In the recent upsurge of epigraphic and archaeological studies of patterns of mobility in the Roman world, it is becoming increasingly clear that most mobility occurred within relatively restricted areas.Footnote 1 Every regional study produces roughly the same pattern.Footnote 2 People could and did move over relatively long distances, but normally they remained within a restricted area consisting of their own and neighbouring provinces.
At the same time, these studies also highlight exceptions, sometimes of people crossing the Empire from one end to the other.Footnote 3 These occur most notably among the army, the imperial elite and personnel of the Roman administration, but traders and slaves also travelled considerable distances.Footnote 4 In Roman Britain the most famous case is surely that of Barates of Palmyra.Footnote 5 Such cases are extremely interesting and are, not without reason, discussed over and over again. But they also almost immediately raise questions of typicality. Exactly how unusual was Barates in his move from Palmyra to Britain?
A pendant of sorts to Barates is in fact available. It concerns movement in the opposite direction, from Britain to the Near East. In 1982 Maurice Sartre published a short and fragmentary inscription from Bostra, in modern southern Syria.Footnote 6 The text was slightly emended in 2013 by H. Solin and now reads as follows ( fig. 1):
T(ito) Quiṇtio │ P̣ẹtrullo │ (centurioni) leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) │ dom(o) Britạṇ(nia) │ vixit anni(s) XX̣X │ et QVI [— — —] │ FIL [— — —].
For Titus Quintius Petrullus, centurion of legio III Cyrenaica, from Britain, who lived 30 years and …
The text should be dated somewhere in the second or third centuries. It commemorates a centurion of legio III Cyrenaica called Titus Quintius Petrullus, who died 30 years old. The missing part may have continued with his length of service (et qui militavit …) or it may have commemorated a second person, perhaps a son (et Quintio … filio).Footnote 7 The epitaph must date from after a.d. 106, when Bostra became the main centre of the newly created Roman province of Arabia. Although there has been significant discussion, it seems that legio III Cyrenaica was stationed there right from the start, being transferred from Egypt.Footnote 8
Although the text is short, it contains three elements which are worthy of comment: P̣ẹtrullo, dom(o) Britạṇ(nia) and vixit anni(s) XX̣X. To start with the second: despite the underdots the reading Britạṇ( ) can be regarded as reasonably certain, also in view of the fact that there are no plausible alternatives.Footnote 9 Britan( ) might be expanded as Britan(nia), the province, or perhaps as Britan(nus), an ethnic name.Footnote 10 It may be objected that domo is normally followed by a city, not a wider region, that a reference to Britan(nia) or Britan(nus) is normally preceded by natio and that the exact combination domo Britan( ) is unattested elsewhere.Footnote 11 But there are other cases in which domo does occur together with a region or a tribe rather than a city; in fact, such cases are on closer inspection not infrequent at all. They can be found everywhere in the Empire, including other areas in the Near East.Footnote 12 Although certainty cannot be obtained, it seems unlikely that Petrullus hailed from a colony in Britain as it might be expected that such a prestigious origo would be cited.
The cognomen Petrullus is rare.Footnote 13 The name occurs on a number of brick stamps found in Germania Inferior, Germania Superior and Belgica. Of further relevance are two inscriptions from Dijon and from Luxemburg.Footnote 14 The other names which occur alongside it have a distinctive Celtic flavour and the name Petrullus in all likelihood should be placed in the same linguistic context.Footnote 15 There are apart from the Bostrian inscription no other Petrulli known with Roman citizenship.
This inscription seems thus far not to have been noticed by scholars who have studied the occurrence of Britons abroad.Footnote 16 Petrullus is to date the second centurion of British descent we know of (discussed below), apart from the three questionable cases of Titus Flavius Virilis,Footnote 17 Flavius BrittoFootnote 18 and Aurelius Nectoreca.Footnote 19
The epigraphic record is rather modest when it comes to the identification of persons of British descent who lived and died overseas: a total of 40 have been identified epigraphically, out of which only 27 explicitly mention their origin; others were identified on the basis of onomastic and prosopographic analysis.Footnote 20 These numbers are extremely low in comparison to other ethnic groups who migrated such as Dacians (150 cases) or Germans (174 cases).Footnote 21 This may suggest that there were not many Britons moving and settling abroad in the Roman Empire, though it has been argued that native Britons had low epigraphic consciousness and were therefore under represented.Footnote 22 Such low numbers — or low epigraphic consciousness — are, of course, not representative of the real level of mobility: there is other indirect evidence testifying to movements of Britons abroad. The epigraphic record contains information on 13 British auxiliary units, most of which were composed of the natives of the province at the time of the units' formation.Footnote 23 For a ‘Briton’ in such a British auxiliary unit, it would have been unnecessary specifically to name his origin, whereas if he had served in another ethnic unit he would most likely have wanted to emphasise his ethnic background.Footnote 24
The geographic spread of inscriptions directly identifying individuals of British descent is not confined to a particular province. They are distributed across the whole of the western part of the Roman Empire, basically from North Africa to Lower and Upper Germany, from Gaul to the Roman frontiers on the Danube ( fig. 2). Furthermore, units raised in Britain were dispatched to various provinces, including Dacia and Mauretania Caesariensis, as well as being temporarily deployed in the Near East.Footnote 25 The occurrence of a British Petrullus in Arabia is thus not extraordinary, albeit it raises some questions.
The admittedly poor evidence for recruitment patterns of legio III in Bostra does not prepare us for the appearance of a Briton, though it also does not preclude such a possibility.Footnote 26 There are only eight military inscriptions from Bostra in which the place or region of origin of an individual is explicitly stated.Footnote 27 Apart from Britain, these are Parthicopolis (possibly the city of that name in the Strymon Valley), an otherwise unknown vicus Doecis in Pannonia, Thrace, Carthage, Celeia in Noricum and, within Italy, Mantua and Forum Sempronii.Footnote 28 The origins that are mentioned can be reconciled with the onomastic profile of legio III which occurs in a list of names preserved on a Latin papyrus dating from the years shortly before its transfer to Arabia.Footnote 29 There is neither in the papyrus nor in the other inscriptions anything that points to wider recruitment of military personnel from north-western Europe, though as just stated the evidence is relatively meagre and does not rule out the presence of people from this area. Nevertheless, in the present state of the evidence, our Petrullus remains something of an outsider.
This raises the question how Petrullus ended up as a centurion in Bostra. In view of the fact that we are dealing with a single individual, no certainty is possible, and only tentative suggestions can be offered. The Celtic cognomen and the high social status suggested by his centurionate imply a background among a family of a local elite. As one would expect a change to fully Latin cognomina in subsequent generations, it also seems likely that Petrullus had acquired the Roman citizenship himself rather than his predecessors, though again such an inference must remain hypothetical. We may note that only one British member of the equestrian order is known, a man buried at Colchester with the fragmentary name of Macri… who died at the age of 20.Footnote 30
Petrullus was relatively young when he died, a legionary centurion aged 30 years, and that is of significance in seeking to reconstruct his possible career. There were two methods of entry to the legionary centurionate, from the ranks and by direct commission. A soldier would normally have served at least 13 years in the ranks before being promoted to centurion,Footnote 31 though earlier promotions are recorded. In the second half of the second century, Petronius Fortunatus held the posts of librarius, tesserarius, optio and signifer within four years before being promoted to centurion by the vote of his fellow soldiers.Footnote 32 Legionary optiones and signiferi with six and eight years' service are known and were presumably promoted to centurion shortly afterwards.Footnote 33 Taking 13 years' service as the ‘normal’ point at which soldiers could expect to be promoted to centurion and acknowledging that most men joined the legion between the ages of 18 and 21, a soldier will usually have been at least 32 when promoted to centurion.Footnote 34
A man who sought a direct commission had normally previously served his municipality as a senior magistrate before joining the army at about 30.Footnote 35 Dobson acknowledged that there was not much evidence for the age, but offered evidence in support of his assertion, including a centurion commissioned at 29 and another at 30.Footnote 36 We may also note another centurion, presumably directly commissioned, at the age of 18, though the latter's exceptionally young age almost certainly rules out a previous municipal career.Footnote 37 Alföldy noted that the equestrian officers in the province of Germania Inferior after a.d. 70 had generally no previous municipal posts and were therefore presumably younger men.Footnote 38
Which is the most likely way in which Petrullus became a centurion? It is possible that he rose through the ranks of a legion, but a centurionate by the age of 30 by this path would have been unusual. The examples of directly commissioned centurions about the age of Petrullus offer better parallels. If this is accepted, it is likely that he was a member of a local elite.
How might Petrullus have arrived in Bostra? There is a particular event which may have led to the movement of a centurion from Britain to Arabia. In a.d. 133, or possibly 134, Sex. Julius Severus, governor of Britain, was sent to lead the Roman forces against the Jewish rebellions. There is no firm evidence that he was accompanied by troops from Britain (A.R. Birley does not name any), but about this time M. Censorius Cornelianus, prefect of the First Cohort of Spaniards based at Maryport, moved to a centurionate in legio X Fretensis, and the appointment of Severus to his command would make a suitable occasion for the transfer of Cornelianus and, therefore, also Petrullus.Footnote 39 Such an appointment was in the gift of the governor, though the emperor's subsequent approval was also required.Footnote 40
A transfer across the Empire for a directly commissioned centurion might be thought to be unusual, but there are other examples. The clearest parallel to Petrullus is C. Octavius Honoratus, a citizen of Thuburnica in North Africa, who entered the centurionate by direct commission and was sent to serve in II Augusta in Britain.Footnote 41 There are also examples of centurions who travelled across the Empire to take up new appointments. They include P. Aelius Romanus who moved from centurion in I Italica in Moesia, his birthplace, to XX Valeria Victrix in Britain, and then to VII Claudia and finally III Augusta in North Africa in the second century.Footnote 42 Eric Birley drew attention to M. Liburnius Fronto, centurion of II Augusta, who dedicated an inscription on Hadrian's Wall under Antoninus Pius; his nomen is often found among Galatian legionaries serving in Egypt, though A.R. Birley has noted that ‘Liburnii are found mainly in northern Italy’, while Roger Tomlin has pointed out to us (pers. comm.) that the name is quite frequently found in Italy and North Africa and may be Etruscan in origin.Footnote 43 And there is Petronius Fortunatus, already noted, who served as centurion in no less than 13 legions during the course of a career lasting 46 years; his travels included Syria, Lower Germany, Upper Pannonia, Britain, Numidia, Arabia and Cappadocia. There need be no surprise in Petrullus travelling from one end of the Empire to the other to take up a centurionate in a legion.
Furthermore, Petrullus is not the only Briton serving as a centurion. A primus pilus of legio XXII Primigenia, M. Minicius Marcellinus, indicated his origin as Lincoln on a votive inscription erected in Mainz.Footnote 44 The prefect of the ala I Brittonum with the same names recorded on a diploma of a.d. 123 is likely to have been his son.Footnote 45 Legio XXII Primigenia is known from two second-century building inscriptions erected in Britain, both probably recording detachments at a time that the legion was based in Mainz, and a tombstone of a centurion possibly dating to the early third century.Footnote 46 Marcellinus may have entered one of these detachments, while they were in Britain, but it is just as likely that he was posted directly to the legion in Mainz.
Another interesting case is that of M. Iunius Capito, also from Lincoln, who served as a soldier in X Gemina, deployed at Vienna on the Danube.Footnote 47 Sent with the legion's detachment to Mauretania Caesariensis in the late second century, he died in North Africa after ten years' service. Nothing is known about his entry to the unit, whether, for example, he was transferred from a legion stationed in Britain or elsewhere, which had been his first place of service, or he was directly enlisted to serve in an overseas unit. If the latter was the case, it offers an interesting parallel to Petrullus, disregarding the different career paths.
That Britons were accepted to serve in the overseas legions can be supported by two further votive inscriptions, erected in Xanten, Germany, by two soldiers of XXX Ulpia Victrix, among other evidence.Footnote 48 These and other legionaries of British descent sent to serve abroad were most likely offspring of the legionaries coming from the Continent and settling in the coloniae, as suggested by A.R. Birley.Footnote 49 This explains why these British-born of likely Continental fathers and local British mothers were allowed to join the legionary forces and why they may have had various privileges, such as a quick rise up the career ladder. It is easy to imagine that Petrullus was one of them, if we accept the arguments for his elite status and privileged position in local society.
Finally, the retention of a Celtic cognomen by a high-placed officer and the use of domo Britannia raise wider questions of self-representation and ethnic identity. Despite the factual appearance of the statements of origin on the inscriptions, in recent years the malleability of ethnicity has been emphasised.Footnote 50 Such malleability occurs in many periods, even in highly formalised contexts. The identification of the origin of a ‘foreigner’ was also an issue in the English census in the nineteenth century. While the origin of English people in the English census is detailed down to the hamlet, village or town, a person born in another part of the United Kingdom such as Scotland or Ireland is normally only assigned to the country. The 1881 UK census relating to London, for example, records Eliza Breeze as born in ‘Middlesex, Bayswater’, but her mother, also Eliza, merely in ‘Ireland’ rather than ‘Ireland, Belfast’, the town of her birth.
Such malleability applies also to the seemingly straightforward military epitaphs like that of Petrullus. Part of the explanation for the use of a formula like domo Britannia is no doubt to be sought in the practicalities of the military administration, for the naming patterns of the epitaphs are very similar to the ones used in official military documents like diplomata. If a soldier was enrolled in a unit while he was already abroad, the native province might have been recorded on the diploma as his home. If, on the other hand, he had enrolled in a unit stationed or raised in his own province, his tribe or town might have been specified.Footnote 51 Considerable variations in local administrative practices have to be reckoned with, of course, but this ‘unofficial’ rule in the record of origin on the diplomata seems to have been valid in many areas, possibly as well in recording origin on the epitaphs.Footnote 52 Although it remains an open question to what extent ethnic identities in this case were ascribed by the army administrators or assumed by the individual soldiers, it is clear that they were subject to construction. For instance, the Romans continuously cultivated tribal associations in the Batavians from Germania Inferior, placing an emphasis on their militaristic nature.Footnote 53 The constant manipulation of the group's military vocations bound up with the group's own ethnic identity resulted in the formation of a special community, called ‘ethnic soldiers’ by van Driel-Murray.Footnote 54 The Dacians are another similar case in point. After the Dacian Wars, ‘the Roman army reinvented rather than destroyed Dacian ethnic identity and provided the environment for the formation of a new Dacian military identity’ by recruiting locals to serve in various auxiliary units called Dacorum.Footnote 55
Soldiers from Britannia ‘were’ thus not ‘Britons’ by nature; being a Briton was not an ontological and immutable fact, especially when there were ‘no such social groups as “Britons”, the peoples were an assortment of tribes’.Footnote 56 In fact, epigraphic evidence suggests that in their home region the primary loyalty was with their home community rather than with a wider region.Footnote 57 When they moved elsewhere, such points of reference lost their relevance (both to recruitment officers and to fellow soldiers). In that sense, soldiers from Britannia became Britons when they crossed the Channel.