Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T22:28:05.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Architectural Munificence in Britain: The Evidence of Inscriptions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

T.F.C. Blagg
T.F.C. Blagg
Affiliation:
Rutherford College, University of Kent at Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Rome, during the late Republic, it became increasingly usual for those who had undertaken the construction of a building, whether as civic magistrates ex officio or as private individuals, to ensure that their achievements would be remembered by having the building inscribed with a record of what they had done. The practice became commonplace in the provinces of the Empire, on civic buildings, in military forts and on private funeral monuments. Sometimes, surviving inscriptions can be related to archaeological remains of the buildings to which they belonged. More often they cannot be so related; but even then, they may provide valuable information about the nature of building construction and who was responsible for it.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 21 , November 1990 , pp. 13 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © T.F.C. Blagg 1990. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jouffroy, H., La Construction Publique en Italie et dans l'Afrique Romaine (Strasbourg, 1986)Google Scholar; inscriptions giving building costs are conveniently summarised in Duncan, R.P.-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1974), 90–3 and 157–62.Google Scholar

2 Frézouls, E., ‘Evergétisme et construction urbain dans les Trois Gaules et les Germanies', Revue du Nord lxvi, no. 260 (1984). 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 RIB 103, 658; the nature of their apparent role as benefactor is a matter of interpretation.

4 Britannia viii (1977), 430, no. 8; JRS lii (1962), 192, nos. 7 and 8.

5 RIB 385; Britannia i (1970), 307, no. 12.

6 RIB 88; Britannia xi (1980), 404, no.3; RIB 1314.

7 As a broad indication of this, RIB 1–444 come from the south, as defined above, and 445–2216 (1772 inscriptions) from the north: a ratio of almost exactly 1:4. In this connection, see also Biro, M., ‘The inscriptions of Roman Britain’, Acta Archaeologica Acad. Scient. Hung, xxvii (1975), 13–58.Google Scholar

8 RIB 288; JRS xlvi (1946), 146–7, no. 3; RIB 141, 1212.

9 N.B. under consideration here is their occasional role as benefactors of communities, as distinct from their regular official building activities, e.g. fort construction: above, p. 14.

10 Applying the same distinction as to the emperor and his legates, see previous note.

11 Frézouls, op. cit. (note 2), gave as examples those who were seviri Augustales or held a particular office; the two British examples placed in this category are Imperial freedmen, one of whom, if the conjectural restoration is right, rebuilt a temple on the occasion of being honoured with the sevirate at Lincoln: Britannia x (1979), 345, no. 5.

12 Frézouls, op. cit. (note 2), also distinguished ‘étrangers’ and slaves, but there are no relevant British examples of these. The ‘indeterminate’ category also includes those whose own names are missing, but whose fathers' names survive on the inscription.

13 Britannia vii (1976), 378, no. 1; Hassall, M.W.C., ‘The Inscribed Altars’ in Hill, C., Millett, M. and Blagg, T., The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London, London and Middlesex Arch. Soc. special paper 3 (1980), 195–8.Google Scholar

14 RIB 103, 730; for the argument that L. Septimius was governor of Britannia Superior c. 274–86, rather than of Britannia Prima after the Diocletianic provincial reorganization, see Birley, A.R., The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 179–80.Google Scholar For Martiannius, see Britannia vii (1976), 378–9, no.2, and Hassall, op. cit. (note 13), 196–8. Hassall argues that he was deputy or acting governor.

15 RIB 320, and reference cited ad loc; on the dedicator's status, see Birley, op. cit. (note 14), 258.

16 RIB 316; Birley, op. cit. (note 14), 266–7.

17 RIB 658; on the date, see Birley, op. cit. (note 14), 263–5.

18 RIB 5.

19 RIB 288; JRS xlvi (1956), 146–7, no. 3. Wroxeter's was dedicated to the emperor and Verulamium's likewise is restored as having been so.

20 RIB 2222, 2250 and 2240 respectively. The form is essentially that of the forum dedications: see preceding note.

21 RIB 311. The argument for exclusion of honorific statues is that of Frezouls, op. cit. (note 2), 28; it might be argued, conversely, that such statues are just as much an ornament to their surroundings as other public benefactions.

22 RIB 1700 and 2.

23 RIB 91, 2103; Britannia i (1970), 307, no. 12.

24 RIB 2102, 270, 271.

25 RIB 141, 69, 70, 71.

26 RIB 2148.

27 RIB 583, 587, 850, 886, 1272, 1334, 1396, 1988; Britannia xi (1980), 404, no. 3.

28 RIB 317, 322, 326, 327, 385; Britannia i (1970), 305–6, no. 3.

29 RIB 152.

30 RIB 88, 235, 725. On 725, an altar now lost, the restoration of beneficiarius from Camden's transcript is uncertain.

31 Britannia viii (1977), 426–7, no. 4.

32 RIB 707, 899.

33 JRS lvi (1966), 217, no. 1; RIB 1314; Britannia viii (1977), 430, no. 18, corrected in Britannia ix (1978), 484.

34 Frézouls, op. cit. (note 2), 33–4.

35 Of the military benefactors discussed here, the following are the only ones whose origins are specified: the legionary prefect P. Salienus Thalamus from Hadria in Italy, RIB 326; the cavalry prefect P. Sextanius from Xanten, RIB 946; and the centurion Aelius Aelianus from Melitene in Cappadocia, RIB 583. For the origins of equestrian officers in general, see Birley, A., The People of Roman Britain (London, 1979), 65–71Google Scholar, and for centurions, ibid., 73–80.

36 Frézouls, op. cit. (note 2), 35.

37 Pro salute of the emperor and the n[umerus] of Sarmatian cavalry at Ribchester, of the de[curia] of Aurelius Severas at Chesters and of the vexillation of the Sixth Legion and the armies of both Germanies (?) at Piercebridge: RIB 583, 1453; JRS lvii (1967), 205, no. 16. The Genius of the Second Legion at Caerleon and of Ala I Hispanorum Asturum at Benwell: RIB 327, 1334. Commilitones at Carlisle and South Shields: RIB 946, 1056.

38 op. cit. (note 15), 197–8.

39 Bauchhenss, G. and Noelke, P., Die Iupitersäulen in den Germanischen Provinzen, Bonner Jahrb. Beiheft 41 (Bonn, 1981), 46.Google Scholar

40 RIB 91, 153, 309 (collegni, sic).

41 op. cit. (note 2), 47.

42 ibid., 47–8.

43 RIB 91, 658, 992, 1305, 2148.

44 For details, see Appendix 4, below.

45 Britannia vii (1976), 378–9, nos. 1 and 2, and Hassall, op. cit. (note 13); RIB 927, 979, 1988.

46 RIB 587, 1334.

47 RIB 103, 141, 455, 916.

48 RIB 152.

49 RIB 725: see note 30.

50 Biró, op. cit. (note 7); Mann, J.C., JRS lxxv (1985), 204–6, esp. 206Google Scholar; Blagg, T.F.C., ‘An examination of the connexions between military and civilian architecture’ in Blagg, T.F.C. and King, A.C. (eds), Military and Civilian in Roman Britain BAR 136 (Oxford, 1984), 249–63.Google Scholar

51 Macmullen, R., AJP ciii (1982), 233–46.Google Scholar

52 Mann, op. cit. (note 50).