Die epigraphische Kultur an Oberrhein und Neckar in römischer Zeit

The end was nigh when the corax Materninius Faustinus—an initiate of the first grade into the Mithraic cult—commissioned a place of worship for Mithras in what is now Gimmeldingen (located roughly half-way between Heidelberg and Kaiserslautern in south-western Germany). Adorned with several votive inscriptions, both on the monumental base of the cult relief as well as on adjoining altars, the Mithraeum was to become a relic of a practice about to disappear for good in the fourth century AD (Fig. 1).

Dated to AD 325, Faustinus’ devotion makes him the last known contributor to Roman-style votive epigraphy in his neck of the woods. Whatever the reasons for the decline in inscribing on stone there and then—on which more below—the couple of centuries preceding the late antique period was in contradistinction characterised by the significant transmission of monumental epigraphy in the region. Detailed exploration of this inscriptional material—some 1,567 monuments and fragments in total—is the task accomplished by Jonas Osnabrügge in over 700 pages in the book under review.

The region under scrutiny is, approximately, the southwestern part of modern Germany, the most northern tip of Switzerland, and the Alsatian counterpart across the Rhine in neighbouring France, that is, the territory of the Upper Rhine (‘Oberrhein’), stretching eastwards to beyond the Neckar River. It is an area of nearly 40,000 km² (albeit unequally distributed, with c. 25,000 km² east of the Rhine). In Roman terms, the analysed area—located (mainly) north of Augusta Raurica, east of Tres Tabernae, south of Mogontiacum, and framed in the east by the limes (and possibly the provincial border)—centres on Germania Superior (Fig. 2). This spatial choice was influenced by both practical and methodological considerations as well as by attention to the natural geography (23-5); the desire to overcome the increasing national orientation of scholarship concerned with (parts of) this area since 1918 (French vs. German) is cited as another motivation (29-30).

Epigraphically, this was a desert before the arrival of the Roman army. Consequently, the focus of the discussion is on the first few centuries of imperial rule, while the analysis ends around the fourth century when the likes of Faustinus increasingly lost their interest in monumental epigraphy, at least for the time being. While especially onomastic indicators document the region as multi-lingual, Latin dominates the epigraphy (but for one stray Greek inscription: 384; IG XIV 2564, photos at HD060177). With over 40 texts per 1,000 km², the area is deemed epigraphically rich: ‘Mit 43 Inschriften auf 1.000km² ist der Untersuchungsraum eines der Areale mit der dichtesten Inschriftenüberlieferung in den Provinzen’ (84).

Following an Introduction, the ensuing two opening chapters deal with elementary questions of methodology and analytical remit and broader matters concerning the region’s epigraphy (spread, typology, chronology, onomastics, etc). Chapters 3, 4 and 5 constitute the core of the book, dealing respectively with votive epigraphy (‘Weihinschriften—der “votivepigraphische” habit’), funerary epigraphy (‘Grabinschriften—der “epitaphic” habit’) and public inscriptions, especially honorific and euergetic ones (‘Öffentliche Inschriften und “Forums-Epigraphik”’). Chapter 6 offers a historical contextualisation (‘Die Geschichte der epigraphischen Kultur an Oberrhein und Neckar’), followed by a short concluding chapter (‘Fazit und Ausblick’). A catalogue listing the inscriptional data by find spot closes the analytical part of the work. Wedged in between the list of abbreviations and the bibliography at one end, and several indices at the other, are 27 maps that help one to visualise the different epigraphic clusters in the regionnote, however, that the maps of the entire study area are too small to be of much use).

Chapters 3 and 4 are structured alike, discussing first inscription types, before commissioners, motives and contexts are reviewed. Notwithstanding some broad patterns, diversity characterises the picture at ground level. For example, in the civitas Alisinensium (in the area of modern Bad Wimpfen), well to the east of the Rhine, votive epigraphy appears firmly in the hands of the military, with 99 cases, compared with 33 documented civilians. Conversely, in the civitas Nemetum (centred on modern Speyer), just west of the Rhine, a mere four dedicants identify as belonging to the military, compared with 71 civilians. (A helpful list is at 174, Table 11.) Overall, the Rhine constitutes in more than one sense a watershed. Notably, of the 821 votive inscriptions, 292 are westwards of the river (‘linksrheinisch’), while 529 stem from the area to its east (‘rechtsrheinisch’).

In contradistinction, the area west of the Rhine has produced the bulk of the funerary epigraphy – 289 epitaphs, compared with 104 from the (larger) area to the river’s east. (A tabular break-down is at 94, Table 5). But whatever their location, the number of the funerary texts is plainly dwarfed by the much larger number of the votive inscriptions (mostly commissioned by men), summarised above. The notable prevalence of votive epigraphy runs counter to the dominant role of funerary epigraphy in other swaths of the Roman imperial world. This difference may document diverging commemorative customs to those practiced elsewhere (e.g., 426-7).  There is also some remarkable rural epigraphy (regularly linked to the many, widely dispersed villae rusticae), reminding us that urban spaces are not the only outlet for the Roman epigraphic habit  (e.g., 273-5, 304, 407-8, 427). A further 212 texts of a different nature include makers’ marks (some 3), honorific inscriptions (some 18) and milestones-cum-Leugensäulen (some 55). The latter in particular identify the road, not the forum, as the place for public inscribing (e.g., 370, 422). An additional 141 inscriptions are unclassified. (These and related data are summarised at 92, Table 4.) Whatever the chronological hubs of these different epigraphic types, given the prominence of inscriptions of a votive nature in the region, it is unsurprising that the votives determine the chronological pattern of the surviving epigraphy as a whole. In short, the underlying votive practices engineered an inscriptional surge in the century from, roughly, AD 150 to 250 (104-12).

Variation and difference are also documented across the three main inscription types (votive, funerary, public). Thus, although both votive and funerary epigraphy declined by the end of the third century AD, milestones continued to flourish into the fourth century, up to Constantine (371-80). While illustrating differing (and, hence, multiple) epigraphic habits, their small number does not, however, alter the broader chronological pattern: the epigraphic boom ‘am Oberrhein’ belongs safely in the Severan period. Overall, after the third century, epigraphy played a nugatory role in local provincial society: ‘Der Wert von Inschriften als Medium des Ausdrucks innerhalb der Spielfelder der Provinzialkultur scheint völlig zu verfallen’ (439). This is particularly obvious east of the Rhine, which produced just a single (funerary) text post-AD 260a sixth century waif, commemorating one Remico with two (of her) children (438 with 497, suggesting the demise of Remico only; AE 1997, 1188, with HD027709). Whatever the (unexplored) reasons for this seemingly isolated, late resurgence of the ‘epitaphic’ habit,  it undoubtedly reflects the Roman withdrawal from the area from the late third century onward.

Commenting on the reasons for the epigraphic explosion in the mid-second to mid-third centuries, Osnabrügge cites as underlying drivers the interrelated spheres of literacy and lawthat is, Roman law (433, original emphasis):

Der an die Juridisierung der Provinzen gekoppelte Stellenwert der Schriftlichkeit an sich beförderte so die Inschriftensetzung in allen Bereichen […] Die Diffusion wo nicht römischen Rechts so doch römisch geprägten Rechtsverständnisses war mithin ein wichtiger begünstigender Faktor für die Entfaltung und Blütezeit der epigraphischen Kultur ab der Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts im Untersuchungsraum.

Put differently, due to the epigraphic votive boom, Osnabrügge posits a link between cultic practices and (Roman) acculturation on the part of local society via the media of law and literacy (175). That said, votives were very popular among military men, besides individuals who present with Latin or Latinised names; Celtic names are rare and none are Germanic (esp. 113-32, 166-81, 209-23). However these onomastics are to be understood, given the considerable civilian migration that the army fostered (including alonside family and dependants, various service providers, such as the craftspeople who manufactured the inscribed monuments: e.g., 389-91, 405-6), this non-military contingent of dedicants must have included many Roman citizens who followed the army north of the Alps. If so, the surviving epigraphy may document foremost a locational transfer of Roman customs by Romans, rather than widespread processes of local acculturation. Viewed this way, the epigraphic crash that the withdrawal of the Roman army and its acolytes caused in the outgoing third century is readily accounted for. But whatever the role of law or army, even at its height, inscribing on stone produced only around ten surviving inscriptions annually. (Calculations are at 109, Table 6.) Combined with often only rough dating methods, these small numbers foreground the limitations for wide-reaching historical interpretation of this material, a matter acknowledged by Osnabrügge (e.g., 111, 452).

Despite the declared focus on inscribed objects, the study also takes into account uninscribed monuments (contextualised at 51-2). While the methodological challenge of identifying fragmentary materials as anepigraphic is self-evident, the clearly documented insignificance of epigraphy in some monumental settings that are elsewhere dominated by inscriptions is intriguing. Regarding votive practices, for instance, the cult of Epona functioned with little or no inscribing, raising larger questions about the role of text in ritual (esp. 158-66). Funerary practices, too, demonstrate anepigraphic niches, as evidenced by many tomb monuments west of the Rhine, notably in the area around Tres Tabernae and Argentorate (342-3), or by the continued use of uninscribed sarcophagi into the medieval period (e.g., 446-7). Notwithstanding these noteworthy observations, including anepigraphic materials highlights the lack of imagery throughout the book. Indeed, in place of helpful photographic illustrations, the author takes repeatedly recourse in lengthy verbal description of the monuments’ shapes and visual programmes. The monuments thus described are in fact not always easy to configure.  Photographic reproductions can be costly and the book is already quite sizeable. But the disregard for visuals to facilitate comprehension is unfortunate. Could the catalogue have been utilised also digitally, even if just in a proprietary format, with embedded links to the referenced openly accessible publications? Readers could then read the book while readily viewing the discussed monuments on an adjacent screen. Faustinus’ cult activity may serve as an example, with the respective links embedded here in the otherwise fairly barren catalogue entries (512):

This short review cannot do justice to the wealth of information assembled by Osnabrügge, even if the descriptive mode that characterises the exposition makes for a tough read. Nevertheless, this is a monumental study, notwithstanding the fact that its wider findings are unsurprising. Primarily, the work confirms the significant role of the Roman army in transmitting epigraphic practices, not least through recruits from northern Italy (e.g., 275-6, 392-3); it also highlights the associated movement of kin & co. and, hence, larger migratory factors (e.g., 334, 393; note also the broader observation about a region characterised by immigration, especially east of the Rhine – ‘eine Einwanderungsregion’, at 414). Conversely, the army’s role reflects the status- and wealth-levels that the Roman military attracted and generated (e.g., 405-6). Overall, however, the material powerfully underlines that there was no such thing as a single Roman epigraphic culture: ‘Die epigraphische Kultur der Römer gibt es nicht’ (20; original emphasis). In brief, the book showcases repeatedly variation from or even plain difference to (seemingly) universal epigraphic patterns, however frustrating for broader historical interpretation this may be. To my own mind, though, the beauty of Osnabrügge’s work lies precisely in the highly varied, often contradictory detail that does not submit lightly to generalising argumentation.

Notes

[1] Catalogue key (at 474):
IK = Inschriftenkategorie / W = Weihinschrift
MT = Monumenttyp / A = Altar (R is not listed)
At 439, Nemo67 is specifically identified as praising Deus Invictus; similar are also Nemo64 (‘DEO INVIH[ ] MIDRE’) and Nemo65 (‘DEO INVIHTO’). From the same Mithraeum there is also Nemo63 = HD075153 (with lupa.at/26546 for photos).