A Review of South-Pannonian Indigenous Anthroponymy PDF

Preview

Summary

The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia The state of research and selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia Edited by Branka Migotti BAR International Series 2393 2012 Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Ro...

Description

The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia The state of research and selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia Edited by

Branka Migotti

BAR International Series 2393 2012

Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2393 The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia: The state of research and selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012

ISBN 978 1 4073 0985 9 Translated by Valér Bedő, Tomislav Bilić, Danijel Dzino, Branka Migotti, Sanjin Mihalić , Miroslav Nađ, Mirko Sardelić and Vlasta Vyroubal Proofread by Mirta Jambrović and Branka Migotti

Printed in England by 4edge, Hockley All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

A Review of South-Pannonian Indigenous Anthroponymy Ivan Radman-Livaja Hana Ivezić A. Mócsy was the first to compile a detailed survey of the indigenous anthroponymy of southern Pannonia in the first two centuries AD in his seminal work, Die Bevölkerung von Pannonien bis zu den Markomannenkriegen.1 A number of papers and several monographs by various authors complemented our knowledge on the subject in the intervening decades.2 Even though these works undoubtedly laid the foundations for research into the local onomastics as well as, at least partly, into the ethnic picture of Roman Pannonia, contemporary researchers are still burdened with many unknowns and dilemmas. With this work we make no pretence at offering a new picture or a comprehensive review of these issues in southern Pannonia, but we shall nevertheless try, particularly through a review of certain recently published epigraphic finds, to ascertain whether and to what extent our understanding may have changed, at least when it comes to southern Pannonia, since the time when Mócsy and Barkóczi published their works (fig. 1).

the pre-conquest period should not be interpreted solely as a result of Roman involvement. It perhaps would not be far-fetched to hypothesise a displacement of tribes and/ or the fractioning of their tribal territories into smaller communities after Rome quelled a large scale rebellion, like the one in 6-9 AD. However, we lack conclusive proof for that kind of policy in Roman-ruled Pannonia. It is however more than probable that the Romans dismantled the larger alliances led by the stronger tribes which likely existed before the conquest. Thus, smaller communities which lived in the shadow of their mightier neighbours could appear as civitates in the 1st century AD. If we follow the sources, before the arrival of Rome the Taurisci lived in south-western Pannonia, the Breuci inhabited the area of the Sava district south and southeast of the Požega Valley, the Scordisci held south-eastern Pannonia, while the Andizetes resided in the eastern Podravina. Even though we can be fairly certain that these were the most powerful communities of the time, it is more than likely that several other tribes lived in the area prior to the Roman conquest. Certain communities, if not all of those mentioned by Pliny and Claudius Ptolemy, may have existed as organised groups even in the pre-Roman period, perhaps subordinate to the previously mentioned stronger tribes. It is precisely owing to Pliny (and far less to Claudius Ptolemy) that we have a reasonably clear picture of the ethnic-tribal map of southern Pannonia after the consolidation of Roman authority.7 Although Pliny mentions the Taurisci and Scordisci among others, separated in his words by the Slavonian Mountains (Mons Claudius), it seems that with this sentence he merely made a reference to the situation before the conquest – probably also due to the depiction of Pannonia on Agrippa’s map of the world (orbis pictus)8 – when these two tribes apparently played a dominant role in the region. The territory directly or indirectly controlled by the Taurisci before the arrival of Rome, that is, through the best part of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, covered approximately the upper and central Posavina and Podravina regions or, looking from the west eastwards, roughly the area from Nauportus to Mons Claudius, and from the north southwards, from the Drava River to the Kupa River. At the time, the Posavina

Although ancient sources are all but mute when it comes to the ethnic composition of the population of southern Pannonia before the arrival of Rome or during the Roman conquest,3 the picture of the people inhabiting the territory between the Drava and Sava is substantially complemented by the texts describing the situation in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.4 It is not insignificant that sources from the Imperial period mention tribes and ethnic groups that previously had not been referred to in any way whatsoever. This has prompted certain authors to conclude that following the conquest of southern Pannonia and the quelling of the local rebellions between 16 BC and AD 9, the Romans substantially influenced the transformation of the population structure of that area, not only by means of their drastic military measures but also through administrative action during the establishment and consolidation of their authority. 5 This hypothesis has recently been challenged by M. Colombo who argues that this theory is unfounded as he does not believe that the Romans originated the creation of new communities.6 Indeed, it seems to us that the lack of information about some Pannonian tribes in Mócsy 1959; for the earlier literature dealing, among other things, with the issue of the indigenous anthroponymy in Pannonia, at least in part, cf. Krahe 1929; Gronovszky 1933; Mayer 1957. 2 Barkóczi 1964; Lochner-Hüttenbach 1965; Katičič 1966; Katičić 1968; Fitz 1977; Fitz 1980; Domić Kunić 1988; Matasović 2003; Meid 2005. 3 Polyb. frg. LXXVIII (122) (FGrHist); Strab. IV.6.10, VII.5.2-3, 10; App, 14, 22; Vell. II.96; Mócsy 1962, 527-535; Colombo 2010, 177-182. 4 Plin. NH III.147-148; Ptol. II.14.2, II.15,2. 5 Cf. Alföldy 1964, 254-255; Mócsy 1974, 53-56, 66; Fitz 1980, 141. 6 Colombo 2010, 173-175, 184-185. 1

Mócsy 1959, 15-16; Mócsy 1962, 604-610; Alföldy 1964, 253-255; Mócsy 1974, 53-55, 58-63, 66; Fitz 1980, 141-142; Meid 2005, 41-42; Domić Kunić 2006, 74-81; Colombo 2010, 172. 8 Domić Kunić 2004, 130-131, 154-155, 164-166; Domić Kunić 2006, 74-75. On the syntagm Slavonian Mountains see Migotti in this volume, note 13. 7

137

Fig. 1. Map of the anthroponymic geography of southern Pannonia (after Google Maps, modified by T. Leleković).

The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia

138

Ivan Radman-Livaja and Hana Ivezić: A Review of South-Pannonian Indigenous Anthroponymy

region east of Segestica was most likely dominated by the Pannonians, whose precise tribal affiliation was not even discussed in the earlier sources, while the territory of Pannonia under Scordiscan rule probably covered a good part of present-day eastern Slavonia, as well as Syrmia. It should nevertheless be pointed out that due to the pressure of the Dacians and Pannonians the power and influence of the Taurisci and the Scordisci had already been considerably diminished several decades before the arrival of the Romans.9 Considering that in the remainder of his text Pliny lists a number of Pannonian communities, mentioning also (with a higher or lesser degree of accuracy) where they lived, his words clearly point to the conclusion that in the 1st century AD the Taurisci and the Scordisci not only were no longer very important, but also that they were separated from Mons Claudius by a considerable distance as well as by a number of other communities. It is quite likely that the groups such as the Latobici, Varciani, Serapilli, Serretes, as well as perhaps the Colapiani, supposing that their identity was established at all in the pre-Roman period, in the past formed part of a wider tribal territory of the Taurisci, which the Romans later split into smaller communities.10 The same applies to the Scordisci, whose territory in the Imperial period covered only the far southeast of Pannonia, that is, the area east of Sirmium, while the territory they had once controlled then passed into the hands of the Andizetes, Cornacates, and Amantini.11

•

•

Based on the mentioned ancient sources and the quoted literature, once Roman authority had been established and consolidated, we can be fairly certain, when it comes to southern Pannonia, about the geographic distribution of individual communities. Looking from the west eastwards, it was as follows:

• •

• The Taurisci possibly continued to live only in the far southwest, in the neighbourhood of Emona (which, in all likelihood, can not be considered a Pannonian town12), but they would more rightly be considered as inhabitants of Noricum, where their name soon disappeared and they were never again mentioned after the 1st century AD.13 • The southern part of the territory of the Emona colony was inhabited by the Catari. Due to their relatively rich epigraphic record,14 we have a fairly clear understanding of their anthroponymy, characterised by a blend of influences from the northern Adriatic, that is Venetian, and Celtic onomastics. • The Celtic Latobici lived on the western border of Pannonia, in the area south of Poetovio and west of Andautonia, where during the latter half of the 1st

•

century their civitas developed into Municipium Flavium Latobicorum Neviodunum.15 Their eastern neighbours were the Varciani, another people of Celtic origin, or at least related to the Celts. Their territory bordered with the ager of Siscia. Their civitas apparently developed into Municipium Andautonia before the end of the 1st century.16 The Colapiani lived south of the Varciani, in the valley of the Kupa River. They are considered an Illyrian tribe in the wider sense: their civitas continued into the second half of the 1st century (CIL III 14387 = ILS 9199), but after that they are no longer mentioned. In terms of ethnicity, they may have been related to the Segestani, that is, the original inhabitants of Segestica. It is possible that the latter were, at least partly, of Celtic origin – in the lack of concrete data, we can surmise that the inhabitants of pre-Roman Segestica were ethnically heterogeneous, which would be quite natural for a large urban centre, at the same time a commercial hub and traffic junction on the boundary of several tribal communities. Naturally, it is impossible to assess the proportion of the inhabitants of Illyrian-Pannonian and Celtic origin in the population of Segestica.17 Nevertheless, it remains open to what degree the indigenous population formed the substrate of the inhabitants of the future Roman Siscia.18 Presumably the Colapian civitas was fully incorporated into the territorium of the Flavian colony of Siscia,19 although its western and southern borders have not been ascertained. The northern boundary of the Siscian territory stretched to the banks of the Sava River all the way to Andautonia, and in the east to Dubica (Servitium, CIL III 15200).20 In the north, on the border with Noricum, lived the Serretes, while east of the Serretes, along the Drava River, lived the Serapilli, another tribe of Celtic origin.21 The Iasi were the eastern neighbours of the Serapilli along the Drava River. They were probably an IllyrianPannonian tribe, but considering the presumed longterm subordination to the Taurisci, the Celtic cultural and linguistic influence was probably not insignificant. Their territory bordered in the east with Lower Pannonia, and their urban centre was in Aquae Balissae (Municipium Iasorum).22 South of the Iasi and east of Siscia, the Posavina region was inhabited, probably all the way to the border with Lower Pannonia, by the Oseriates, another IllyrianPannonian tribe.23

Mócsy 1959, 21-24; Mócsy 1974, 135-136; Fitz 1980, 143; Lovenjak 2003, 93-95; Domić Kunić 2006, 76. 16 Mócsy 1959, 22-24; Alföldy 1964, 254; Mócsy 1974, 136; Fitz 1980, 143; Nemeth-Ehrlich and Kušan Špalj 2003, 107-112; Šašel Kos 1997, 36; Domić Kunić 2006, 80-81. 17 Cf. Šašel 1974, 730-731; Šašel Kos 1997, 34-35; Domić Kunić 2006, 80; Colombo 2010, 175. 18 Radman-Livaja 2007, 160-161. 19 Alföldy 1964, 254; Mócsy 1974, 114, 135; Fitz 1980, 143. 20 Mócsy 1959, 24-26; Šašel 1974, 736-737; Lolić 2003, 132-133. 21 Mócsy 1959, 28-30; Horvat et al. 2003, 158-161; Domić Kunić 2006, 76. 22 Mócsy 1959, 26-28; Schejbal 2004, 99, 101-108; Domić Kunić 2006, 76. 23 Mócsy 1959, 26; Alföldy 1964, 254-255; Domić Kunić 2006, 79-80; Colombo 2010, 173. 15

Cf. Mócsy 1962, 527-535; Mócsy 1974, 18-21; Domić Kunić 2006, 74-75. 10 Guštin 2011, 120-122. 11 Alföldy 1964, 255. 12 Cf. Šašel Kos 2002, 373-382; Šašel Kos 2003, 11-19. 13 Mócsy 1959, 17-18; Alföldy 1974, 25-27; Šašel Kos 1997, 25; Domić Kunić 2006, 76. 14 Mócsy 1959, 16-17; Lochner-Hüttenbach 1965, 15-44; Katičić 1968, 61-118; Mócsy 1974, 59; Meid 2005, 27-29. 9

139

The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia

• The Andizetes inhabited the Podravina region south of the Iasi, that is from the border of Upper and Lower Pannonia, apparently all the way to Mursa. Based on Strabo’s words (Strab. VII.5.3) it is likely that they were an Illyrian-Pannonian ethnic community, most likely exposed to Celtic influence.24 • During the Principate, the area of the Posavina region south of the Andizetes, east of the Oseriates and west of the Amantini, belonged to the Breuci, an Illyrian-Pannonian people whose separate identity and indubitable political importance was documented in texts from the time of the Roman conquests.25 • The Cornacates were a minor community, presumed to have been formed during the fragmentation of the territories of the major pre-Roman tribal communities in southern Pannonia. They were presumably ethnically related to the Breuci. Their main urban centre was, understandably, Cornacum.26 • The Amantini inhabited the south-eastern part of Pannonia, that is the area around Sirmium (civitas Sirmiensium et Amantinorum, Plin. NH III.148). It seems that they can also be considered a PannonianIllyrian population, possibly Celticised to a degree.27 • Civitas Scordiscorum occupied the far east of southern Pannonia. In spite of their original Celtic affiliation, until the Roman period the Scordisci were assimilated considerably with the indigenous Illyrian-Pannonian population. Consequently, in the scholarly literature they are sometimes described as an Illyrian-Celtic community.28 After this brief review of the presumed ethnic structure of southern Pannonia following the establishment of Roman authority, we return to the basic question of this paper: to what degree does the anthroponymy of the Imperial period as preserved in the epigraphic record reflect the ethnic structure of that part of Pannonia? The question is in fact more complex than it might appear at first sight. We should not equate the nomenclature, that is, the system of principles, rules and customs of naming, with a language or ethnicity. A number of languages in addition to the Latin and Greek were in use in the Roman Empire and it is needless to stress how variegated its ethnic composition was. Multilingualism, ethnic variability and multiculturalism were no less present in Pannonia. It is understandable, for instance, that a Pannonian whose parents spoke Celtic would often have a traditional Celtic name, or that a person born within an Illyrian-Pannonian community had a name typical for that ethnic group, but this was not necessarily a rule, especially once Romanisation got underway. In addition to the undeniable influence of tradition, ethnic background and the language spoken within the family, naming customs were influenced also by cultural, sociological and formal

Fig. 2. Funerary stone of C. Iulius Adietumarus (CIL III 10867, Photo Archive, AMZ).

and legal aspects, which did not necessarily have any relation to the linguistic aspect.29 Pannonian inscriptions in any case provide abundant example of families whose members had traditional names of Celtic and/or Illyrian origin, as well as Italic, that is, Latin names.30

Mócsy 1959, 74-75; Domić Kunić 2006, 77. Mócsy 1959, 75; Alföldy 1964, 254; Domić Kunić 2006, 78-79; Colombo (2010, 197-199) would rather consider them as a Celto-Illyrian population. 26 Mócsy 1959, 76; Alföldy 1964, 254-255; Domić Kunić 2006, 79. 27 Mócsy 1959, 76-77; Mócsy 1974, 114-115, 135; Domić Kunić 2006, 77. 28 Mócsy 1959, 78; Domić Kunić 2006, 77-78. 24

One should, therefore, avoid simplified interpretations defining individuals or entire territories in ethnic terms based only on personal names documented in the

25

29 30

140

Cf. Dondin-Payre 2011, 17-23. Cf. Meid 2005, 311-318; Colombo 2010, 197.

Ivan Radman-Livaja and Hana Ivezić: A Review of South-Pannonian Indigenous Anthroponymy

inscriptions. There is no contention that names are an important indicator in the attempts to ascertain ethnic origin, but onomastics, just like any other historical source, should be used with caution, taking into consideration as many factors as possible, without limiting oneself only to the linguistic aspect, as important as it may be. It is sufficient to merely glimpse the annex of this paper to see that the available epigraphic material for southern Pannonia is relatively scant. Even though some areas yielded a relatively large number of inscriptions (that is, the number of epigraphic records of local anthroponymy reaching two-digit figures), the best part of southern Pannonia, particularly its central part, is a true epigraphic wasteland. In order to be relevant, statistics, as the science of collecting and organising data and of the methods for analysing the results, depends on the sample, that is, the quantity of data. In this particular case, basing the analyses on one, two or three finds is a fairly fruitless task. Nevertheless, even with a limited number of finds as in this case we can at least try to approximately compare the local anthroponymy with the presumed ethnic picture of southern Pannonia during the Principate, naturally, with due caution and without any ambition to put forward absolute claims.31 Although the area south and southwest of Emona lay almost certainly outside the borders of Pannonia, it has been included in this paper for at least two reasons. In addition to the fact that until recently this area was mentioned in the literature as a part of Pannonia, for instance by Mócsy, a relatively large number of inscriptions relevant for the topic from Ig and the surrounding places are a useful indicator of the ethnic picture of that border area with Pannonia. In terms of onomastics, this is indisputably an area of fusion of Celtic and northern Adriatic influences. Katičić’s analysis leads to the conclusion about the indigenous character of northern Adriatic anthroponymy, but pointing also to a long-term Celtic influence. The south-western border of Pannonia might therefore represent also a linguistic, that is, ethnic border. All the relevant inscriptions from the territory of the Latobici contain generally indisputable (or, in a few cases, very probable) Celtic names. Twenty or so names do not make a particularly large sample, but it is nevertheless a solid indicator of the ethnic origin of the local population, if we accept the justified assumption that these are exclusively people of indigenous origin. The sample for the Varciani is significantly smaller (fig. 2). It is, however, necessary to stress that several inscriptions explicitly mention ethnic affiliation. In addition to the inscriptions from Podsused (CIL III 10867) and Ščitarjevo (CIL III 11463), which certain...