Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy CH. 28. Slaves and Freed Slaves

EDITED BY n CHRISTER BRUUN JONATHAN EDMONDSON The Oxford Handbook of ROMAN EPIGRAPHY OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN T H E OX F O R D H A N D B O O K O F ROM A N E PIGR A PH Y frontmatter.indd 1 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN frontmatter.indd 2 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF ROMAN EPIGRAPHY Edited by CHRISTER BRUUN and JONATHAN EDMONDSON 1 frontmatter.indd 3 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN 3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland hailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 © Oxford University Press 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data [CIP to come] ISBN 978–0–19–533646–7 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper frontmatter.indd 4 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN Contents Preface List of Figures, Maps, and Tables List of Contributors List of Abbreviations ix xiii xxv xxvii PA RT I ROM A N E PIGR A PH Y: E PIGR A PH IC M E T HOD S A N D H I S T ORY OF T H E DI S C I PL I N E 1. he Epigrapher at Work Christer Bruun and Jonathan Edmondson 2. Epigraphic Research from Its Inception: he Contribution of Manuscripts Marco Buonocore 3 21 3. Forgeries and Fakes Silvia Orlandi, Maria Letizia Caldelli, and Gian Luca Gregori 42 4. he Major Corpora and Epigraphic Publications Christer Bruun 66 5. Epigraphy and Digital Resources Tom Elliott 78 PA RT I I I N S C R I P T ION S I N T H E ROM A N WOR L D frontmatter.indd 5 6. Latin Epigraphy: he Main Types of Inscriptions Francisco Beltrán Lloris 89 7. Inscribing Roman Texts: Oicinae, Layout, and Carving Techniques Jonathan Edmondson 111 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN vi CONTENTS 8. he “Epigraphic Habit” in the Roman World Francisco Beltrán Lloris 131 PA RT I I I T H E VA LU E OF I N S C R I P T ION S F OR R E C ON S T RUC T I NG T H E ROM A N WOR L D Inscriptions and Roman Public Life 9. he Roman Republic Olli Salomies 153 10. he Roman Emperor and the Imperial Family Frédéric Hurlet 178 11. Senators and Equites: Prosopography Christer Bruun 202 12. Local Elites in Italy and the Western Provinces Henrik Mouritsen 227 13. Local Elites in the Greek East Christof Schuler 250 14. Roman Government and Administration Christer Bruun 274 15. he Roman State: Laws, Lawmaking, and Legal Documents Gregory Rowe 299 16. he Roman Army Michael Alexander Speidel 319 17. Inscriptions and the Narrative of Roman History David S. Potter 345 18. Late Antiquity Benet Salway 364 Inscriptions and Religion in the Roman Empire 19. Religion in Rome and Italy Mika Kajava frontmatter.indd 6 397 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN CONTENTS vii 20. Religion in the Roman Provinces James B. Rives 420 21. he Rise of Christianity Danilo Mazzoleni 445 Inscriptions and Roman Social and Economic Life 22. he City of Rome Christer Bruun 471 23. Social Life in Town and Country Garrett G. Fagan 495 24. Urban Infrastructure and Euergetism outside the City of Rome Marietta Horster 515 25. Spectacle in Rome, Italy, and the Provinces Michael J. Carter and Jonathan Edmondson 537 26. Roman Family History Jonathan Edmondson 559 27. Women in the Roman World Maria Letizia Caldelli 582 28. Slaves and Freed Slaves Christer Bruun 605 29. Death and Burial Laura Chioffi 627 30. Communications and Mobility in the Roman Empire Anne Kolb 649 31. Economic Life in the Roman Empire Jonathan Edmondson 671 Inscriptions and Roman Cultural Life 32. Local Languages in Italy and the West James Clackson frontmatter.indd 7 699 9/2/2014 9:16:21 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Sep 01 2014, NEWGEN viii CONTENTS 33. Linguistic Variation, Language Change, and Latin Inscriptions Peter Kruschwitz 721 34. Inscriptions and Literacy John Bodel 745 35. Carmina Latina Epigraphica Manfred G. Schmidt 764 APPENDICES frontmatter.indd 8 Appendix I Epigraphic Conventions: he “Leiden System” 785 Appendix II Epigraphic Abbreviations 787 Appendix III Roman Onomastics 799 Appendix IV Roman Kinship Terms 807 Appendix V Roman Voting Tribes 811 Appendix VI Roman Numbers 813 Appendix VII List of Digital Resources 815 Illustration Credits Index of Sources General Index 817 821 00 9/2/2014 9:16:22 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN CH APTER 28 SL AV E S A N D F R E E D SL AV E S CHR ISTER BRu u n Slavery was a fundamental feature of Roman society. he presence of slaves afected interpersonal relations, economic conditions, culture, and everyday life in countless ways.1 here were slaves in Roman society from early on, and the practice persisted into Late Antiquity.2 he Law of the Twelve Tables (c. 450 BCE) refers to both slavery and freed slaves (RS 40: I.14, I.19, V.3–10, XII.2). As Roman expansion continued throughout the republican period, events such as the conquest of Epirus and the taking of 150,000 prison­ ers in 167 BCE (Liv. 45.34.5) increased the number of slaves in Rome and Italy considerably. However, the epigraphic record is silent on this. One particular aspect of Roman slavery is worth underlining immediately: manu­ mission, the freeing of slaves. When manumitted in proper legal order, a slave of a full citizen received Roman citizenship, and the children of freedmen had equal rights with other freeborn Romans in almost every respect. (hey were precluded from advancing to the Senate but could aspire to membership in the equestrian order.)3 his inclusive policy proved a source of strength for Rome, as contemporaries in rival states realized although without emulating Rome’s practice. Already in 215 BCE, Philip V of Macedon commented on this in a letter to Larissa in hessaly, known only from an inscription (SIG3 543 = ILS 8763). he Romans, he wrote, “receive into the state even slaves, when they have freed them, giving them a share in the magistracies, and in such a way not only have they augmented their own fatherland, but they have also sent out colonies to almost sev­ enty places.” 4 Epigraphy is crucial for the study of Roman slavery, besides the juridical sources, scattered archaeological evidence, and literature.5 Literary sources are predominantly 1 Bradley 1995. Harper 2011. 3 Eck 1999 for freedmen or their sons advancing to the ordo equester and beyond; on legal restrictions and disadvantages: Watson 1987: 35–44; Treggiari 1996: 888–889, 895–897. 4 Translation: Bagnall and Derow 2004: 67. 5 Juridical: CRRS; Morabito 1981; Boulvert and Morabito 1982. Archaeology: Carandini 1988: 109– 234; Purcell 1988: 195–198; Roth 2005: 284–288; Trümper 2009; George 2011. 2 oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 605 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 606 CHRISTER BRuun used for studying slaves and freedmen during the republican and early imperial period and are central when elucidating the misery and harshness of Roman slavery, paradoxi­ cally though this may sound, considering that they were written for the slave­owning elite.6 here are no source collections exclusively dedicated to inscriptions on Roman slavery, but for Rome itself Heikki Solin’s unique epigraphic inventory lists individu­ ally by cognomen over 27,000 individuals he considers a slave or libertus/a.7 he gene­ ral corpora include several sections central for our topic, such as those concerning associations or epitaphs, but no comprehensive “slavery” chapter (cf. ILS Index XVII, p. 948–951). Important questions in the study of Roman slavery include the overall propor­ tion of slaves in Roman society; modes of enslavement; the private life of slaves (family, wealth, religion); their role in manufacture, agriculture, and the household; slave resistance; and manumission and the position of ex­slaves in Roman society. Imperial slaves and freedmen constitute a special ield of study. Much more evidence survives for manumitted slaves than for those still in servitude. Scholars oten use the information gained from their lives to illuminate the slave­condition, fully aware that only a fortunate minority ever gained freedom. On the very important question of the overall number of slaves in the Roman world, epigraphy cannot make a large contribution. Surviving inscriptions do not provide enough data for any accurate demographic study, and this is even truer for individu­ als of lower rank, who are seldom recorded in epigraphic texts. he modern debate on the number of Roman slaves mainly uses demographic models and comparative mate­ rial, with a few scattered numbers from literary sources sometimes adduced, like the forty thousand slaves whom Galen assumed lived in Pergamum in the 160s CE (Galen de propr. anim. 5.49K.).8 A central issue is how the Roman slave population could be sustained over time. Inscriptions provide a few sometimes fascinating glimpses but no statistically signiicant material on the various ways in which new slaves were acquired: through house­born slaves (vernae), the enslavement of abandoned children or kidnap victims, or the import of slaves from across the borders of the Empire.9 he sale of slaves is, with few exceptions, known mostly from papyri (p. 619). he most com­ mon source of new slaves during the Republic, enslaved prisoners of war, normally played less of a role during the Principate and is attested only sporadically in inscrip­ tions. For instance, only a single person enslaved during Rome’s two Jewish wars is explicitly attested in an inscription from the West10 —Claudia Aster Hierosolymitana 6 Duf 1928; Treggiari 1969; Bradley 1987, 1995. Solin 1996; other local surveys: Segenni 1990; Lazzaro 1993; Binsfeld 2006­7. Eck and Heinrichs 1993 (many inscriptions with translations); Wiedemann 1981 (translated sources, mostly literary). 8 Harris 1980, 1999; Scheidel 1997, 2005; Lo Cascio 2002; Roth 2007. 9 Traders: Harris 1980; self­enslavement: Ramin and Veyne 1981; vernae: Herrmann­Otto 1994; abandoned children: Harris 1994. 10 cf. Solin 1983. If Jewish prisoners were given new Greek or Latin names upon enslavement, their identiication becomes nearly impossible. 7 oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 606 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 607 captiva, “a captive from Jerusalem” (CIL X 1971 = ILS 8193 = AE 1999, 455; Puteoli)— although Josephus indicates that there were 97,000 prisoners of war ater the irst revolt under nero (BJ 6.420), and one can assume even larger numbers ater the Bar Kochba uprising under Hadrian. On the other hand, a Roman governor of Mauretania Caesariensis in the period between 250 and 300 CE erected a dedication to the Dei patrii and the Mauri conservatores “to commemorate his crushing of the tribe of the Bavares Mesegneitises and his carrying of their families into captivity along with all the booty” (CIL VIII 21486 = ILS 4495: ob prostratam gentem Bavarum Mesegneitisium praedasque omnes ac familias eorum abductas). Identifying Slaves and Freed Slaves In order to use inscriptions for discussing Roman slavery, one needs to be able to iden­ tify a slave or an ex­slave, by no means a simple task. During the mid­Republic, when it was unusual to possess more than a few slaves, their names were formed from the owner’s irst name and the word puer, “boy” (an epithet known from later slave soci­ eties as well): for example, Gaipor (Gaii puer), Marcipor, Quintipor. his is known from literary sources, while epigraphic examples are very rare.11 he custom changed during the last two centuries BCE, as the number of slaves in individual households increased. Slaves were given proper individual names, and slaves and freedmen begin to appear with some frequency in inscriptions. On a late republican lead plaque from Ostia nine ornatrices (dressers) are listed, of which the majority are identiied as slaves (servae): Agathemeris Manliae ser(va), Hilara Seiae ser(va) ornatrix, and Rufa Apeiliae ser(va) ornatrix (CIL I2 3036 = XIV 5306, where all the owners are women). A Roman freedman (or ­woman) may similarly be identiiable, as on a cippus from near Sulmona (CIL I2 3217 = Suppl.It. 4, Sulmo no. 53): L(ucio) Accavo L(uci) l(iberto) Protogene Dynamis feili(a) poseit To L. Accavus Protogenes, freedman of Lucius, Dynamis (his) daughter erected (this memorial) A system existed for distinguishing the social and legal status of individuals in a written text, whether oicial (such as the census list) or unoicial (for instance, epi­ taphs or membership lists of collegia): • freeborn Romans were permitted to name their father (“iliation”): M. Tullius M(arci) f(ilius) Cicero 11 Solin 1996: 131; cf. Fabre 1981: 105. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 607 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 608 CHRISTER BRuun • freedmen/women were identiied by “libertination,” by naming their patronus/a (former owner) who manumitted them: M. Tullius M(arci) l(ibertus) Tiro. his is sometimes called “pseudoiliation” (“false iliation”), a term that does not well describe how the Romans thought about it. he patronus/a exercised certain rights over their ex­slaves, but these were not the same as those of Roman fathers over their ofspring. • slaves were denoted by the word s(ervus/a), or possibly only by their master’s irst name in the genitive, as in Tiro Marci (“Marcus’ Tiro”) or the name of their mis­ tress, as with the ornatrices mentioned above. Some slaves and freedmen displayed a more speciic nomenclature, identifying their owner or patronus who in such cases normally was a person of distinction in the community: Sophrus Sisennae Statili ser(vus) (p. 610) or Cn. Cornelius Atimetus Cn. Lentuli Gaetulici l(ib.) et procurator (CIL VI 9834 = ILS 7387), a freedman of the consul of 26 CE, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus. Such inscriptions reveal something about the psychology of slavery and of how these individuals had internalized their subju­ gated status, as they demonstrated pride in their connection to a powerful person. hese cases are relatively rare and in practice the situation is less clear­cut. Most Romans known from inscriptions neglected to deine clearly their status. Some individuals shown by the context to be slaves neither use the S­word nor mention their owner; freed slaves may leave out any reference to their patron; and even freeborn Romans omit their iliation. For these various unclear cases encountered in inscriptions scholars traditionally use cer­ tain technical terms. When someone has a family name (nomen gentile / gentilicium), and thus was a free person, but it is uncertain whether he/she was freeborn or a freed slave, the person is referred to as an “incertus/a.” A Roman with only one name, which is normally his/her cognomen, is called an “Einnamig” (German for “a person having one name”) (Appendix III). Scholars oten assume that such a person was a slave.12 If an individual had a family name and thus was demonstrably free, why would he/she not mention it? In reality, there are reasons why a free person might be satisied with citing only the cognomen, the distinctive part of a Roman name. Financial reasons might dictate this choice: inscribing a text cost money, and additional letters increased the expense. Furthermore, scholars do not always consider the social context when deeming an “Einnamig” a slave. While it might seem crucial for us to list all the elements of a per­ son’s name, the Romans clearly did not always think so. Many persons were known in their social environment. Everyone in the neighbourhood who mattered knew who Dynamis, the daughter of L. Accavus Protogenes, was (p. 607): whether she was free­ born or had been born a slave but later manumitted. Why bother adding the family name, which she shared with her father? Bearing a Greek cognomen (like Dynamis, Protogenes, or Sophrus) in the western part of the Empire is oten taken to indicate unfree status, or at least to show “servile descent.” he high frequency of Greek cognomina especially in Rome has, therefore, 12 Solin 1996. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 608 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 609 led to the conclusion that freedmen overwhelmingly dominate in the epigraphic mate­ rial from the Principate.13 It should, however, be remembered that many slaves bore Latin cognomina, and that some freeborn individuals in the West used Greek names. In addition, the concept “servile descent” is rather vague.14 he linguistic character of the cognomen of an “incertus” or “Einnamig” allows no certain determination of the person’s social and legal status. Types of Inscriptions Recording Servi and Liberti Although the epigraphic evidence is skewed towards the more successful and power­ ful, slaves and freed slaves are better represented in inscriptions than many freeborn Romans of modest means due to their peculiar position. here are some types of inscriptions in which servi and liberti appear with particular frequency: • epitaphs, the commonest category • inscriptions relating to service, business, industry, and trade, oten in the form of a stamp on an everyday object such as pottery (Fig. 28.1), a brick, or a lead pipe (instrumentum domesticum) • texts relating to the activities of associations and collegia, oten with a connection to religious issues • inscriptions of various kinds recording actions (mainly by liberti) in the public sphere, such as dedications (cf. Fig. 32.5) and benefactions. Private Life: Slaves and Freedmen in Epitaphs In epitaphs—the commonest type of inscriptions—slaves and freedmen appear both as the commemorated and as commemorators. Sometimes slaves or freedmen com­ memorated their master, which provides interesting material for thinking about the Roman family (cf. Ch. 26), as on this tombstone from Brixellum in n. Italy (CIL XI 1027 = ILS 6671): D(is) M(anibus) / T(iti) Iegi Iucundi / VI viri Aug(ustalis) / et Decimiae hal/liae eius / Filetus libertus / . . . 13 14 Kajanto 1965; Solin 1971; Mouritsen 2004. Bruun 2010: 328–331; Bruun 2013. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 609 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 610 CHRISTER BRuun FIG. 28.1 Stamps on Arretine terra sigillata ineware pottery (Samian ware) produced at Arretium (Arezzo) indicating the potter’s name: (a) Nicolaus Sex. Avi(lli) (servus); (b) P. Corneli / Anthus; (c) Apollo(nius) / P. Corne(li servus); (d) Rufre(nus), in a stamp in the form of a footprint (in planta pedis). References under Illustration Credits, p. 819. To the Departed Spirits of T. Iegus Iucundus, sevir Augustalis, and his wife Decimia hallia, his freedman Filetus (erected the monument) . . . he law required the owner to provide for the burial of a dead slave, and this some­ times resulted in the erection of a memorial, especially for young slaves. hese com­ monly carry the epithet verna, “house­born slave.”15 his background makes it more understandable that emotional ties had developed between the slave and the owner or the owner’s family. Some of these house­born slaves may have had blood relatives among the free male members of the household. In the legal sense, slaves did not have parents or children, but in actual fact slavewomen gave birth and family relationships within a slave household were tracked, as Roman legal sources assumed: close kinship was a legal ground for manumission (Gaius Inst. 1.19).16 Some slaves commissioned tombstones for their close kin, as in one of many examples from the columbarium of the Statilii in Rome (CIL VI 6358 = ILS 7404, Julio­Claudian):17 Sophro Sisennae / Statili ser(vo) tabul(ario) / Psyche soror et / Optata coniunx fecer(unt) To Sophrus, slave of Sisenna Statilius, accountant, his sister Psyche and wife Optata made (this memorial). Such inscriptions seem to relect a life much like that of any ordinary Roman family, but they are exceptional. A survey conducted on the material in CIL VI of the term contubernalis, which indicates an informal marriage, found only sixty­eight couples in which both members were certainly or probably slaves.18 In any case only the for­ tunate slaves, those who were permitted by their owners to keep in contact with their kin, would commission texts referring to family life. On the contrary, inscriptions never celebrate the tearing apart of couples nor the selling of children to outsiders; this can sometimes be inferred, though, when freed siblings bear diferent family names. 15 16 17 18 Herrmann­Otto 1994. Treggiari 1975b; Willvonseder 2010. Caldelli and Ricci 1999. Buonocore 1984 on a similar body of texts. Treggiari 1981: 45. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 610 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 611 Exceptional in this regard are the manumission records from Delphi, starting in 201 BCE, most of which therefore date to the period of Roman domination, as well as simi­ lar documents from elsewhere in modern Greece (p. 616). Some of them explicitly state that a condition for freeing a slavewoman is that she leave one or more children behind with her former owner.19 While these Greek inscriptions sometimes show that women were freed with their children, no man (or putative father) is ever set free at the same time.20 Freedmen and ­women are much commoner than slaves in epitaphs, since they enjoyed the life of free citizens and normally had more wealth at their disposal. Many freedmen took much interest in creating visible and enduring funerary monuments of themselves and their kin (Ch. 29). hey proudly showed of their achievement, their rise into the Roman “middle class,” an everyday event in society at large, but a giant leap for the individual.21 Epitaphs reveal various aspects of the personal life of slaves, for instance cases where the owner married, or at least lived informally together with, a former female slave of his; in Roman law, intent to marry was grounds for freeing a slave even under the age of thirty (Gaius Inst. 1.19). On a marble plaque from Rome with the inscription Aelia Calliste Q(uinto) Aelio Phileroti patrono suo et sibi (CIL VI 10857), the fact that Aelia Calliste intended for herself to be buried with her patronus, who had preceded her in death, can only mean that they were a couple, and that she had been freed by the man with whom she now shared a gentilicium. It may in fact have been more common to manumit women than men in the Roman world.22 Slaves and Freedmen in Household Service, Business, Industry, and Trade Most slaves were used for agricultural labour, a hard lot which provided them with little chance of ever gaining their freedom either by endearing themselves to their own­ ers or by amassing enough wealth to buy their own freedom. Such slaves were called servi rustici, and it is thought that they practically never appear in the epigraphic (or any other) record.23 Inscriptions mentioning slaves or freedmen found outside the urban centres mostly refer to overseers (vilici) or to other individuals holding posi­ tions of trust for their master or patron.24 A slave in the province of Sicily bearing the epithet magister magnus ovium, “chief overseer of sheep locks” (AE 1985, 483), likely 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hopkins 1978: 156–158, 170; cf. Weiler 2001, 128–129. Hopkins 1978: 163–168 on family ties between freed slaves. Zanker 1975; Lo Monaco 1998; George 2005. Hopkins 1978: 139–140; Weiler 2001: 119–132; Wacke 2001 (manumissio matrimonii causa). cf. Roth 2007, a commendable work, though without using inscriptions. Carlsen 1995, 1996. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 611 9/5/2014 10:53:15 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 612 CHRISTER BRuun also enjoyed a more advantageous position, while the gregarii owned by the woman Crispinilla were slave­shepherds (AE 1972, 102, 112, Tarentum). he situation of servi urbani was diferent. hey were household slaves, normally in an urban environment, although they also could accompany their master to a coun­ try residence. hrough their personal qualities these slaves may have stood a decent chance of doing well and possibly gaining their freedom, which is not to deny that in their daily lives they lacked basic human rights and were at their master’s mercy, sus­ ceptible to sexual or any other exploitation. hrough inscriptions we gain a glimpse of the various tasks that slaves performed in rich households; the classic example is the household of Livia, the emperor Augustus’ consort. Hundreds of epitaphs of her slaves and ex­slaves name occupations such as arcarius (keeper of the chest, a freed­ man; CIL VI 3938), atriensis (majordomo; CIL VI 3942), ostiarius (doorkeeper; CIL VI 3995), pedisequus (footman; CIL VI 4005), and sarcinatrix (seamstress; CIL VI 4029).25 Looking ater the burial of relatives or friends was possible because Roman law allowed slaves to administer a peculium, a fund of money received from their master. Legally the peculium remained property of the latter, while in reality the slaves must have counted on being able to use this “start­up grant,” and the proits it might generate, to better their own life and position, including buying their own freedom.26 Among other things, slaves could buy their own slaves to work for them and to serve as replacements (vicarii) for their own labour. (For an imperial slave with sixteen vicarii, see p. 617.) While inscriptions sometimes show slaves active in business ventures of their own, it is more common to ind them engaged on their owner’s behalf. numerous business documents on wax­tablets recovered in the area covered by Vesuvius’ eruption in 79 CE provide irst­hand evidence of this (Chs. 15, 31).27 It was advantageous for the mas­ ter to use trusted slaves in commercial and productive activities, as they were com­ pletely under his/her authority. For instance, owners chose to employ exclusively slaves as dispensatores (inancial administrators/treasurers), as this guaranteed full control over their activities by the owner.28 Freedmen also sometimes carried out tasks for their former owner, who became their patronus ater manumission and to whom they owed obsequium and operae (compliance, service).29 Whether they acted independently or in cooperation with their former owner, the network of business contacts that they had been part of while still slaves likely assisted them greatly in their social advancement once manumitted. Ordinary freeborn Romans, in contrast, may have lacked a similar boost to their commercial activities. For much of the twentieth century, although perhaps to a lesser extent today,30 the debate about the economy of the late Republic and Principate focused on the ways in 25 Monumentum Liviae: CIL VI 3926–4326; Treggiari 1975a, cf. Bradley 1995: 62–63. Dixon 2001 on the occupations in the familia Veturiana at Rome. 26 Buckland 1908: 187–238; Boulvert and Morabito 1982: 128–131; Watson 1987: 90–101. 27 Andreau 1974; Camodeca 1999; Lintott 2002. 28 Summary in Bruun 1999: 34–35. 29 Waldstein 1986; Mouritsen 2011: 224–226. 30 Loane 1938: 99–112; Frank 1940: 185–217; cf. Scheidel, Morris, and Saller 2008: 536–538, 559–566. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 612 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 613 which the aristocracy made use of their slaves and freedmen to further their economic interests. Such studies would have been impossible without the epigraphic evidence (Ch. 31). It may be a question of identifying slaves and freedmen appearing in various places and contexts and tying them to the activities of a certain wealthy family, as with the Cossutii of the late Republic, engaged in the building industry (Fig. 7.2).31 More commonly, scholars study inscriptions, or rather stamps, on everyday objects (instrumentum domesticum), where frequently the names of slaves and sometimes those of freedmen appear. hese sources inform us of the structure of many branches of Roman manufacture, such as Arretine pottery, 32 the brick industry around Rome,33 or lead water pipes.34 he name of the slave worker is oten in the genitive, the meaning being (opus) illius or “(the product) of so­and­so.” When the name of the owner is mentioned in the same stamp (Fig. 28.1), interpretative problems may arise regarding whether the stamp refers to someone bearing the tria nomina rather than a slave and his master.35 Associations, Collegia, Familiae, Religion If a slave could become the master of a ship which was the property of his owner (Gaius Inst. 4.71) and sail of into foreign countries, it is obvious that some slaves could also occasionally leave their living quarters and mingle with fellow human beings, both slave and free. A large number of associations are known in the Roman world, called for instance corpora, collegia, or familiae. Some were of a professional nature, others for social and/or religious purposes.36 Frequently associations focused on guarantee­ ing their members a proper burial, but these were more than simply “funerary” collegia.37 Some indicate in their title that they were primarily for slaves and freedmen, like the collegium familiae publicae at Venafrum (CIL X 4856 = ILS 6153.1). Interestingly enough, the membership list of the familia publica at Ostia (CIL XIV 255 = ILS 6153) con­ tains many free “incerti” in addition to municipal slaves and freedmen.38 Another famous inscription, from Lanuvium near Rome, presents the statutes of a collegium that focused on the worship of Diana and Antinous, while much time was spent on banqueting, as was likely always the case (CIL XIV 2112 = ILS 7212; Ch. 19).39 Most of the 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Rawson 1975. Prachner 1980; Pucci 1993; Fülle 1997. Helen 1975: 23–27; Steinby 1978: 1517–19; Weaver 1998; Bruun 2005: 22. Bruun 1991: 340–353; 2010: 328–331. Oxé 1904: 135–140; cf. Aubert 1994: 227–228; contra Fülle 1997: 119; Bruun 2005: 22. Waltzing 1895–1900; De Robertis 1971. Slaves in associations: Bömer 1981; Tran 2006: 49–65. Ausbüttel 1982. Bruun 2008. Bendlin 2011. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 613 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 614 CHRISTER BRuun members at any one time were probably free, but the statutes speciically acknowledge that some members might be slaves. For instance, the procedure to follow is speciied in cases when the owner of a deceased slave member refused to hand over the body for proper burial by the collegium. Clearly, some slaves were integrated in the Roman social fabric in a way that makes it unjustiied to consider them completely marginal­ ized (other examples in Ch. 23, p. 500–502, both slaves and liberti). no slaves were, however, accepted among the Augustales, who formed highly respected local associations in which the members were almost exclusively freedmen, although freeborn Romans sometimes joined.40 he Augustales were involved in the cult of the Genius of the emperors, and inscriptions reveal that both freedmen and slaves were active in many other cultic activities as well (Figs. 19.3, 32.5). In fact the term familia, as a collective reference to slaves and freedmen, mostly appears in inscriptions in connection with religious dedications of some kind, but is also found in epitaphs when the familia mourns one of its own. In the religious sphere there were no dife­ rences between free individuals and slaves, and no divinities were venerated exclusively by slaves.41 Yet some divinities are particularly common in inscriptions where slaves and liberti are the active parties: Jupiter Liber and Zeus Eleutherios, Fortuna, Bona Dea and Mens Bona, Mithras, and Silvanus.42 he slave uprising in Sicily c. 136 CE has sometimes been seen as inspired by the cult of Dea Syria. More likely, slaves of Syrian origin venerated the goddess out of habit, while the cult had no strong social message.43 Benefactions and Honours: Position in Society Already in the late Republic freedmen can be found holding public positions. At Capua, where the traditional elite were harshly punished by Rome ater the Second Punic War, inscriptions document slave ministri and freeborn or freed magistri playing a role in the government of this town c. 120–70 BCE.44 In Rome itself, beginning under Augustus, the administration of neighbourhoods relied on vicomagistri, who predominantly seem to have been freedmen.45 In a list of over 250 vicomagistri from the year 136 only about 13 per­ cent of those named were freeborn; the rest were freedmen (CIL VI 975 = 31218 = ILS 6073). he most conspicuous way in which freedmen, and on rare occasions even slaves (mostly imperial ones), could make an impact on their social environment was through benefactions of various kinds. he usual possibilities were open to them, such 40 41 42 43 44 45 Abramenko 1993; AE 2000, 344 adds signiicant insights; cf. Ch. 12. Bömer 1981: 57–78 (familia), 29 (divinities); Ch. 19, p. 408. he West: Bömer 1981: 78–87, 110–172. Eastern provinces: Bömer 1961. Bömer 1961: 85–86, 96–100, reacting against the views of Franz Cumont. Solin 1990: 154–160. Lott 2004. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 614 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 615 as contributions to public building or gits of something valuable such as a statue to the community or to individual dignitaries (cf. Ch. 24).46 We can assume that a pub­ lic inscription would regularly record the deed, as occurred at Aphrodisias, where C. Iulius Zoilus, θεοῦ Ἰουλίου υἱοῦ Καίσαρος ἀπελεύθερος (“freedman of the divine Iulius’ son Caesar”) famously contributed to the beautiication of the theatre and other public buildings in the Augustan period (Aphrodisias & Rome 34–37). Even slaves sometimes had the inancial resources to inance projects that decorated their town, as at nepet north of Rome (CIL XI 3199 = ILS 3481): Hermeros Ti(berii) Claudii Caesaris Aug(usti) Germanici ser(vus) hyamidianus ab marmorib(us) magister Feroniae aras quinque d(e) s(uo) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) 5 Hermeros hyamidianus, slave of the emperor Tiberius Claudius Germanicus (= Claudius), involved in the import and handling of marble, magister (of an unknown collegium), had ive altars made for Feronia at his own cost, by permission of the town council. A particular category consists of dedications to masters or patrons, such as Fabatiae Luci / iliae Pollae / Fabiae Domi/tiae Gelliolae / consulari fe/minae lampa/diferae / M. Fabatius Do/mitius Pan/cratius li/bertus et / procura/tor patro/nae piissim(a)e (CIL VIII 8993 = ILS 1200, Mauretania), erected by a grateful freedman and procurator to his patroness, a woman from a family of consular rank managing the religious func­ tion of “torchbearer.” All of these activities enhanced the position of the benefactors, and numerous inscriptions show the authority and respect enjoyed by freedmen, oten impe­ rial ones, although it is fairly rare to ind a freedman as the object of a dedication or other honoriic act by individuals outside his own familia. However, at Dion (Macedonia), Anthestia P(ubli) l(iberta) Iucunda was honoured with a statue by the colonorum et incolarum coniuges, “the spouses of the citizens and residents” (AE 1998, 1210 = SEG 34, 631). Manumission Manumission in Rome was not a private matter, for the freed slave became a citizen with almost all the rights that a freeborn civis Romanus possessed (cf. n. 3). It is thus understandable that Roman law established rules for the conditions under which a slave could be set free, as in the Flavian municipal law (Ch. 7, p. 127).47 Some inscrip­ tions refer explicitly to the momentous moment when a slave gained freedom, as in 46 47 cf. on north Africa: Lengrand 1998; Saastamoinen 2010: 113. Buckland 1908: 437–597; Watson 1987: 23–34; lex Flav. mun. 28. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 615 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 616 CHRISTER BRuun a dedication from Puteoli: Herculei / sacrum / C(aius) Marci(us) C(ai) l(ibertus) Alex. / fecit servos / vovit liber solvit (CIL I2 1617 = CIL X 1569 = ILS 3427 = ILLRP 140).48 While still a slave of C. Marcius, Alex(ander?) had promised to dedicate something to Hercules ater manumission. “As a free man, he discharged his vow” is the proud con­ clusion. For the manumission process we depend on juridical sources (cf. n. 47), only rarely substantiated by Latin inscriptions from the West, as in the expression in consilio manumisso, “freed in council” (CIL XIV 1437 = ILS 1984, Ostia; cf. Gaius Inst. 1.20). An inscription from Asisium records an amazing 50,000 sesterces paid by the wealthy physician P. Decimius P(ubli) l(ibertus) Merula for his freedom (CIL XI 5400 = ILS 7812). he sum is much higher than any epigraphically attested slave price.49 In the eastern half of the Empire, especially in modern Greece, a variety of inscribed manumission documents in Greek, which relect a Hellenistic practice,50 record the freeing of slaves in Roman times. he discoveries at Delphi (over one thousand texts from 201 BC to 100 CE) are particularly famous, but similar documents are found in many other places and continued into Late Antiquity.51 until 212 CE many owners will not have been Roman citizens (though some were, during the Principate), in which case there was no need to deviate from local traditions, such as the common paramone formula, which tied the freed slave to the (former) owner for a period of time, oten until the latter’s death, in a sort of “conditional” or “suspended release.”52 Sometimes the owners were Roman citizens and therefore should have been following Roman law, as in the following text from near Pella in Macedonia (some time ater 212 CE, as the frequency of the nomen Aurelius reveals). Yet the procedure is typically Hellenistic, involving the “git” of the slave to a goddess, in this case Artemis (SEG 35, 750): . . . Φουλκίνιος Νάρ/κισσος ἐχαρίσατο / θεᾷ Ἀρτέμιδι πε/δίσκην ἰδίαν ὀνό/ματι Εὐτύχαν κὲ πε/δίον αὐτῆς Εἰρή/νην, ἧς κὲ τὴν ὠ/νὴν ἀνέθηκεν διὰ / βουλευτῶν Αὐρ. / Ἀδέου κὲ Αὐρ. Θέρ/μου κὲ Αὐρ. Μα/ρκελλείνου. Fulcinius narkissus gave to the goddess Artemis his slave called Eutyches and her child Eirene, and consecrated her deed of sale through the town councillors Aur(elius) Adeus, Aur(elius) hermus, Aur(elius) Markellinus. Donating a slave to a goddess or god oten meant no more than the duty to serve at the temple during customary holidays and festivities. Yet the situation is complicated and there is a lively debate about the factual legal condition of these freed slaves.53 Scholars have tried to elicit more general information about the condition of Roman slaves and their chances of gaining manumission from funerary inscriptions. Some of 48 Fabre 1981: 85–90. Similar texts: ILS Index XVII, p. 948. Duncan­Jones 1982: 349, 385. 50 Darmezin 1999. 51 Delphi: GDI, FD, Hopkins 1978: 133–171. Other texts: I.Beroia 45–57; Petsas et al. 2000. SEG regularly records new Greek manumission texts. 52 Hopkins 1978: 133, 141–158. Paramone formula: Samuel 1965 (mainly using papyri). 53 Hopkins 1978: 141–146; Petsas et al. 2000: 33–60; Zelnick­Abramovitz 2005, 2013. 49 oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 616 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 617 the epitaphs record the age at which a person died, and when the deceased was a freed slave, manumission had obviously taken place previously. Roman law required a mini­ mum age of thirty for a fully legal manumission, except when the owner had a special reason to manumit (Gaius Inst. 1.18–19). Many cases of liberti younger than thirty years are found, which shows either that owners made use of the exceptions the law granted (to free one’s parents, siblings, future wife, etc.), or that slaves were freed informally below the legal age limit, thereby becoming free individuals of Junian Latin status, not full Roman citizens.54 In reality, the situation must oten have been complicated and resolving it caused major problems for the parties involved, as revealed in the famous litigation from Herculaneum about the status of the girl Petronia Iusta (see Ch. 15, p. 311–313 with n. 34). A survey of the age at death of Roman freedmen has also been undertaken, in order to evaluate what the chances were, in general, of gaining one’s freedom. Cicero seems to indicate that a well-behaved slave could expect to be set free ater no more than six years of service (Cic. Phil. 8.32). he epigraphic material cannot, however, yield any sta­ tistically meaningful answer here, illuminating though it is in individual cases.55 The Familia Caesaris he Roman emperor was the richest man in the world and he owned more slaves than anyone. As a result, he can also be expected to have manumitted slaves more widely than anybody else. Servi Caesaris and Augusti liberti (commonly referred to as the familia Caesaris) are indeed fairly common in inscriptions. hey are mostly males, for the emperor had very limited use for female slaves. he various inancial and admini­ strative duties at court and around the Roman world required men, while the women of the imperial family owned larger portions of female servants.56 nero’s mistress Claudia Aug. l. Acte is a famous exception in both respects. She is known from the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius, but no less from the rich epigraphic evidence generated by the activities of over ity slaves and freedmen attributed to her familia.57 Most imperial slaves, relegated to menial tasks, have let no traces, but conspicuously many appear in our evidence. A classic case is that of the imperial slave Musicus Scurranus, dispensator (treasurer) of the iscus Gallicus in the province of Lugdunensis, who died while on business in Rome. A commemorative inscription was set up by sixteen of his own male slaves, who all indicate the function they fulilled in his household (e.g. negotiator, medicus, ab argento, ab veste, and cocus) and one female slave, whose function is let unspeciied (CIL VI 5197 = ILS 1514). She may well have been his mistress. In general 54 55 56 57 Weaver 1990, 2001: 103–104; López Barja de Quiroga 1998. Wiedemann 1985, pace Alföldy 1972. Chantraine 1980 for the data; Treggiari 1975a on Livia’s household; cf. Bradley 1995: 62–63. Mastino and Ruggeri 1995. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 617 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 618 CHRISTER BRuun FIG. 28.2 Large monumental slab from Rome commemorating nero’s freedman Epaphroditus still powerful under Domitian. Museo nazionale Romano. inscriptions show that male members of the familia Caesaris were more likely to end up in partnership with free women than other slaves and freedmen.58 Imperial freedmen appear frequently in inscriptions, and thousands of individu­ als are known.59 hey had gained inluence and wealth in the emperor’s service and stood a fair chance of being remembered in a lavish funerary inscription, as donors and sponsors, or in a dedication by grateful clients or communities. One of the most conspicuous cases is represented by the monumental inscription which records the military decorations, hastae purae and coronae aureae, that nero awarded his freed­ man Epaphroditus (ILS 9505, Fig. 28.2), apparently because of his role in revealing the Pisonian conspiracy against nero in 65 CE, thereby thoroughly ofending senators and equestrians for whom such distinctions traditionally were reserved.60 Slave Ownership: Actions and Reactions Slaves were goods that could be bought and sold practically like any other thing. Roman law regarded them as res mancipi (Gaius Inst. 1.119–120), i.e., they were con­ sidered to be in the category of large and valuable goods, like land and bigger animals. herefore, buying and selling involved a formal process, which also had to take into account the fact that slaves were conscient human beings with their own personality.61 Relatively few slave traders are known from inscriptions, although some conspicuous monuments have preserved, in addition to the text, images of the transport or the sale of slaves (CIL X 8222, Capua; Fig. 28.3):62 58 59 60 61 62 Weaver 1972: 112–136, 2001: 106–109. Chantraine 1967; Weaver 1972; Boulvert 1970, 1974. Eck 1976. Buckland 1908: 41–72. Transport: Harris 1980; Duchene 1986. Epigraphic evidence for slave markets: Trümper 2009: 20–28. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 618 9/5/2014 10:53:16 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 619 a) on the pediment: [M(arcus)] Publilius M(arci) l(ibertus) Satur de suo sibi et liberto M(arco) Publilio Stepano b) between the two reliefs: arbitratu M(arci) Publili M(arci) l(iberti) Gadiae praeconis et M(arci) Publili M(arci) l(iberti) Timotis c) on the plinth: [- - -]ae T[- - -] vix(it) annis XXII FIG. 28.3 Funerary monument in the form of an aedicula with statues of the freedmen M. Publilius Satur and M. Publilius Step(h)anus from Capua, erected by permission (arbitratu) of the auctioneer M. Publilius Gadia and M. Publilius Timotes, both freedmen. Second half of the irst century BCE. Museo Provinciale Campano, Capua. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 619 9/5/2014 10:53:17 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 620 CHRISTER BRuun For slave­sales, papyri provide richer evidence; less than twenty sales are known from wax­tablets from various parts of the Empire: Campania, Ravenna, Britain, and Dacia.63 A fragmentary text from Beroia (Macedonia) contains instructions from a Roman proconsul of the early third century CE regarding the selling of slaves (SEG 48, 750). Common to all these documents are the formulae they use to describe the human merchandise, as in the case of the puella Olympias, sold at Herculaneum in 47 CE, of which the contract stipulates, among other things: sanam, furtis noxisque solutam esse, fugitivam erronem non [esse], i.e., she was healthy and not liable for thet or damages, not a runaway slave nor prone to wandering of (TH 62). Sometimes the nationality is also mentioned, as in puellam Fortunatam . . . natione Diablintem (AE 2006, 709, Londinium); the Diablintes lived in nW Gaul. Ownership of slaves is revealed in cases where slaves or freedmen mention their owner(s) or patron(s). A slave could have two or more owners, and he/she could also be owned by a collective such as a business association—for example, Sex. Publicius De­ c(i)manus, col(legii) med(icorum) lib. (CIL XIII 11359, Divodurum, modern Metz)—or by the Roman state, a town, or a province, as exempliied by Abascantus Galliarum (servus), later P. Claudius trium Galliarum libertus Abascantus from Ostia, once jointly owned by the three Gallic provinces (CIL XIV 327–328 = ILS 7022–23).64 Practically all relevant texts show Roman slavery as an everyday phenomenon that worked as it was expected to. It is rare to catch a glimpse of the darker sides of this bru­ tal form of human exploitation. hat not every slave was (perceived of as) grateful and happy can be seen in tombstones where an owner explicitly forbade a slave or freed­ man to be buried in the same tomb, using a formulation like excepta Secundina liberta impia (CIL VI 13732 = ILS 8115), while the permission to bury freedmen and their descendants is very common indeed (Ch. 29).65 he harsh realities that slaves might face are exposed in some clauses of the so­called lex libitinaria from Puteoli, which establish that the public undertaker is to assist slave­owners with chains, ropes, personnel to administer loggings, and an execu­ tioner (AE 1971, 88, lines 8–10: vincula, restes, verberatores, carnifex; cf. CIL IV 10488, Herculaneum).66 not surprisingly, owners faced the risk of slaves running away, as shown by inscribed slave­collars which carry texts such as (CIL XV 7194 = ILS 8731; Fig. 28.4):67 5 fugi tene me cum revocuveris (!) me d(o)m(ini) Zonino accipis solidum 63 Papyri: Straus 2004; a selection in Eck and Heinrichs 1993: 31–41 nos. 46–54. Epigraphy: FIRA III 86–88, 134; Camodeca 2000, 2006. 64 cf. Fig. 35.3 for a libertus, once owned by a man and a woman. Slaves of the populus Romanus: Eder 1980; slaves of municipalities: Weiß 2004; Bruun 2008; Abascantus: Herz 1989. 65 Excepti: Caldelli et al. 2004: 375–376; restricted access for freedmen: ibid., 359. 66 Bodel 2004: 156–157. 67 Pani 1984; hurmond 1994. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 620 9/5/2014 10:53:17 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 621 FIG. 28.4 Late antique slave­collar found in Rome with a bronze disc announcing the reward for returning the runaway slave to his or her master, Zoninus. Museo nazionale Romano. I have escaped! Keep hold of me! When you bring me to my master Zoninus, you receive a solidus. Tensions could became unbearable, as shown by a metric epitaph from Mogontiacum, in which the deceased laments that he was murdered by a slave—erupuit (!) mihi servos vitam—who aterwards threw himself into the Rhine (CIL XIII 7070 = ILS 8511 = CLE 1007). In the lex libitinaria, suicide by slaves is expressly mentioned as one of the situa­ tions facing the public undertaker at Puteoli (AE 1971, 88, lines 22–23). he most dramatic form of resistance was outright rebellion. A unique inscription mentions the capture of 917 slaves in S. Italy, probably in connection with the First Sicilian Slave War, concluded in 131 BCE: praetor in Sicilia fugiteivos Italicorum conquaeisivei redideique homines DCCCCXVII (CIL I2 638 = ILLRP 454 = ILS 23; Fig. 30.3). Some epigraphic evidence of the ighting in Sicily during the Second Slave War (104– 101 BCE) appears in the form of inscribed slingshots.68A text honouring a senator at Allifae (CIL IX 2335 = ILS 961) seems to record a rebellion in Apulia in the early impe­ rial period, possibly not otherwise attested, unless it is the event mentioned by Tacitus under 24 CE (Ann. 4.27). 68 Manganaro 1982: 240–243. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 621 9/5/2014 10:53:18 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 622 CHRISTER BRuun In a wall­painting from Pompeii of republican date the name Spartaks in Oscan script accompanying an armed rider is taken by some to refer to a common gladiator, but others argue it designates Spartacus, the leader of the major slave rebellion in 73–71 BCE (cf. Ch. 32).69 his is a surprising possibility, as the historical record usually relects the victor’s perspective. Individually, of course, all freed slaves encountered in the epi­ graphic record were also victors of a kind. Bibliography Abramenko, A. 1993. Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität. Frankfurt a.M. Alföldy, G. 1972. “Die Freilassung von Sklaven und die Struktur der Sklaverei in der römischen Kaiserzeit.” RSA 2: 97–129. (repr. with addenda in his Die römische Gesellschat, 286–319. Stuttgart, 1986). Andreau, J. 1974. Les afaires de Monsieur Jucundus. CEFR 19. Rome. Aubert, J.­J. 1994. Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C–A.D. 250. Leiden, new York, and Cologne. Ausbüttel, F. 1982. Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches. Kallmünz. Bagnall, R.S., and P. Derow, eds. 2004. he Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford and Malden, MA. Bendlin, A. 2011. “Associations, Funerals, Sociality, and Roman Law: he collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) Reconsidered.” In Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen. Gemeinschat und ihre Ordnung, ed. M. Öhler, 207–296. Tübingen. Binsfeld, A. 2006–7. “Sklaven und Freigelassene in Inschriten und Grabdenkmälern des Treverergebietes,” Trierer Zeitschrit 69/70: 167–176. Bodel, J. 2004. “he Organization of the Funerary Trade at Puteoli and Cumae.” In Panciera 2004: 147–168. Bömer, F. 1961. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom 3. Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt. Wiesbaden. Bömer, F. 1981. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom 1. Die wichtigsten Kulte und Religionen in Rom und im lateinischen Westen. FaS 14.1. Wiesbaden (2nd ed., rev. by P. Herz). Boulvert, G. 1970. Esclaves et afranchis sous le Haut-Empire romain. Rôle politique et administratif. naples. Boulvert. G. 1974. Domestique et fonctionnaire sous le Haut-Empire romain. Paris. Boulvert, G., and M. Morabito. 1982. “Le droit de l’esclavage sous le Haut­Empire.” ANRW II 14: 98–182. Bradley, K.R. 1987. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control. new York and Oxford (irst publ. Brussels, 1984). Bradley, K.R. 1995. Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge. Bruun, C. 1991. he Water Supply of Ancient Rome: A Study of Roman Imperial Administration. CommHumLitt 93. Helsinki. 69 Ambivalent: Crawford et al. 2011: 699–701; ordinary gladiator: Van Hoof 2005. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 622 9/5/2014 10:53:18 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 623 Bruun, C. 1999. “Imperial procuratores and dispensatores: new Discoveries.” Chiron 19: 29–42. Bruun, C. 2005. “La ricerca sui bolli laterizi—presentazione generale delle varie proble­ matiche.” In I bolli laterizi di Roma e della Valle del Tevere: produzione, storia economica e topograia, ed. C. Bruun, 3–24. Acta IRF 32. Rome. Bruun, C. 2008. “La familia publica di Ostia antica.” In Epigraia 2006. Atti della XIV Rencontre sur l’épigraphie in onore di Silvio Panciera, eds. M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori, and S. Orlandi, 2.537–556. Rome. Bruun, C. 2010. “Cognomina plumbariorum.” Epigraphica 72: 297–331. Bruun, C. 2013. “Greek or Latin? he Owner’s Choice of names for vernae in Rome,” In Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture, ed. M. George, 19–42. Phoenix Suppl. 52. Toronto. Buckland, W.W. 1908. he Roman Law of Slavery: he Conditions of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge. Buonocore. M. 1984. Schiavi e liberti dei Volusi Saturnini. Le iscrizioni del colombario sulla via Appia antica. Roma. Caldelli, M.L., and C. Ricci. 1999. Monumentum familiae Statiliorum. Un riesame. Rome. Caldelli, M.L., et al. 2004. “Iura sepulcrorum a Roma: consuntivi tematici ragionati.” In Panciera 2004: 309–427. Camodeca. G. 1999. Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (TPSulp.). Edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii. 2 vols. Rome. Camodeca. G. 2000. “Tabulae Herculanenses: riedizione delle emptiones di schiavi (TH 59–62).” In Quaestiones Iuris. Festschrit für Joseph Georg Wolf zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. u. Manthe and C. Krampe, 53–76. Berlin. Camodeca. G. 2006. “Cura secunda della tabula cerata londinese con la compravendita della puella Fortunata.” ZPE 157: 225–230. Carandini, A. 1988. Schiavi in Italia. Gli strumenti pensanti dei Romani fra tarda Repubblica e medio Impero. Rome. Carlsen, J. 1995. Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284. ARID Suppl. 24. Rome. Carlsen, J. 1996. “Saltuarius: a Latin Job Title.” Classica et Mediaevalia 47: 245–254. Chantraine, H. 1967. Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der römischen Kaiser. Studien zu ihrer Nomenklatur. Wiesbaden. Chantraine, H. 1980. “Freigelassene und Sklaven kaiserlicher Frauen.” In Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte (Festschrit F. Vittinghof), eds. W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolf, 389–416. Cologne and Vienna. Crawford, M., et al. 2011. Imagines Italicae: A Corpus of Italic Inscriptions. 3 vols. BICS Suppl. 110. London. Darmezin, L. 1999. Les afranchissements par consécration en Béotie et dans le monde grec hellénistique. nancy and Paris. De Robertis, F.M. 1971. Storia delle corporazioni e del regime associativo nel mondo romano. Bari. Dixon, S. 2001. “Familia Veturia: Towards a Lower­Class Economic Prosopography.” In Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, ed. S. Dixon, 115–127. London and new York. Duchêne, H. 1986. “Sur la stèle d’Aulus Caprilius Timotheos, somatemporos.” BCH 110: 513–530. Duf, A.M. 1928. Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford. Duncan­Jones, R.P. 1982. he Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Eck, W. 1976. “neros Freigelassener Epaphroditus und die Aufdeckung der Pisonischen Verschwörung.” Historia 25: 381–384. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 623 9/5/2014 10:53:18 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 624 CHRISTER BRuun Eck, W. 1999. “Ordo equitum Romanorum, ordo libertinorum. Freigelassene und ihre nachkommen im römischen Ritterstand.” In L’ordre équestre: histoire d’une aristocratie (IIe siècle av. J.-C. — IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.), eds. S. Demougin, H. Devijver, and M.­T. Raepsaet­ Charlier, 5–29. CEFR 257. Rome. Eck, W., and J. Heinrichs. 1993. Sklaven und Freigelassene in der Gesellschat der römischen Kaiserzeit. Darmstadt. Eder, W. 1980. Servitus publica. FaS 13. Wiesbaden. Fabre, G. 1981. Libertus. Patrons et afranchis à Rome. CEFR 50. Rome Frank, T. 1940. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 5. Rome and Italy under the Empire. Baltimore. Fülle, G. 1997. “he Internal Organization of the Arretine terra sigillata Industry: Problems of Evidence and Interpretation.” JRS 87: 111–155. George, M. 2005. “Family Imagery and Family Values in Roman Italy.” In he Roman Family in the Empire: Rome, Italy, and Beyond, ed. M. George, 37–66. Oxford. George, M. 2011. “Slavery and Roman Material Culture.” In he Cambridge World History of Slavery 1: he Ancient Mediterranean World, eds. K. Bradley and P. Cartledge, 385–413. Cambridge. Harper, K. 2011. Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425. Cambridge. Harris, W.V. 1980. “Towards a Study of the Roman Slave Trade.” In he Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome, eds. J.H. D’Arms and E.C. Kopf, 117–140. Rome. Harris, W.V. 1994. “Child­Exposure in the Roman Empire.” JRS 84: 1–22. Harris, W.V. 1999. “Demography, Geography and the Sources of Roman Slaves.” JRS 89: 62–75. Helen, T. 1975. Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D.: An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps. Acta IRF 9.1. Helsinki. Herrmann­Otto, E. 1994. Ex ancilla natus. Untersuchungen zu den ‘hausgeborenen’ Sklaven und Sklavinnen im Westen des Römischen Reiches. FaS 24. Stuttgart. Herz, P. 1989. “Claudius Abascantus aus Ostia. Die nomenklatur eines Libertus und sein sozi­ aler Aufstieg.” ZPE 76: 167–174. Hopkins, K. 1978. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge. Kajanto, I. 1965. he Latin Cognomina. CommHumLitt 36. Helsinki. Lazzaro, L. 1993. Esclaves et afranchis en Belgique et Germanies romaines d’après les sources épigraphiques. Paris. Lengrand, D. 1998. “Les inscriptions votives païennes des esclaves et des afranchis d’Afrique du nord romaine.” L’Africa romana 12: 959–972. Lintott, A. 2002. “Freedmen and Slaves in the Light of Legal Documents from First­Century A.D. Campania.” CQ 52: 555–565. Loane, H.J. 1938. Industry and Commerce of the City of Rome (50 B.C.–200 A.D.). Baltimore. Lo Cascio, E. 2002. “Considerazioni sul numero e sulle fonti di approvvigionamento degli schiavi in età imperiale.” In Études de démographie du monde gréco-romain, ed. W. Suder, 51–65. Wroclaw. Lo Monaco, A. 1998. “L’ordo libertinus, la tomba, l’immagine: una nota sulla nascita del ritratto busto.” BCAR 99: 85–101. López Barja de Quiroga, P. 1998. “Junian Latins: Status and number.” Athenaeum 86: 133–163. Lott, J. B. 2004. he Neighbourhoods of Augustan Rome. Cambridge. Manganaro, G. 1982. “Monete e ghiande iscritte degli schiavi ribelli in Sicilia.” Chiron 12: 237–244. Mastino, A., and P. Ruggeri. 1995. “Claudia Augusti liberta Acte, la liberta amata da nerone ad Olbia.” Latomus 54: 513–544. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 624 9/5/2014 10:53:18 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN SLAVES AnD FREED SLAVES 625 Morabito, M. 1981. Les réalités de l’esclavage d’après le Digeste. Paris. Mouritsen, H. 2004. “Freedmen and Freeborn in the necropolis of Imperial Ostia.” ZPE 150: 281–304. Mouritsen, H., 2011. he Freedman in the Roman World. Cambridge. Oxé, A. 1904. “Zur älteren nomenklatur der römischen Sklaven.” RhM 59: 108–140. Panciera, S., ed. 2004. Libitina e dintorni. Libitina e i luci sepolcrali. Le leges libitinariae campane. Iura sepulcrorum: vecchie e nuove iscrizioni. Rome. Pani, G.G. 1984. “note sul formulario dei testi epigraici relativi ai ‘servi fuggitivi.’” VetChrist 21: 113–127. Petsas, P., et al. 2000. Inscriptions du sanctuaire de la Mère des dieux autochtones de Leukopétra (Macédoine). Athens. Prachner, G. 1980. Die Sklaven und Freigelassenen im arretinischen Sigillatagewerbe. FaS 12. Wiesbaden. Pucci, G. 1993. “I bolli sulla terra sigillata: fra epigraia e storia economica.” In he Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of instrumentum domesticum, ed. W.V. Harris, 73–79. JRA Suppl. 6. Ann Arbor. Purcell, n. 1988. Review. JRS 78: 194–198. Ramin, J., and P. Veyne. 1981. “Droit romain et société: les hommes libres qui passent pour esclaves et l’esclavage volontaire.” Historia 30: 472–497 (repr. in P. Veyne, La société romaine, 247–280. Paris, 1991). Rawson, E. 1975. “Architecture and Sculpture: the Activities of the Cossutii.” PBSR 43: 36–47. Roth, u. 2005. “Food, Status, and the peculium of Agricultural Slaves.” JRA 18: 278–292. Roth, u. 2007. hinking Tools: Agricultural Slavery between Evidence and Models. BICS Suppl. 92. London. Saastamoinen, A. 2010. he Phraseology of Latin Building Inscriptions in Roman North Africa. CommHumLitt 107. Helsinki. Samuel, A.E. 1965. “he Role of Paramone Clauses in Ancient Documents.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 15: 221–229. Scheidel, W. 1997. “Quantifying the Sources of Slaves in the Roman Empire.” JRS 87: 159–169. Scheidel, W. 2005. “Human Mobility in Roman Italy: he Slave Population.” JRS 95: 64–79. Scheidel, W., I. Morris, and R. Saller, eds. 2008. he Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge. Segenni, S. 1990. I liberti ad Amiternum. Ricerche di onomastica. Pisa. Solin, H. 1971. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen Personnenamen in Rom 1. CommHumLitt 48. Helsinki. Solin, H. 1983. “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch­ demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände.” ANRW II 29.2: 587–789, 1222–49. Solin, H. 1990. “Republican Capua.” In Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, eds. H. Solin and M. Kajava, 151–162. CommHumLitt 91. Helsinki. Solin, H. 1996. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch. 3 vols. Stuttgart. Steinby, E.M. 1978. “Ziegelstempel von Rom und umgebung.” RE Suppl. XV: 1489–1531. Straus, J.A. 2004. L’achat et la vente des esclaves dans l’Égypte romaine. Contribution papyrologique à l’étude de l’esclavage dans une province orientale de l’Empire romain. Leipzig. hurmond, D.L. 1994. “Some Roman Slave Collars in CIL.” Athenaeum 82: 459–493. Tran, n. 2006. Les membres des associations romaines. Le rang social des collegiati en Italie et en Gaule sous le Haut-Empire. CEFR 367. Rome. Treggiari, S. 1969. Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic. Oxford. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 625 9/5/2014 10:53:18 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Aug 11 2014, NEWGEN 626 CHRISTER BRuun Treggiari, S. 1975a. “Jobs in the Household of Livia.” PBSR 43: 48–77. Treggiari, S. 1975b. “Family Life among the Staf of the Volusii.” TAPA 105: 393–401. Treggiari, S. 1981. “Contubernales in CIL 6.” Phoenix 35: 42–69. Treggiari, S. 1996. “Social Status and Social Legislation.” In CAH2 X, 873–904. Trümper, M. 2009. Graeco-Roman Slave Markets: Fact or Fiction? Oxford and Oakville, CT. Van Hoof, A. 2005. “Reading the Spartaks Fresco without Red Eyes.” In Omni pede stare. Saggi architettonici e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele, eds. S. Mols and E.M. Moormann, 251–256. naples. Wacke, A. 2001. “Manumissio matrimonii causa. Die Freilassung zwecks Heirat nach den Ehegesetzen des Augustus.” In Fünfzig Jahre Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei an der Mainzer Akademie 1950–2000, eds. H. Bellen and H. Heinen, 133–158. FaS 35. Stuttgart. Waldstein, W. 1986. Operae libertorum. Untersuchungen zur Dienstplicht freigelassener Sklaven. FaS 19. Stuttgart. Waltzing, J.­P. 1895–1900. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains. 4 vols. Brusells. Watson, A. 1987. Roman Slave Law. Baltimore and London. Weaver, P.R.C. 1972. Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge. Weaver, P.R.C. 1990. “Where Have All the Junian Latins Gone? nomenclature and Status in the Early Empire.” Chiron 20: 275–305. Weaver, P.R.C. 1998. “Imperial Slaves and Freedmen in the Brick Industry.” ZPE 122: 238–246. Weaver, P.R.C. 2001. “Reconstructing Lower­class Roman Families.” In Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, ed. S. Dixon, 101–127. London and new York. Weiler, I. 2001. “Eine Sklavin wird frei. Zur Rolle des Geschlechts bei der Freilassung.” In Fünfzig Jahre Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei an der Mainzer Akademie 1950–2000, eds. H. Bellen and H. Heinen, 113–132. FaS 35. Stuttgart. Weiß, A. 2004. Sklave der Stadt. Stuttgart. Wiedemann, T. 1981. Greek and Roman Slavery. London. Wiedemann, T. 1985. “he Regularity of Manumission at Rome.” CQ 25: 162–175. Willvonseder, R. 2010. Stellung des Sklaven im Privatrecht. Eheähnliche Verbindungen und verwandtschatliche Beziehungen. CRRS IV.1. Stuttgart. Zanker, P. 1975. “Grabreliefs römischer Freigelassener.” JdI 90: 267–315. Zelnick­Abramovitz, R. 2005. Not Wholly Free: he Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World. Leiden and Boston. Zelnick­Abramovitz, R. 2013. Taxing Freedom in hessalian Manumission Inscriptions. Mnemosyne Suppl. 361. Leiden and Boston. oxfordhb­9780195336467­09­part­3_new.indd 626 9/5/2014 10:53:18 PM