FRONTIER CULTURE AND POLITICS AT TIMGAD by Eumanera W. B. FENTRESS «Parce qu’a Bab-cl-Oued on s'appelle plus volon- tiers Gomez, Fernandez que Berger ou Duval, que Porigine espagnole ou maltaise ne remonte qu’a une génération ou deux, trois au plus, on y est plus Algérie francaise que partout ailleurs.» ‘Yves Courntin. While the Roman in Rome paid little attention to the frontier region of the empire unless important external threats developed, the Roman on the frontier had a close spiritual connection with the centre. On the frontier the outsider, the barbarian and un-Roman, was ever present. Barriers against the un-Roman could not be limited to the physical defenses of the limes: social ond psychological defenses were needed as well. What I hope to demonstrate is that although the frontier zones defended Rome, Rome and its culture acted as a powerful psychological weapon on the frontiers. If for-the metropolitan his Romanness was something he could take for granted, for the frontiersman it was a vital psychological support, something thet, distinguished him from the barbarians and provided ‘a sense of security and rectitude. It is not surprising, therefore, Unat the frontiersman appears in some ways more Roman than the Roman. Membership in a society is as much a question of autodefinition as of acceptanice by the society. The modalities of that definition are, of course, determined by the cultural forms of the society. Under conditions of stress—on the edges of a particular society or in the presence of a direct threat—one could expect that the forms would be emphasised to fa greater dogree, creating sharp distinction between one group and another, rather than (1) 1am very gratetul to James Fentress, Nicholas Horsfoll and Chris Wickham for their help with ‘this paper. A similar stress on the frontiers of a society in terms of cultural definition is shown by ©. Brackatons, M, Buattawarre and I. Hopper in “Social and Cultural Patterning in the Late Iron age in Southern England”, Space, Hierarchy and Society, Birnham and Kingsbury ed., 1978, 93-113. Bulletin archéologique du €.T-H.S., nowv. sér., fasc. 17 B, p. 399-408, Paris, 1985.400 ELIZABETH W. B. FENTRESS a gradual tailing—off between them. Emphasis on its relationship to the centre thus increases the cultural strength of the periphery. Similarly, close and formalized association between those most closely associated with the centre will tend to magnify the symbolic value of that relationship, What, cultural traits best distinguished a Roman from a barbarian? First, he was literate—at least, at a minimal level. Literacy was one of the steps from barbary, a necessary preliminary to advancement in military service or participation in civil life Our evidence of the literacy of any roman population is largely based on its epigraphic record. Beyond the explicit information recorded on a stone there is an implicit statement that the stone was commissioned by a man who spoke Latin, and who accepted the epi- graphic form. Now, if inscription on stone was a normal mode of expression throughout the Roman world, at Timgad and Lambaesis it reached epigraphomenia. Granted that the presence of legionary stonecutters helped to inflate this process, over 2,500 inscriptions represent a deliberate choice on the part of those who commissioned them’. This choice, however, was not made by everyone with enough money to pay a stone-mason. The inseribers were members of specific classes—the local aristocracy, the municipal bourgeoisie, the army and its veterans. This, may perhaps be illustrated by the case of the stele to Saturn, As P. A. Février has shown, of 134 stele found at Timgad only 4 are inscribed, while at Lambaesis the figure is 9 out of 120, ‘The association of this cult. with the less romanised sections of the population is well-known®. ‘The form of its expression is equally un-Roman. If an inscription in Latin signifies a specific social connection to Rome and its civilization, a lack of this connection is signified by silence. At the higher levels of the population the value of the sign is increased. It is no longer sufficient to produce rustic imitations of metropolitan signs: one must be able to employ the metropolitan system of signs with grace and fluency. A group of aristocrats at Timgad who flourished during the first quarter of the third century illustrate this point. It seems safe to assume that they formed part of a closely-knit circle. Intermarriage was common between the major families®, and the inscriptions with which they colebrate them- selves and each other show close epigraphic and stylistic similarities. ‘The use of nick- names on commemorative inscriptions advertises their intimacy’. (2) RW. Davins, “Joining the Roman Army”, 8.J., 168, 1969, 208-282, p. 226. and Vecerus, Epit. 11, 19. (3) On the influence of army stone-culters see Mocsy, Geselischaf! und Romanisation in der romisches Provinz Mocsia Superior, Amsterdam, 1970, 166 f. (4) P. A. Pivmunn, “Religion et domination dans l'Afrique romaine”, Dialogues d'Histoire Ancienne, 1, 1976, 305-396 p. 319. (5) M. Lzo.ay, Salurne Africain, Histoire, Paris 1966, 401. (6) H. Pavis p'Escunac, “Flaminal et société dans la colonie de Timgad”, Antiguités Africaines, 15, 1880, 188-200, p. 191. On the relationship between M. Pompeius Quintianus, signo Optantins, and M. Plotius Faustus, signo Sertius and his wile, qualified on the twin inscriptions which he dedicated to ‘them as ‘parentes' (A.E., 1909, 156), one may nole that B.C.T.H., 1804, 216, n. 44, links @ Pompeie Fortuna to a Q. Plotius Victor. Rather than postulate adoption, either legal or affective, one may suggest they (7) Almost all of the inseriptions erected to or by M. PloUjus Faustos and his wife carry thelr signa, Serlius and Sertia (8.2394, 8.2395, 8.2396, 8.2897=D. 2752, 82398, 8.2399—D. 2753, 8.17904=D. 2751,FRONTIER CULTURE AND POLITICS AT TIMGAD 401 The group appears to have enjoyed the fruits of the Severan boom in Africa. Timgad was by then over one hundred years old. One might guess that the fortunes of the members of its aristocracy were based on the gradual collapse of an originally relatively egalitarian division of land around the colonia®, associated with a carefully managed specul- ation in urban property. A good example of such speculation is the contemporary development along the line of the town’s west wall, discussed by Lassus?. Here the original wall was pulled down and a row of small houses built in its place. The fact that the grand house of M. Plotius Faustus, or Sertius, takes pride of place in the southwest corner of this development suggests that he profited from it. Indeed, the development of the area west of the Trajanic boundary is one of the forms which the aristocracy’s benefactions take. The triumphal arch at the west gate, the market in front of it, and the capitoline temple were all built at this time, the latter two by Sertius and his wife’. In the northwest corner of the city the magnificent baths of the Philadelphi were constructed. Their name derives from the motto on the mosaic of the caldarium, ‘Fila- deifis Vita’, Ballu translated this as ‘Vivent les Filadelfes!’, and suggested that the baths and annexed structures belonged to a society or corporation of that name. But who were the Philadelphi? Perhaps their name gives some clue. A society founded on the ideal of brotherly love could well be an association devoted to philanthropy—that is, in this case, donating prestigious monuments. Only the richer inhabitants of the town could afford to describe themselves as ‘Philadelphi’. Indeed, the only individual! directly 8.17905=D. 2751). M. Pompeius Pudentianus and his son share the signum Optantius (A.F., 1946, 66) while the wife of Pudentianus is called Thuraci (A.E., 1946, 65). Other signa on inscriptions from the first half of the third century include Antacius, Panacrius (8.2393) Vocontius (8.2391 =8.17910=D. 2937; 8.17912) Potamius (8.2400=8.17911, 8.17912), Valubi (A.Z., 1909, 156) and Eucarpio (8.2405). To this list might be added the M. Virrius Flavius Iugurtha (8.2409 =8.17909), father of Valubi, whose second cognomen has all the air of a signum. Of these, all hold equestrian or senatorial rank or are related to those who do, with the exception of Eucarpio who is patron of a curia. The correspondence between between these inscriptions and the use of uncial script is striking. (8) For the size of these land-grants see E. FENTREsS, Numidia and the Roman Army, Oxford, 1979, p. 177. In view of the apparent inequality in the urban housing, with officers receiving more comfortable accomodation (p. 126) I now think that the original land division was equally weighted according to rank. (9) J. Lassus, ‘‘Une opération immobiliere & Timgad”, Afélanges Piganiol, éd. R. Chevalier, Paris. 1966, 1221-1231. (10) On the dating of the arch see C. Courtoris, Timgad, anlique Thamugadi, 1951, p. 86 (with previous bibliography); A. Lezing, “Note sur arc dit de Trajan a Timgad”’, B.A.A., 2, 1966-1967, 112-118 (mid-second century); J. Lassus, op. cil., note 9, p. 1230 (Severan, contemporary with the market of Sertius); J. Warp Perkins in Boethius and WARD PERKINS, Etruscan and Roman Architecture, 1970, p. 482 (late second century). On the market of Sertius, Lassus, op. cit., p. 122; BALLu, Les ruines de Timgad, 1897, 210-221. On the Capitolium, Batu, ibid., p. 189-208 ; H. Pavis p’Escurac, op. cil., note 6, p. 198- 199; Warp Perkins, op. cit., p. 481, describes it as ‘an almost aggressively Roman building, so Roman: in fact that one suspects it of copying some well-known monument in one of the coastal cities, perhaps even the lost Capitolium of Carthage’. Similarly, the third century North Baths were ‘‘patently derived from the great public bath-buildings of Rome” (p. 483). (11) A. BavLu, Les ruines de Timgad, sept années de découverte, 1903-1910, 1911, p. 101-109 ; C. Cour- Tos, op. cil., note 10, p. 87; S. Genmain, Les Mosaiques de Timgad, Paris, 1969, p. 74-86,