Introduction: identity and personhood in the Roman world

Recent studies of Roman society and culture have emphasized the extent to which mortuary customs provided an arena for the expression, creation, maintenance and negotiation of identities. The identities under discussion commonly centre on ‘accessible’ and quantifiable issues of social or legal status (citizen/non-citizen, slave, freeborn, freed), wealth, gender, ethnicity and, occasionally, age (for example Carroll Reference Carroll2006; D'Ambra Reference D'Ambra and Højte2002; George Reference George and George2005; Hope Reference Hope, Laurence and Berry1998; Reference Hope, Hope and Marshall2000a; Reference Hope and Oliver2000b; Reference Hope2001; Mustakallio Reference Mustakallio, Mustakallio, Hanska, Sainio and Vuolanto2005). Social and legal forces were capable of altering an individual's status, and the setting in stone of certain information about that individual, through the medium of a funerary monument, is often perceived as an attempt to fix their identity. The apparent strong desire to do this implies a need to turn something that could be contested into something permanent, whether this was a reflection of how that identity was actually experienced during life, or an attempt to negotiate and promote a particular identity for that individual in death (see, for example, Hope Reference Hope, Laurence and Berry1998). One of the roles of a funerary monument, in this cultural context, was therefore to transform something that was complex, changeable and multifaceted into something tangible, recognizable and specific. They advocated a limited, unambiguous part of the multiple and ever-changing identities held by a single individual, and communicated this to a wider audience through the medium of text and image. Funerary monuments can, therefore, mask the fact that a person living in the Roman world might possess multiple, competing senses of personhood at different points in their life, in addition to hiding the way in which these were formed. Attempting to understand these different senses of personhood can aid our comprehension of the ways in which some identities continued to be reworked after death through the processes of memorialization, whilst others were rejected or forgotten.

Concepts of the bounded and autonomous individual, the product of post-Enlightenment thought concerning the body, have been rejected recently in favour of persons who are rarely fixed or static but ‘dividual’ or ‘multiply-authored’ (Chapman Reference Chapman2000; Fowler Reference Fowler2001; Reference Fowler2004; Kirk Reference Kirk2006). According to Fowler (Reference Fowler2004, 8–9) ‘dividual’ persons ‘owe parts of themselves to others’, and may be partible (reconfigurable through the extraction or receiving of objects or substances), or permeable (permeated by qualities which alter the composition of their own substance). Ethnographic studies highlight the multiple ways in which personhood can be constructed, and emphasize the dividual nature of the resulting persons by stressing how they are derived from active relationships, practices and experiences (Battaglia Reference Battaglia1990; Busby Reference Busby1997; LiPuma Reference LiPuma, Lambek and Strathern1998; Strathern Reference Strathern1988). Kirk (Reference Kirk2006, 334) comments that, because personhood is reliant on relationality, it ‘forms, transforms and is transformed, according to the relational matrices in which people are situated, out of the relationality or interanimation of people and materiality’. It is therefore not fixed, static or bounded but socially contextual in its configuration, and takes place through what Kirk describes as ‘interanimation’ (the mutual exchange of attributes or qualities).

The implications for the individuality and dividuality of specific persons within the prehistoric societies that have formed the focus of many studies of ancient personhood are difficult to approach. However, the range and diverse nature of evidence available for the inhabitants of the Roman world provides a context in which to examine the extent to which different degrees of dividuality may have been experienced, in addition to the ways in which this was connected to other social and political factors. For example, the contexts in which these relationships may have been played out will have been very different for freeborn citizens and slaves, or for senators and freedmen. Equally, degrees of dividuality may have altered in relation to age, gender, ethnicity and perhaps even a person's location in the empire (provincial or Italic). A wealth of archaeological, textual and epigraphic information concerning the projected identities of these people means that the Roman world provides an ideal setting in which to investigate differing degrees of dividuality and their manifestation. The transformative effects in the Roman period of funerary activities as rites of passage, particularly those associated with cremation, have been recognized and discussed from a variety of perspectives (for example, Lindsay Reference Lindsay, Hope and Marshall2000; McKinley Reference McKinley, Pearce, Millett and Struck2000; Mustakallio Reference Mustakallio, Mustakallio, Hanska, Sainio and Vuolanto2005; Williams Reference Williams2004). Placing these interpretations in the context of personhood allows for a consideration of how these transformations impacted upon the changing, multiple identities of both the living and the dead. Considering identity in classical antiquity through the lens of personhood may allow for a more nuanced understanding of how identities were created, modified and selected for permanent memorialization, through the course of a person's lifetime and especially after their death.

Personhood, death and the body

Personhood is attained and maintained through active relationality, and although death brings about a dramatic and powerful change to this balance, mortuary rites function to resolve this situation by removing the dead from their previous position within society and reintegrating both living and dead into a changed world. As long as people remain alive whose sense of self depends upon ongoing encounters and interactions with a person who is dead, the dividuality of both can continue to be actively constituted and maintained. As a result, personhood continues to be adjusted, negotiated and even contested after death when, in some cases, it may assume an even greater importance, by being emphasized in the course of memorializing activities. As Fowler has stressed, rites ‘associated with the dead may not be aimed at removing them from society, as we might expect, but at reintegrating them into society as different kinds of entities, different orders of person’ (2004, 81; original emphasis). The funerary rites and monuments of the Roman world sought to prolong this reciprocal relationship between the living and the dead, on a spiritual level (through the regular pouring of libations and appeasing of the spirits of the dead) and, more directly and explicitly, through the treatment of the corpse and subsequent interactions with it.

Recent archaeological studies have demonstrated that treatment of the dead can be important for the realignment of personhood after death. For the mortuary record of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, this has been used to highlight the relationship between the treatment of the body and ancestral rites and monuments (for example Brück Reference Brück2001; Reference Brück2004; Fowler Reference Fowler2004; Thomas Reference Thomas2000). These have stressed how body parts or bones acted as metaphors for the dividual nature of the person, and were central to the affirmation of the identities, and in some instances power, of the living. Similar approaches concerning the re-creation of a new ‘body’ for the deceased, using objects with metaphorical connections to the maintenance of the person, have been employed by Williams (Reference Williams2003), who has suggested that combs within Anglo-Saxon cremation burials acted as an extension of the body and were used as a metaphor for the transformation of the deceased and the realignment of the personhood of both the living and the dead. Significantly, Williams (ibid., 126) draws attention to the role of remembrance, noting that elements of the identity or personhood of the deceased could be selectively remembered or forgotten in order to influence the way in which they were remembered.

The body and memory in explorations of personhood

Some studies (Battaglia Reference Battaglia1990; Jones Reference Jones2005; Reference Jones2007; Williams Reference Williams2003; Reference Williams2004) have begun to explore the link between personhood and memory. Selective promotion and discounting of aspects of the identity of the deceased, or the process of remembering and forgetting through ritual activities and performances (‘technologies of remembrance’: Jones Reference Jones2005; Williams Reference Williams2003), allow the living to realign their own sense of self and consequently that of the deceased. It should not, however, be thought that the living exert absolute control over this process, since the dead are still capable of participating. This is made possible in three ways: through the cultural and religious obligations placed upon the living to provide the dead with appropriate treatment, disposal and religious rites, and thus to be involved in a relationship of dependence with them; through the agency and physicality of the corpse which presences the dead in the world of the living and makes it necessary for the living to interact with them during the disposal process (Graham Reference Graham, Hope and Huskinson2009b; Nilsson-Stutz Reference Nilsson-Stutz2003; Williams Reference Williams2004); and through the power of memory.

The concept of ‘social memory’ has provoked much debate (see, for example, Connerton Reference Connerton, Tilley, Keane, Küchler, Rowlands and Spyer2006; Van Dyke and Alcock Reference Van Dyke, Alcock, Van Dyke and Alcock2003; Fentress and Wickham Reference Fentress and Wickham1992), and psychological studies suggest that memory is associated with the individual (or person), from whom it cannot be separated (Cubitt Reference Cubitt2007; Devlin Reference Devlin2007). Nevertheless, it is also a response to a particular sociocultural context and ‘the specific aspects of group culture directly stimulate the response of individuals within that group, with group interests providing a framework by which individuals construct their memories’ (Devlin Reference Devlin2007, 3). Memory, like personhood, is therefore relational in nature. In many ways it is dependent upon experiences and encounters with other people, objects, animals, places and performances, in addition to being contextual in terms of creation and expression (verbal or material). Cubitt (Reference Cubitt2007, 14–16) points out that social memory should not be seen as a product, but as a process that draws upon the individual memories of a social group and invests people with a ‘sense of a past that extends beyond what they themselves personally remember’. In this respect it can contribute towards a sense of communal identity.

Within this definition of social memory we can begin to perceive links between memory and personhood, in that they are both related to practice. Identity is reliant upon both of these processes, which, rather than working against each other, combine to negotiate, construct and maintain the identity of a person in a particular sociocultural context. The relationships that construct persons and memory are often played out in the physical world through the creation or manipulation of material culture, particularly in monumental settings which foreground these relationships and act as focal points for performance (Fowler Reference Fowler2001). Memory and personhood are, then, both caught up in the same cycle of actions, relationships and performances involving people, objects and places. Both processes come to the fore within the mortuary context, where the physical body of the deceased provides a material metaphor around which processes of identity manipulation, dividuality and monumentalization revolve. The reciprocity of personhood and memory consequently has significant implications because if, through the funerary process, a new person emerges, questions must be asked concerning exactly which dead person is remembered and celebrated in subsequent commemorative activities. The wealth of evidence that we possess for funerary rites and remembrance activities of the Roman period offers the potential to explore a context in which all three aspects (body, person and memory) operated.

The ‘dividual’ Roman body: the example of os resectum

Despite a suggestion that Romans ‘had a ritual-free attitude to cremation, seeing it as an excuse to put on a good show whilst rendering inert a corpse which would otherwise putrefy’ (McKinley Reference McKinley, Gowland and Knüsel2006, 86), funerals in the Roman period seem to have involved a complex series of rituals concerning the body, soul and memory of the deceased. Inevitably our knowledge of these rites is derived from an amalgamation of written sources spanning several centuries, and to speak of a typical ‘Roman’ funeral is largely impossible. The separate mortuary activities recorded in the sources no doubt varied in significance and relevance at different times and in different social or political contexts. It is unlikely, for example, that the very poor observed the sometimes lengthy period of lying-in-state and many of the more expensive rites (see Graham Reference Graham2006). Those rites that were performed took place during the period of mourning (funesta) during which the family and friends of the deceased, as well as the corpse, occupied a polluted (and polluting) liminal zone outside the norms of society. A custom closely connected with this period of mourning, known as os resectum (translated as ‘cut bone’), provides us with an insight into the interaction of personhood, memory and the body in ancient Roman funerary practice.

Os resectum is known predominantly from written sources of the late republic and early imperial period. Festus (135.17L), drawing on earlier works, remarks that, in order to observe the obsequies after the cremation, a digit must be cut from the corpse and set aside; Cicero (de Leg. II. xxii. 55), in his discussion of the end of mourning, comments that the severed bone (os resectum) should be buried in the earth; whilst Varro (De Lingua Latina 5.23) states that ‘if a bone of the dead man has been kept out for the ceremony of purifying the household, the household remains in mourning’ until it is buried. Compared with other funerary rites, such as the offering of libations and funerary banquets, material evidence for os resectum is relatively scarce. This might indicate that it was practised only rarely, or by certain minority groups at particular times. However, it can also be argued that a lack of knowledge concerning the way in which it might manifest itself within cremation assemblages, many of which were excavated before the development of modern osteological techniques, has rendered the rite archaeologically invisible (Graham, Chamberlain and Sulosky, in prep.). Several of the known examples derive from unusual contexts or are distinctive in their manner of deposition, effectively making them easier to recognize than those that were simply deposited with the other cremated remains.

The most notable examples came to light in the vineyard of San Cesareo at Rome in 1732. Antiquarian explorations of this site on the Via Appia uncovered approximately three hundred small single-handled coarse ware vessels of the second or first century B.C., each bearing an individual name and a specific date (for example, 1 June: CIL VI² 8212; see CIL VI² 8211–397; Bruni Reference Bruni, Regina, Morandi and Bruni1997; Graham Reference Graham, Carroll and Rempel2009a; Montalto Trentori Reference Montalto Trentori1937–38). Each vessel contained one or two fragments of burnt human bone, which were immediately linked with os resectum (Baldini 1738, 151, cited in CIL VI² 1103). Examples from the early imperial period have been identified elsewhere, including in the columbarium of Pomponius Hylas at Rome (Campana Reference Campana1852), and at Ostia (Carbonara, Pellegrino and Zaccagnini 2001) and Herculaneum (Grévin Reference Grévin1997; Pappalardo Reference Pappalardo1997). Instances have also been found in a mid-republican context at Pithekoussai (Becker Reference Becker and Christie1995). Outside Italy a possible example dated to the second century A.D. has recently been identified at Lincoln (Graham, Chamberlain and Sulosky, in prep.) and probable, although unusual, examples have been recognized for Gaul in the imperial period (Bulletin du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques (Section d'Archéologie), 1884, 166–67; Simon-Hiernard Reference Simon-Hiernard and Février1987). Taken together with the written sources, it would appear that os resectum was practised most commonly from the mid-republic to the early imperial period, becoming less important during the course of the first century A.D., during which it may have perhaps been adopted in the provinces, although the difficulty inherent in identifying the rite in the archaeological record may unfortunately have distorted this picture.

Interpretations of os resectum have emphasized its importance as a means of providing proper burial in instances where cremation was considered insufficient to satisfy the demand for earth to cover the body (iniectio glebae), or as a means of honouring people who were buried in foreign lands (usually interpreted as soldiers: Becker Reference Becker, Christiansen and Melander1988; Messineo Reference Messineo1995; Reference Messineo and Pellegrino1999; Reference Messineo, Heinzelmann, Ortalli, Fasold and Witteyer2001; Rohde Reference Rohde1942). Neither interpretation is entirely satisfactory, or fully supported by the archaeological evidence. If it was as common as the first interpretation implies, then it should be far more archaeologically visible; the use of local pottery vessels at San Cesareo, the lowly status of the people associated with them and the presence of women's names all shed serious doubt on the latter. Instead, consideration of the comments of Festus and Varro on purification and the end of mourning suggests that the bone played a direct role in purifying the family and ensuring that order was restored to a world disrupted by death (Graham Reference Graham, Carroll and Rempel2009a). Although the family of the deceased were rendered spiritually polluted by death, this was removed at the end of the mourning period through the performance of lustration ceremonies on the novemdialis (ninth day after burial), including the suffitio (Paulus Festus, 3.1L; Varro De Lingua Latina 5.61; Lindsay Reference Lindsay, Hope and Marshall2000). The suffitio involved purification with fire and water, and was probably very similar to other cleansing ceremonies, such as those of the Parilia (an agricultural lustration festival held in April), during which people were required to leap over fire and be sprinkled with water shaken from a laurel branch (Ovid Fasti 4.735 ff). Varro's reference to the involvement of the severed bone in the purification at the end of the funesta implies that os resectum should be understood specifically in the context of these lustrations. It would therefore appear that the os resectum was removed from the corpse prior to cremation (perhaps during the initial preparation of the body), kept during the mourning period, when it acted as a metaphor for the dividual body and person of the deceased, and then cleansed alongside the mourners during the suffitio and finally buried (Graham Reference Graham, Carroll and Rempel2009a).

The funeral period could last several days or weeks, given a period of lying-in-state and a further nine days between cremation and the novemdialis, during which the os resectum (still a fleshed part of the body) will have begun to decay visibly (Nilsson-Stutz Reference Nilsson-Stutz2003; Graham Reference Graham, Hope and Huskinson2009b). Consequently, it may have acted as a metaphor for the dissolution of the social body of the dead and the transformations that all of the participants experienced. As an active participant in the mortuary process this final representative element of the body also required purification before the liminal period could end. It too must come into contact with the cleansing elements of fire and water and was probably placed directly within the fire which cleansed the living.Footnote ¹ The material body of the deceased was thus purified, along with that of the mourners, signalling that their physical and metaphysical transformations were complete and the period of marginality could cease (Graham Reference Graham, Carroll and Rempel2009a).

Total incineration of the os resectum was unnecessary, as demonstrated by the differential exposure to heat exhibited by the phalanges of a single finger in a cremation burial from Lincoln (Graham, Chamberlain and Sulosky, in prep.). These bones display evidence for exposure to lower temperatures than the other remains within the burial, and it may be the case that many more like this lie undiscovered in cremation assemblages across the empire. The os resectum consequently underwent a visible transformation in its physical form, embodying the changing status of all the participants. This transformation, which may only have involved the disintegration of the flesh and the charring of the bone, can be viewed as a metaphor for the creation of a new ‘social body’ (Hertz Reference Hertz, Needham and Needham1960; Williams Reference Williams2003) and presenced the deceased at the heart of the transformation. The relationship of the deceased with the community of the living had been dissolved and rebuilt during the funesta, thus breaking down the personhood both of the dead and of the living. The rituals and restrictions of the funerary period allowed the new social persona of both parties to be created anew, and new relationships were created based on mutual dependency (the dead would not terrorize the living if regularly honoured) and memory. The os resectum stood as a tangible and powerfully emotive metaphor for these changes and the dividual nature of personhood, by connecting these different bodies and articulating the relationship between them.

Case study: creating a civic ancestor for Herculaneum

The example of os resectum provides an insight into the significance of the body (or parts of it) within funerary customs of the Roman period, but the purification and subsequent interment of the severed and transformed bone did not mark the cessation of the process. An example from Herculaneum allows us to explore how the os resectum continued to play a role in the negotiation and maintenance of personhood in the context of ongoing commemorative activities.

Marcus Nonius Balbus, a Roman senator, was a major figure of the community at Herculaneum during the Augustan period (De Kind Reference De Kind1998; Pappalardo Reference Pappalardo1997). Despite being born at Nuceria (also in Campania), and serving as tribune of the plebs in 32 B.C. and praetor and proconsul of Crete and Cyrene, he appears to have made his home at Herculaneum. Balbus devoted a considerable amount of time and money to the town and its citizens, who, as a sign of gratitude, honoured him with the title patronus. Excavations in the buried town of Herculaneum have revealed an extraordinary amount of material relating directly to Nonius Balbus, including evidence for at least ten statues, three of which took of the form of equestrian figures erected in the forum by different communities (Nuceria: CIL X 1429; Crete: CIL X 1430; Herculaneum: CIL X 1426). Another inscription (CIL X 1425) records that he was responsible for the construction or restoration of the basilica, a city gate and the town walls. The most striking monument associated with Nonius Balbus is an altar that still stands outside the Suburban Baths overlooking the ancient seafront (figure 1). An inscription on the altar (AE 1976, 144) records a decree of the town council detailing posthumous honours accorded to Balbus (figure 2). According to the inscription, Balbus had been a most generous benefactor to the inhabitants of the town and, consequently, the council felt it appropriate to honour him in the following ways:

1. 1. An equestrian statue was to be placed in a place of considerable importance (the forum) which bore the inscription ‘To M. Nonius Balbus, son of Marcus, of the voting tribe Menenia, praetor with proconsular power, patron, the entire council of the people of Herculaneum [set it up] on account of his merits’;

2. 2. a marble altar bearing the inscription ‘To M. Nonius Balbus, son of Marcus’ was to be placed at the site where his ashes were buried;

3. 3. on the occasion of the annual Parentalia festival a procession would begin from this place (where his ashes were buried);

4. 4. one day of the annual gymnastic games would be celebrated in his honour; and

5. 5. his seat in the theatre would continue to be reserved.Footnote ²

All of these honours were exceptional, even more so when we consider that they would have taken place in addition to the traditional monument, epitaph and honours arranged by his family and descendants. Behind the altar stood a statue of Balbus dedicated by the freedman M. Nonius M. l. Volusianus (Guadagno Reference Guadagno1978, 153–54 n. 55; Zevi Reference Zevi1981, 337) (figure 3). The statue, which was damaged by the Vesuvian eruption of A.D. 79 and has only recently been restored, shows Nonius Balbus clad in military dress. Unlike other statues, which depict him as a mature togate senator in his sixties, he is shown in the prime of his life, aged approximately 35 (Pappalardo Reference Pappalardo1997; Tanner Reference Tanner2000). The altar is located in an open piazza by the main coastal entrance to the town, where a large number of the local community could gather together in order to honour and remember their patron, and through which visitors to the town would (and still do) pass.

Figure 1 The altar dedicated to M. Nonius Balbus on the ancient seafront at Herculaneum (courtesy of Ethan Tucker).

Figure 2 Inscription on the altar outlining posthumous honours awarded to M. Nonius Balbus (courtesy of Ethan Tucker).

Figure 3 Statue of M. Nonius Balbus erected by the freedman Volusianus (courtesy of Andy Hay).

The altar, which survived the eruption in situ, was discovered in 1942 and assumed to represent the burial place of Nonius Balbus. Subsequent studies proposed that it was merely a commemorative monument (Frischer Reference Frischer1982–83), or perhaps marked the site of his pyre (Pagano Reference Pagano1996; Schumacher Reference Schumacher1976; see also Davies Reference Davies2000 for monumental imperial ustrinae at Rome). It is unlikely that an ustrinum (pyre site) was built here since, although it lies outside the town walls (intramural burial was forbidden by the laws of the Twelve Tables), it remains extremely close to the town, within the city's sacred boundary (the pomerium), and sits on an artificial platform. This may, however, have been the site of a symbolic cremation. Such acts are known to have occurred at Rome, where individuals inheriting the right of public burial within the city limits declined the honour but were borne into the city and held briefly above a lit torch as a symbol of it (Plutarch, Publicola XXIII; Roman Questions 79). It would not be surprising if such an honour was bestowed upon Nonius Balbus, and would have endowed the location with an exceptional symbolic resonance that may have been memorialized by the altar.

Excavation of the interior of the altar in 1985 revealed a terracotta urn sunk into the ground at its centre (figure 4). Upon examination this was found not to contain the expected cremation burial but a layer of carbon and sand, sandwiched between two layers of compact ashes, which were interpreted as the remains of a pyre (Pappalardo Reference Pappalardo1997, 424; Grévin Reference Grévin1997, 432; for burial of pyre debris see McKinley Reference McKinley1997). Despite sieving, not a single fragment of cremated bone was found; the only piece of bone discovered was a human phalanx (finger bone) that had been placed in the middle layer and which is considered to be the os resectum of M. Nonius Balbus (Grévin Reference Grévin1997, 432). The different composition of the deposits within the urn has never prompted comment, but the carefully structured layers deserve attention given that the os resectum was placed, seemingly on purpose, in the noticeably different middle deposit. Given its composition and quantity, this deposit may represent the remains of the much smaller suffitio fire in which the severed bone was cleansed. The altar, therefore, stood as a permanent memorial to the transformation that Nonius Balbus had undergone during the mortuary process, and was invested with a particular resonance because of the presence of the os resectum and the remains of the transforming fire of the suffitio at its heart. These elements presenced the new personhood of Balbus at this particular site.

Figure 4 Section through the altar showing terracotta urn containing pyre debris and the os resectum of M. Nonius Balbus.

Posthumous honours bestowed upon prominent members of Roman society were not unusual,Footnote ³ but in Nonius Balbus we are fortunate to possess an unprecedented range of information concerning the activities of a single man during his lifetime, the treatment of his corpse and the commemorative rites and honours performed after his death. This offers an unparalleled opportunity to explore the interaction between body, person and memory in a known and definable context (the town and community of Herculaneum during the Augustan period). In particular, it allows for the proposal that, throughout the extended funeral, the personhood of Nonius Balbus, and members of the community of Herculaneum, were realigned in order to take account of the fact that this socially and politically influential town patron was no longer a living, active participant in the relationships that had been enacted between them. At the same time, the memories of the community may have been drawn upon in order to ensure that a specific persona of Nonius Balbus was maintained and promoted, with all of these transformations being embodied by the os resectum. Consequently, he might have become a powerful civic ancestor who continued to have a significant presence as a social being within the urban community, with his dividuality being exhibited in the built environment of the town. In order to understand how this might have been brought about we can examine the posthumous honours bestowed upon him and recorded by the altar inscription.

The Parentalia (13–21 February) was the annual festival of the dead, during which families returned to the grave for feasting and offerings. The final day (feralia) was reserved for public commemoration. During this festival, probably on the feralia, a procession was to start at the place where the ashes of Nonius Balbus were buried and marked by an inscribed altar. This has commonly been interpreted as the extant altar, but since this bears a different inscription to that decreed by the council, and clearly does not contain his cremated remains, it probably refers to another altar erected in the necropolis, perhaps within his family tomb. The location of this structure remains unknown, although a columbarium containing the remains of members of the Nonii household was located on the south-east edge of the town in 1750 (Barker Reference Barker1908, 106–7; CIL X 1473–75). It is unlikely that the senator was laid to rest here but the columbarium may have been built on a family plot containing Nonius Balbus’ own sepulchre. Even if this were not the case, the topography of Herculaneum makes it likely that his tomb lay somewhere on the opposite side of the city to the existing altar; there was no space for a necropolis along the coast and Roman urban cemeteries commonly clustered along the major roads into towns. The most prestigious location was probably to the north-west of the town, along the road that linked Herculaneum with Rome, and it is likely to have been here that his tomb was built. If the procession began in the necropolis, usually the destination for activities during festivals of the dead, where did it go? The most obvious and logical destination is the altar on the seafront, since this would have made an explicit link between the separated physical remains of Balbus. This gave the procession an internal logic but, as the procession moved from the place that commemorated the identity and status he had held in life (the tomb) to the site that embodied the new communal ancestor who had emerged through the funerary process, it would also have drawn attention to the way in which his dividuality permeated the town and the identities of its inhabitants.

In order to reach the altar it was necessary for the procession to pass through the streets of the town itself – an urban landscape that Balbus had helped to shape, and which bore the material residues of his life and actions. As participants moved through the urban landscape they would have encountered constant material mnemonics of the life, generosity and importance of Nonius Balbus, some of which may have been singled out as the focus of particular attention. Passing into the town drew attention to the gate and walls for which he was responsible; the theatre contained his reserved seat; the forum contained honorary statues dedicated to him; the basilica, which he had renovated, contained further statues of himself and his family. The procession finally arrived at the altar containing the os resectum and representing the new personhood of Balbus that had emerged during the ritual activities of his funeral.

Training in Roman rhetoric and memory stressed the importance of (imagined) movement through physical environments (Edwards Reference Edwards1996), and Favro (Reference Favro1996) has demonstrated the significance of the urban environment of Augustan Rome for the creation of embedded collective memory. Noting that ‘Romans were predisposed to look for an underlying, coherent narrative in built environments’, she emphasizes the importance of ritual events, such as parades, which moved through urban spaces and ‘linked together disparate urban sites, embuing them with collective meaning’ (ibid., 7). The funeral of Julius Caesar provides an example of the way in which ‘the citizenry drew strength from urban places associated with the great man’ (ibid., 81). In a similar manner, placing individual aspects of the urban fabric and their associated memories of Nonius Balbus in the context of a communal act of remembrance may have acted, through the process of social memory, to create a communal sense of the past and the person at its centre. The procession, it can be argued, stressed the extent to which the dividuality of Nonius Balbus had permeated the urban fabric of the town and consequently the lives of the inhabitants, making explicit the relationship between them.Footnote ⁴

Figure 5 Proposed reconstruction of Herculaneum showing locations referred to in the text (after De Kind Reference De Kind1998).

Bender (Reference Bender, Tilley, Keane, Küchler, Rowlands and Spyer2006, 306) suggests that ‘by moving along familiar paths, winding memories and stories around places, people create a sense of self and belonging’, and the procession through Herculaneum might have operated in exactly this way. The space through which the participants moved was familiar and invested with memories of previous experiences that had contributed towards the construction of their sense of personhood. The procession could thus have played an influential part in the realignment of the personhood of Balbus, through the intentional evocation of memories within a structured narrative which gave these places, identities and memories meaning in a group context (Devlin Reference Devlin2007; Foot Reference Foot1999). Relationships with the dead town patron could be reworked in the context of these memories, and the new person of Balbus consequently constructed. This process did not necessarily end once the procession was over. Attention had been brought to these places, structures, objects and landscapes in a particular context of social memory and, as Mitchell (Reference Mitchell, Tilley, Keane, Küchler, Rowlands and Spyer2006, 394) notes, ‘the post-performance space retains the characteristics of the transformation’. As the people of Herculaneum went about their daily business subsequent to the procession, their understanding of, and relationship with, the landscape of the town is likely to have been influenced by memories of earlier encounters with the physical manifestations of Balbus, including those before, during and after the procession. As a result, the procession, and later memories of the event, can be seen as a method of ensuring that the personhood of Balbus remained relationally maintained.

In this respect, the procession can be considered as an act of remembering and forgetting, bringing certain qualities of the personhood of Balbus to the fore, and perhaps selectively ‘forgetting’ those that were deemed less important to the person that was being constructed. This process may not only have served to create a powerful ancestral figure for the entire community, to whom they could look as a patron and as the ultimate embodiment of civic virtue, but in addition could keep Balbus alive within the sociopolitical community as a social being with whom the living could continue to relate. His ‘identity’ as patron was important, but the fact that he continued to act as a person within the community, through the realignment of personhood, was even more so. This was further reflected by the reservation of his theatre seat, which presenced him in this important civic and cultural space, and through the extension of the Parentalia games. These games extended his generosity from beyond the grave because, although they took place in his honour, it was the living citizens who enjoyed them.

On the occasion of the procession, elements associated with Nonius Balbus were in all probability singled out from the many others that crowded the urban landscape of the town. The spaces permeated by Balbus were naturally the primary public civic spaces in which the presence of other authorities will have been equally prominent. However, these other civic figures may have been systematically ‘forgotten’ (albeit temporarily) during the course of the procession, which drew specific attention to the presence of Balbus throughout the town. This narrative performance may have ensured that he was not subsumed within a mass of competing images and memories, at least on this one day. The special activities involved in the memorialization of Balbus therefore seem to have been designed to maximize the visibility of his personality in the town at the expense of others who shared the same arena. The date of the procession, on the public day of a family-oriented festival, may also not have been coincidental given that Balbus was seemingly being promoted as a member of the family of the town itself – as an ancestor for everyone. Certainly no single or fixed memory of Nonius Balbus was created that every member of the local community shared, but the way in which they thought about him was directed and constructed in response to visual and performative acts of social commemoration, which endeavoured to emphasize a particular image of him and to maintain his new personhood. For many people at Herculaneum, although certainly not all, Nonius Balbus remained an influential and active person in their lives and they continued to share a reciprocal relationship with him.

If it were not for the Vesuvian eruption, less than a century after his death, Balbus may not have retained the presence in the town that the current evidence accords him, being replaced over time with more relevant contemporary figures. It is certainly not my intention to suggest that the presence of Balbus was permanent, or remained forever central to the people of Herculaneum. Rather, in a time of political and social uncertainty brought about by his death, it may have become particularly important to stress his permeation of the town as a way of reassuring the community. Equally, other authorities in the town (such as the council itself) may have capitalized on the situation in order to stabilize their own positions through their visibility at the heart of these remembrance events. It is also unlikely that every person residing at Herculaneum was affected equally by the promotion of Balbus, and no doubt there were those who, over time, did not consider him so important. That does not, however, reduce the significance of these acts if we consider that they were important to the town at a very specific point in its history, and were tailored to satisfy a precise need, namely to readjust to the loss of a major figure.

The specific instance of social remembrance discussed here stresses the role of both the corpse and memory in the reconfiguration of personhood. The different senses of personhood that were predicated on the relationship between Nonius Balbus and the community of Herculaneum had to be altered in order to respond to his death, and thus the relationship that was celebrated and remembered during posthumous honours was not the same as that which had existed during his lifetime. Instead, we can see that they celebrated, remembered, maintained and indeed continued to rework new senses of personhood that had been brought about through the ritual processes surrounding his death. These invisible changes were made materially manifest through specific secondary treatment of the body in the form of os resectum and it can be argued that the procession was instrumental in affirming this new sense of personhood.

The construction of an altar as a permanent focal point for this communal commemorative act was particularly significant, and it was appropriate that the os resectum lay at its heart. This small piece of bone acted as a metaphor for the changes that the mourners, and the body and person of Balbus, had undergone. It was the ‘new person’ who had emerged from this ritual process who was celebrated in ongoing rituals of social remembrance. The styling of the statue erected behind the altar was also significant in this regard, echoing imperial figures such as Augustus and emphasizing aspects of the highest office he held, including his military imperium as proconsul.Footnote ⁵ This provides another indication of how elements of his persona seem to have been selectively emphasized in order to create the ideal ancestor. This claim was made even more explicit by the imagery on the right shoulder of the statue's cuirass, which depicts the head of a lion-cloaked Hercules, making a direct association between the legendary founding of the town and Nonius Balbus (see figure 3). The memories of the community were thus directed towards an ideal version of Balbus, one that stressed his reputation for civic virtue. Each memory remained differentiated by personal experience, but the process of social memory drew upon these in order to create a sense of community identity. The disparate memories, experiences and relationships held by inhabitants of the town were drawn upon, emphasized and forgotten to provide a context in which to create a person who could continue to be active within both living society and their separate memories and identities. In death, Nonius Balbus may therefore have stepped beyond generous benefactor and assumed the guise of civic ancestor, becoming a figure who not only represented the communal past and emphasized a collective sense of identity, but continued to play a role in the maintenance of this identity into the future.

Conclusion: remembering Roman persons

In very few cases can we reconstruct the transformation and commemoration process in the detail we have seen here, and comparable examples with such a diverse range of evidence are few and far between, but this example demonstrates the potential of taking such an approach to the exploration of Roman mortuary customs. It moves beyond an understanding of identity being made static in death and allows for the development of a more nuanced appreciation of the relationship between personhood, memory and the body. In particular, it has become clear that commemoration may not always have been focused on an identity that had meaning for the deceased person, but on one that was significant for the group responsible for funerary and remembrance activities. This in itself is not new; the importance in the Roman period of funerary monuments and mortuary activities for satisfying the needs of the living and promoting their own social position has been the focus of much previous discussion. However, the concept of personhood advocated here allows us to understand how these new identities continued to be shaped and created long after they had seemingly been ‘set in stone’. These identities were, in fact, never completely fixed and, what is more, the deceased could, through their dividuality, continue to play an active role in the maintenance of personhood. Such an approach thereby offers an opportunity to explore more specifically how the dead continued to have a presence in the urban fabric, social life, memories and identity-formation processes usually associated with the living. Furthermore, it emphasizes that the dead may have had a particularly significant role to play at times of stress or sociopolitical change, when they could act to unite a community and create a certain degree of perceived stability through their links with the past, present and future. For Nonius Balbus this involved the community of an entire town, but it may also have operated on a much smaller scale, for families or other specific identity groups.

Given the paucity of well-documented archaeological evidence for os resectum, and the fact that some examples appear to be associated with the elite (Nonius Balbus) and others with more humble members of society (such as at San Cesareo), it is not possible to assert that the specific manifestation of dividuality outlined here was common throughout the Roman world, or linked to a particular social group. Nevertheless, the fact that known examples of os resectum all differ in terms of manner of deposition and degrees of commemorative attention may indicate that this was a rite that was particularly suitable for manipulation by the living for a variety of socially or locally specific identity needs. The instance from Lincoln, for example, belongs to a period where cremation was gradually being superseded by inhumation, and it is possible that a family with Mediterranean ancestral origins wished to assert their cultural heritage with the rite (Graham, Chamberlain and Sulosky, in prep.). Os resectum (and therefore dividuality) may therefore also have been considered particularly relevant at times of upheaval or change. Given that the rite appears to have become increasingly obscure during the imperial period, it might be postulated that another form of ritual or remembrance activity focused on the dividuality of the person (perhaps even the increasing popularity of the tombstone itself) took over the role that os resectum had formerly played in the maintenance of personhood in death.

The study presented here therefore highlights the importance of considering how concepts of personhood and multiply authored identity can contribute to research not only in prehistory but also for the classical world, where a rich range of evidence can be called upon in order to penetrate deeper and more effectively into the complexities of mutable identity in both life and death.

Postscriptum

Some brief comments must be made concerning a recent article (Scheid Reference Scheid, Faber, Fasold, Struck and Witteyer2007) which was brought to my attention too late to be fully incorporated into this paper. Scheid (ibid., 23–24) argues that misunderstandings of the rite have resulted from the corruption of the texts which refer to it. Whilst this raises questions about the interpretation of the custom, the terminology used by ancient authors remains ambiguous. If, as Scheid suggests (ibid., 24), the text of Cicero is corrupt, and instead of resectum (‘cut’) we should perhaps read receptum (‘take back’, ‘recover’), the possibility arises of understanding this in terms of taking back a piece of the cremated body. However, it should also be noted that the process of collecting bones from the pyre is referred to specifically with the term os legere (Vergil, Aeneid 6.228). Scheid's observation (ibid., 23–24) that the bone need not necessarily be a finger is a strong one, although archaeological evidence from Herculaneum and elsewhere (Becker Reference Becker and Christie1995) points persuasively to this being the most commonly selected anatomical element. If the bone was removed directly from the corpse, a finger or a toe would be the most obvious element for selection, not least from a practical perspective. The prevalence of phalanges in archaeological attestations of os resectum is more difficult to explain if the bone was collected from the pyre. Specific selection of bones for post-cremation treatment is not unknown for other cultures and periods, but if this was the case here we might expect to find other parts of the skeleton represented, either those more closely associated with the identity of the deceased (such as skull fragments), or an entirely random collection (whichever parts were still recognizable after cremation). The possibility that this occurred in some instances, perhaps increasingly as the rite declined in popularity, deserves more consideration than is possible here. Scheid's judgement concerning the role of the bone in ensuring proper burial lends further weight to the conclusion that this rite was, for a short while, and in some circumstances, considered essential, and yet remained open to manipulation, in order to satisfy the needs of the living.