¹ Hopkins, K., ‘On the probable age structure of the Roman population’, Population Studies xx (1966), 245–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Sailer, R. and Shaw, B., ‘Tombstones and family relations in the Principate: civilians, soldiers, and slaves’, JRS lxxiv (1984), 124–56.Google Scholar

² Hopkins, op. cit. (note 1).

³ Hopkins, op. cit. (note 1); Taylor, L.R., ‘Freedmen and freeborn in imperial Rome’, AJP lxxxii (1961), 231–53.Google Scholar

⁴ MacMullen, R., ‘The epigraphic habit’, AJP ciii (1982), 234–46; H. von Hesberg, Romische Grabbauten (1992), 19-54.Google Scholar

⁵ For explorations of how the construction of funerary memorials could be affected by cycles of display see M. Parker-Pearson, ‘Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study’, in I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (1982), 99-113 ; Cannon, A., ‘The historical dimension in mortuary expressions of status and sentiment’, Current Anthropology xxx (1989), 437–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ For example, see J.M.C. Toynbee, Art in Britain under the Romans (1964), 181-212.

⁷ A recent article has undertaken a comprehensive survey of Romano-British sculptured funerary monuments from the perspective of art history; Mattern, M., ‘Die Reliefverzierten römischen Grabstelen der Provinz Britannia, Themen und Typen’, Kölner Jahrbuch xxii (1989), 707–801.Google Scholar

⁸ The evidence is considerable and generally well published for sites such as York, Winchester, and Cirencester. For a useful summary and catalogue of the main categories of burial evidence see Philpott, R., Burial Practices in Roman Britain: A Survey of Grave Treatment and Furnishings AD 43-410, BAR Brit. Ser. 29 (1991).Google Scholar For recent excavations revealing changes across time and the relationship between pre- and post-Conquest cemeteries see Stead, I.M. and Rigby, V., Verulamium: The King Harry Lane Site, English Heritage Arch. Rep. 12 (1989).Google Scholar

⁹ S. Esmonde-Cleary, ‘Town and country in Roman Britain’, in S. Bassett (ed.), Death in Towns: Urban Responses to the Dying and the Dead, 100-1600 (1992), 28-9.

¹⁰ I.A. Richmond and R.P. Wright, Catalogue of the Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum Chester (1955), 4-5.

¹¹ Jones, R.F.J., ‘Death and distinction’, in Blagg, T.F.C. and King, A.C. (eds), Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relations in a Frontier Province, BAR Brit. Ser. 136(1984), 219.Google Scholar

¹² Romano-British art, in particular, has been criticised for the poor quality of its execution. Collingwood was most vociferous in his condemnation: R.G. Collingwood and J.N.L. Myres, Roman Britain and English Settlements (1937), 247-60. Such criticisms, however, fail to appreciate the individuality of Romano-British art and do not account for its significance within British society: Phillips, E.J., ‘The Classical tradition in the popular sculpture of Roman Britain’, in Munby, J. and Henig, M. (eds), Roman Life and Art in Britain I, BAR Brit. Ser. 41 (1977), 35–49.Google Scholar

¹³ For a summary of the limited evidence for monumental structures see M. Henig, The Art of Roman Britain (1995), 65. Roof finials in the shape of pine cones which may have originated from funerary structures are known, T.F.C. Blagg, ‘Schools of stonemasons in Roman Britain’, in Munby and Henig, op. cit. (note 12), 51-74.

¹⁴ H. Rolland, Le Mausolée de Glanum (1969); G. Calza, La necropoli del Porto di Roma nell’ Isola Sacra (1940); J.M.C. Toynbee and J. Ward-Perkins, The Shrine ofSt Peter and the Vatican Excavations (1956).

¹⁵ Biró has explored the distribution of memorials, specifically inscriptions, across the differing settlement types of Roman Britain: Biró, M., ‘The inscriptions of Roman Britain’, Avta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae xxvii(1975), 13–58.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Biró, op. cit. (note 15), 32; Cepas, A., The North of Britannia and the Northwest of Hispania: An Epigraphic Comparison, BAR Int. Ser. 470 (1989).Google Scholar

¹⁷ According to Biró (op. cit. (note 15), 45) 50 per cent of the surviving tombstones, with epitaphs, mention soldiers. In the remainder women and children are well represented and are probably the familial relatives of the soldiers.

¹⁸ W. Boppert, Militärische Grabdenkmaler aus Mainz und Umgebung. CSIR Deutschland II.5 (1992) ; M. Krüger, Die Reliefs des Stadtgebiete von Carnuntum 1.2 CSIR Osterreich 1.3 ; 1.4(1970; 1972); B. Galsterer and H. Galsterer, Die Römischen Steininschriften aus Köln (1975).

¹⁹ Chester has approximately 90 inscribed tombstones plus other sculptured blocks of probable funerary origin, see Richmond and Wright, op. cit. (note 10). Mainz has in the region of 300 surviving funerary memorials (excluding fragments). Britain barely produces such a figure from across the province; Decker, K. and Selzer, W., ‘Mogontiacum: Mainz von Zeit des Augustus bis Ende der römischen Herrschaft’, ANRW 11.5., 542Google Scholar ; for comparative figures for Britain and Pannonia see Mann, J.C., ‘Epigraphic consciousness’, JRS lxxv (1985), 206.Google Scholar

²⁰ Biró, op. cit. (note 15), 34; Mann, op. cit. (note 19), 204.

²¹ R.S.O. Tomlin, ‘Roman towns and Roman inscriptions of Britain, 1939-1989’, in S.J. Greep (ed.), Roman Towns: The Wheeler Inheritance. A Review of 50 Years Research, CBA Research Rep. 93 (1993), 134.

²² Sailer and Shaw, op. cit. (note 1), 124 , suggest a figure of 250,000 surviving inscriptions from the Roma n world, two-thirds of which are epitaphs.

²³ Biró, op. cit. (note 15).

²⁴ Biró, op. cit. (note 15), 32.

²⁵ Cepas, op. cit. (note 16), 56.

²⁶ Cepas, op. cit. (note 16); Tomlin, op. cit. (note 21), 134.

²⁷ Freeman, P.W.M., ‘Romanisation and Roman material culture’, JRA vi (1993), 438–45.Google Scholar

²⁸ MacMullen, op. cit. (note 4). See also Mrozek, S., ‘Á propos de la répartition chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut-Empire’, Epigraphica xxxv (1973), 113–18Google Scholar ; idem, ‘A propos répartition chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut-Empire’, Epigraphica 1 (1988), 61–4.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Meyer, E., ‘Explaining the epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire; the evidence of epitaphs’, JRS lxxx (1990), 74–96.Google Scholar

³⁰ Fulford, M., ‘The monumental and the mundane: a common epigraphic tradition’, Britannia xxv (1994), 315–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ For the dates of funerary memorials from these sites see the catalogues listed in note 18.

³² W. Selzer, Römische Steindenkmäler: Mainz in Römischer Zeit (1988), 33-9 ; Decker and Selzer, op. cit. (note 19), 495-507.

³³ MacMullen, op. cit. (note 4); Meyer, op. cit. (note 29); Woolf, G., ‘Monumental writing and the expansion of Roman society in the early Empire’, JRS lxxxvi (1996), 22–39.Google Scholar

³⁴ For an investigation of the role of ‘expressive redundancy’ in funerary memorials see Cannon, op. cit. (note 5).

³⁵ von Hesberg, op. cit. (note 4), 9-54.

³⁶ Decker and Selzer, op. cit. (note 19), 519-20.

³⁷ Biró, op. cit. (note 15), 27 and 42 ; Cepas, op. cit. (note 16), 56 ; Blagg also notes that a high number of building inscriptions relate to sacred structures: Blagg, T.F.C., ‘Architectural munificence in Britain: the evidence of the inscriptions’, Britannia xxi (1990), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Biró, op. cit. (note 15), 45.

³⁹ Blagg, op. cit. (note 37), 21 ; M. Millet, The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation (1990), 81-3. Elaborate funerary monuments were most popular amongst the elite of Rome and Italy during the late Republic and early Empire, von Hesberg, op. cit. (note 4), 9-54. By the time of the invasion of Britain the medium had lost its high-status associations.

⁴⁰ Millett, op. cit. (note 39).

⁴¹ Emphasis has been placed recently on the importance of contextual analysis and the recognition of the ritual aspects of funerary remains, I. Morris, Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity (1992).

⁴² For example see Mattern, op. cit. (note 7) and Toynbee, op. cit. (note 6).

⁴³ Collingwood, R.G. and Wright, R.P., The Roman Inscriptions of Britain I (1965, rev. edn 1995).Google Scholar Items discovered after 1954 published in JRS (1955-1969) and Britannia (1970-present).

⁴⁴ Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani. Great Britain. Vol. I in 8 fasicules (1977-1994).

⁴⁵ Pliny describes how Verginius Rufus had left instructions in his will dictating the nature of his epitaph and the style of his memorial (Letters VI.10). Yet nine years after his death his wishes remained unfulfilled and Pliny stresses that each man should undertake his own commemoration. Many Latin epitaphs indicate that this was the case by the inclusion of expressions such as Vivus Fecit.

⁴⁶ Most soldiers, for example, were commemorated by un-named heirs who were probably fellow-soldiers.

⁴⁷ Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), includes 71 examples only 33 of which have surviving inscriptions and not all of these are complete.

⁴⁸ Phillips, E.J., ‘The gravestone of M. Favonius Facilis’, Britannia vi (1975), 102–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ For example the portraits of Vellibia (RIB 1181) and Pervica (RIB 1747) from Corbridge and Great Chesters respectively.

⁵⁰ Mattem, op. cit. (note 7), records six tombstones with seated portraits and five of these commemorate women.

⁵¹ CSIR Britannia 1.6, No. 497.

⁵² Smith, D., ‘A Palmyrene sculptor at South Shields?’, Arch. Ael.⁴ xxxvii (1959), 203–11.Google Scholar

⁵³ For comparative figures see M. Schleiermacher, Römische Reitergrabsteine (1984) ; Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), records 18 examples of tombstones decorated with this form of sculpture in Britain.

⁵⁴ Unlike some early examples found on the Rhine, no groom or attendant standing at the rear of the horse is depicted on the British stelae.

⁵⁵ For the origins of the design see Schleiermacher, op. cit. (note 53), 60-5 ; Boppert, op. cit. (note 18), 57 ; Mackintosh, M., ‘The sources of the horseman and fallen enemy motif on the tombstones of the Western Empire’, JBAA cxxxix (1986), 1–21.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ V.M. Hope, ‘Inscription and sculpture: the construction of identity in the military tombstones of Roman Mainz’, in G. Oliver (ed.), Inscriptions: Problems and Prospects (forthcoming).

⁵⁷ Schleiermacher, op. cit. (note 53), 12, dates the majority of these memorials to the first century.

⁵⁸ J.C. Coulston and E.J. Phillips, Hadrian's Wall West of the North Tyne and Carlisle. CSIR Great Britain 1.6 (1988), 79 dates the latest example on Hadrian's Wall to the mid-second century; Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), 733 , suggests that some of the Chester examples may belong to the late second or third century. This would be unusual but then several of the Chester examples differ from the standardised design, for example RIB 538.

⁵⁹ For possible interpretations of the meaning of the design see J.M. Dentzer, Le Motif du banque couché dans le proche-orient et lemondegrecdu VII au IV siècle J.-C. (1982).

⁶⁰ The design was found most often in Cologne, Galsterer and Galsterer, op. cit. (note 18); see also Noelke, P., ‘Unveröffentlichte “Totenmahlreliefs” aus der Provinz der Niedergermanien’, BJb clxxiv (1974), 545–60.Google Scholar

⁶¹ One definite legionary (RIB 497) and one auxiliary (RIB 1064) are commemorated by totenmahl stelae. The other military examples have inscriptions which are either damaged or which do not state unit. One of these commemorated an eques (RIB 522) which is most likely to indicate membership of an auxiliary unit. Two further examples (RIB 769 and 1561) were set up by auxiliary soldiers to members of their families.

⁶² The panels are often placed beneath the inscription and show a groom leading a bridled horse. For examples from Cologne see Galsterer and Galsterer, op. cit. (note 18). The combination of the totenmahl and a horse and groom was also much favoured by the Imperial bodyguard serving in Rome, M.P. Speidel, Die Denkmäler der Kaiserreiter. Equites Singulares Augusti (1994).

⁶³ Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), includes 28 examples. Where the sex of the portrait can be established 70 per cent (23 cases) of those represented are female.

⁶⁴ For the identification of workshops of sculptors producing totenmahl stelae see Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), 722-8.

⁶⁵ D.E.E. Kleiner, Roman Group Portraiture: The Funerary Reliefs of the Late Republic and Early Empire’ (1977) ; Zanker, P., ‘Gräbreliefs römischer Freigelassener’, JDI xc (1975), 267–335Google Scholar ; H. Pflug, Römische Porträtstelen in Oberitalien (1989) ; V. Kockel, Porträtreliefs Stadtrömischer Grabbauten(1993).

⁶⁶ CSIR Britannia 1.6, No. 192; Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), 734.

⁶⁷ Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), identifies twelve examples; although this total excludes four lost tombstones which may have been decorated with portrait busts (RIB 748, 750, 804, 742).

⁶⁸ Of Mattern's twelve examples of portrait busts only two depict men, thus over 80 per cent commemorate females.

⁶⁹ Mattern, op. cit. (note 7), 735.

⁷⁰ For dating of the latest cavalry scene stelae see above note 58. Late examples of stelae decorated with full-figure reliefs of soldiers are found at Chester and York. It is notable, however, that in several of these the soldier is not depicted alone. A centurion at Chester, for example, was pictured with his wife (RIB 491) and a veteran from York with his wife and two children (RIB 685); both these examples date to the third century and celebrate familial rather than military virtues.

⁷¹ S. Rinaldi-Tufi, Militari romani su Reno. L'iconografia degli stehende soldaten nelle funerarie del I secolo DC. (1988) ; Schleiermacher, op. cit. (note 53).

⁷² MacMullen, R., ‘The legion as a society’, Historia xxxiii (1984), 440–56.Google Scholar

⁷³ T. Walter, Funerals and How to Improve Them (1990), 119.

⁷⁴ For the units present in Britain see P.A. Holder, The Roman Army in Britain (1982) ; for non-legionary troops see Jarrett, M.G., ‘Non-legionary troops in Roman Britain: part one, the units’, Britannia xxv (1994), 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁵ Holder, op. cit. (note 74).

⁷⁶ For aspects such as community and literacy amon g auxiliary soldiers see A.K. Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier. Vindolanda and its People (1994) ; for religious preferences of auxiliary troops and adoption of Roma n gods see Haynes, I.P., ‘The Romanisation of religion in the auxilia of the Roman imperial army from Augustus to Septimius Severus’, Britannia xxiv (1993), 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁷ Alston ha s recently challenged the perceived differences in terms of service and pay between auxiliary and legionary soldiers. But even if this is the case it is apparent that during the first century a.d. the majority of legionaries held the citizenship whilst the majority of auxiliaries did not: Alston, R., ‘Roman military pay from Caesar to Diocletian’, JRS lxxxiv (1994), 113–23Google Scholar ; idem, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt (1995), 103-5. For legal status of recruits and consideration of the few cases where citizens did serve in the auxilia see Holder, op. cit. (note 74), 46-63 ; for differences in lifestyle, specifically dietary, between legionaries and auxiliaries see A. King, ‘Animal bones and the dietary identity of military and civilian groups in Roman Britain, Germany and Gaul’, in Blagg and King, op. cit. (note 11), 187-217.

⁷⁸ Hope, op. cit. (note 56). For the heroic and divine associations of the cavalry relief see Mackintosh, M., The Divine Rider in the Art of the Western Roman Empire, BAR Int. Ser. 607 (1995).Google Scholar Auxiliary troops of the German provinces were also often represented in the totenmahl relief although such an association in Britain is less pronounced; for the figures see above note 61 and for the heroic origins of the design see Dentzer, op. cit. (note 59).

⁷⁹ For relations between military and civilian and their relative representations in the epigraphy of the frontier zone see P. Salway, The Frontier People of Roman Britain (1965). For the extent of contact between military and civilian groups in Roman Egypt see Alston, op. cit. (note 77).

⁸⁰ In Roman funerary art women are often depicted at leisure with typical womanly attributes such as the spindle or fan. Female passivity is used as a device to enhance male status; N. Kampen, Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia (1981), 131. It is worth noting that it has been suggested that the acknowledgement of women at death rose in proportion to increasing urban success and stability creating near equality in the gender ratios represented in epitaphs: B. Shaw, ‘The cultural meaning of death: age and gender in the Roman family’, in D. Kertzer and R. Sailer (eds), The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present (1991), 66-90. It is possible, although difficult to quantify due to the small number of monuments, that this may account for the apparent increased emphasis on women in Romano-British tombstones during the second and third centuries.

⁸¹ From the reign of Augustus to the reign of Septimius Severus soldiers were not allowed to marry legally. When a unit served for an extended period in one area unofficial but tolerated relationships developed between local women and the soldiers. Family life must have been restricted but these women may have often regarded themselves as full and committed partners, especially if married by native custom, L. Allason-Jones, Women in Roman Britain (1989), 59.

⁸² Taylor, op. cit. (note 3); Kleiner, op. cit. (note 65); Zanker, op. cit. (note 65); von Hesberg, op. cit. (note 4).

⁸³ Henig, op. cit. (note 13), 65 , suggests that more female portraits survive from Carlisle by chance. For a detailed description of these memorials see Phillips, E.J., ‘A workshop of Roman sculptors at Carlisle’, Britannia vii (1976), 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁴ Mann, op. cit. (note 19).

⁸⁵ Tomlin, op. cit. (note 21), 134.

⁸⁶ This would support the scheme put forward by Woolf that the epitaphs and funerary monuments of the first and second centuries a.d. often celebrated social mobility, Woolf, op. cit. (note 33).

⁸⁷ ‘Go to any cemetery in any land of immigrants, and look at the love lavished on the graves of each family's founding fathers and mothers’, Walter, op. cit. (note 73), 25; Cannon, op. cit. (note 5); Parker-Pearson, op. cit. (note 5).

⁸⁸ ‘In death people become what they have no t been in life’, I. Hodder, The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists (1982), 146.