This collection of articles deals with the effect of Roman influence and the spread of Roman citizenship on the onomastics of the provinces, both before and after Caracalla's edict of a.d. 212. At the foundation of the work is the belief that onomastics is of both linguistic and historical interest, and that it can be used as part of an interdisciplinary approach alongside ancient historical sources, archaeology and sociolinguistics to reveal a great deal about the process of ‘Romanisation’. If it sounds obvious that onomastics could benefit from interdisciplinary treatment, it is not often that a volume on onomastics gathers so much material of equal interest to linguists, archaeologists and historians, presents it clearly and in detail, and gives such convincing arguments for its interpretation.
After an avant-propos and an introduction by the editor, there are two lengthy contributions by D. Dana (‘L'impact de l'onomastique latine sur les onomastiques indigènes dans l'espace thrace’) and M. Navarro Caballero, J. Gorrochategui and J.M. Vallejo Ruiz (‘L'onomastique celtibère: de la dénomination indigène à la dénomination romaine’). The remaining articles are smaller in scope: two by the editor (a comparison of Gaul and Africa; onomastics of central Gaul), with others by É. Deniaux (onomastics of south Illyria and Epirus), M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier (Germanic names in Belgian Gaul and Germania Inferior), A. Rizakis (the Aurelii in the Eastern provinces) and A.R. Birley (new readings of names from Vindolanda – in English with a French abstract).
D.-P. makes a strong case for using the term ‘Roman name’ in a legal sense only: a ‘Roman name’ uses the tria nomina structure, and denotes the legal status of the bearer as a citizen, not that the bearer spoke Latin, or that the name is typically ‘Italian’. Thus, the name C. Iulius Farbigil is legally ‘Roman’ in form but linguistically partly African, while the stand-alone name Romulus is legally ‘non-Roman’ but linguistically ‘Latin’. She also emphasises the role of personal choice in the creation of a Roman nomenclature for newly-enfranchised citizens, whenever and wherever they gain their citizenship. Both of these arguments are illustrated with examples, but are more strongly borne out by the detailed data in subsequent chapters. However, it should be noted that D.-P.'s model of ‘tria nomina = citizenship’ is based on the Imperial period – she does not mention that the tria nomina system (or, at least, its direct antecedent) was in use by non-Roman, non-citizen peoples of Italy during the Republican period. Since some of the contributions do use evidence from the first century b.c. and earlier, and occasionally refer to gentilicia of ‘Italic’ or ‘Etruscan’ origin, this is an important detail.
Dana deals with the effect of Roman citizenship on the onomastics of Thrace, or more properly the ‘Thracian area’, since he uses sources from Thrace, Moesia (Inferior and Superior), Dacia, western Macedonia and western Bithynia Pontus, as well as the numerous Thracians of the Roman army. Anyone with an interest in soldiers' and veterans' strategies in choosing their citizen nomenclature will find plenty to occupy them here. Of particular interest is the evidence of recently-enfranchised centurions continuing to use their non-citizen names because of the lack of differentiation provided by the ‘banal’ names they had chosen, and the immediate popularity of the historic name Decibalus, the last king of Dacia.
Navarro Caballero, Gorrochategui and Vallejo Ruiz bring together the current evidence for onomastics in Celtiberian, differentiating between the western and eastern parts of the area. The structure of the non-citizen onomastics differs considerably from the ‘individual name + patronymic’ model typically used to describe non-Roman onomastics (and set out by D.-P. in her introduction). The development from the use of a genitive plural ‘suprafamilial name’ in the Republican period to ‘double idionyms’ in the Imperial period, with the second often derived in -icus from an existing idionym, is striking. While the authors suggest that the second stage may be influenced by the model of Roman nomenclature, they see it as fundamentally a continuation from the suprafamilial name and a reflection of local social structures.
Space does not permit detailed comments on every contribution, and so the remainder of this review will highlight a few themes and issues that arise repeatedly in the volume.
As D.-P. stresses in her introduction, the volume argues for personal choice in the selection of citizen names, for both the first enfranchised generation and subsequent children. This model lends itself to the discussion of different strategies taken by individuals and families – fitting in well with current ideas on ‘Romanisation’ as a process driven, in large part, by those being ‘Romanised’. Variations on the typical Roman nomenclature are seen not just as attempts to project a particular identity, but often also as efforts to avoid confusion in areas where large numbers of people have taken banal or imperial names.
The depth of detail on regional variation is a clear strength of this work. As well as the marked differences in onomastics (both citizen and non-citizen) between different provinces (D.-P. on Africa/Gaul), there can be considerable variation in preferences and practices within a relatively small geographical area (Dana; Navarro et al; D.-P. on central Gaul). The differences within citizen onomastics, including styles of filiation, number of cognomina and types of names chosen (including transliterations, translations, cover names) is discussed in detail. The authors suggest possible reasons for this – such as different levels of contact with Latin (D.-P. on Africa/Gaul) or Greek (Dana; Rizakis) at earlier periods, or continuity with certain features of the area's native onomastic system.
Several contributors comment on the, sometimes unhelpful, directions that research has been pushed into by nationalism (in the Balkans – Dana; and in Albania – Deniaux) and post-colonialism (in France and North Africa – D.-P.). Despite these comments, some contributors (including Deniaux herself) looked at areas that correspond more closely to modern countries than to ancient provinces. In general, though, the focus is on local variation within attested ancient communities; whole provinces and whole speech communities are not presented as acting uniformly, or as sharing experiences in ways that anticipate modern nation-states.
Unlike many works which seek to be interdisciplinary, D.-P. has taken some pains to make this volume genuinely accessible to students and scholars of a range of subjects. Her introduction includes not just a concise introduction to the forms taken by citizen and non-citizen names, but also clear statements on the terminology used – supported by a glossary of terms at the back – and a section on common confusions to avoid. All these are helpful, though a few more terms could have been included in the glossary (such as the common but potentially misleading Gallo-Greek and Gallo-Latin). The editor also mentions the terminological problem of the French word nom, which can mean both ‘name’ and ‘Roman nomen’, though this issue is handled with the minimum of ambiguity by the writers. Most, but not all, Greek-alphabet material is transliterated; a couple of extracts from inscriptions are left untranslated.
The volume is a well-produced, affordable paperback, with infrequent minor typographical errors and a few infelicities of layout, such as the irregular spacing of the table of contents – however, these are not issues that would cause a reader particular problems. The extensive indexes, glossary and bibliography (gathered at the back, rather than included with each article) make this an easy book to use. This is a detailed, engaging and accessible book that will be helpful and thought-provoking to scholars of many different fields.
