Explaining the epigraphic habit in the roman empire: The evidence of epitaphs

Journal of Roman Studies

Volumn 80, Issue NA, 1990, Pages 74-96

  Meyer, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971972505     PISSN: 00754358     EISSN: 1753528X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/300281     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. I extend my warm thanks to Ramsay MacMullen, Gordon Williams, Richard Garner, J. E. Lendon, and the Editorial Committee of JRS, who all have read this manuscript several times and improved it considerably; remaining errors are, of course, my own. Standard epigraphical abbreviations are used (i.e. CIL, IG ILS, ILLRP, TAM); ILA is Inscriptions latines de l’Algrie (S. Gsell and H.G. Pflaum (Eds) (1922 and 1957); AE is L’Anne Epigraphique (I888–present); and D. is The Digest of Justinian (text by T. Mommsen and P. Krueger, reprinted in A. Watson, The Digest of Justinian (1985).
2. R. MacMullen, ‘The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire’, AJP 103 (1982), 233–46. (specific quotations at 245 and 246)
3. building on previous work by Stanislaw Mrozek, ‘A propos de la repartition chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut-Empire’, Epigraphica 35 (1973), 113–118
4. Mrozek's homonymous article in Epigraphica 50 (1988), 61–64. reinforced by
5. In the article I have used, in one form or other and with varying emphasis, all sets of dated epitaphs known to me: those from North Africa (see nn. 43 and 47), Gaul (Lyon and Vienne, the latter only in n. 78), Thessalonica, Athens, and Roman Lydia (the latter only in n. 86).
6. Estimated at 170,000 to 190,000 of a total of c. 250,000 known inscriptions by R. Sailer and B. Shaw, ‘Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves’, JRS 74 (1984), 124–56, at 124 n. I.
7. Specifically 83.3 per cent: B. Shaw, ‘Latin Funerary Epigraphy and Family Life in the Later Roman Empire’, Historia 33 (1984), 457–497, at 463 n. 16.
8. In the archaic period it was somewhat more common. J. Day (‘Rituals in Stone: Early Greek Epigrams and Monuments’ JHS 109 (1989), 25) refers to this as ‘the most common of all formulas’, but in fact it characterizes 27.2 per cent (25/92) of all Attic sepulchral epigrams in
9. P. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca (1983), 30.8 per cent (49/159) of all sepulchral epigrams in the same collection, and only 12.1 per cent (14/116) of all the Attic epitaphs in IG I2. After the end of the fifth century b.c. only ten of the eighty–three known commemorators (out of 8136 studied in IG2–32) are not from the Roman period, and of these ten, three are put up by people from outside Athens (Gortyn, Phoenicia, and Paphlagonia).
10. That Greek epitaphs rarely included a commemorator was hinted at by P. M. Fraser [and T. Rönne], Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones, Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet I Athens 4.VI (1957), especially 92—101, and by idem, Rhodian Funerary Monuments (1977), 46–52 on the epitaphs of Rhodes. Before him, work on the form of Greek epitaphs is limited to E. Loch's dissertation, De titulis Graecis sepulchralibus (1890) and article-, ‘Zu den griechischen Grabinschriften’, Festschrift zum fünf-zigjährigen Doktorjubiläum L. Friedländer (1895), 275–295.
11. On the epitaphs of Asia Minor: H. Stemler, Die griechischen Grabinschriften Kleinasiens (1909), who distinguishes types but rarely gives dates; some of his examples are clearly Roman.
12. I follow J. Kubiska Les Monuments funraires dans les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure (1968), II): ‘La majorite de nos inscriptions [i.e. for a study of tomb–terminology] date de l’ poque impriale, du IIe et du IIIe sicle surtout de ce dernier. Rarement nous avons des textes plus anciens’, and this judgement finds confirmation elsewhere
13. e.g. C. H. E. Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia (1971), 163 (Phrygia and central Asia Minor, where virtually all are from the second to third centuries a.d.).
14. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1. 31 (M. Pohlenz (Ed.), Teubner, 1965): ‘Quid procreatio liberorum, quid propaga–tio nominis, quid adoptationes filiorum, quid testament–orum diligentia, quid ipsa sepulcrorum monumenta elogia significant nisi nos futura etiam cogitare?’.
15. de legibus 2. 48 (C. W. Keyes (Ed.), Loeb, 1977): ‘Quaeruntur enim, qui astringantur sacris. Heredum causa iustissima est; nulla est enim persona, quae ad vicem eius, qui e vita emigrant, propius accedat. De-inde, qui morte testamentove eius tantundem capiat, quantum omnes heredes. tertio loco, si nemo sit heres, is, qui de bonis, quae eius fuerint, cum moritur, usu ceperit plurimum possidendo. Quarto, qui, si nemo sit, qui ullam rem ceperit, de creditoribus eius plurimum servet. Extrema illa persona est, ut is, si qui ei, qui mortuus sit, pecuniam debuerit neminique earn solvent, proinde habeatur, quasi eam pecuniam ceperit’. Cicero then goes on to say that older authorities apportioned responsibility somewhat differently, that men had been bound in three different ways: as heirs, as receiving the preponderance of the property, or as receiving anything by a legacy.
16. See also Fronto, Ep. M. Caesar I. 6. 6 (M. P. J. Van den Hout (Ed.), 1954): the funeral cannot properly take place until the heir is known.
17. Greek observers of the Romans also noticed the peculiarities of Roman practice and attitude: see Plutarch, Mor. 550B8–9 (absurdity)
18. Lucian, Nig. 30–1 (hypocrisy). The Roman obsession with wills and succession even worked its way into poetry, in ways particularly vivid when compared to a similar Greek treatment: see Manilius 1. 890 (compared to Thucydi–des's treatment of the plague) or Catullus 68. 119–24 (compared to Pindar, Ol I0. 86–90).
19. S. Humphreys, ‘Family tombs and tomb–cult in Classical Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism?’ in The Family, Women and Death. Comparative Studies (1983), 79–130, at 83–4, with further references.
20. Monument: ‘quod memoriae servandae gratia ex–istat’, D. 11. 7. 2. 6; also 11. 7. 42, a monument is something left as a memorial to posterity. Servius on Aen. 3. 22. 6: ‘inscriptum nomen memoriaque “monu–mentum’”.
21. Memorial as a funeral expense: 11. 7. 12. 6, 14. 1 (Ulpian). On the general trend, see O. E. Tellegen–Couperus, Testamentary Succession in the Constitutions of Diocletian (1982), 93–4. The necessity of a memorial was a normal assumption. Thus Horace (Odes 2. 20) and Frontinus (quoted in Pliny, Ep. 9. 19. 6) are drawing self–conscious attention to their originality by paradox. Other expenses of the funeral: D. 11. 7. 14. 3–4 (Ulpian), 37 (Macer); cf. 11. 8. 1. 6 (the absolute legal right to spend for a tomb), 11. 7. 37 (Macer; the limits on opulence).
22. D. 5. 3. 50. 1: ‘. tamen principali vel pontificali auctoritate compelluntur ad obsequium supremae volun–tatis’. Clearly all Roman deaths were not commemorated: see W. Eck, ‘Inschriften und Grabbauten in der Nekro–pole unter St. Peter’, in G. Alfoldy (Ed.), Vom friihen Griechentum his zur romischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenk– und Jubildumsvortrdge am Heidelberger Seminar fur alte Ges–chichte (1989), 55–89, and idem, ‘Aussagefahigkeit epi–graphischer Statistik und die Bestattung von Sklaven im kaiserzeitlichen Rom’
23. in P. Kreissel and V. Losemann (Eds), Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift fiir Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag (1988), 130–9 (with thanks to I. Morris for the reference).
24. A full discussion of the legal enforceability of such requests, with further references, can be found in J. W. Tellegen's The Roman Law of Succession in the Letters of Pliny the Younger (1982), 100–107 treatment of Pliny the Younger's Ep. 6. 10. It was a legally believable or even common defence made by someone who had buried contrary to the heir's wishes (i.e. had usurped the heir's prerogative, and in this case was claiming reimbursement from the estate) that he had buried him ‘out of a sense of duty’ (pietatis gratia, D. 11. 7. 14. 13 (Ulpian), and pietas appears as a motivation on tombstones as well, e.g. CIL vm.23256 (Ammaedara), MEFR (1912), 187, 144, or CIL viii. 12652 (Carthage). Pliny commented that ‘loyalty in friendships is so rare, the dead are forgotten so quickly that we must erect our own tombs and anticipate all the duties of the heir’, and this sentiment is occasionally repeated in inscriptions, e.g. IG 10. 2. 1. 819 (Thessalonica, second or third century A.D.); worry about the monument is perhaps what prompted testators to compose their own epitaphs ahead of time (e.g. CIL 111.4282; 5196; IK 28. 392; CIL vm. 10001, 23823; CIL xiii. 1948; Lucian, Demonax 44. 3); plan them (e.g. Trimalchio); or build tombs themselves. Wills could also impose other sorts of obligations on heirs, most clearly, of course, in the institution of fideicommissa but see also Lib., Or. 45. 25. 7, where the heirs were obligated to try their best to find and convict the murderers) of the testator.
25. These epitaphs can, therefore, appear on the inside of mausolea, where only a limited circle would see them, as well as on the outside: see W. Eck's observations in ‘Romische Grabinschriften. Aussageabsicht und Aussagefahigkeit im funeraren Kontext’, in H. von Hesberg and P. Zanker (Eds), Romische Graberstrassen. Selbstdarstellung–Status–Standard (1987), 61–81.
26. CIL xii.3564 (‘nec iussus testamento nec voce rogatus’), 5273 (‘nec iussa testamento neque voce ro–gata sed pia); IG 10. 2. 1. 433 (pvslcts xipiv, second century A.D., probably Christian). That patterns and practices of inheritance create or influence ritual and commemoration (rather than the reverse) is also observed in J. Goody's Death, Property, and the Ancestors (1962).
27. Tacitus, Germ. 20. 5, 32; compare the Pactus Legis Solicae 44 and 59, MGH Leges 1. 4. 1 (K. A. Eckhardt, Ed. 1962). Very little is known about pre–Roman patterns of legal succession beyond this, despite M. RostovtzefFs belief (The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (2nd edn., 1957), 183) that every province had its own local system of law.
28. A point still being made in the fifth century A.D.: see Priscus 504–10 (Blockley).
29. See (e.g.) J. Thomas, Textbook of Roman Law (1976), 40S–7
30. Grants of ius Latii that make individuals into Latins may be largely mythical, according to F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (1977), 485–6 and 630–5. After the first century a.d. there are only two certain references to Latin rights, one in a refined form called Latium maius (CIL viii.22737 [ — ILS 6780] see Gaius 1. 96) and generally dated to the reign of Hadrian (see A. Steinwenter, ‘Ius Latii’, RE vol. 10 (1919), 1260–78, at 1269–70); the other is CIL vm. 14763 (= ILS 6781, Thisiduo). In general, see A. N. Sher–win–White, The Roman Citizenship (2nd edn., 1973), 360–7.
31. See in particular the discussion by A. Sherwin–White, ‘The Roman Citizenship: A Survey of its Development into a World Franchise’, ANRW 1.2 (1972), 23–58, at 44: with the promotion to colony–status, ‘citizens of all classes gained the Roman citizenship, whether formerly of Latin or of peregrine status’. There were other benefits as well: the ius Italicum, which conveyed a tax–break, seems to have been granted only to provincial cities which had achieved co/oma–status (see E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization under the Republic (1969), 156–7), a development first common in the reign of Septimius Severus. A few cities received this favour from Augustus (idem), but very few thereafter until the reign of Septimius Severus (D. 50. 15. 1 has a list).
32. See R. C. Knapp, ‘The Origins of Provincial Prosopography in the West’, Ancient Society 9 (1978), 187–222, at 192–3, with the references cited there (note in particular Suet., Claudius 25. 3, promising execution for those usurping the citizen's rights).
33. Aurelius Victor (P. Dufraigne (Ed.), Bude, 1975), Liber de Caes. 16. 12: ‘data cunctis promiscue civitas Romana’.
34. Cic., Pro Arch. 11 (N. Watts (Ed.), Loeb, 1935): ‘ ita se turn gessisse pro cive, iis temporibus, quern tu criminaris ne ipsius quidem iudicio in civium Romanorum iure esse versatum, et testamentum saepe fecit nostris legibus et adiit hereditates civium Romanorum et in beneficiis ad aerarium delatus est a L. Lucullo pro consule’.
35. Pliny, Ep. 8. 16 (B. Radice (Ed.), Loeb, 1969): ‘quod permitto servis quoque quasi testamenta facere eaque dividunt donant reliquunt, dumtaxat intra domum, nam servis res publica quaedam et quasi civitas domus est’.
36. Pliny, Pan. 37. 4–5 (B. Radice (Ed.), Loeb, 1969): ‘Ita maximum beneficium vertebatur in gravissimam iniuriam, civitasque Romana instar erat odii et discordiae et orbitatis, cum carissima pignora salva ipsorum pietate distraheret. Inveniebantur tamen, quibus tantus amor nominis nostri, ut Romanam civitatem non vicesimae modo verum etiam adfrnitatum damno bene compensari putarent; sed his maxime debebat gratuita contingere, a quibus tarn magno aestimabatur’. Note that here again impediments to legal succession (like a tax) are depicted as childlessness, despite blood relations and ties of affection. J. Crook, Law and Life at Rome (1967), 255 considers the right of inheritance ‘a major incentive’.
37. Julia Velva: R. G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright (Eds), The Roman Inscriptions of Britain (1965), no. 688; see also 146 and 201 (among the many examples of curious cognomina that I could have chosen).
38. I. Kajanto (Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome and Car–thage, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, vol. 11:1 (1963), 6) estimates 26 per cent
39. P. Huttunen (The Social Strata in the Imperial City of Rome Acta Universitatis Ouluensis ser. B3, Hist. 1 (1974), 186) estimates 24 per cent. No matter which figure is used, the difference between one of the three (22.24, 24, or 26 per cent) and 41.7 per cent is significant. Freedmen were more than one–and–a–half times as likely to appear in inscriptions mentioning wills and heirs as they were in the body of surviving inscriptions.
40. J.M. Lassre, ‘Recherches sur la chronologie des epitaphes paiennes de 1’Africa’, Antiquits africaines 7 (I973), 7—152, especially the charts at 133—51. The following adjustments have been made: (1) Lassre included inscriptions from Thala and Djebel Dhelloud, both of which have unclear but apparently heavily dependent relationships with more major towns (Am–maedara and Carthage). Since their municipal status is unclear, they have been excluded. It is only an exclusion of 183 inscriptions. (2) The epigraphic profile of the town of Maktar, done subsequent to Lassre's study but, according to its author, A. M’Charek, in Aspects de revolution dmographique et sociale a Mac–taris aux Ile et Ille sicles ap. J.C. (1982), with rigorous faithfulness to Lassre's principles of dating, has been included instead. (3) A number of inscriptions listed by Lassre in his appendix had to be excluded, either because they could not be found or because, upon being found, they were inappropriate: CIL viii.25346a, 28277, BCTH 1922 ccxxvii 1918–9 p. 128, 1932 p. 118 (all not found); BCTH 1886, p.217, 1973 1891 p.203, ILAfr. 1109 (all unavailable to me); CIL 1854 5306, 7105, 19512, 25649, 25659, BCTH 1910 cxxiv (all not funerary); ILAfr. 155 (irrelevant); CIL viii. 14603, 14684, 20506, BCTH 1917 ccxxvii (not from the seven major towns). (4) Lassere's appendix does not make clear that the inscriptions he lists for Theveste and Cirta from ILA 1 and 2 are actually republications of inscriptions listed for the same towns from CIL viii earlier in the Appendix. There is similar overlap between publications in periodicals and later collections or AE. Every effort has been made to eliminate such duplication, which lowers by approximately 1500 the total number of inscriptions studied, to 3611. (5) When inscriptions are dated by century or half–century, they have been divided and averaged into twenty–five–year periods, following the procedure adopted by
41. For Latinity as an index of romanization, see (e.g.) R. MacMullen, ‘Notes on Romanization’, BASP 21 (1984), 161–177, at 170 n. 24.
42. A. Cannon, ‘The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment’, Current Anthropology 30. 4 (1989), 437, associating himself with the views of
43. A. L. Kroeber, ‘Disposal of the Dead’, American Anthropologist 29 (1927), 308–15. See also
44. Civitas: ILA 1.3068 (CIL VIII.1888,ILA 1.3051 (CIL viii 1862; Diocletianic).
45. S. Gsell in ILA 1 (pp. 286–287) challenged this, citing CIL vm. 18084, a Trajanic legionary–list from Lambaesis with [—] Ae–milius Secundus from Theveste at line 52. This argument is refuted by
46. J. Gascou, La Politique municipale de VEmpire romain en Afrique proconsulaire de Trajan a Septime–Severe (1972), 92; Gascou none the less assigns a Trajanic date to colony status because he believes that the legion was moved to Lambaesis from Theveste by Trajan, and that Trajan would have made Theveste a colony after this as Vespasian had made Ammaedara a colony after the departure of the legion in a.d. 75 (pp. 91–2). Since, however, the legion was in Lambaesis by a.d. 81 (see L. Leschi, Libyca 1 (1953), 189–205), this argument too fails to convince. I therefore revert to the later dating.
47. A. Berthier, La Numidie. Rome et le Maghreb (1981), 161, 278 (votive) from the sanctuary of El–Hofra
48. A. Berthier and R. Charlier, Le Sanctuaire punique d’El Hofra a Constantine (1955), 9-178), and most of Cirta's epitaphs offer, as at Maktar, only endless simple permutations of the formula ‘D.M.S. [vixit annis.] h.s.e.’ Moreover, it is noteworthy that Thugga
49. A. Ennabli in R. Stillwell, W. L. MacDonald, and M. H. McAllister, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976), 917–919
50. A. Golfetto, Dougga (1961), 18), Sicca Veneria
51. H. Dessau, ‘Sicca Veneria’, REz (1923), vol. 4, 2187–2188
52. The neighbouring or surrounding Punic community was first named a civitas libera, then also given Roman citizenship by Augustus in 28 b.c. (Tertullian, de pallio 1.2). For all this see, e.g., C. Van Nerom ‘Colonia Julia Concordia Carthago’, Hommage a Marcel Renard, Collection Latomus 102 (1969), 2,767–76, with further references. In 44/38 B.C. it was named either Colonia Julia Concordia Carthago or Colonia Concordia Julia Carthago.
53. According to the graphs, the population would have doubled almost five times in twenty-five years —an impossible statistic, even if (as asserted by Tertullian, de anima 30) population had been increasing for a long time. Moreover, although the plague brought back from the East by Lucius Verus in 166 undoubtedly had severe demographic consequences, there is no indication that it ever reached North Africa; ancient references, if they can be trusted, mention Asia Minor, the Danube and Rhine regions, and the city of Rome (SHA, Marcus Aurelius 13. 3–6, 17. 2, 21. 6–7, 28. 4; Aelius Aristides, Orat. 33. 6, 48. 38–9, 50. 9, 51. 25). SHA, Verus 8. 1–4 specifically says that plague spread in all the provinces through which Verus returned, while SHA, Aurelius 17. 2 notes provisions made for mass burials, which implies that in fact there was no time for the exercise of normal habits of commemoration anyway. Tertullian's reference to population also implies that North Africa had not been ravaged by plague. See J. F. Gilliam, ‘The Plague under Marcus Aurelius’, AJP 82 (1961), 225–51, esp. 241 on Egypt.
54. Temple of Asclepius and Salus, begun by the third legion (CIL vm.25798–0), continued by a legate of M. Aurelius and L. Verus (2579d–e), with a long list of soldiers who dedicated gold statues (2586), and many other dedications: 2587–89, 2591, 2593, 2596, 2598. Temple of Jupiter and the Augusti, finished by a leg. Auggg. pr.pr., patronus municipii (with more military dedications: 2615–16, 2618 (another list), 2619, 2621–2626 (another list), 2627–2628, 2630). Temple of Neptune, built by the third legion (2652), dedicated by a leg. Aug. (2653). Nymphaeum and Septizodium, built by the third legion (2657–8). Temple of Silvanus restored (2671); arch to Commodus (2698); baths rebuilt (2706); restoration of a portico by a soldier (2760); the Via Septimania (2705). Elsewhere, as in Britain, soldiers can dominate the epigraphic record and not inspire much local imitation: J. C. Mann, ‘Epigraphic Consciousness’, jfRS 75 (1985), 204–206.
55. A. Audollent, Carthage romaine. 146 avant Jesus Christ—698 apres Jesus Christ (1901), 325–349
56. Dating: A. Audin and Y. Burnand, ‘Chronologie des epitaphes romaines de Lyon’, REA 61 (1959), 320–52. Founded as a colony first in 43 B.c. (Cassius Dio, 46. 50; Colonia Copia CIL xm. 1752–4, 1846, 1910, 2602), the name providing the Claudian date (for which see, more specifically, P. Grimal and M. Wol–och Roman Cities (1983), 175). 7‘
57. A nearby town, the colony of Vienne, also seems to follow the same epigraphic pattern, and here Vienne was known to be Lyon's arch–rival (Tac., Hist. i. 65). The dating, however, is very inexact (all inscriptions divided into only three time periods), and a graph therefore not particularly convincing—see Y. Bumand, ‘Chronologie des epitaphes romains de Vienne (Isere)’, REA 63, 3–4 (1961)
58. J.J. Hatt La Tombe gallo–romaine 1951 85–107 sub ascia: see
59. my unpublished PhD dissertation, Literacy, Literate Practice, and the Law in the Roman Empire a.d. 100–600 (Yale, 1988), 179—194.
60. The charts were constructed from the following sets of information. Thessalonica: IG 10. 2. 1. 284–931 (a total of 651 (counting inclusively, plus four intercalated numbers) of 935 total); both funerary and non–funerary are graphed; they are all dated by the editor, eleven of them incorrectly according to M. Vickers (review of IG 10. 2. 1 in JHS 93 (1973), 242–3) and M. Speidel (review of IG 10. 2. 1 in Ay A 77 (1973), 446–7); these eleven are non–funerary anyway. Athens: IG 2–3* 5228–13247, a total of 8135 (there are intemumerary additions, and additions at the end); they are all dated by the editor.
61. IG 10. 2. 301–2, 327, 908–9, 912.
62. This is a small point for which a long list is superfluous; the Romans as metics are IG 2–32 10143–58, 10160–9 (with some intercalated numbers). Cf. D. Geagan, ‘Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture’, ANRW 11.7.1 (1979), 388–430, at 389: ‘. the proportion of Roman citizens to non-Romans in public documents indicates that Athenian citizenship alone carried the right to prestige and office. This was the case even down into the third century according to the proportions of names in an Eleusinian catalogue’ also
63. E. Kapetonopoulos, ‘The Romanization of the Greek East. The Evidence of Athens’, BASP 2 (1965), 47–55, at 50: ‘the Romans who were settling in Attica were becoming members of the community rather than remaining parts of a separate group’ (late Republic), and 52, the ‘Roman’ names were at most 10 per cent of the total ever, so that ‘only a small percentage of the population of Attica was touched by any form of Romanization, if acquiring the civitas is to be taken as Romanization’.
64. Which, despite its free status, was also the seat of the Roman governor of Macedonia: see W. T. Arnold, Roman Provincial Administration (2nd edn., 1906), 237. Officials, etc.: see the list of titles in IG to. 2. 1 pp. 308–309.
65. J. Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination (1942), 177, 182, 196, 209, 249, 251–2. This assessment of economic doldrums has held up: see
66. Four experts have estimated that the name Aurelius was used in an almost faddish fashion until about a.d. 250, but thereafter became much less visible in inscriptions. See S. Mitchell, ‘Inscriptions of Ancyra’, AS 27 (1977), 63–103, at 71 n. 25, citing P. Herrmann, L. Robert, and R. Heberdey.
67. Outlined by P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (1970). Higher standing (and, in particular, wealth) could additionally have been signalled by interment in sarcophagi—they were ‘expensive and gratified the instinct for ostentation’, and began as a general phenomenon no earlier than the in his Essays on Religion in the Ancient World (Z. Stewart (Ed.), 1972) 277–307, at 306 and 279).