Author(s):  
Simon James

Information about the specific imperial military contingents resident in the city, and their composition, comes from formal inscriptions, dipinti, graffiti, and Dura’s famous papyri, including part of the archive of cohors XX Palmyrenorum. The case of Dura’s garrison illustrates the validity of Millar’s call for a general review of evidence and interpretations regarding Dura-Europos (Millar 1998, 474). While the inscriptions still remain to be definitively published, it is sixty years since Final Report 5.1 on Dura’s papyri appeared, during which there have been a further two generations of general scholarship on the Roman military. These have seen fundamental changes in understandings of the subject, while several publications on specific aspects of Dura’s Roman military presence are also yet to be integrated into any wider reconsideration of garrison and city. Notably, Kennedy’s work has substantially revised understandings of the chronology and development of one of the major garrison elements, cohors XX Palmyrenorum (Kennedy 1983; 1994), while Edwell has effectively demolished the long-established wisdom that the garrison was, in its later decades, under an officer called the dux ripae, supposedly a regional commander foreshadowing the territorial duces of the Dominate (Edwell 2008, 129–35). Dura’s military presence also needs to be reconsidered against the background of broader recent developments in Roman military studies. Key is growing awareness of the importance of the ‘extended military community’, encompassing both soldiers and the many dependants who, it is now clear, routinely accompanied them. We will return to this aspect later. A fundamental restudy of the textual evidence for Dura’s Roman garrison is, then, overdue and needs to be undertaken by those with proper epigraphic expertise, but in its absence an interim review here is a necessary companion to the archaeological research on the base. Despite major subsequent discoveries such as the Vindolanda tablets (Bowman and Thomas 1983; 1994; 2003), the textual record for the Roman garrison at Dura remains unsurpassed by any other site, in its combination of scale, diversity of media, and detail. Some 60 per cent of Fink’s Roman Military Records on Papyrus comprised Durene documents (Fink 1971).


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 125-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Greene

For at least the first two centuries of empire, marriage for most soldiers during their years of active service was legally banned by the state. It is equally clear that the law forbidding iustum matrimonium did not stop some auxiliary soldiers from forming de facto relationships and creating families whilst in service. In some cases, families will have traveled with soldiers who were in service. Whether they dwelt within the forts or in extramural settlements, family members formed an integral part of the military community.


Author(s):  
Simon James

One of the first structures explored at Dura in 1920, this temple (or perhaps better, sanctuary: Buchmann 2016, 116) was subsequently completely excavated but never fully published. Preliminary accounts were written by the excavators (Cumont 1926, 29–41; PR 2, 11–12, 67–9 (Pillet), PR 4, 16–19 (Pillet); Rostovtzeff 1938, 68–75 and pl. VI) and it has been much discussed since (Downey 1988, 105–10 for overview and references; Dirven 1999, 326–49 for the Palmyrene evidence; Leriche et al. 2011, 28). It remained a temple through the Roman period, apparently no part of it other than, presumably, the upper levels of city wall Tower 1 being used for secular military purposes. However, its continued existence in the farthest corner of the military base, and its attested use for worship by the Roman military community, demand discussion here. Indeed one of the very first military discoveries was the Terentius wall painting on the N wall of the temple’s room A, depicting a Roman military sacrifice by cohors XX Palmyrenorum before a triad of its national deities and the Tychai of Dura and Palmyra (Pl. I; Breasted 1922; Cumont 1923; Breasted 1924, 94–101, pl. XXI). Cumont consequently called the sanctuary the ‘Temple of the Palmyrene Gods’ (Cumont 1926, 29). In recent decades it has been more usually known as the ‘Temple of (i.e. Palmyrene) Bêl’, following Rostovtzeff (1938, 51), although in Parthian times it was probably dedicated to Zeus (Welles 1969, 63; Millar 1998, 482; Kaizer 2002, 122). No evidence indicates Palmyrene worship in the Parthian-era temple (Dirven 1999, 327–8). There is no consensus on the name for the sanctuary, so I follow MFSED’s ‘Temple of Bêl’ (Leriche et al. 2011, 28; also now Kaizer 2016b, 37–41). Described as laying in ‘J3/5’ by the Yale expedition, it actually lies N of these blocks in an area MFSED has labelled J9 (Leriche et al. 2011, 28–30). During the third century when the temple lay within the Roman base area, it did become the focus of Palmyrene cults, likely ‘related to Palmyrene soldiers or people associated with them’ (Dirven 1999, 328).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document