ustae) pr(aetoriae) Lus(itanorum)
eq(uitatae).
coh(ortis) viiii Batauorum. This is found in 14
texts but only 3 examples are complete (134,
135,
143,
cf. 127,
137).
coh(ortis) is abbreviated in all cases except one (127).
The numeral is wholly or partly lost in 7 cases (130,
132,
133,
139,
140,
144,
149)
and Batauorum is wholly lost in 3 (132,
144,
149).
We have now abandoned our earlier belief that there might also be
evidence for an Eighth Cohort (Bowman and Thomas (1987), 133,
cf. Vol. II, Ch. 2)
and in no case do we now doubt that the Ninth is the unit concerned
(in 128
and 136,
the only examples not attributed to Period 3, the name of the unit
is lost).
omnes. We originally suggested that the next word might
be immunes, those exempt from regular duties, but we no
longer believe this to be the case. With some hesitation and a great
deal of caution we suggest that what we have is omnes,
which makes good sense. We cannot be sure that we have the same
word in all examples and in no case can omnes be read with absolute
certainty. For the individual readings see the notes ad locc.
in 127,
130,
135,
137,
142,
149,
150.
ad locum/loca. The singular is found in 4 texts
(130
twice, 139,
140,
151)
and the plural in 7 (127,
134,
135,
141,
142,
145,
149),
but there is no obvious difference in meaning. The word should presumably
be taken to mean military stations or posts (see Breeze and Dobson
(1987), 140-1) rather than local tribal meeting-places (see S.S.Frere,
Britannia 11(1980), 422-3 against PNRB 212). We note that
OLD, s.v. ad, 18b translates the phrase ad
locum “at duty stations”, citing Livy, 27.27.2,
ut ad locum miles esset paratus. It is also used as a synonym
of castellum (cf. 178.1) and of a castrum [sic],
see TLL VII.2 1582.25.
q(ui) uidebunt. This is very problematical. What is written
is quidebunt; it occurs in full in 6 texts (130,
134,
135,
139,
145,
150)
and is probable elsewhere. The reading is inescapable but difficult
to explain. We have considered understanding it as one word, quidebunt
(cf. Bowman and Thomas (1987), 134-5), but we can see no way of
explaining this linguistically. Since confusion between 3rd person
plurals of 2nd and 3rd conjugation verbs does occur in vulgar Latin
(e.g. ualunt for ualent, see CEL 142.40
note, and Adams (1977), 51) we could understand it as debent
(see VRR II, 33) although we have not found the form attested
for this verb; but it is still difficult to construe it and to see
what it would mean. In Bowman and Thomas (1987), 134-5 we noted
that there might be an abbreviation mark after q in one example
(139.2).
We now think that this should be taken seriously as an abbreviation
for q(ui). That the abbreviation is not elsewhere marked
is not a serious difficulty given the erratic use of such marks
in the Vindolanda texts; it is possible that it is also marked in
145.
This will then be followed by the future verb uidebunt
in the sense of “see to” (see OLD, s.v. 19).
et impedimenta (sometimes inpedimenta). This
is found certainly or very probably in 14 examples (127,
130,
134,
145,
137,
139,
142,
145,
146,
149,
150,
151,
152,
153)
and is no doubt universal. It has various meanings in a military
context but it is perhaps most likely to refer to baggage, kit or
equipment (see TLL VII.l 530, cf. Caesar, BG 6.35.1). impedimenta
is followed by a uacat in 134,
139,
145
and 146.
More problematic are 127,
130,
135,
138
and 150
(see the notes ad locc.). The reading of 127.4
is difficult (see note ad loc.) but this is the only instance
in which the traces are substantial enough to allow us to hazard
an interpretation; if we have an abbreviation pr, we can
only suggest that it might represent pr(aesentia) (“they
will see to the baggage which is present”).
renuntiauit. This is found in 139,
146,
148,
152
and presumably in 137
and 137.
In 127,
128
and 153
we have renuntiauerunt. No doubt the verb was universal.
In most cases it begins a new line, sometime after a uacat
of one line; this is not the case in 138
and may not be true of 130
and 135.
The verb is followed by a name in 146
and 152
and by a name + optio + (century of) [name] in 137,
138
and 148.
There is no reason to doubt that every report had a comparable statement.
There are important variations in 127
and 128,
where (a) the optiones are not named but the subjects of
the verb are not only optiones, but optiones et curatores
and (b) there is an additional statement in the form of the verb
detulit followed by a name, which must refer to the person
who physically delivered the report to its destination; this also
appears in 129 and we note that the word is used for submission
of a pridianum in ChLA XI 501. Given the fragmentary state
of many of the texts it is obviously possible that these elements
will have appeared in more than three examples. It seems probable
that we have two alternative forms of closure: either renuntiauit
+ name of optio + century of [name], or renuntiauerunt
optiones (et curatores, no doubt) without names, followed
by the detulit formula.
A reconstruction and translation of the full form of this type
of report, as we understand it, would run as follows: iii Idus
Martias. renuntium coh(ortis) viiii Batauorum. omnes ad loca (-um)
q(ui) uidebunt et impedimenta [?praesentia] renuntiauit Candidus
optio (centuriae) Felicionis, or renuntiauerunt optiones et curatores.
detulit Iustinus optio (centuriae) Crescenris; “13 March.
Report of the 9th Cohort of Batavians. All who ought to be at their
posts are there, and they will see to the baggage, which is present
(?). Candidus, optio of the century of Felicio, submitted
the report [or The optiones and curatores submitted
the report. Iustinus optio of the century of Crescens delivered
it].” As this volume was about to go to press R.E.Birley kindly
informed us that he has excavated another, complete example of this
type of report in a Period 3 context (Inv.no.1418). The reading
of the text confirms our reconstruction and is as follows: xvii
K Maias / renuntium / coh viiii Batauo/rum omnes ad loca qui/debunt
et inpedimenta / renuntiarunt optiones / et curatores / detulit
Arcuittius optio / (centuriae) Crescentis; cf. in particular
127-128.
As for the general significance of these texts, we can only suggest
that they are routine regular reports made by the optiones
who were required to inspect and verify that all personnel and equipment
was “present and correct”. These may have applied to
the fort at Vindolanda itself, or perhaps to small groups, either
outposted to nearby fortlets possibly under the command of optiones
(see 154.16
note), or engaged in special tasks under the supervision of curatores,
or both. There is no evidence elsewhere for reports in this form
but the danger of arguing from silence to the conclusion that this
procedure was peculiar to the Ninth Cohort of Batavians is obvious.
There may be some support for the widespread existence of such reporting
procedures in the evidence of Polybius for the organisation of the
army of the Republic (6.34.7-36.9): the guards on night-duty receive
written tesserae before going to their posts and the men
chosen by the optiones to inspect the guards get written orders
from the tribune, visit the posts collecting the tesserae
from the guards and deliver them to the tribune at daybreak.
We note Fink’s remark (RMR, p.181) on pridiana,
that they are “the one sort of military record known to have
a specific technical meaning”. It would appear that the renuntius
(?) is a second example.
(b) Miscellaneous documents
There are seven texts which may be described as military reports of
one sort or another. Of these, the most extensive and most important
is 154,
the strength report of the First Cohort of Tungrians. Although the
nature of this document is clear enough, we do not find it easy to
offer for this or for the other reports a precise classification of
the sort suggested by Fink, RMR, pp.179-82, cf. Bowman and
Thomas (1991), 62-6. There are four texts which may be daily reports
(155-158)
recording the activities of groups of personnel on a particular day;
the term 
(Appian, BC 5.46) might be appropriate to these and they do bear some
resemblance to the “rapports journaliers” from Bu Njem
(O.Bu Njem 1-62). It is noteworthy that, unlike 154,
they are written along the grain of the wood and parallel to the long
edge of the leaf, perhaps on a half-diptych. Another fragmentary report
appears to concern a turma (159).
It should be noted that we have no records of the movements of small
groups and individuals like the “comptes-rendus” from
Bu Njem (O.Bu Njem 67-73, cf. Tomlin (1986)). Of the remainder,
163,
in a capital hand, may be the heading of a list and 162
could be something similar. 164,
describing the fighting characteristics of the native Britons, may
be a memorandum sent to a unit commander. 161
might be a straightforward list of names of military personnel.
For other texts which are possibly military documents see 365,
367
and 491.
(c) Applications for leave
This group of 12 texts (166-177)
contains applications for leave (commeatus). The small
amount of evidence for leave in the Roman army has been discussed
by Bagnall (O.Flor., pp. 19-20), Speidel (1985) and Davies
(1989), 67. It is evident that this was a regular provision, although
given sparingly and only for good reasons according to Vegetius
2.19: quando quis commeatum acceperit uel quot dierum, adnotatur
in breuibus. tunc enim difficile commeatus dabatur, nisi causis
iustissimis adprobatis (cf. Suetonius, Galb. 6, pari seueritate
interdixit commeatus peti). The documentary evidence from Egypt
includes reasons for a grant of leave, indicating the purpose for
which it was requested (P. Wisc.II 70, ChLA XI
467), a pass showing the length of time for which it was granted
(O.Flor. 1), and an indication that a soldier serving in
Bostra expected to be able to get leave for long enough to visit
his family in Egypt (P.Mich.VIII 466) and an instance of
an application for leave being refused (Karlsson and Maehler (1977),
no.1.16-7). For additional references see: Vegetius 3.4, Digest
49.16.12.1, 14, RMR 9.2m, n, 24b, 34-7, 47.ii.18-9, 53b.6-7,
P.Oxy.XIV 1666, SB VI 9272 = JJP 9-10 (1955- 6),
162 no.2, ChLA XI 467, 500, O.Claud. 137.
The applications from Vindolanda add a new category of evidence.
Although most of the texts are mere fragments, we have no reason
to doubt that, apart from 175
in which the order of words is quite different, all the texts follow
the same formula: rogo domine (name) dignum me habeas
cui des commeatum; the only variations are the omission of
the name of the recipient in 176
and the addition of te after rogo in 173.
The name following domine is preserved in 8 texts; 6 of
them have Cerialis (166-171),
the others appear to have Flauiane (172)
and Priscine (173).
The use of dare with commeatus in this sense is
several times attested, e.g. Festus, Verb. 277.27 (= p.345.3
Lindsay), commeatus dari dicitur, id est tempus, quo ire et
redire qui possit, Livy, 21.21.6, si quis uestrum suos
inuisere uolt, commeatum do (said by Hannibal). For rogo
domine dignum me habeas we should compare the text published
by Speidel and Seider (1988) (= CEL 149), rogo domine
[dig]num me iudices ut pr[obe]s militem in cohorte u[t po]ssim
etc. Before rogo domine etc. 6 texts (166,
168,
169,
171,
172,
176)
have the name of the applicant with his unit subdivision, without
the name of the addressee or salutem. Of the other texts
170
is almost certainly blank before rogo, and the same may
be true of 167
and 173.
However, it is clear that the hand responsible for writing the name
of the applicant is always the same as that which wrote the body
of the request; therefore these requests did not simply exist as
pro forma chits on which a blank was left for the name
of the applicant to be inserted (as is the case in O.Flor.
1, and compare O.Claud. 48-82). It is also noteworthy that,
although for the most part only small fragments are preserved, the
hand is very probably different in every one of the examples (only
169
and 174
are at all similar). After the formula quoted above, in 174
and 175
the place at which the leave is to be taken is added and the same
is likely to be the case in 176
(cf. 171);
the other texts all break off before this point but it is probable
that this information was included in all applications. After this,
it is possible that the purpose for which the leave was requested
might be stated (see 176
and cf. P. Wisc.II 70, ChLA XI 467, but contrast
174
and 175).
If we are correct in believing that 177
is another such application it might add a request for the commanding
officer at the place which the applicant was to visit to be informed.
The applications do not mention the length of time involved, which
suggests that this would be fixed by the authorities on the basis
of the place and reasons specified; note the phrase finitum
commeatum in ChLA XI 500, which must mean “limited
furlough”, see Speidel (1985), 283. There is no clear case
of an application being written on a double leaf, like a letter;
174
has a notch in the left edge, as may 170
and 172.
Since these applications were not as personal as letters it may
have been the custom to write them on open half-leaves. 175
has something on the back indicating the name of the applicant.
Most of the applications are attributed to Period 3, and six of
these mention the name of Cerialis as the recipient. Of these, three
(168,
169,
170)
were found in the via principalis, adjacent to the courtyard
designated as Room VIA, and it may well therefore be the case that
three other examples from the same location, in which the name of
the recipient is not preserved (174,
175,
176),
were also directed to him; 177
was also found in the same area. The other two tablets from Period
3 come from Room IV (166)
and the courtyard, Room VIA (167).
172
is attributed to Period 2 and directed to Flavianus (perhaps Hostilius
Flavianus, known as a correspondent of Cerialis from 261);
173
is probably directed to Priscinus who was at some time probably
prefect of the First Cohort of Tungrians. It therefore seems likely
that Flavianus was also a prefect and that such applications were,
at Vindolanda at least, normally addressed to the unit commander.
|
