We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
So far as the author knows, no other recension of this much-quoted text has appeared since the original publication by Hunt, reprinted with only slight changes by the New Palaeographical Society. Yet it is a document of the highest importance both palaeo graphically and historically. As some sort of pridianum, that is, an annual report of a military unit's condition in respect to personnel, it is valuable for Roman military organization. It is unique in being the report of a unit stationed in Lower Moesia; and its value is further enhanced by its date early in Trajan's reign, during his preparations for his first Dacian war. The papyrus is therefore worthy of every effort to establish an accurate text, the more because Hunt himself conscientiously emphasized the provisional nature of his own transcription. The present paper, then, though unsolved difficulties still remain, is intended to make available the numerous improvements in reading and interpretation which result from a new study of the original which the author was able to undertake in the winter of 1956–1957.
1 Hunt, Arthur S., ‘Register of a Cohort in Moesia,’ Raccolta di Scritti in Onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (Milan, 1925), 265–272Google Scholar, and Wilcken, U., Archiv für Papyrusforschung 8 (1927), 94–95Google Scholar. A facsimile and transcription were printed in New Palaeographical Society, series 2, 11, pl. 186. G. Cantacuzène published two identical papers on this papyrus in Aegyptus 9 (1928), 63–96, and Rev. hist. du Sud-Est européen 5 (1928), 38–74, attempting to show that it was to be dated between A.D. 110 and 117. It would be futile to attempt to list all the citations since; but none of them seems to have led to a re-examination of the papyrus itself.
2 o.c., p. 265.
3 The writer welcomes this opportunity to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to publish the accompanying new infra-red photograph. Mr. T. C. Skeat, Deputy Keeper of Manuscripts in the Museum, and the Museum staff were very helpful during the writer's study of this and other papyri in January, 1957. This study itself was made possible by a Fulbright grant for editing a corpus of Roman military records, of which the present paper is an initial product.
4 This manner of identifying soldiers by their date of enlistment is almost too well known to need comment. See most recently Robert Marichal, L'occupation romaine de la Basse Égypte (Paris, 1945), 25–26, esp. n. 4.
5 On the date of the papyrus see p. 110 below.
6 See now R. O. Fink, ‘Mommsen's Pridianum: BGU 696,’ A. J. Phil. 63 (1942), 61–71, and J. F. Gilliam, ‘Paganus in BGU 696,’ ibid., 73 (1952), 75–78. An improved text will also appear in the corpus of Roman military papyri which the writer is now preparing.
7 CIL XVI, 29(=XV).
8 Lesquier, J., L'armée romaine d'Égypte (Cairo, 1918), 88–89Google Scholar; Cichorius, P-W s.v. ‘cohors’, cols. 297 and 298–99; Hunt, o.c., 266–67; Wilcken, , Archiv für Papyrusforschung 8 (1927), 94Google Scholar. See also p. III below.
9 Tac. Hist. I, 79; III, 46, and IV, 54; Josephus Bell. Iud. VII, 89–95. For an extended treatment see Carl Patsch, Aus 500 jahren vorrömischer Geschichte Südosteuropas (Beiträge zur Völkerkunde von Südosteuropa V/I, Wien und Leipzig, 1932 = Stzb. d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 214, Bd. 1, 3–206), 170–183.
10 Degrassi, A., I Fasti Consolari dell' Impero Romano (Rome, 1952), 29–30Google Scholar; CIL XVI, 44 and 45 (ILS 1999 and 2000).
11 CIL XVI, 44.
12 CIL XVI, 75.
13 Note 8 above.
14 Hunt, p. 267, citing Cantarelli, L., La Serie dei Prefetti di Egitto (Roma, 1906), 39Google Scholar. Stein, A., Die Präfekten von Aegypten (Berne, 1950), 48Google Scholar, says that the inscription may be dated either 98 or 99. At any rate, Trajan's titles in it give him only his first tribunician power—‘ trib. pot. cos. II’.
15 R. O. Fink, o.c. (n. 6 above), 69–71.
16 Mommsen, Röm. Ges. V: Die Provinzen (1885), 202; Carl Patsch, Der Kampf urn den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan (Beiträge zur Völkerkunde von Südosteuropa V/2, Wien und Leipzig, 1937 = Stzb. d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 217, Bd. 1, 3–252), 57.
17 Patsch, o.c., 60–61.
18 cf. also Tacitus, Hist. IV, 14Google Scholar; Ann. XIV, 18.
19 Pliny, Ep. X, 39.
20 Cod. Just. XII, 35, 6, Gordian to A. Brutus, miles: ‘Semel causaria missis militibus instauratio non solet concedi obtentu recuperatae valetudinis melioris, quando non temere dimittantur nisi quos constet medicis denuntiantibus et iudice competente diligenter etiam investigante vitium contraxisse.’
21 Arangio-Riuz, V., ‘Chirographi di Soldati,’ Studi in Onore di Siro Solazzi (Napoli, 1948), 251–263Google Scholar, which deals in the main with soldiers’ debts.
22 Grenfell, B. P., Hunt, A. S., and Hogarth, D. G., The Fayoum Towns and their Papyri (London, 1900)Google Scholar, no. 105, col. ii, 2: Dionusius, (denarii) 1459; col. ii, 15: Neferos, (denarios) 615; ii, 16: Alexandrus, (denarios) 500; ii, 17: Collutes, (denarios) 487; and others. But Saturninus (ii, 24) had only 38 denarii on deposit.
23 First published by Nicole, J. and Morel, Ch., Archives militaires du Ier Siècle (Geneva, 1900)Google Scholar, and much discussed since. For bibliography and a new transcription see now A. Bruckner and R. Marichal, Chartae Latinae Antiquiores 1 (Olten and Lausanne, 1954), no. 7, 16–17.
24 On Mommsen's pridianum see above, n. 6. Cumont's parchment was published first in Mons. Piot 26 (1923), then in Cumont, F., Fouilles de Doura-Europos 1922–1923 (Paris, 1926), 314–317Google Scholar, and pl. 107. It will be republished by the present writer with new readings in Fink, Gilliam, and Welles, Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report V, part i: The Parchments and Papyri (forthcoming) as no. 94.
25 Published by Gilliam, J. F., ‘Some Latin Military Papyri from Dura,’ Yale Classical Studies II (1950), 209–25Google Scholar. See especially DP 3, col. i, 1 and 9: ‘VI Kal Apriles numerus p(urus ?) mil(itum) cal(igatorum) DCCCCXIIII, in his ord(inati) VIIII, dupl(icarii) VIII, sesq(uiplicarius) I; drom(adarii) XXXIIII, in his sesq(uiplicarius) I; eq(uites) CCXXIIII, in his dec(uriones) V, dupl(icarii) VII, sesq(uiplicarii) IIII, and DP 9, lines 5 and 11: Kal Iunias sunt in hibernis coh. XX Palm(yrenorum) Gordianae n(umero ?) p(uro ?) DCCLXXXI, in his ord(inati) VI, dupl(icarii) VIII, sesq(uiplicarius) I; drom(adarii) XXXVI, in his sesq(uiplicarius ?); eq(uites) CXXXIII, in his dec(uriones) IIII, dupl(icarii) VI, sesq(uiplicarii) II.’ These will be republished with changes by Gilliam in the volume of Dura papyri (see preceding note) as nos. 82 and 89.
26 Dio 68, 9, 5–6: τοὺς αὐτομόλους ἀποδοὺναι…καὶ μήτ᾿ αὐτομόλων τινὰ ὑποδέχεσθαι μήτε στρατιώτῃ τινὶ ἐκ τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆς χρῆσθαι…τοὺς γὰρ πλείστους τούς τε ἀρίστους ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπείθων προσεποιεῖτο.
27 The use of the symbol θ to indicate death has recently been treated by Watson, G. R., ‘Theta Nigrum,’ JRS XLII (1952), 56–62Google Scholar. To his list of military papyri which use the symbol or an equivalent (p. 61, n. 36): the present text, Wessely's Schrifttafeln 8 (= Studien XIV, pl. 8), P. Fayoum 105, and P. Mich. VII, 435, can now be added P. Dura 102 (o.c, above, n. 24), dated between A.D. 222 and 225. In it the theta appears four times (col. iii, 4; vi, 13 and 22; and X, 21).
28 This identification has been generally accepted, apart from Daicoviciu (Annuarul inst. stud. clas. univ. Cluj-Klausenburg II [1936], 251, 1), and is defended by E. Polashek in P-W s.v. ‘Piroboridava’, col. 1722.
29 Paribeni, R., Optimus Princeps (Messina, 1926–1927), 221Google Scholar.
30 Carl Patsch, o.c. (n. 16), 186.
31 E. Polashek, P-W s.v. ‘Piroboridava’, col. 1723.
32 Dio 68, 8, 1: στρατεύσαντι δὲ τῷ Τραϊανῷ κατὰ τῶν Δακῶν…μύκης μέγας προσεκομίσθη γράμμασι Λατίνοις λέγων ὅτι ἄλλοι τε τῶν συμμάχων καὶ Βοῦροι παραίνουσι τῷ Τραϊανῷ ὀπίσω ἀπιέναι καὶ εἰρηνῆσαι. Patsch understands the σύμμαχοι as allies of the Dacians. Brandis, P-W s.v. ‘Dacia’, cols. 1950 and 1965, takes them, probably wrongly, as allies of the Romans.
33 Above, n. 26. See also Patsch, o.c. (n. 16), 55–56; and note the Dacian journey in A.D. 96 of Dio Chrysostom, ibid. 47–50.
34 o.c, 30–32.
35 o.c., 191 and 208–209.
36 Patsch, o.c. (n. 9), 42, 50–51, and 63–64; and in Kampf um den Donauraum (above, p. III, n. 16), 11, 31, 66, 105 (citing Dio 68, 11, 1) and 109–III.
37 Augustus brought 50,000 Dacians across the Danube to Moesia; and Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus in his somewhat incoherent but important inscription (CIL XIV, 3608 = ILS 986) may be claiming to have brought 100,000 over when he says (lines 9–12) [Moesia] in qua plura quam centum milia ex numero Transdanuvianorum ad praestanda tributa cum coniugibus ac lib ris et principibus aut regibus suis transduxit. More probably, however, this means that these people became a protectorate of Rome's and furnished Silvanus the grain with which he primus ex ea provincia magno tritici modo annonam populi Romani adlevavit (ll. 23–24).
38 Dio 68, 9, 6: τῆς χῶρας τῆς ἑαλωκυἰας ἀποστῆναι.
39 Patsch, Kampf 25–27 and 188–189, believes that the Dobruja north of a line from Axiopolis to Tomi which is marked by an embankment and forts ascribed to Domitian was abandoned by Domitian and recovered before 25th October, 100, by Trajan. His evidence for the latter date is SEG 1, 329, in which M' Laberius Maximus fixes the boundaries of the mainland territory of Istrus. But the inscription supplies only a terminus ante quem for the recovery of the Dobruja; and it is not clear when or how Trajan or Nerva might have regained it. It appears much more probable that it was reoccupied under Domitian after the peace of A.D. 89. Similarly, Patsch, Kampf 66–69, thinks of a Dacian counter attack on Lower Moesia in 101, an incident of which was the capture of Laberius Maximus' slave Callidromus (Pliny, Ep. X, 74, 1). But here again there seems little likelihood that Decebalus' forces had crossed the Danube. Maximus was surely operating on the Dacian side of the river in co-operation with Trajan. Brandis (P-W s.v. ‘Dacia’) may exaggerate the extent of the Romanization of the Wallachian plain and misinterprets some of the evidence; and the belief that Drobetae was a Flavian municipium seems to be an error (Kubitschek, Klio 10 [1910], 253–255); but the lack of Roman settlements in these plains is true of the time after Trajan no less than before, as Patsch makes clear (Kampf 173–174, 176–180, and 184), for the reason that the Roman government preferred to leave the land in the hands of the farmers who knew how to make it produce.
40 e.g. BGU 696: ‘coh. I Aug. Pr. Lusitanorum Eq. quae hibernatur Contrapollonospoli Maiore Thebaidis’; P. Fuad 1, 45, ll. 10–11: ‘in hibernis Leg. II Traian.’; P. Dur. 89, i, 5 and 11: ‘sunt in hibernis coh. XX Palm(yrenorum) Gordianae n(umero) p(uro) DCCLXXXI,’ etc.
