Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities  

Go Back   Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities > Miscellaneous > Archeology
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Sidebar Off

Archeology All aspects of archeology, including moral, ethical, and legal considerations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 22, 2008, 01:15 AM   #31
SCorcoran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2
View My Photo Gallery
Brigetio Translations

If anyone is still looking for English translations of the Brigetio Tablet in print, I know of at least three. There is one in Coleman-Norston et al., Ancient Roman Statutes (Austin 1961) and another in volume 2 of Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization. The most recent is, I think, Campbell's in his "The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook" (Routledge, 1994). Given the number of late antique source-books now available, there may well be more!
yours, Simon.
SCorcoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2008, 10:58 AM   #32
vozmozhno
Registered User
 
vozmozhno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 375
   View My Photo Gallery
Thanks for the references, I'll track them down and have a look.

BTW, if you have an opinion regarding T.D. Barnes' computations of Tribunicia Potestas and Imperatorial acclamations I'd love to hear it (especially his proposed augments--New Empire pp. 25-27 & Tables 2-3, pp. 252-253).

Voz
vozmozhno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2008, 04:40 AM   #33
SCorcoran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2
View My Photo Gallery
Trib pot and Imp

I think that Barnes's rules for imperial titles are broadly correct. Some new evidence has come to light with the publication of the Heraclea Sintica letter of Galerius (AE 2002.1293), discussed by Lepelley in ZPE 146 (2004) 221-31, and by myself in Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 49 (2006) 231-40. I gather that a major new study of tetrarchic titulature is due to be published by Alexandra Stefan in Antiquite Tardive 16 (2008) [it was due in vol. 15 (2007) but has been postponed].

Two things seem quite clear.
1] there is (usually) an additional renewal of trib pot when a Caesar becomes Augustus. However, I think Barnes is wrong to suggest also an additional renewal of imp, which is certainly not the case for Galerius as he suggests (even if this does appear so for Constantine).
2] Constantius and Galerius initially calculated their imperatorial iterations from 1 May 305, with Galerius retrospectively back-dating to 1 March 293 either at the time of the Carnuntum conference in Nov 308 or in May(?) 310 (once all the tetrarchs had become Augusti).

As far as the Brigetio tablet is concerned, the titles of Licinius are entirely regular and are what one would expect in June 311, and they match the heading of Galerius’s palinode of April 311 as recorded in Eusebius.

For Constantine it is more difficult. We can certainly suggest an additional trib pot when he became Augustus (from the point of view of the east) in 310, but he was clearly only imp 5 in April 311 (so the heading to Galerius’s palinode in Eusebius, which unfortunately omits the trib pot number). Constantine therefore should be trib pot 7, imp 5 in June 311, but trib pot 7 imp 6 from 25 July – 9 Dec 311. However, the Brigetio titles are retrospective (added after Maximinus's overthrow), and will reflect either Licinius's view of Constantine's titles (if added before 316), or Constantine’s own view (from 316). Thus either those who created this titulature were working from, say, the date of posting of the document (ie after 25 July 311) or made some other error. Or, if we suppose that Constantine took an extra imp when made senior Augustus by the Senate in late 312, this was retrojected to how it would have appeared if already applied in June 311.

This last explanation, the additional imp in late 312, is the best explanation I think. Clearly, since Caesars did not bear the title imp, to suggest (as Barnes) an extra iteration when they become Augustus is nonsense. It is clear that even the retrospective calculation of imp from an original proclamation as Caesar is itself a late feature of the tetrarchic system as it finally breaks down. Thus it is better to see Constantine’s additional imps as peculiar to him, and so attributable to the Senate vote.


Simon
SCorcoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2002-2006, VHobbies.com, LLC. All rights reserved.