06-15-2017, 02:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2017, 02:37 PM by Michael Kerr.)
Sorry for coming in late on this thread but the word tattoo is of Tahitian origin so would not have been used in a Roman context. CP Jones uses the words stigma/stigmata but this seems to cover both tattooing and branding in his paper Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity.
I was looking up Vegetius on a completely different subject and I noticed that in Book I, Chapter 8 he talks about marking of new recruits. I do not know Latin so if there are any Latin experts feel free to correct me but in Clarke's version Vegetius says
The recruit, however should not receive the military mark as soon as enlisted. He must first be tried if fit for service; whether he has sufficient activity and strength.
In Milner's version it is
The recruit should not be tattooed with the pin-pricks of the official mark as soon as he has been selected, but first be thoroughly tested in exercises so that it may be established whether he is truly fitted for so much effort
Sixth century doctor Aetius of Amida talked of how marks are inscribed on the face, legs or feet for slaves and criminals or some other part of the body, for example on the hands (or arms) of soldiers, and they use the following ink. Apply by pricking the places with needles, wiping away the blood, and rubbing in first juice of leek, and then the preparation.
Besides tattooing with ink and needles and branding with a hot iron we also have scarification by means of incisions supposedly practised by Ethiopians and later by Huns and some Alans.
These are examples of late antiquity and not the Republic or early Principate though. Aetius (the physician) seems to indicate that there was a big demand for tattoo removals at this time as well so rather than a tattoo showing some form of pride and identification with your unit it was probably a means where the later empire, suffering from constant manpower shortages could round up trained men at short notice and also discourage deserters.
I was looking up Vegetius on a completely different subject and I noticed that in Book I, Chapter 8 he talks about marking of new recruits. I do not know Latin so if there are any Latin experts feel free to correct me but in Clarke's version Vegetius says
The recruit, however should not receive the military mark as soon as enlisted. He must first be tried if fit for service; whether he has sufficient activity and strength.
In Milner's version it is
The recruit should not be tattooed with the pin-pricks of the official mark as soon as he has been selected, but first be thoroughly tested in exercises so that it may be established whether he is truly fitted for so much effort
Sixth century doctor Aetius of Amida talked of how marks are inscribed on the face, legs or feet for slaves and criminals or some other part of the body, for example on the hands (or arms) of soldiers, and they use the following ink. Apply by pricking the places with needles, wiping away the blood, and rubbing in first juice of leek, and then the preparation.
Besides tattooing with ink and needles and branding with a hot iron we also have scarification by means of incisions supposedly practised by Ethiopians and later by Huns and some Alans.
These are examples of late antiquity and not the Republic or early Principate though. Aetius (the physician) seems to indicate that there was a big demand for tattoo removals at this time as well so rather than a tattoo showing some form of pride and identification with your unit it was probably a means where the later empire, suffering from constant manpower shortages could round up trained men at short notice and also discourage deserters.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
