Desarrollo de la experiencia

The last section of this dissertation integrates the bioarchaeological and biochemical ev- idence presented in chapters 4 through 10 in light of the historical context of migration in Imperial Rome. These data are compiled in two different ways in chapters 11 and 12. First, I investigate immigrants’ overall quality of life and strategies of integration/separation in chap- ter 11 by comparing the identified immigrant population from the two study sites with the local population in terms of demographics (age-at-death, sex ratios), burial style, diet, and disease. Second, I highlight the lives of particular immigrants in chapter 12, those whose skeletons

yielded the most new information about life as a foreigner in Imperial Rome. Bioarchaeolog- ical analysis of human skeletal remains from ancient Rome is thus shown to create a nuanced picture of migrants in the Imperial capital and to contribute to the biography of people absent from history and materially invisible. This dissertation concludes with chapter 13, a summary of the new information generated by this research project. Strontium isotope analysis shows that people came to Rome from the provinces and from Italy and that the people of Rome utilized a variety of water resources during the Empire. The chapter concludes with a call for further research into mobility and migration in Imperial Rome informed by contemporary an- thropological theories of transnationalism and diaspora, particularly regarding the themes of identity, ethnicity, and agency of slaves and the lower classes.

Chapter 2

All Roads Lead to Rome

Augustus initiated the use of the term princeps to refer to the Roman emperor, and it con- tinued to be used through Diocletian’s reign. As the “first citizen,” Augustus was the face of the Empire, quite literally, propagating his image and his ideas throughout the Empire by means of coinage, building programs, and the visual language of art (Zanker, 1990). He also recognized the extreme importance of the road system for military, trade, and communication purposes (Laurence, 1999). From its inception, therefore, both the infrastructure and ideology of the Empire meant that people living far from central Italy had information about the urban center. The edict of Caracalla in 212 AD granted Roman citizenship to all free residents of the Empire, allowing them to permanently change residence without losing any legal rights. With many transportation and cultural barriers removed, it is unsurprising that people were volun- tarily immigrating to Rome, perhaps drawn by the promise of economic betterment. The slave trade continued into the Imperial period as well, providing Rome, Italy, and the provinces with additional nonlocal residents.

This chapter sets up the structural conditions in which mobility to Rome during the early Imperial period occurred, inasmuch as we understand this phenomenon from written records referring to voluntary migration and slavery. The different scales at which movement occurred, both geographical and temporal, are reviewed. Presentation of the information currently known regarding migration to Rome includes discussion of the deficiencies in this research.

2.1

Briefly Defining Movement, Population, and Empire

I start with the general premise that people are not stationary beings their entire lives, even in antiquity (Osborne, 1991). Theories of physical movement will be further explicated in chapter 3, but it is necessary at the outset to define terms that will be used throughout this work. Although I do agree with Kearney (1986, p. 331) that “migration is the movement of people through geographic space,” that definition does not connote the duration of the movement. Rather, in this work I follow and expand on Erdkamp’s (2008, p. 420-1) conception of human movement in the Roman world as a “spectrum” of migration and mobility.

At one end, migration involves permanent relocation, which can result in, for example, changes in subsistence strategy, the creation of an ethnic enclave at the destination, or volun- tary acculturation. Physical mobility is less permanent than migration, involving seasonal or temporary relocation, such as an itinerant musician, a shepherd engaged in transhumance, or rural farmers who regularly journey to city markets. Finally, travel does not result in any sig- nificant change in a person’s learned behavior or foodways but might lead to a more permanent form of relocation. It is therefore not always possible to identify which of these categories best fits the movement under investigation, as overlap can occur and individuals can engage in one or more of these movement patterns during the course of their lives.

Population

The population of Rome during the Empire was divided into different strata based primarily on social, legal, and economic standing, but all individuals had the potential to be physically mobile. The diagram in figure 2.1 gives a general picture of the organization of the popula- tion. Among the upper strata of Roman society were the emperor and his household, senators (senatores), and equestrians (equites). The decurion order comprised some equites but mainly reflected the local ruling elite of other cities in the Empire. Among the lower strata of Roman

society were the free commoners (ingenui), the freedpeople or former slaves (liberti), and the slaves (servi). The latter two strata of people were not legal citizens of the Empire. Before the early 3rd century AD, other non-citizens at Rome included peregrini or free foreigners, those who came to the city voluntarily from other areas of the Empire.

From Alf¨oldy (1985), Fig. 1

Figure 2.1: Social Structure of Imperial Rome

There was very little chance of individuals from the lower strata gaining entry into the upper strata of Roman society, indicated in figure 2.1 by a thick black line. Social mobility within the upper strata did exist, as men could work their way up from eques to senator, for example. In the lower strata, slaves could be freed. Economic betterment, however, did not necessarily bring a change in status at either end of the social hierarchy.

There was no middle class in the true Marxist sense of the term; rather, the Roman so- cial hierarchy maintained a strong division between the wealthy elite of the upper strata and the plebs, the lower strata of commoners, freedpeople, and slaves of modest or few means.

Alf¨oldy (1985, p. 149) has argued that, without a middle stratum that both owned the means of production and engaged in production, it is unwise to refer to the Roman population in terms of upper and lower classes. With all due respect to the original denotation of class and with the recognition that the Roman social system is rather unique among preindustrial societies, in this dissertation I follow the convention of many classical scholars in using the terms upper class and lower class to broadly connote the primary dichotomy of the Roman social structure.

The pyramidal depiction of Roman society represented in figure 2.1 imparts only a general conception of the social structure; it does not represent the imbalance between the population size of each stratum. Table 2.1 is drawn from a variety of sources to show the relative size of each social stratum (MacMullen, 1974; Alf¨oldy, 1985; Bradley, 1994; Scheidel, 1997). Less than 2% of the population of Rome would have been in the upper strata of society; the elite or the upper class thus controlled the government, religion, and economy of both Rome and the Empire. U p p er C la

ss Imperial Family (Imperator & Domus) 0.002%

Senators (Senatores) 0.2% Equestrians (Equites) 1.3% L o w er C la

ss Free Commoners (Ingenui) 58%

Freedpeople (Liberti) 6%

Slaves (Servi) 35%

Total 100%

Table 2.1: Distribution of the Imperial Roman Population by Social Class

The remaining 98% or so of the Roman population was composed of the non-elite, people whose social, economic, or legal status prevented them from joining the ranks of the upper strata. My use of the term lower class(es) thus refers to the vast majority of the population

of Rome, including the free commoners (ingenui), slaves (servi), and freedpeople (liberti). In chapter 4, I will discuss how material remains from burial have been used to address social status.

Empire

There are various dates cited as the start and end of the Roman Empire, most notably for the latter because of the difficulty pinpointing its precise “fall.” On account of the imprecise nature of the archaeological dates used in this work, I refer to large periods of time with the following shorthand terms:

Early Empire - Approximately the reign of Augustus and the succeeding Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties: 27 BC-96 AD.

Middle Empire - The period in which the greatest geographical and population size was reached, approximately the reigns of the 5 Good Emperors and the Severan dynasty: 96-235 AD.

Late Empire - The events after the crisis of the third century through the decline and “fall” of the western Roman Empire: 235-395 AD.

For the purposes of this work, I am mainly concerned with the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, approximately the reigns of Augustus (27 BC-) through Diocletian (-305 AD). The majority of this time period is also known as the Principate, as it was in antiquity. Reference will, however, be made to the Republican period (509-27 BC) as necessary through discussion of structural factors of Roman society and economy that might have affected migration in the Imperial period.

In terms of geographical area, the greatest extent of Rome’s imperial expansion was during the reign of Trajan (98-117 AD). Movement within the Empire was not necessarily restricted to Roman-conquered areas, but most of the movement towards Rome likely came from the lands of the known Empire. Mobility and migration, as implied above, are known from historical

sources to have taken place in different geographical spaces and at a variety of scales. Current knowledge about the kinds of people who traversed the Roman Empire and how and why they engaged in mobility and migration is presented in the following sections.